John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, last Friday, we had the privilege of beginning our discussion of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. During that debate, the Senator from Massachusetts asked an important question of the sponsors of S. 4. He put the question this way: Who's side are you on? I want to answer that question very clearly: We are on the side of the workers of this great nation. We are on the side of giving American workers the capacity to be better fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. We are on the side of providing a framework so workers can adequately balance the competing demands of work and family. We are on the side of giving the 59.2 million private sector hourly workers the ability to work flexible work schedules that already are enjoyed by the 66 million American workers who enjoy flexible working arrangements. Who's for flextime? I think it is an important question that has been asked. A Penn and Schoen survey reports that 75 percent of the public supports the choice of comptime; 64 percent of the public prefers time off to more pay, given the choice. They want to have the choice to take time off instead of receiving more pay. Federal workers now have the same flextime arrangements that are offered in this legislation; 74 percent say that it boosts their morale; 72 percent have more time with their families. It is time to provide this same benefit we provide in Government to people in the private sector. Working Woman and Working Mother magazines both endorse this particular proposal of flextime, because they believe that it is essential that we have more capacity to accommodate the competing demands of flexible working arrangements and our families. We are on the side of working women who have said that flexibility is what they need to meet the competing demands of work and family. We are for women who, in the Department of Labor's working women count report to the President stated that, ``The No. 1 issue women want to bring to the attention of the President is the difficulty of balancing work and family obligations.'' As I mentioned, Working Mother magazine says it supports this legislation. Working Woman magazine also supports this legislation--in its approval of this bill--the editors said that we should give women what they want and not what Congress thinks they need. Why should we want to give flexible work arrangements to these workers? What does it mean for their families? What does it mean for their lives? The workers enjoying the benefits can tell you. The executives in the boardroom can tell you how important it is to be able to accommodate their family needs through flexible scheduling. The salaried workers of America--supervisors, managers, stockbrokers, bankers, and lawyers can tell you how flexible working arrangements give them opportunities to leave work early when needed to watch their child play in a ball game or go talk to a parent-teacher conference, or take care of personal business that cannot be done on the weekend. Of course, Federal workers, and many State and local government workers, who have comptime can tell you what the benefit of being able to go home to be with their sick child instead of worrying about that child. Congress recognized the benefit of flexible work arrangements and passed the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act almost 20 years ago. This act allowed Federal Government employees to enjoy flexible work schedules, which still are illegal for the rest of America's private sector hourly workers. That disparity between what we have provided as an opportunity for Federal workers and which we make illegal for people in the private sector is a disparity which the people of America are uncomfortable with, and they expect us to change. The Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act allows hourly workers to work an extra hour one week in order to work 1 hour less the following week, something that is illegal now. It allows Federal Government employees paid by the hour to work on biweekly schedules, at their option. This allows a worker to work 5 days one week, 4 days the next, and have every other Friday off. When surveyed about the program among the workers who have it in the Federal Government, it is interesting that Federal workers, on a 10-to- 1 basis--actually, better than 10-to-1 basis--stated they like the program and they wanted it to continue. No wonder. Today, almost 20 years after giving this benefit to workers in the Federal Government, it is still illegal for private sector employers to cooperate with their employees in the same respect. As far back as 1945, the Congress of the United States recognized that some times, when employees work overtime, they would rather have some extra time off rather than the money. Congress recognized that no matter how much money you get for overtime, you cannot replace the time you need with your family, so they amended the Federal Employees Pay Act to allow Federal Government employees the choice between being compensated for overtime work and being able to take time off with pay. In 1985, Congress gave the same choice to State and local government employees, in terms of comp-time opportunities. These workers can take time off with pay at a later date, instead of being paid cash for time- and-a-half overtime. Congress acknowledged that sometimes time is more valuable than money and that Congress is not in a place to make that decision for every worker. However, right now Congress is making that decision for private sector hourly workers. Congress is making that decision because there is no option, under the law, for employees to choose to take time off later over monetary compensation. Now, the squeeze on people for time has never been more dramatic than it is at this time. Yet some Members of Congress continue to fight giving the same option of flexible scheduling to private sector employees that we have given to Federal government employees. They fight giving compensatory time off options to private sector workers even though they supported such measures for State and local government employees just 12 short years ago. The Family Friendly Workplace Act would give all hourly workers this same opportunity to make such choices. Now, President Clinton recognized the benefits of flexible work schedules himself when he directed the use of flexible work arrangements for executive branch employees. On July 11, 1994, he said: Broad use of flexible working arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism. It sounds like the President was endorsing the concept. I agree with his statement. I urge him to be on the side of the rest of the workers, not just the Government workers of America. I urge him to join us in saying that all hourly paid workers in America should have this opportunity to cooperate with their employers to work for comptime off instead of paid overtime when they prefer comptime off. It is important to note that this legislation would impose taking time off on no one, and anyone, even if they made a choice to take time off, could later convert that to paid time merely by saying so. The bill provides that second choice. I think it is important for us to say whose side are we on. I think we are on the side