John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a topic which is going to be voted on here in the U.S. Senate tomorrow, the topic of partial-birth abortion. This is an issue which I think is understandable by virtually every American who has given it any consideration. They understand this is a brutal technique which inflicts pain and is the kind of thing which would shock the conscience of most Americans not only as it relates to unborn children, but if it were, as a matter of fact, a procedure used even on animals. Mr. President, about 2 weeks ago, a Rhode Island jury found a mother guilty of second-degree murder in the death of her newborn daughter. The State medical examiner, according to a May 9 article in the Providence Journal-Bulletin, testified that the little girl died from a single blow to the back of the head that left a laceration on her scalp and an inch-long skull fracture. The umbilical cord and the placenta were still attached to the child. Now, ironically, this Rhode Island woman who had been found guilty of second-degree murder, if she had, prior to giving birth, allowed a physician to perform a procedure very similar to what she did, a procedure called partial-birth abortion, there would have been no criminal action involved. The baby would have been there, the blow to the head would have been similar, the umbilical cord would still have been attached, the placenta would still have been there, but because the baby would have been only partially born, it would have been entirely legal. This kind of tension that exists in the law between charging and convicting a mother of second-degree murder and authorizing a physician to conduct what is called a partial-birth abortion makes no sense to the American people. Let me take a few moments today to talk about the lessons we teach when we as a culture allow such tensions to persist. When we come down here to the floor and we argue before the cameras, the Nation is affected on a level of which we too often take little notice. People look, people listen, people understand. Right now we are debating a violent medical procedure that, in my judgment, should be a clear-cut wrong. People understand that. However, the high emotion of the abortion debate seems to blur the vision of many of us who are in the U.S. Congress. We are so caught up in arguing about the definition of technicalities that we are in danger of slipping into absurdities ourselves, absurdities that are exemplified by the charge and conviction of the woman in Rhode Island. The stakes are high here, as we are talking, in no uncertain terms, about the value of human life. It seems so clear that all of us should vote to ban the direct killing of a fully formed, often viable, human being. Yet because the child is 80 percent born, somehow we have allowed the killing of that child to be legal. Now the partisan political rhetoric we expend here and the attempts to turn this vote into abstract public policy are setting an example in our society and in the world that bring into question our Nation's status as a moral leader. How can we lecture or threaten China on its human rights abuses when we stand up and argue that human beings should be brutally butchered in a procedure that is rarely, if ever, medically necessary? How can we question the practice of child slavery in foreign nations when our own Nation's lawmakers cast cavalier votes to torture our own infants? Let me be clear, though. Our position as a world leader does not trouble me as much as the positions we put our youth in when we refuse to provide moral guidance. What are we teaching our own children? What are we saying to them about the value of life? What are we saying to them when we suggest that a technicality provides the difference between destroying a life, committing murder, and merely having an abortion? What values are we teaching when we vote that the difference between a partial-birth abortion and a homicide is a mere 3 inches? If the physician took forceps or scissors to collapse the baby's skull outside the mother's body, he or she would be charged with murder. Yet, if the skull is collapsed when the baby's head is still partially in the birth canal, the homicide becomes a legal procedure. What values are we teaching when lawmakers show more concern for animals or the environment than for human life? Let's look at two pieces of legislation that demonstrate the absurdity of our present value system. H.R. 3918 was introduced by then Representative Barbara Boxer on November 25, 1991. The Congressional Research Service summarizes the bill as follows: Requires each Federal department or agency head to review and evaluate nonanimal alternatives with the potential for partial or full replacement of the Draize or other animal acute toxicity tests for some or all of the products regulated by such department or agency. I might not have all the facts, but it seems to me that Senator Boxer--one of the strongest opponents of this legislation--seems to put the pain and suffering of laboratory animals above the pain and suffering of human beings. When you say that you want to replace the Draize, or other animal acute toxicity tests, and you are willing to say it is necessary to spare animals this kind of pain but it is not necessary to spare these mostly born children of the pain inflicted on them by partial-birth abortion, I think you can again raise the level of tension between what the public knows is right and the technicality of the law which would allow something which the public knows to be very wrong. Former Senator Pell introduced S. 1701 during the 104th Congress. The bill prescribes criminal penalties for use of steel jaw leghold traps on animals; directs the Secretary of the Interior to reward nongovernment informers for information leading to a conviction under this act; and empowers enforcement officials to detain, search, and seize suspected merchandise or documents and to make arrests with and without warrants. Senator Pell stated on the floor, ``While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping.'' Well, the bill we are debating today does not outlaw abortion--it outlaws ``a particularly savage method of abortion.'' I am surprised and even a bit dismayed that the Members supporting and proactively fighting for measures that would reduce the suffering of animals have not been willing to afford at least the same protections to human beings. What values are we teaching when we appear to value to limbs of animals over the lives of children? And this takes me back to my opening--the emotion and strife of the abortion debate is blinding and confusing some Members. However, the legislation before us today is not about an uncertainty, it is about combating acts of barbarism against human beings. Of course, part of the confusion on this issue is due to misleading reports on the necessity and practice of partial-birth abortions. As reported in Newsweek last October: When the partial-birth-abortion debate took shape last year, pro-choice groups insisted the procedure was extremely rare. The number 500 to 600 was tossed around, with the President and others explaining that it was reserved for heart-wrenching cases involving women whose tests show severely deformed fetuses or whose health was at risk. That comes from Jonathan Alter, ``When the Facts Get Aborted,'' Newsweek, October 7, 1996. But we now