John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator, does he think the Senators on his side of the aisle intend to offer amendments that we can begin to process providing the kind of relief to the private sector that people in the Government area have in terms of these flex benefits? We have flextime benefits. We have comptime benefits. Flexible time, in particular, is available to governmental employees. In the 1996 survey conducted by the Census Bureau, only 6.6 percent of all hourly paid women, for example, got overtime pay in a typical work period, and if we are only going to deal with comptime, we are dealing with a very, very small number. Now, when you talk about Federal Government employees and their ability to have flexible working arrangements, we are talking about a broad population, because flextime applies to those who do not normally get overtime work. Are there any--does the Senator know of any Senators on his side of the aisle who will be offering amendments to get that done?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I answer that question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I do. I will try to phrase this in the form of a question. When the Senator from Minnesota asks whose side am I on, he indicated that 38 percent of the hourly workers, overtime pay workers were women. That really means that 62 percent are men. Almost twice as many men in the equation are overtime workers as are women and that really does not talk about the number of women generally who are workers that rely on overtime or have the chance to get overtime. My question is, for the vast majority of workers that do not get overtime at all, and especially for women who are outranked about 2 to 1 by men in terms of the privilege of getting overtime, setting all those aside, you are doing something for the people who get overtime, and it is true that your proposal addresses those people and there are two men in that group for every woman in that group. That is what your own statistics basically show. So you are doing something for mostly men who get overtime. But for the people who do not get overtime and still have sick kids and still have families that have trouble and still need to have flexibility in their workplace, what are you proposing for those individuals? And are there going to be amendments to this legislation that propose to do something to give them flexibility?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question with the understanding he retains the floor after the question is asked. Both the House and Senate passed the emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Conferees have been appointed by both of the Houses, but the conferees must report out a conference report which must go to the House of Representatives first for passage before ultimately the Senate gets a chance to act on it. Now the Senator, by expressing his concern in such a lengthy way-- over concern, obviously, for individuals for whom we have great sympathy--the Senator blocks the Senate from doing its business even though the Senate cannot act on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill at this point in time. Is the Senator aware of the fact that we are being kept from doing our business which is appropriate for us to do and that it is now impossible for us to act on a matter of greatest concern to him?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he would yield for a question? He had indicated earlier he would. If he still is of a mind to yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that the law would be enforced as it is written and not as it its characterized in that letter? I do not have any doubt that people could oppose the law as it is represented in that letter that was written by all the labor unions. The letter says that a person who takes comptime forever loses their right to the money. That is just simply wrong. The law provides, not only do you have a choice about whether you want comptime, whether you want to be paid time and a half--and that is a clear choice and it is a choice that is to be made without any coercion, indirect or direct, or intimidation indirect or direct, or threatening--but, even after you have made that decision the law provides, not the letter but the law provides you can change your mind and decide to cash out your benefits. So, if you want the money you have the ability to say I am just going to take the money. So, my view is I wondered if the Senator were aware of those kinds of things? Second, if I could ask a second question, I wonder if the Senator is aware that there have been a group of people come to the floor over the last several hours who have come to me with amendments, some of which are specifically directed toward points of concern raised by the Senator, but that the Senator is unable to consider them as long as the Senator from Minnesota continues to monopolize the floor and to say that no one else will have a chance to work constructively on the bill?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. There is a second choice.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. A point of clarification: Is the Senator aware that the U.S. Senate passed a supplemental appropriations measure that would carry the relief? I think the Senator is aware of that. And when the Senator says this Congress has been irresponsible, I wonder if he means what the Senate did was irresponsible when it passed that kind of relief or----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Well----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for recognition. The Senator from Minnesota yielded the floor without yielding for a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to return to Senate bill 4. Senate bill 4, as you well know, is the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It was to have been the business of the Senate this afternoon. And I do understand the frustration of the individuals from the flood-ravaged States who have been victims of flooding and all. But I find it very difficult to understand why, especially when a conference report is being worked on, we have to insist that the Senate cease serving the Nation while the conference committee serves the people of the flood- ravaged areas. It seems to me that while we can do both, it would be in our best interest so to do. And so with all respect to my colleagues who have sought to galvanize the public attention on the need to act here, I want to commend the members of the conference committee who are working to do exactly what they are being called upon to do to provide an opportunity for relief in those areas. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is a way that we can help all Americans. We can help all Americans to balance the tension that exists between the workplace and the home place. We can help Americans who find that both parents are having to work in two-parent families. We can make sure that they have the capacity to spend the necessary time with their children that they need to spend. So, Mr. President, I think it is important that we get on with the business of trying to provide to hourly-paid workers in this country the same kind of flexible working arrangements which have been available to others for quite some extended period of time. As a matter of fact, in 1978, we began according flextime benefits to workers in the Federal Government system. It was done on a pilot project basis so that we could make sure we did not offend the rights of individuals and that we made sure that it was a workable system. For years, we inspected the system, and it was extended to more and more workers. In 1985, in the Federal system we made it available to Departments generally if they thought they could use those procedures wisely and if that would be helpful to people in balancing the needs of their families with the needs of the workplace. The major components are these. When you work overtime, instead of being paid for overtime, you might want to take time off with pay later on so that you could make up some of the lost time you have with your family. Most Americans do not realize it is illegal now for an employer outside of the Federal Government to offer an hourly paid worker time off with pay instead of paying the normal overtime pay. Now, it is, I think, an unjust situation where Government workers have a series of benefits that the private workers do not have. Similarly, Government workers, if they know they will be needing some time for their families can request to work an hour extra one week and take that hour off the next week so they can spend the necessary time with their families. Now, there are ways that private workers have the capacity to spend time with their families, and it is under a rubric known as the Family and Medical Leave Act, and that is a Federal law, but it says that under certain narrow conditions if you want to take time off you can take time off but you have to take time off without pay, so if you want your child to go to the doctor or you want to take your child to the doctor you can give notice to your employer that you are going to do that but you take a pay cut in order to do that. Now, if you knew you had a doctors' appointment next Tuesday afternoon and you wanted to tell your employer you would like to work an extra 2 hours this week to take the 2 hours off next Tuesday, that is the Federal system, available to Federal employees. You work the 2 hours extra this week, you get your work done, make the arrangements, take the hours off next week and you do not end up with a pay cut but keep your paycheck intact. That is very important. I should hasten to add that nothing in this bill would in any way erode, undermine or abolish any of the Family and Medical Leave provisions which are to the benefit of employees across America, but in conjunction with those benefits this would add a new array of potentials. One of the potentials is that you could take time off to be with your family when necessary, with pay, instead of having to go under the Family and Medical Leave Act procedures which require that you take the time off without pay. Now, most of us are familiar with the fact that not only do Federal Government workers have comptime and flextime proposals and State government workers have been authorized a very substantial comptime proposal and the boardroom folks have comptime proposals and the supervisors and managers and all the salary people obviously have flexible working arrangements, it is the hourly-paid workers of America who are being treated as second-class citizens. Frankly, they are in a minority. The majority of workers in this country have flexible working arrangements. Hourly paid workers do not. I think it is time that the hourly paid workers have that kind of opportunity. That is what Senate bill 4 is all about. I do agree that it is important for us to act with expedition on the supplemental appropriations bill but, in my judgment, it is also important for us when we have the opportunity like we should have had today, especially while this appropriations matter is still in the conference committee, to make progress on meeting the needs of Americans, especially when we are talking about benefits that Government workers have been enjoying in the 1970's, 1980's, and all through the 1990's now. It is time we give the same kind of opportunity to workers in the private sector. It is with that in mind that I say that I look forward to the opportunity of welcoming amendments and proposed improvements to Senate bill 4. Now, several hours were spent today in criticism of our proposal, but the fact of the matter is none of the amendments that have been filed have been filed by those who have been criticizing the bill. If, indeed, they want to do something constructively to help workers, I invite Members of the opposition to bring their amendments to the floor and to make their amendments available so they can be filed, so we can vote on those amendments, so we can take action on them, so we can make the improvements. We will upgrade what we really need to do to help the citizens of America who do not have this privilege. It is my understanding that the occupant of the Chair might be interested in making some remarks on Senate bill 4. I ask unanimous consent after a quorum call which I will put in place that the occupant of the Chair be recognized to make the remarks, and the conclusion of those remarks be followed by another quorum call, at which time I be recognized again to finish my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post reported a decrease in crime nationwide. The Post also reported that Attorney General Reno and President Clinton quickly stepped up to take credit for this news. But in this same article James Alan Fox, dean of Northeastern University's college of criminal justice, suggested that the decreasing crime numbers were more a function of demographics. According to Dean Fox, ``The aging of a large segment of the population has played a key role in the decline. Adults tend to be less violent than juveniles.'' But if crime statistics are, indeed, a function of demographics, then the demographics suggest that the juvenile crime rates will continue to rise. As Dean Fox indicated, the juvenile population will grow over the next decade. The available numbers confirm that the rate of violent juvenile crimes is increasing. The Washington Post also mentioned that between 1985 and 1995, the number of murders committed by juveniles increased 145 percent. And criminologist suggest that the baby boom of the 1980's will bring tidalwave of vicious violent youth onto our streets. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to protect our children from people who would lead them astray and from those who are dangerous in our midst. The dangerous environment in which our children live today dictates that we make several fundamental changes in the way we treat dangerous, violent juveniles and those people--juveniles and adults, alike--who lure our children into drugs and gangs. We must come down harder on juveniles who commit serious violent crimes--incarcerating them and trying them as adults--and we must improve our recordkeeping capability for these dangerous juveniles so that courts, police officers, and schools know when they have a potential killer in their midst. Furthermore, we must punish severely those adults who seek to corrupt our kids by luring them into gangs, drugs, and a life of crime. This bill, the Protect Children from Violence Act, will update our current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. The act has several components, but first and foremost it would require Federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 million in new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles 14 and older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must be treated and tried as adults. Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for violent criminals. In order to do this, we must also ensure that our law enforcement officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communications and access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill does this by requiring the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles found guilty of crimes that would be felonies if committed by an adult. The bill would also ensure that those records are made available to Federal and State law enforcement officials and school officials, so they will know who they are dealing with when they confront a dangerous juvenile offender. Typically, State statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal predators understand that when they reach their 18th birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. The time has come to discard anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous the crime. Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile crimes. For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is immediate past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records--both arrest and adjudication--are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles they have no idea with whom they are dealing because the records are kept confidential. School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting the innocent--those that go to school to learn, not to rape, maim, and murder. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, MO, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer? School officials need access to juvenile criminal records so that they can keep a close eye on potentially dangerous predators and take preventive measures. Judicial and law enforcement authorities need this information because it is vital to the protection of public safety. In addition to requiring that Federal and State prosecutors try violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing recordkeeping and sharing capability, this bill also enhances the Federal criminal penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or drug use. For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would face a minimum 3-year jail sentence--as compared to the 1-year minimum under current law. This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence, and fine. Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates a Federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into gangs will face a Federal prosecutor and a Federal penitentiary. A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But a second study, conducted just 2 years later, found that the number of gangs had increased more than fourfold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide. Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by adults, and States must allow public access to juvenile criminal records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to Federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults who prey on them, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a school will face three times the penalty under current law. This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that violent youths, and the adults that lead them into life of crime, pose to our children. The moneys authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, demands more that that. We need to take into account the needs of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of privacy of violent juvenile perpetrators.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post reported a decrease in crime nationwide. The Post also reported that Attorney General Reno and President Clinton quickly stepped up to take credit for this news. But in this same article James Alan Fox, dean of Northeastern University's college of criminal justice, suggested that the decreasing crime numbers were more a function of demographics. According to Dean Fox, ``The aging of a large segment of the population has played a key role in the decline. Adults tend to be less violent than juveniles.'' But if crime statistics are, indeed, a function of demographics, then the demographics suggest that the juvenile crime rates will continue to rise. As Dean Fox indicated, the juvenile population will grow over the next decade. The available numbers confirm that the rate of violent juvenile crimes is increasing. The Washington Post also mentioned that between 1985 and 1995, the number of murders committed by juveniles increased 145 percent. And criminologist suggest that the baby boom of the 1980's will bring tidalwave of vicious violent youth onto our streets. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to protect our children from people who would lead them astray and from those who are dangerous in our midst. The dangerous environment in which our children live today dictates that we make several fundamental changes in the way we treat dangerous, violent juveniles and those people--juveniles and adults, alike--who lure our children into drugs and gangs. We must come down harder on juveniles who commit serious violent crimes--incarcerating them and trying them as adults--and we must improve our recordkeeping capability for these dangerous juveniles so that courts, police officers, and schools know when they have a potential killer in their midst. Furthermore, we must punish severely those adults who seek to corrupt our kids by luring them into gangs, drugs, and a life of crime. This bill, the Protect Children from Violence Act, will update our current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. The act has several components, but first and foremost it would require Federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 million in new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles 14 and older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must be treated and tried as adults. Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for violent criminals. In order to do this, we must also ensure that our law enforcement officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communications and access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill does this by requiring the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles found guilty of crimes that would be felonies if committed by an adult. The bill would also ensure that those records are made available to Federal and State law enforcement officials and school officials, so they will know who they are dealing with when they confront a dangerous juvenile offender. Typically, State statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal predators understand that when they reach their 18th birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. The time has come to discard anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous the crime. Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile crimes. For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is immediate past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records--both arrest and adjudication--are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles they have no idea with whom they are dealing because the records are kept confidential. School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting the innocent--those that go to school to learn, not to rape, maim, and murder. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, MO, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer? School officials need access to juvenile criminal records so that they can keep a close eye on potentially dangerous predators and take preventive measures. Judicial and law enforcement authorities need this information because it is vital to the protection of public safety. In addition to requiring that Federal and State prosecutors try violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing recordkeeping and sharing capability, this bill also enhances the Federal criminal penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or drug use. For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would face a minimum 3-year jail sentence--as compared to the 1-year minimum under current law. This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence, and fine. Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates a Federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into gangs will face a Federal prosecutor and a Federal penitentiary. A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But a second study, conducted just 2 years later, found that the number of gangs had increased more than fourfold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide. Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by adults, and States must allow public access to juvenile criminal records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to Federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults who prey on them, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a school will face three times the penalty under current law. This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that violent youths, and the adults that lead them into life of crime, pose to our children. The moneys authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, demands more that that. We need to take into account the needs of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of privacy of violent juvenile perpetrators.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act; and further the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided with Senator Kennedy or his designee in control of the first 30 minutes and Senator Ashcroft in control of the second 30 minutes; and further at the hour of 4 o'clock the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to S. 4.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senators to file second-degree amendments until 3:30 on Wednesday in order to qualify under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. For the information of all Members, there will be a cloture vote tomorrow afternoon at 4 p.m. on the substitute amendment to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is the hope of the majority leader that cloture will be invoked and the Senate will be able to make progress and hopefully complete action on this important legislation. Additional votes are expected on or in relation to the pending amendments as well as additional amendments that may be offered. As a reminder, it is still the hope of the leader to complete action on the budget resolution conference report as soon as that report becomes available. In addition, the majority leader has stated that the Senate may also complete action on the supplemental appropriations conference report when that report is available.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.