of the private sector, hourly workers in this country. Everyone agrees that flexible work arrangements have been good for Federal employees, for salaried workers, for State and local workers in terms of comptime provisions. Every study that has ever been done on the subject concludes that these arrangements are beneficial to workers. So why is that group of hard-working Americans, the laborers of this Nation who work on an hourly basis--the store clerks, the mechanics, the factory workers, the clerical workers, baggage handlers, gas station attendants--why are they denied the opportunities for this benefit? Could it be that the Congress has the arrogance to decide that no worker could make such a choice for himself, that these workers are incapable? I believe that is outrageous. We should no longer say, ``You cannot make this decision, we must make it for you.'' We should say to these workers, you have the same capacity and right to cooperate with your employer to make decisions about time off and about flexible working arrangements and about scheduling as do the Federal workers and workers at State and local governmental entities. That is whose side we are on. Everyone in the culture, other than hourly workers, now has a real shot at flexible working arrangements and compensatory time. The boardroom has it. When the boss goes to play golf on Friday afternoons, he knows of the value of flextime. It is high time, if the boss is capable of doing that, he should at least be able to cooperate with employees who need to spend time with their family to provide such opportunities for hourly workers, as well. So I ask the opponents of this legislation, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of working women who sit at their desk worrying about a sick child because they cannot afford to take time off from work without pay, while their salaried coworkers leave for their sons' soccer games? Are you on the side of working men who pack their lunch every day and go to work only to go home to look at pictures of their child's award assembly, pictures which show that the business executives were proudly at the side of their children while his child accepts the award? Are you on the side of Christine Kordendorfer who wanted the option of occasionally taking her overtime compensation in the form of time off rather than pay to care for her growing family and take care of her health in the last stages of her pregnancy? Are you on the side of Arlyce Robinson who came in to testify that she wants to take some time off as a result of flextime, so she can participate in her four grandchildren's extracurricular activities? Or are you on the side of the special interests? Are you on the side of the organizations designed to represent the interests of America's workers, who just this Sunday began running ads opposed to this legislation? Let me just say I was stunned when those organizations, which purport to be helping American workers, began running television ads against this legislation. The television ads were replete with misrepresentation. Here is the text of the ad: ``Big business is moving to gut a law protecting our right to overtime pay. If they win, employers could pay workers with time off instead of money.'' That is simply false, that the employer would have a unilateral right. As a matter of fact, it takes a request by the employee in order for that to happen. They say that the choice will be up to employers. They say that there are no real safeguards to keep employers from pressuring workers to accept time off or to telling them when to take the time off. The fact of the matter is the bill itself contains safeguards that are substantial. The bill provides that there can be no coercion, either direct coercion or indirect coercion. I will read from the bill, line 14 on page 15: ``An employer that provides compensatory time off under paragraph 2 to an employee shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee for the purpose of,'' and then it goes on, ``including interfering with the rights of the employee to use accrued compensatory time off in accordance with this law, or requiring, threatening or coercing them in terms of requiring the employee to use compensatory time off.'' When you go to the definition provided in the law about intimidation and coercion, either direct or indirect, you find out that relates to conferring a benefit or denying a benefit. Now the Senator from Massachusetts has repeatedly said employers would be free to offer benefits like overtime work and extra pay, which he categorizes as a benefit to those who would choose one form or another of compensation. The bill itself unmistakably challenges the charges levied in the AFL-CIO spots against this matter. This ad says, ``You could work up to 40 additional hours in a week before qualifying for overtime.'' Up to 40 additional hours in a week before qualifying for overtime, suggesting that an employer could make an employee work an 80-hour week. That is a total falsehood. To do that, to say that, knowing this bill does not provide that, is to lie. It is important for us to know that the real provisions of this bill outlaw specifically direct and indirect coercion. They outlaw intimidation. They outlaw the promise of a benefit, or the conference of a benefit to an individual to shape or to otherwise distort the decisionmaking that is voluntary, and it is supposed to be voluntary and guaranteed to be voluntary under this bill. I think it is shameful that the AFL-CIO would seek to impair the ability of hourly workers in this country to have the benefit. It is the same kind of flexibility that workers at the salaried level, at the boardroom, at the management level, at the supervisory level, have long had. It is sad--twisted, that these ads began running on Mother's Day. Frankly, the best Mother's Day present we could have given to the United States of America would have been flexible working arrangements that would have made possible mothers spending more time with their families, fathers spending more time with their families, fathers and mothers spending more time with each other and their children. On the day set aside to recognize the valuable contributions that mothers make in our society, the labor lobby was beginning a campaign opposing this bill rather than embracing a change that would enhance the lives of mothers across this great land. Rather than supporting public policy to make workers' lives easier, the labor lobby found out that the Members on the other side of the aisle recognize how important it is to give American workers these options. The labor lobby realized that Congress is going to work together to ensure America's families a brighter future, so the labor lobby interests in Washington took money, paid out of the pockets of hard-working Americans--it is from the very workers who would benefit from these scheduling options--yet they are spending the worker's money on ads opposing this legislation. These ads are a lie. These ads were strategically targeted to those Members on the other side of the aisle who have expressed an interest in working with us on this issue. When I first introduced this legislation back in 1995, the labor lobby ran similar ads in my State. However, the ads backfired as their lies were exposed. As