have a fairly clear and broad concurrence on the truth about the rarity and utility of this procedure. Let's look at the facts. The fact is that partial-birth abortions are not rare or unusual. The fact is not that it is 500 or 600 cases a year in the entire country. The Sunday Record of Bergen County, NJ stated: ``But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year''--triple the 450-500 number which the National Abortion Federation [NAF], a lobby for abortion clinics, has claimed occur in the entire country. The same article in the Bergen County Sunday Record reported: Another [New York] metropolitan doctor who works outside New Jersey said he does about 260 post-20-week abortions a year, of which half are by intact D&E. The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious teaching hospitals, said he had been teaching intact D&E since 1981, and he said he knows of two former students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the procedure. The truth contravenes the myths of last year's debate--the suggestions by proponents of this procedure that it is only used in situations of dire medical emergency, and that it is limited in its use to about 500 or 600 a year nationwide. The truth of the matter is that in New Jersey alone it is three times that number. Is partial-birth abortion needed to protect the health of the mother? Frankly, I think we have to always be very concerned about the health of women in this debate. We should not do those things that would unduly or unnecessarily impair the health of women in this country. President Clinton has justified his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban last year by pointing to the legislation's absence of a health exception. Some Members of this body also argue for a health exception. However, the facts indicate that such an exception is unnecessary. Four specialists in ob/gyn and fetal medicine representing PHACT-- Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth--a group of over 500 doctors, mostly specialists in ob/gyn, maternal and fetal medicine, and pediatrics, stated in a September 19, 1996, Wall Street Journal article: Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. In response to the President's statements that partial-birth abortions were necessary to preserve the woman's health and their ability to have future pregnancies, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated: I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. ``Because in no way can I twist my mind in a way * * *.'' C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States, indicates that it takes a twisting of the mind to get to the point of saying that the baby must be destroyed in that setting. Even Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them routinely for nonmedical reasons, and that 80 percent are purely elective--not required to protect the health of the mother. Dr. David Brown, a physician investigating this procedure for the Washington Post wrote: [I]in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy * * *. Instead, the ``typical'' patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical. The PHACT doctors have even said that at 21 weeks or later, abortion is riskier to a woman's health than childbirth. They state in a recent letter to the editor of the Washington Post: It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is twice as risky for women as childbirth: the risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000 for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth. I hope we will be successful in our endeavor to obtain enough votes to override an expected Presidential veto in this matter. Clearly the President won't be able to rely on the myths and misrepresentations this year that he relied on last year if he is to veto it. We are not only teaching poor values. We are not only setting a bad example. We are risking lives and losing lives as a result of this procedure. George Will tells an interesting story in an April 24 Washington Post op-ed which demonstrates the irony of what we are debating here. The story is about Stephanie and Sandra Bartels of Hull, IA. Sandra and Stephanie were twins born in a South Dakota hospital. They were born 88 days apart by what is called ``delayed-interval delivery.'' Will states: Stephanie, born January 5 when her mother went into premature labor in the 23rd week of her pregnancy, weighed 1 pound, 2 ounces. Sandra, weighing 7 pounds, 10 ounces, was born April 2, by which time Stephanie weighed 4 pounds 10 ounces. For 88 days, while her twin sister's life was protected by the law, Sandra, who was still unborn, under the current law could have been the subject of a partial-birth abortion. As Will states, Location is the key factor. Unless she is completely outside the mother she is fair game for the abortionist. The tension between the fact that one twin already born is protected by our law, while the other twin yet unborn is fair game for destruction through a brutal procedure called a partial-birth abortion, is obvious. Such an absurdity in the law is not consistent with American values. It is not consistent with the expectation of the American people that we govern rationally. Physical location should not be the key factor. However, George Will is right. Location was and is the key factor, and that locational factor should be abandoned. We should ask ourselves about location. We should ask ourselves: To what location will our moral compass direct us when we vote on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act? I believe it should direct us to the location where we abandon and outlaw this painful and brutal procedure. We should ask ourselves: Where will we end up on the scale of decency and humanity? Will we continue to be guilty of basing our reasoning on a thin, irrational thread of support for an inexcusable practice which we would not tolerate in terms of animal experiments? Should we keep drawing these illogical distinctions to sustain the brutal inhumane treatment of our citizens? I hope when this vote comes before the Senate that we will all end up on the high ground. I hope that our vote to ban this procedure will be so resounding that the President will look at our action and think, This legislation is not only based upon rationality and consistency, but it was also endorsed so thoroughly by the U.S. Senate that I ought to sign it rather than veto it. We as a nation must refuse to allow the grotesque brutality of partial-birth abortion to continue. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families in America are facing a challenge raising children--especially since in most cases --if there are two parents, they both are in the workplace. Certainly for single parents being in the workplace makes raising children even more difficult. For these single parents, if their children have to go to the doctor--they take them. If their children are having trouble at school or get sick during the day, the single parent does not have anyone else to rely on. The single parent must take care of the problem themselves. As difficult as that may be, if that single parent is a salaried worker, she can work with her employer to arrange her work schedule to accommodate these needs. However, if that single parent is an hourly worker, she must find a way to meet her child's needs and work all of the required hours during a 7-day period or lose part of her pay. Demographics have changed significantly since the passage of our major employment laws. In 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted, only 2 out of 12 mothers with school-age children were in the workplace. Today only 3 out of 12 mothers of school-age children are not in the workplace--obviously, the statistics have taken a real flip. People have gone into the workplace in order to tackle the incredible tax burden and the cost of living. It has been said that in some families, in most families, one parent works to pay the Government and the other parent works to provide for the family. It is very difficult for families to make ends meet unless you have both parents working to provide financial resources for the family. Therefore, we have a high level of involvement of the parents of America in the workplace--this stresses our families. Regardless of why we have this kind of stress in our lives, it exists. It is real as any other societal problem that we are dealing with today. We need a solution. Parents need to be available to their children to go to award ceremonies, to see them play soccer or football, and to confer with the teacher. Parents need to be able to care for a sick child or a child that becomes sick or ill at school without worrying that they will have to miss time away from work--and the income that goes with it. We have proposed and will continue to debate--and I think we will enact--what is called the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is a way of saying to parents you should be able to make agreements with your employer about flexible working arrangements, that you should be able to save up some time off that comes when you work overtime. Instead of being paid time-and-one-half, if you want to--at your option and at your request--you should be able to take time-and-one-half in time off with pay. You can use that time later so that when the need arises you will be able to meet the needs of your family. Those who have been opposed to providing this option for America's workers have their own solution to the problem--they think that providing the American worker with more unpaid leave will somehow help already financially strapped workers. They want to expand Family and Medical Leave to allow for 24 hours of unpaid leave to attend a child's event. I think the Family Friendly Workplace Act is a superior option. This would allow you--at your option--instead of being paid time-and-one- half for overtime to take time-and-one-half with pay some other time to meet the needs of your family. The Family Friendly Workplace Act does not say to the moms and dads of America, in order to be a good mom and dad, you have to take a pay cut. It says if you can work something out with your employer to put some time-and-one-half hours in the bank and take time off later, you still will be paid for them because you have hours in the bank. There is more social tension, there is more financial tension, and we need to have the flexibility for families to spend more time with each other to resolve those tensions. It is simply true that moms and dads in America should not have to take a pay cut in order to be good parents. Experience has shown us that pilot programs--or experiments--help us understand whether a program should be permanently authorized or more broadly adopted. It will tell us whether there are bugs in it that need to be worked out or whether it is a program that will work well and can succeed. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is modeled off of one such pilot program. Since 1978, Federal Government workers have been able to work flexible work schedules as provided for in the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. That is, we have had flexible working arrangements. We have had compensatory time off for overtime that has been used at the option of the worker. I believe it has been a model that we can follow to provide for American laborers who work by the hour. As a matter of fact, in 1994 in an Executive order, President Clinton directed more broad use of these flexible scheduling programs throughout the Federal Government. So what we have here is a system which is working for Federal employees that should be allowed for the men and women of America who work by the hour. I should just take a moment to indicate that all the people who are salaried workers have flextime potentials--the people in the board rooms, the presidents and the owners of the companies, the supervisors and managers generally. As a matter of fact, the great majority of workers in the country, especially when you put in governmental workers, have comptime and flextime options, but the average hourly worker in America does not. It is time to give the hourly workers, the laboring people what the great majority of workers have and that is flexible working arrangements. Now, one of the things that opponents of this bill constantly say is that this proposal destroys the 40-hour week, that it somehow would force people to work overtime without pay. Nothing is further from the truth. Taking compensatory time off in the bill is totally-- completely--voluntary. The Family Friendly Workplace Act provides for new, voluntary choices for workers. Section 3 provides, under compensatory time off, that it is voluntary participation. It says, No employee may be required to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary compensation. That basically says no one can be required, instead of taking time- and-one-half pay, to take time-and-one-half off later with pay. It is a system that says we want to give workers the choice. As a matter of fact, so committed are we to choice, even if you decided you wanted to take compensatory time off when you work the overtime hours but later change your mind, the bill says you have an absolute right to get paid the cash. Comptime provides some flexibility for those workers who get paid overtime. However, many workers never earn overtime compensation. The biweekly work programs and flexible credit hour programs provide flexibility for those workers. Participation in these programs also are completely voluntary. ``No employee may be required to participate in a program described in this section.'' This is all voluntary. Those who say there are not employee choices in this matter simply have not read this legislation. There are protections for workers to make sure that voluntary means voluntary. The protections that are involved in this bill for workers exceed those protections that are involved in the Federal law for State and local government workers. ``Section (d). Prohibition of Coercion. An employer shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee.'' And ``the penalties for abuse are doubled in the current law.'' We have taken great steps here to make sure that this is totally voluntary and that any coercion, direct or indirect, is impermissible and would be punished substantially with higher penalties than we have under current law. As a matter of fact, the situation we are recommending in the Family Friendly Workplace Act has far more guarantees and protections for workers than are currently involved in the law for State and local government workers. The Federal law allowing State and local government workers to have comptime says that workers can be required to be involved in