concerned constituents called my office, they found out the truth about the legislation. Many of them told me not to listen to the voice of the opposition coming from the labor lobby. They told me that, as workers, they were interested in this kind of flexibility. They told me that these scheduling options would enhance their lives. They recognized the fact that the labor lobby should be leading this fight, leading the charge to help get workers more scheduling options. In fact, these constituents resented the fact that the labor lobby in Washington had abandoned their traditional promoting of workers' interests. Knowing that some of this body's strongest opponents of this bill supported these flexible scheduling options for Federal Government workers makes me wonder whose side they are on. Knowing that just 12 years ago these same opponents not only supported comptime options for State and local government employees, but cosponsored the legislation, I wonder whose drum they are marching to now. Is it the drumbeat of the American worker who needs to have the opportunity for flexible scheduling? Or is it the cadence that is being called by the labor union leaders in Washington? I wonder whose side they are on when there are much greater protections in this bill than the bills they have supported in the past. This bill is replete with protections for workers that are not included in the bill that is providing the same framework of options for Federal employees. Under the legislation giving State and local government workers comptime options, cosponsored by the opponents, comptime can be made a condition of employment. It can't be a condition of employment here. There is no protection of a worker against coercion. Under this legislation coercion or even attempted coercion would be a violation of the law. We have rules against coercion and intimidation. State and local government agencies can force the employee to use their comptime when it is convenient for the agency, even though that practice has been successfully challenged in some courts. That is the provision they allowed in the bill they passed for State and local governments. We have protections against that happening in this bill. Last but not least, in the bill that they sponsored and passed for State and local government authorities, there were absolutely no cash- out provisions for the workers. The bill that is before us allows a worker who has said, ``I will take my time in comptime,'' any time prior to taking the time off with pay, later on, can say, ``No, I would like the money, the time and a half overtime. I will be working to gain additional hours later.'' So the worker has a choice in the first instance to say, yes, I would like to have some comptime or not and work time and a half--that is the worker's choice. It can't be imposed on him, by the terms of the legislation, with a stiff penalty. A second choice is an option of the worker. At any time prior to taking the time off, the worker can say, ``I changed my mind. I would like to have the money.'' That is not an option under legislation cosponsored by opponents of this bill. That is not a protection that was included by those who sponsored the measure for State and local governments. They didn't have that protection there. We have it here. Further, there is another protection. At the end of every year, these hours have to be cashed out if they are not taken in this bill. Were those protections in the items sponsored by those who oppose this bill for State and local workers? Not on your life. They are demanding a much higher standard here because they are marching to the beat of a different drum. I submit to you that it is important to know whose side we are on in this legislation. I say it is time that we be on the side of American workers and their families. For a long enough time we have been on the side of those individuals whose effort is made in Government. For the last 20 years, we have had these kinds of flexible arrangements. Federal Government workers enjoy using them at a 10-to-1 rate. They say these schedules improve their morale and give workers more time to spend with their families. Last week, they interviewed working mothers in the United States of America, and 81 percent of them said flexible working arrangements would be very important. Yes, that is whose side are we on? Now, those who oppose this call this a ``paycheck reduction act.'' I don't know how they can call this the paycheck reduction act with a straight face, because there answer it to create more unpaid leave. They say we should not do this, we should expand family and medical leave. Family and medical leave is nothing more than the right to take time off without pay. Here we have a flexible working arrangement proposal which would give people the right to take time off with pay. I think the American people want to have time off with pay. So who's side are we on? Let's go to the statistics from the Family and Medical Leave Commission report. The Family and Medical Leave Commission report says what happens when people take time off without pay--which is really the way you reduce your paycheck, by taking time off without pay. Here is what happens: Twenty-eight percent of all the people who took time off had to make ends meet by borrowing money. This is from the report of the Commission on Family and Medical Leave. Senator Dodd chaired this Commission. The Commission reported that 28.1 percent had to borrow money; 10.4 percent of the people who took time off under family and medical leave went on welfare in order to accommodate the reduction in pay; 41.9 percent said they had to put off paying bills. The opponents of this legislation are just offering more additional leave without pay, so that another 40, 41, or 42 percent of the people have to go without paying their bills, or another 10.5 percent will have to go on welfare, or close to 30 percent will have to go out and borrow money. Whose side are we on? How can you call this the paycheck reduction act, which would provide individuals the opportunity to take time off without taking the pay cut? They could use comptime or take time off by using flextime. It just is beyond me to think that we would reject this opportunity for Americans to spend time with their families. It is beyond me that we would reject this opportunity to give Americans time to accommodate their needs outside the workplace by taking comptime off or using flextime and still get paid for it only to have the other side allege that this is a paycheck reduction act. I cannot believe that after calling this bill the paycheck reduction act, that they can claim the real solution to this problem is to put more people in the position where, according to the Family and Medical Leave Commission, 28.1 percent of them had to borrow money, 10.4 percent had to go on welfare, and 41.9 percent had to say to creditors, ``I am not going to be able to pay you.'' This isn't what Americans want. No wonder 75 out of 100 people in this culture say we really want more flexible working arrangements. Now, I just add that nothing in this measure impairs the ability of anyone to take time off under family and medical leave. That time is still available. This doesn't abolish family and medical leave. Every single hour of family and