comptime as a condition of employment. That is not so under the law we are proposing for private workers. It is strictly voluntary. It cannot be required. It is up to the worker. No worker can be required to participate. Under the law which now applies to State and local government workers, management can decide when a worker must use comptime. Under the Family Friendly Workplace Act, workers cannot be coerced into using their comptime. Penalties would be doubled for any direct or indirect coercion. There is another significant difference. There is no cash-out provision under the system for State and local government workers, comptime only is paid in cash when the employee is either terminated or quits. In other words, if a State or local government worker wants to get his overtime in cash, you can only get the cash out of the system when you leave your job. You have to quit your job to get your money. Under the Family Friendly Workplace Act, you do not have to quit to get your money. Any time you change your mind, comptime must be cashed out on request. It must be cashed out at the end of each year. So that the Family Friendly Workplace Act is totally voluntary--and there are these structural guarantees--with doubled penalties. These arrangements are strictly voluntary. They cannot be required, they cannot be coerced, penalties are doubled, and comptime must be cashed out on request. This is a system which basically allows workers to make choices. It allows them to make meaningful choices. These are choices about spending time with their families. We have talked about just one of these choices--the choice that relates to comptime which you get when you work overtime. But the truth of the matter is, many American workers seldom if ever get overtime. As a matter of fact, in 1996, our census data indicates that only 4.5 percent of working women in the private sector get regular overtime. If we were just to leave this bill at the comptime level and not do anything about flexible working arrangements, we would not be providing much relief to women who work by the hour and never get overtime so they could take comptime instead of time-and-one-half in pay. In order to meet the real needs of American workers--the broad workforce--we need to have the kind of breadth of options in the program that is in the program for Federal workers. Federal workers have more than just comptime as an option for flexibility. They have the potential for flexible working arrangements so individuals who never get overtime still have the ability to have flexible working arrangements and spend time with their families. If only 4.5 percent of the 28.9 million women who work by the hour in this country--if only 4.5 of percent of them get overtime--really, if we only do comptime, we are not going to help the vast majority of the women. We have to give the private sector workers the same range of options that exist for the Federal employees. And that includes flextime arrangements; the ability to schedule work flexibly and the ability 1 week to work an hour extra so the next week you can take an hour off. Right now, it is shocking, but our legal framework makes it illegal for an employer to say to you, I'll let you work an extra hour on Friday so you can take an hour off on Monday. Most Americans are shocked by that. They also are shocked by the fact that it is not illegal for a Government employee to do it, but it is illegal for an average citizen to do it. They know it is not illegal for the boss to do it or for the boardroom guys to do it or the managers or the supervisors to do it. They know it is not illegal for the salaried people to do it. They ought to have some reservations about a system that has sort of second-class citizenship for hourly paid persons and it is illegal for them to work an extra hour on Friday and take an hour off on Monday, even when their employer agrees with it. We need to stop that illegality. The point is simply this. Since very few working women who work by the hour get overtime, very few will benefit from a comptime only option. We need to provide a framework for these women to have the ability to be with their families, and we have to have flextime in order to get that done. Mr. President, this is a great opportunity for us to say to American families, We are with you. We are not against you. This is a great opportunity for us to say to the working people of the country, You deserve the same chance for flexibility that the Federal Government employees have. You deserve the same chance to be with your children that the salaried workers have--the managers, the supervisors, and CEO's or the company Presidents. As a matter of fact, they are a minority of workers who do not have these options. We understand that. Hourly workers are a minority of workers in this country when compared to the Government and the salaried and other workers. But they should not be treated as second-class citizens. The soccer game is just as important to the hourly worker's child as it is to the boss' child. It is just as important to go to the school doctor to confer about your child's health if you are an hourly worker as it is if you are a Federal Government employee. It is just as important for your family to operate as a family, to be able to shape the values and to provide the framing, the development of the next generation if you are an hourly worker as if you are paid in some other way. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is simply a means of getting that done. It is a means we have designed with protections that are strong. The protections are superior to the protections that are there for State/ local government workers. I am a little bit befuddled because the individuals who argue most aggressively against providing this for hourly private sector workers across this country sponsored the legislation for State and local government workers. Not only did they sponsor the legislation for the State and local government workers, but that legislation --that they cosponsored--has fewer protections than does the legislation we are proposing for private workers. Yet those who sponsored the fewer protections for State and local government workers are criticizing the proposal in the private sector because they say enough protections do not exist in the measure. That is difficult to understand. Those individuals, I think, should reevaluate their position. When organized labor leaders of this country oppose laboring people getting the opportunity to spend time with their families and flexible working arrangements, we ought to ask them to come to the table to help us, to help us assure an opportunity for America's working people, not stand aside and hurt us and criticize a system which is far superior to the one that has been endorsed and for which they negotiate when they are representing State and local government workers. Mr. President, the opportunity to pass flexible working arrangements to help parents be better parents, to have more time to spend with their families, to be able to take the time off with pay by using compensatory time and flexible working arrangements is what the future of America will be all about. Those who suggest we have to have more unpaid leave so parents will have to choose between taking a pay cut and helping their child are on the wrong track. People are not working because they can afford to take a pay cut. They are working because they need the money, and we should never ask them to sacrifice their child in order to make more money or to sacrifice the money they need to help their child in order to spend time with their child. The last time I checked, when my children had to go to the dentist and I needed to take them there, that is not the time I could do with less money. That's the time I needed more money, when there was a crisis, when I needed to go to school to see what was happening with my child, take the child to the doctor or to the dentist. I didn't want to take a pay cut. I didn't want to have my salary reduced. Of course I wouldn't. I am a Member of the Senate, I am a Government employee. I have flexible working arrangements. But I do know this, for us to say to the working people of America: When you have a special need in your family, you should take a pay cut and you should take leave without pay, we are asking them to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. As a matter of fact, family and medical leave has been the occasion for a lot of people to find themselves in real financial distress. When the Commission on Family and Medical Leave met, it found that over 10 percent of all people who took that unpaid leave to meet the needs of their family had to go on welfare because of the loss of salary. Wouldn't it have been better to have flexible working arrangements and some comptime in the bank so you could do that? Ten percent went on welfare, over 40 percent said they had to defer the payment of bills. They just had to stop paying their bills. About 20 percent said they had to borrow money. We have a great opportunity to say to families, ``If you work together, cooperate with your employer in a framework of solid protections in a voluntary system, you will be able to be better parents and you will not have to take a pay cut to do it.'' I call upon my colleagues to enact this legislation as a matter of great service to the people of the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Georgia will yield for a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The opponents of this bill, who don't want to let us even have a chance to vote on it, voted to stop us from even voting, to keep us from getting cloture and moving to a vote, have indicated that they have an alternative. They want to increase the amount of family and medical leave, and they call our bill the Paycheck Reduction Act. Will the Senator clarify for me, now, under family and medical leave, what kind of time off is that and do you get paid when you take that time off?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So their proposal is, if you want to take time off with your family, you have to take a pay cut to do it?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So you could make up the time under the flextime or comptime provisions, take time with your family and not take the pay cut.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Georgia started to make the point, though, that is also important, which is this flextime and comptime opportunity isn't just for specific things with your family. If you wanted to take this time off once you have earned it--

Mr. ASHCROFT. You can do what?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I can go fishing. I believe I might.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I want to talk about benefits that people enjoy as workers in America, benefits which are enjoyed by Federal workers, benefits which are enjoyed by State workers, benefits which are enjoyed by executives, by supervisors, by managers, benefits which are enjoyed by all salaried workers, but benefits which do not inure to the advantage of individuals who work by the hour. There are about 59 million people in this country who work by the hour; 28.9 million women who work by the hour. These are the individuals who do not have the flexibility to adjust their schedules. They do not have the capacity to say, ``I'm going to take Friday morning off and work a little extra Monday afternoon.'' They do not have the ability to say, ``I need to quickly take a few minutes away here. I need to go to the school and pick up my child who needs to be taken to the doctor's office.'' They do not have that capacity. The majority of Americans do have that benefit. Far more, millions more, people have that benefit than those who do not. But the hourly paid workers do not. If you work for the Federal Government, you can schedule your workweek to get an extra day off every other week while keeping a full paycheck. If you took Friday off every other week in the same way and you are not in the Federal Government, you are going to find yourself short on cash. If you are an hourly worker in the private sector, you just cannot do it; you do not have that benefit. If you work for the Federal Government, you can choose compensatory time; in other words, take time off with pay later on instead of being paid time and a half when you have been asked to work overtime. You do not have that choice, you cannot make that choice if you are an hourly worker in the private sector. It is against the law for your employer to say to you, ``Well, if you'd really rather have time and a half off later with pay instead of taking paid time and a half for your overtime now, I'll do that for you.'' Then the employer is in violation, the employer suffers the penalty, the heavy hand of law enforcement, and the Government comes down on him if he does that. It simply is something that cannot be done for people in the hourly category in the private sector. The boardroom, yes. If the boardroom boys want to go play golf, they want to have Friday off, they have flexibility. The salaried workers have the flexibility. Government workers have that kind of flexibility. But private, hourly paid employees, whether they be men or women, they do not have it. It is not fair. If you work for the Federal Government, you can bank hours 1 week, you can work a couple hours extra this week in order to take a couple hours off next week. That sounds reasonable. It is something that people could do to adjust to the needs of their families. If there is an awards assembly at the school, if there are PTA conferences, if you need to get your driver's license renewed, you have to retake the test, or just have to have your eyes checked and you have to do it during the hours when government offices are open, the department of motor vehicles, you need to do that, if you are a Government worker, you can put a couple hours in comptime this week and take the time off next week. Or, of course, if you are a manager or boardroom executive or a salaried worker, that is something that can be done. But your employer cannot trade 2 hours this week for 2 hours next week if you are an hourly worker. That is a benefit that people in the governmental system enjoy. It is a benefit to be able to bank some hours this week and take them off next week. It is a benefit to be able to use time off and take compensatory time off with pay instead of being paid the time-and-a-half overtime, take compensatory time and a half off without losing pay. It is a benefit to be able to schedule your workweek so that you can take Friday off every other week the way Federal employees can. These are benefits which belong to the majority of the members of the work force