medical leave that exists--if a person prefers to take time off with a pay cut, they will be able to use that and there will be times when they may have to. This is a different set of options. This bill doesn't say we will no longer have family and medical leave. It is not incompatible with it. It doesn't outlaw it. People will be able to, if they need or want to, say, ``Because I meet the conditions of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I am going to take time off.'' That is appropriate. We want workers to have that choice and to add to workers another range of choices. It doesn't in any way impair their ability to choose time off under family and medical leave. That is still there. This is merely a way to say to them, if you don't find that comfortable, if you are tired of having to go on welfare and put off bills or borrow money in order to take time off under family and medical leave--you might want to try another way of doing it. Instead of being paid time and a half sometime when you have overtime to work, you would put it in a comp time bank, so later on, when you needed time off to be with a sick child or to go get your car license renewed and stand in that silly line at the department of motor vehicles during working hours when you normally can't do that, you could do it and you don't have to take a pay cut. The truth of the matter is, this is not the paycheck reduction act at all. This is the way to take time off with pay. The American people believe, I think, a lot of things and, given the amount of misinformation, I guess that is expected. But they will not believe that compensatory time off is taking a pay cut. If you earn time and a half as a result of working some overtime and you are going to take time off the next week and still get paid for it, that means you get time off without a pay cut, not that you get time off with a pay cut. So I think it is important for us to understand that. The Senator from Massachusetts thinks that there are tremendous opportunities for abuse, in the event we would average the work week over 80 hours instead of 40 hours and only at the option of the worker--only with the approval of the worker. He talks about the potential abuse of an employer choosing one person as opposed to another person for overtime. Yet, he lauds the current system. I guess his point is that if they want somebody to work overtime on Monday, they can say, ``Who will work it tonight and take a couple hours off on Friday afternoon?'' He thinks that is OK as long as it is done within 1 week. But over a 2-week period it is somehow a great threat. Employers would be abusive in a 2-week stretch, but not in a 40-hour stretch. Get serious. The truth of the matter is that we ought to understand that, where there are abuses, we ought to have strict, tough enforcement, and I think we can agree on that. We have doubled the penalty for abuses under this law. But to make it illegal for an individual to take an hour off on Friday and make it up the next Monday is inappropriate and should be changed. For the life of me, I can't believe that we should persist in that respect. We have seen how this works. We have watched it work in State and local government and in the Federal Government. We haven't been overrun by a series of complaints. We certainly haven't been inundated by a demand to change the bill. It has been in place for 19 years now and is working very well. You would think if this is the kind of thing that was abusive, we would at least have some people talking about it. I should emphasize, and I want to make very clear to those who would be watching, that nothing in this law mandates any worker to take time off instead of being paid time and a half for overtime. Everything in this law provides penalties for an employer who would coerce a worker into doing so. Nothing in this law provides any mandate that a worker would have to build up a bank of flextime hours. A lot of workers might like to do that. In the event they needed time off, they would not have to take a pay cut in order to get it. Flexible working arrangements are enjoyed by the managers, by those in the boardroom, by supervisors, Presidents, CEO's, and corporate treasurers. As a matter of fact, 66 million workers have flexible working arrangements. Only 59 million hourly paid individuals don't. It is time for us to accord to these individuals the same option of working together with their employers so they can accommodate the needs of their families and work at their jobs. It should be unnecessary to take a pay cut to be a good mom or dad in America. Flexible working arrangements would make it possible for people to meet the needs of their families without taking a pay cut. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Father Thomas J. Duggan as he celebrates 50 years as a priest. I want to commend him for the outstanding service he provides to the Catholic Church in the central Missouri area. This historic occasion commemorates Father Duggan's labor both now and in days past. His 50 years of dedication have served many important missions: From caring for young World War II victims in the Manchester- Liverpool area of England to serving, since 1960, the diocese of Jefferson City. The high standards he has been able to maintain are a tribute to his faithfulness. As our Nation looks increasingly for moral guidance in this period of moral decay, his example provides a standard for others to follow. I wish Father Duggan a memorable celebration as he renews his commitment to the redemptive mission of Christ. May God bless his ministry with many more years of celebrations.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Harold and Helen Barlow of Raytown, MO, who on May 17, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Barlows' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I join with other Senators today in calling for the immediate release of Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng. Wei Jingsheng exemplifies China's best aspirations for democracy, and his imprisonment exemplifies the worst of the Communist cadre that stands in the way of freedom for a nation of over one billion people. Wei's imprisonment is only one story in the broader tragedy of brutal political repression that has silenced all voices of dissent in China. In a world that is increasingly open to the benefits of freedom and the potential of free markets, the great hope is that the growth of capitalism in China will undermine Beijing's tyranny. The growth of free markets alone, however, will never replace individual acts of courage and conviction by people who defy China's Communist leadership. People willing to spend their lives for the freedom of their countrymen are mankind's true heroes. Mr. President, Wei Jingsheng was first imprisoned in 1979 after criticizing the Government's suppression of the Democracy Wall movement in China. Since that time, he has spent all but 6 months of the last 18 years in prison. Inside China's prison system, Wei has been a constant target for harassment and reeducation by China's prison guards. Wei has fought the daily battle to maintain his integrity, the strength of his principles, and the conviction of his beliefs. After 14 years in prison, Wei was released in 1993 and promptly began condemning the Government's horrific record of political repression. He was imprisoned again for his courage and remains in a Chinese prison today suffering from a life-threatening heart condition. Wei's love for his country is most clearly seen in the personal sacrifice associated with his forthright and constant stand against political tyranny. The Clinton administration could learn a lesson from Mr. Wei. In the long run, honesty is the best policy, and a forthright discussion of the atrocities being committed by Beijing will do more for a stable United States-China relationship than repeated acts of appeasement. True constructive engagement means that China is required to honor the trading agreements it signs, to avoid proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and to respect international norms for human rights. We in America need to realize what Wei recognized long ago--that the forces of justice and liberty are at work in the Chinese people just as they have been at work with such stunning effect in other nations around the world. In the battle between liberty and tyranny in China, I am placing my wager on the side of freedom. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Democracy is not a fragile flower. Still, it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.'' Mr. President, we must ask ourselves if we are taking those actions to cultivate the flower of liberty in China. Has our commitment to human rights and civil liberties been constant? Have we defended international norms against weapons proliferation that the free people of the world have embraced for their mutual protection? One need only look at the record of political repression in China and China's arming of Iran to see that the Clinton administration is failing to press our concern for international human rights and protect our own long-term national security interests. American foreign policy needs to return to its most enduring and noble aspect: our willingness as a nation to sacrifice in order to help other peoples achieve the individual liberties we enjoy. When the Chinese people eventually rid themselves of tyrannical leadership and establish a democracy--and they will just as the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Taiwanese have done before them--I hope they will be able to say that America stood by them in their darkest hours. For the Chinese people, the torch lit in Tiananmen Square is flickering. The American people want to stand by the Chinese. The Clinton administration has been less clear. The administration can stand up for America and the Chinese people by insisting that Wei Jingsheng be released.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor the children of Morris and Ida Miller, who will celebrate together 200 years of marriage: Son--Dennis and Marcella Miller, married June 7, 1946; Daughter--Eileen and Bill Keehr, married April 8, 1947; Daughter--Melda and Merwin Miller, married July 3, 1947; Son--Loren and Miriam Miller of Bois D'Arc, Missouri, married September 1, 1947. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. These families' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

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, it is a delight to be able to come here on the day following Mother's Day to talk about the very best present for Mother's Day that the U.S. Senate could possibly give to the families of America. I am talking about the need for families to be able to spend time together, and that need is reflected in the fact that families are composed differently than they used to be, that instead of having just one family member earning the living for the family, many family members work. As we have an increase in the number of family members that are in the work force, it becomes more and more important for us to have the capacity for those family members to adjust and arrange their schedules in ways that allow for the right kind of time that parents can spend with their children. This is extremely important, because I think all of us know that the success of America depends far more on America's families and what happens there than depends on America's Government. The job of Government is to make it possible for families to do the job of families. And when people in families can do their jobs well, the jobs of those of us in Government will be much easier. Who among us really does not think that the crime problem is in many respects a family problem? Who among us does not really understand that the welfare problem is really in many respects a family problem? Who among us does not understand that if we would really have and maximize and increase and enhance the capacity of families to work together as families that we would not elevate substantially the way in which we live in the United States? That is why the Family Friendly Workplace Act, Senate bill 4, S. 4, is on the top of our agenda. That is why it is one of our priority measures. That is why we debated the bill substantially in the last several weeks. That is why on Friday we spent time talking about S. 4. And that is why S. 4 will be the topic of our debate tomorrow morning when we return to the bill. It is an understanding that we need strong families and that the workplace competes with the home place. We need to make sure that the laws of this country do not keep people from spending the kind of high- quality time they need to spend with each other and their children. It is a really big problem for families, now that two breadwinners are in the average family. But think of how much more important flexible working arrangements are when there is only one adult in the family? To be able to trade an hour on Friday afternoon or work an extra hour on Friday so you can take an hour off on Monday to see your child get an award at the school or to watch your daughter play in a soccer game or your son play in a football game in the afternoon during working times normally is a tremendous asset if we could just give people that kind of flexibility. And, you know, so many more of our children's activities are now in the afternoons. Arlyce Robinson, one of the individuals who testified before our committee, said she had four grandchildren and many of their activities are now scheduled, in the Washington, DC, area, in the afternoon because it is much safer to have activities during daylight hours. She cannot see them. She wants to see them. She wants to support them. She wants to reinforce their positive behavior. She needs to be able to have the flexible working arrangements to do it. The family has changed. This chart shows just how things have almost totally flipped. Back in 1938, when we developed our labor laws--1938-- only 2 out of every dozen--only 2 out of 12--women with school-aged children were working outside the home. Now only three such women are inside the home. So that instead of having two outside the home, we have nine outside the home. So we have had a real change. This has been a sea change. And the stresses that have come to families have really been substantial. Let us take a look at how times have changed. Only 2 out of 12 women worked outside the home with school-aged children; today, 9 out of 12 women with school-aged children work outside the home. Families are stressed. A recent poll taken