in our culture which do not belong to hourly workers. What S. 4 is all about is providing an opportunity for hourly workers to have some of the same benefits that have been available to individuals in other quadrants of the culture. Private-sector workers have fewer benefits than Government workers. I think a lot of folks, when they have worked in the private sector-- certainly I knew that--they work just as hard. Private-sector families need moms and dads just as much as public-sector families do. Private- sector kids play soccer. Private-sector kids get in trouble and need the folks to show up at the school to get them out of trouble and help straighten them out. My mom came to school occasionally when I did not want her to, but it helped me, and I am glad she was able to. Private-sector workers need the benefit of being able to do those kinds of things. Now, I do not understand how Senators can be for flextime and comptime for public-sector workers and not be for flextime and comptime for private-sector workers. S. 4 is just trying to give to people in the private sector the same benefit that these Senators have provided for their public-sector employees--the same choices. I have not had a single Government worker come to me and say, ``Wow, these choices are terrible. I wish we didn't have choices like flexible scheduling. I sure wish I didn't have the capacity to bank an hour this week and take it off next week. I really wish I didn't have the opportunity to schedule so that I had every other Friday off. And, man, I hate this concept of being able myself to choose whether I wanted the money from overtime work or I wanted to take time and a half off with pay at some other time.'' I have been here now for--well, I am in my third year, and have not had the first Federal worker knock on my door and say, ``It's terrible to have this kind of flexibility,'' and I don't think I ever will. As a matter of fact, when people were interviewed in the system by the General Accounting Office, at a 10-to-1 ratio they said this was the best thing since sliced bread. This is what people need. This is a way for people to accommodate the demands of their families. Incidentally, people all need to take time off. Everybody knows there are going to be demands that will require you to take some time off. The question is, are you going to be able to be paid for it? You know, most of the time when you have to take time off to be with your family, that is when you need the money. Folks on the other side of the aisle say we should have more family and medical leave. That is leave without pay. I ask a simple question to my colleagues, and it should be easy--this is what we call a ``no brainer''--when you take your kid to the doctor, do you need more money or less money than if you are not taking your kid to the doctor? In my experience, if I have to take my child to the doctor or to the dentist, I have a need for additional resources, not fewer resources. If all I get offered by Government is a plan that says you can take a pay cut if you want to take your kid to the doctor--wait a second, it relieves the tension I feel within me, I do need to be able to take my child to the doctor, but if I have to take a pay cut to do it, how am I going to pay the doctor? We have a system that is in place where the benefits are available to the Federal worker, the benefits are available to the boardroom, the benefits are available to those who are salaried workers. We include this kind of flexibility, not taking pay cuts, but a capacity to meet the needs of your family without having your paycheck docked. I think it ought to be available to private workers. You know, not one that I know of of the employees of the Federal Government have come to me or any other Senator saying ``It's a terrible system. We ought to abandon it.'' There are 56 Senators who are still in the U.S. Senate who supported flexible scheduling benefits for Federal workers, and they are refusing to give these benefits to the millions of sales clerks, secretaries, factory workers, the kind of hourly individuals, mechanics across our country. We have a lot of folks here in this Senate who gave it to the Government workers. Now, not all the 56 are refusing. I should not say that. If I did, I misspoke and I need to be corrected, because there are a number of Senators on this side of the aisle who voted for that and who have said, yes, it was good for Government, and it would be good for the people in the private sector to have these choices. It is totally voluntary at the option of the worker and cannot be done unless it is also voluntary by the employer; otherwise, the same system stays in place that is in place right now. But when employers and employees can agree, we ought to have these benefits for the people in the private sector just like this benefit is available to people in the public sector. There are 56 Senators still in this body who voted to give it to people in the public sector. How can you be for bigger benefits for Federal workers, but fewer benefits for the people who work by the hour and who pay our salaries when they pay their taxes? It seems to me to be an irony which is strange indeed that we would say to those who pay our salaries, who hire us to represent them in this town to do what they need to have done--and we make second-class citizens of those whom we represent and those who pay us to be here. It is inconceivable. Some people say, well, we need to protect the workers. We have built protections into this. Those who are saying that we need to protect the workers in the private sector, let us find out what kind of protections they put in when they voted for the workers to have this flexibility in the public sector. It is kind of interesting. In the public sector, workers can be required to participate as a condition of employment. Participation is strictly voluntary, it cannot be required in comptime under our bill. They say we have to protect the private-sector workers. They did not demand that protection when they issued this whole set of opportunities for public-sector people. They say we have to protect workers from management. Did they say that when they put the public-sector program in place? Management can decide when a worker must use comptime. What we have put in our bill, workers cannot be coerced into using their comptime. Penalties are doubled for direct or indirect coercion. It is hard for me to understand how people could say we need tougher penalties than this when they invented this program for the public sector and they authorized management to make the decision. Here is another benefit. Comptime paid in cash only when the worker leaves the job in the public sector. What have we done for private-sector workers to try to protect them? Comptime must be cashed out any time it is requested by the worker; must be cashed out at the end of the year if it has not been used. Was that something that they felt was an important protection when they voted for the system in the public sector? Comptime paid in cash only when the worker leaves the job. The worker had to quit if he wanted the money. I think what we have here is a clear situation where we need to give private-sector workers the same benefits which people in the public sector have been enjoying. I agree that we want to have them protected. But as Shakespeare, I think, said in one of