in the week before Mother's Day: 91 percent of the mothers said flexible working arrangements would be very important to them. They understand, basically, on a close to 10-to-1 ratio, how important it would be. Interestingly enough, Federal workers have flextime. Federal workers, the ratio of their response to a study conducted about flextime in the Federal Government, at a 10-to-1 rate, they said this is a good thing. Federal workers have had this since 1978. As a matter of fact, it is the hourly workers of America that do not have this. The guys in the walnut boardroom, you know, the guys who take time off to play golf on Friday afternoon, they have flexible working arrangements, believe me. They do not get their pay docked every time they need to do something or want to do something. Neither does the president, the CEO, the treasurer or the manager or the supervisor. They are salaried employees, and all salaried employees have flexibility in this country. Of course, all of the Government workers, even the Government workers for the Federal Government who work by the hour, they have flextime and flexible working arrangements. State government workers all have comptime, as was granted to them by the U.S. Congress, the ability to say instead of taking overtime pay, when we want to, we should have the option to take some time off. We have left the hard-working, laboring people of the United States as a group of second-class citizens who do not have the capacity for flextime and comptime. They ought to have it. They are in a minority. They are the only ones left. And, frankly, it is not fair, because they have the responsibilities of being at home. Their families are stressed, just like other families are stressed. Federal workers already have it. It is time that the stressed families of hourly paid workers have it as well. We enacted laws making it illegal to add an hour to one week in return for taking an hour off the next week in 1938. The Fair Labor Standards Act was a great step forward for protecting workers. However, that protection now has become a real hindrance. As a matter of fact, it has been more difficult in recent times for families to meet their own needs. They are endorsing the idea of flexibility in work schedules in overwhelming numbers. Now, there are some things that we do in order to give people the ability to accommodate their families. We have, for most hourly workers, this ability to take what is called family and medical leave. That came from the Family and Medical Leave Act, referred to as FMLA. It is the ability to take time off for a sick child, but you have to do that without pay, so that when you take time off you have a pay cut. Now, most people find that to be very discomforting. They are working and taking time away from their families because they need the money to support their families. They have a lot of tension financially which drives them into the work force. That elevates the tension socially. And yet in order to accommodate this social tension, when your family has a need, the current law says you have to take a pay cut. That means you help resolve one tension but you increase another tension. It is like jumping out of the proverbial frying pan into the fire. What flextime, what the Family Friendly Workplace Act would do, basically it would say if you worked a few extra hours from time to time that you and your employer agreed on, you could put those in a bank, in an account of hours, so that if you needed to take time off you would not have to have your paycheck cut for taking time off. If your child gets sick, you can say, ``OK, I have an hour in the savings bank,'' and instead of being stressed financially by helping your child, you can take the time off without taking a pay cut. I think when we have an opportunity to do that, we ought to make that available. Someone might say, well, that is pretty risky, tampering with the laws of the 1930's. The truth of the matter is we would not impose this on anyone. We would give people this opportunity to ask for this and to choose this. Second, if you put the hours in the bank and later decided you wanted the money under the law, you could ask for the money and the employer would have to give you the money. Third, Federal employees have had this for the last 19 years. We know how this system works. It works extremely well to meet the needs of families. When interviewed by the General Accounting Office--which is not a political arm of Government; it is a bunch of accountants--they said, ``How do you like this?'' At a rate of better than 10 to 1, the Federal employees said, ``This is great, the best thing since sliced bread. This works.'' It is something that the boardroom folks have, the boss has, the managers have it, the supervisors have, all the Government workers in Federal Government have, all the State workers have comptime provisions in their legal framework, but it is against the law to give hourly working people that kind of benefit. That is a law that, really, is against the hourly working people, not for them. We need to make sure we have the right safeguards in the law to make sure employers do not abuse that. We have done that. We have doubled the penalties for normal overtime violations so that if there are coercive activities--either direct or indirect--as specified in the bill, then serious penalties are occasioned. I believe this bill, which we will be back discussing and debating, will be the official agenda of the Senate. We will be on the bill tomorrow morning. It is a bill in favor of the American people. It is a bill that is in favor of the 59 million hourly wage people in the country. We have about 130 million employees in the country, and a majority of them, the vast majority of them, have the capacity for flextime. It is that hourly wage group that does not. It is time they had the same kind of flexibility. Their families are just as important to the future of America as the families of the boardroom folks are, as the families of the managers, the owners, as families of Government workers. It is time we allowed them to do that. I believe we will provide a bill that the President will want to sign. The President of the United States campaigned on flextime. He understands this need. Mrs. Clinton has spoken clearly on the need for flextime and the importance of having time with children. The President mentioned it in his State of the Union Message, specifically calling for flextime, the ability to have flexible working arrangements and schedules. The President, when he found that there was a narrow niche, a narrow sliver, a small group of Federal employees that did not have it when he took the Office of President, he extended it by Executive order. So there is no question in my mind that he really knows the value, the Clinton family understands the need of other families in this situation. Although the President does know that the only organized opposition, really, the only opposition to this whole proposal, has been through labor leaders of organized labor. I do not say organized labor generally, because so many working people want this. If you talk to the working mothers, it is almost a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of this. I believe we will have an opportunity to send to the President