the plays, ``I think he doth protest too much.'' They are asking for a full range of protections saying, ``I can't do that in the private sector because you don't have private-sector protections.'' Well, we have big enough protections in every case for the private worker in this bill than they demanded when they passed this for the public sector in the bill which now controls the public- sector effort. It is pretty clear to me S. 4 would give private hourly workers real choices. They are real choices with protections. They are protections which are much stronger than anything that was written into the bill by those Senators who wrote in the public sector framework. It is high time we stop having an approach which tries to discriminate against the private hourly workers. It is high time we said that the benefits that have been available in the public sector should be available to those in the private sector who work by the hour. The benefits that have been available to the vast majority of American workers, public sector, salaried workers, the boardroom folks, the managers, and the supervisors, those benefits need to be available to the individuals who, as a matter of fact, work by the hour in this country. We should give them the opportunity to choose a set of benefits that have not been rejected when available to the private-sector workers. They have been embraced by public-sector workers. We are for protecting workers. Senator Kennedy has argued our bill does not protect workers. Senator Kennedy was a cosponsor of the public-sector bill. He was a conferee on the committee, and it did not provide the protections in the public sector which we have in the private sector. It did not give workers the same kind of choices. I think it is time for us to say, ``Let's be reasonable,'' and understand for private- and public-sector workers we have to provide the capacity for people to meet the needs of their families if we want America to be successful in the next century. This debate can be talked about as if it is a debate about theory, about law, and about benefits. In fact, this is a debate about people. This is a debate about families. Are we going to give people the capacity to have families that are as successful as possible? Let me just talk to you about a young woman named Kim Buchanan, from St. Louis, MO, a crisis clinician at the Meritz Behavioral Care facility in St. Louis, MO. Her husband is a Federal employee at the veterans hospital in St. Louis. Her husband enjoys the benefits of flextime. They have a son who is 3 years old. Like many American families, Kim Buchanan and her husband, Rocky, both work full time. Kim just landed a new job which requires her to work on shift hours through the week. She must also work weekends. She now needs to find a new day care provider for her children while she tries to keep up with her new work schedule. Fortunately, the Buchanans are getting some help from Rocky's new employer, the Federal Government. Yes, what the Federal Government provides is flexible working arrangements. He is allowed to work flexible schedules in order to keep up with some of the family's activities. That means Rocky can work a few more hours one week in order to take some time off, with pay, at a later date. Now, here is a statement that Kim Buchanan made: Rocky will pick up our son on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Those are the days I'm going to have him in day care. Rocky has flextime at his job. I would like to see that everyone has it. I don't work for the Federal Government, and it would be nice to have that kind of flexibility especially when you have children. It would be really nice to have that kind of flexibility instead of putting one parent in the bind. I think Kim is right. Kim has a pretty dramatic situation. Her husband works for the Federal Government and is privileged to have flexible work arrangements. She works in private industry and it is illegal for her employer to cooperate with her. I wonder what her children think? Daddy works for the Government and gets special privileges, and Mommy works for the private sector and it is illegal for the private sector to help families the way the public sector does. Virtually everything we do has some function of being a teacher and teaching us. I do not know what we are teaching kids when we tell them that it is illegal and wrong for private businesses to help families the way the Government does by giving flexible work arrangements. When you have Kim and her husband, Rocky, and one can be flexible and have good arrangements and offer choices because he works for the Government, and Kim, who works for the private sector, would be in violation of the law to participate in such a plan, it just does not make a lot of sense. Let me talk about another individual. Here is Leslie Langford, a secretary in Massachusetts. Her husband is a printer. They have a son who is about to have his first birthday and a daughter who is 5 years old. Listen to what Leslie says: I've been an hourly employee for the past 14 years. As a full-time employee and a mother of two young children, including an 11-month-old, time is one of the most valuable commodities in my life, and I can't afford to waste any of it. Like many of you, I find it a challenge to juggle the needs of my employer and my family. Luckily I work for a boss in a company that makes this great balancing act a little easier to manage; I strongly support the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This legislation would give millions of workers the flexibility to be with their families when they are needed most. Family friendly legislation such as this is not only desperately needed but long overdue in this country to benefit working parents and their children. I am sure if you were to ask Leslie Langford if she thought Government workers should have a range of benefits that private workers did not have, that there could be rules for Government workers that said it was OK to have choices about flextime and comptime, and to spend time with your family for Government workers, but it would be illegal to do that for the private sector, I suspect Leslie would say, how can that be? And the entirety of this country is saying how can that be? Why can we not allow hourly-paid workers in the private sector, who are a minority of the workers in this country, why can we not allow them some of the benefits enjoyed by public-sector workers and many of the salaried private workers across the country? Here is an interesting letter that came to my office from a 25-year- old single mother of twin 2-year-old daughters. Listen to this letter from a single mother of twin 2-year-old daughters. She says, Recently I heard of your Family Friendly Workplace Act. My employer does not allow a flexible work schedule or overtime. My understanding of this act is that I will be able to have flexibility in my work schedule giving me the opportunity to make up work hours lost because of illness in the family and doctor appointments. Now her employer cannot offer flexible work schedules and overtime like we have in the public sector. It is illegal. That is not a hit on her employer, it is just that we said this benefit that you might want to be able to share with your employers--you cannot do that. She goes on to say: As a 25-year-old single mother of twin 2-year-old daughters--[she has her hands full]--the Family Friendly Workplace Act would be extremely beneficial to my situation. My children were born with a congenital heart disease and they need to attend checkup appointments on a 3-month basis, with a cardiologist. These appointments have to allow a full day, since our specialist is in Springfield, MO, and especially because both of my children attend the appointments. Also, since my children have a heart disease they need special attention if they are ill. As a single mother, it is very difficult to lose any days financially. [I bet it is] The opportunity to make up any lost work days would be incredibly helpful. The Family Friendly Workplace Act would give me the opportunity to take time off from work, without the loss of pay because of those days my children are ill or need to attend a doctor's appointment. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and your consideration of the many working parents who would appreciate such an act. Please go forward with the Family Friendly Workplace Act. ``Please go forward.'' I think that means don't filibuster. I think it means get to a vote on this act. I think it means share the same benefits with those of us in the private sector who are needed desperately by our families as you already allow for people who work for the Federal Government, the boardroom already enjoys, as salaried employees already enjoy, as the majority of workers in America already enjoy, please address the needs of those of us who are in the minority here, the hourly-paid workers in the private sector. Madam President, we have a great opportunity to serve the people of this country, to let them make choices. We have developed a framework for that choice, which is a solid framework that protects the worker. It protects the worker far more profoundly than the workers who are protected in the public system, and there are no complaints in the public system, virtually no complaints. I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever had a Federal worker rush in and say, ``This is a terrible system which gives us flextime--abolish.'' I doubt, seriously, if that has been the case. We have built more protections into this bill for the private sector than there are for the public sector, and the 56 Senators in this body, including many on the other side of the aisle, and the lead opponent on the other side of aisle against this measure is the Senator from Massachusetts. He was a cosponsor of the measure which provided benefits to public-sector workers and a cosponsor of that measure which does not provide nearly the same protections for workers. I think it is time for us to confess that if benefits are available to the public sector they ought to be available in the private sector. My grandfather used to say ``God is no respecter of persons.'' People are the same, they have the same challenges. Public-sector workers have families and they need to be able to spend time with their families and they can with the special law that we have for them. Salaried workers need to, and the law allows that. The boardroom boys need to do that for whatever they need to do when they leave early. But salaried workers and boardroom folks and Government workers are special citizens compared to hourly workers. I think just as God is no respecter of persons, we should not be a respecter of persons that says one category of American workers has the freedom to help their family, and for others it is illegal. I think that ought to cause us all to cringe, and I think the ones that ought to be cringing the most are the ones that have provided it, voted to provide it, even without protections to the public sector who are saying now we cannot provide that to the private sector until we make it so cumbersome it would not work. Madam President, we have a great opportunity to help the families of America help each other. The success of this Nation is not going to be determined by what happens in Washington, DC. The success of this Nation will be determined around the kitchen table in American homes. That is where values are built. That is where we develop the kind of character that really determines the future of a country. We have to do what we can to make the homes as strong as possible, and we cannot have a group of American workers that are--they are a minority of the workers. It is clear the majority already have flexible work arrangements. We cannot have the 59 million American workers say, ``Your home is not important enough. You could not make this decision. You are not bright enough.'' The truth of the matter is they deserve the opportunity to have flexible working arrangements to choose compensatory time off instead of overtime if they want it, and then to change their mind if they want and to ask for the money instead. I think the great opportunity we have is something we can capitalize on next week. I look forward to voting on it at that time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator pointed out that the Federal Government workers have had this full range of options now for almost 20 years. Has the Senator from Georgia had a lot of Federal Government workers streaming into his office to say, ``Please, take us out from under this system, it's a problem to us''?

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is not just Federal employees.

Mr. ASHCROFT. All the corporate presidents, all the salaried workers, and the Government workers have comp or flextime, but the hourly workers, who are a minority of the workers in this country; less than half of the workers, do not have this. The other folks all have it. I thank the Senator for coming to the floor to talk about this.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his contribution to this debate and his insight. In fact, the insight which is most valuable is that families have the capacity intellectually, and ought to have the capacity legally, to make decisions about their own family and not to have Government trying, from 1,000 miles away, to tell you whether or not you should be able to do something or not with your kids or whether or not you should be able to take time off to meet your own personal needs.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to thank, first of all, the Senator from Georgia. I appreciate his work. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that his time be charged against the time under my control from 10:30 to 11 o'clock, and other reservation of time be restored.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative assistant, Annie Billings, be given privilege of the floor today, and during the pendency of the debate on the Family Friendly Workplace Act.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. On behalf of the majority leader, I announce that this morning the Senate will turn to the consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is also hoped that the Senate will be able to return to S. 717, the IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, legislation and complete action on that bill today. As always, all Members will be notified as to when to anticipate any rollcall votes on either of these two matters. In addition, the Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. I remind all Members that the Senate will be in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. I thank my colleagues for their attention.