of the United States a bill which he will want to sign. My question is whether or not somehow his sense of indebtedness to the labor leaders in Washington, DC, organized labor leaders, will in some measure inhibit his capacity to sign something that would be good for the American people. I hope it will not. He should understand, and I think he does, there are 28.9 million hourly paid working women in America. They need the relief of flexible working arrangements so they can spend time with their families, as well as accommodate the demand of the workplace. I close with this point. One of the reasons we have prosperity in America, the standard of living we enjoy, is so many women are working and doing such a great job. I do not think there is a culture anywhere in the world that can match the United States in terms of the contribution that working women make to the way we live and the way we want to live, the way we aspire to live. We need these women to be productive and contributors to the marketplace as we are competing against the rest of the world, but while we need them, we owe them, and we owe them the opportunity to spend time with their family. That could be achieved if we had a reasonable approach to directing work arrangements and allowing them to make choices. Never in this bill is there an opportunity for an employer to impose upon a worker the requirement to work in return for time off, instead of working in return for pay. Whenever a person says, ``I would like to work for comptime,'' that means they will be able to take time off and still get pay, and if they decide they want to take time off and still get pay and before they take the time off they change their mind and they want the time-and-a-half pay, they get the time-and-a-half pay. This is a measure that is designed to give workers choice and to give them the opportunity to do what we need for them to do the most, which is to be the kind of parents they ought to be. It is not like the Family and Medical Leave Act, which says when you take time off it is without pay. This is the capacity of Americans to be good parents and not take a pay cut. We should not, as a Government, say to people that in order to be a good parent you have to take a pay cut. We should develop a capacity for flexible working arrangements in this country which allows parents to be what they need to be and what we need them to be, and that is good parents, and to do so in the context of providing for their families. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Madam President. I congratulate the majority leader, Senator Lott, for helping bring this matter to a place where it can be debated and where this reform in the IDEA law can, in fact, be implemented. I want to thank a number of individuals who worked on this: Senator Jeffords, Senator Harkin, a wide variety of others; my colleague from the State of Missouri, Senator Bond has been active in working to make sure we had the right components. I am grateful that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, S. 717, is before us, and that we will have a chance to vote on it. I believe its passage would result in a substantial improvement in the ability to deal with disruptive individuals. The committee chairman was speaking about that just a few moments ago. Last year, I objected to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA, passing into law because I believed there were problems regarding discipline and discipline records of students that needed to be remedied. We worked those out at the close of the session last year in some rather arduous negotiations. This year I continued to work with the IDEA working group to get improvements in this regard that will make it possible for us to have safer school districts, safer school rooms, and safer environments in which students can learn and teachers can teach. Schools need to provide a safe learning environment. Fear is not an emotion that is consistent with a learning environment. We need, regardless of whether a student was disabled or not, to be able to have appropriate disciplinary measures that would enable us to have learning environments which would be effective. One of the problems that really had troubled me about our previous situation and will trouble me until it is corrected by this reform or some other, is the problem that discipline records frequently did not transfer with students from one school to the next. When a student arrives at a new campus without the discipline record, the following results can be disastrous. There is a case in Missouri where those results were fatal. My own interest in this particular area of the law was occasioned by an outrageous incident which I think shocked the conscience of virtually everyone who was aware of it. Two years ago, in my home State of Missouri, a 15-year-old young woman was at her high school. She had gone to the girl's restroom when a student with a learning disability and behavior disorder followed her into the restroom, and that was the beginning of a series of events which eventually led to her losing her life, after other unspeakable things were done. This incident occurred on the disabled student's second day at the school where the incident occurred. He had been transferred from another school in accordance with IDEA procedures, but when this incident occurred the officials at the school where the assault took place say they were not aware of the prior disciplinary history. The chronology of events leading up to this horrific incident are very troubling. In September 1994, the disabled student was enrolled as a ninth grade student at one high school. In October 1994, the disabled student exhibited uncooperative behavior in class. He was the prime suspect of vandalism in the classroom. He was suspected of urinating on objects in the classroom. Later that same month, the 15-year-old student was suspended pending a psychological evaluation by the district psychologist after being found in the girl's restroom. This is obviously not behavior which was unrelated to what eventually happened. You go through a wide variety of other chronological events which finally find the student being transferred to another school, the school at which the death of the young woman occurred, at his hands and in another restroom. But the school officials did not have the information of the previous disciplinary incidents as a part of the transfer. I felt it essential--I felt it would be totally inappropriate for us to allow a so-called reform to go into effect and allow students to precede their disciplinary records. The incident in Missouri demonstrates dramatically that if you precede your record by as much as 2 days it may be long enough for another student to lose his or her life. When the officials at the second school said that they did not know about the disabled student's disciplinary past, they were pointing to a tremendous, gaping hole in the framework for safety that we ought to provide in IDEA legislation. Together with Senator Bond's and Senator Harkin's help, we have been able to address this concern. I want to thank them both and the committee chairman. I am grateful. To me, it seems that this is not the kind of thing that ought to divide us; this is the kind of thing that ought to unite us. Whenever any of the child's records are transmitted to another school, the student's discipline record and the individual education program must be included in the transmission, so that school officials and teachers will know. They will know the past disciplinary records of a disabled student on his first day in the school. They will know in time to take corrective action. They will know in time to do what they can. This will not make all of our schools perfectly safe, but it will elevate our capacity to do what we can do and ought to do by giving us timely information. Moreover, when the school or school district reports a crime to law enforcement or juvenile justice authorities, copies of the student's disciplinary records must be transmitted for consideration to that authority. In those circumstances where the public agency initiates disciplinary procedures against a student, the agency must ensure that the disciplinary records of the child with a disability are transmitted for consideration by the person or persons making the final determination. We have had a disconnect between our schools and our justice system. Frankly, it is time, when serious, dangerous behavior that literally threatens the life and safety of other individuals, we do not have an artificial barrier that keeps the education agencies from talking to the criminal justice agencies or the juvenile justice agencies. This law now provides that school officials may report incidents to proper authorities. Not long ago, in Tennessee, a student with a disability kicked a water pipe in the school lavatory until it burst, resulting in $1,000 worth of water damage. When the school officials filed the petition against the child, a hearing officer ordered the school district to dismiss its juvenile court petition, a decision which was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court faulted the school for not holding a multidisciplinary meeting before initiating a juvenile court petition. I think it is clear that if students commit crimes that are worthy of prosecution, the school should be able to file or cause to be filed a case against the students. The practical effect of the court's ruling is that schools as a matter of law cannot unilaterally refer disabled students to juvenile court for committing acts of violence unless the student consents to such referrals. So prior to filing the case, you would have to get the consent of the parents of the disabled child or a court order. Otherwise, it would not happen. It is important that we say to students: Your disabilities will not be a license for you to violate the law or threaten the health and safety and security of others. This bill moves toward abolishing a double standard for individuals who claim disabilities as a shield for potentially life threatening behavior. Regular education students are subject to a range of disciplinary actions. Disabled students, on the other hand, even those who are violent or seriously disruptive, can stay put at their current educational environment, even if the actions are criminal. This is a double standard, and has been, and it is wrong. While we want to protect disabled students from discrimination, we also have a duty to protect other children from harm. Senate bill 717 now gives greater flexibility to school officials to remove dangerous students from the current school. If the child carries a weapon to school or to a school function or if the child knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs, the bill allows school officials to move the child to an alternative interim setting for the same amount of time that a regular education student would be subject to discipline, but not for more than 45 days. Moving away from this double standard which had existed is a step in the right direction on the part of this bill. A trend developed recently under the bill, the law which we now have--which needs the reform which this bill would provide --that students would not be known as ``disabled'' or even claim disability until after they had committed some serious wrong; and after they had committed some serious wrong, to avoid penalties, they would shout: Well, I'm disabled in one way or another, either that I don't read well or that I have a kind of nervousness or even some kind of other subjective claim of disability. This measure, for which I am grateful, basically provides remedies that are fundamental to improving the environment for learning in the school. It requires that the student's disciplinary records accompany the student's individualized education program when the student transfers to another school, so no student goes to a new school without the officials at the school learning about their prior discipline history, a major achievement. Second, it holds children with violent or other bad behavior to the same disciplinary standards of other students when the behavior is unrelated to their disabilities. You cannot claim you are a slow reader and, as a result of being a slow reader, you have the right to assault another student. That simply will not cut it anymore. Third, it will allow school officials to report crimes committed by disabled students to police and juvenile authorities before meeting with the Individualized Education Program team, a special team that agrees on an education program for disabled students. It seems to me, especially since that committee is composed of individuals like family members of the student and others who would not allow the crime to be reported, that we need to give schools clear authority to make the communication with law enforcement officials when even disabled students have committed what is clearly a criminal activity. I opposed the bill last year because it did not have these safeguards. I want to commend the committee chairman, Senator Jeffords. I want to commend Bill Frist, the Senator from Tennessee, who has worked so hard on this. I want to thank my colleague Senator Bond, and Senator Harkin from our neighboring State of Iowa, for their work in this respect. I believe the bill is a substantial improvement, and when it is enacted, the young people of the United States will be safer. We have not sacrificed the rights of students with disabilities to be educated, but we have enhanced the capacity of students generally to get the kind of education they deserve. I thank the Chair. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased we have had the opportunity to begin the debate on the Family Friendly Workplace Act. The Senator from Massachusetts has referred to this act as a hoax, and indicated that it would not be in the best interest of workers. Frankly, it is troublesome to me to find that kind of disconnect with what is happening to workers, because I have letters from people who are having a tough time making time for their families and making time for their jobs. These workers want us to address this important issue. Particularly, mothers--who are in the work force in increasingly high numbers--need to have flexibility so in order to meet the needs of their families, financially by being in the workplace, and emotionally by being able to spend time with their families. There are a couple--as a matter of fact, there are a whole series of things that the Senator from Massachusetts stated which are substantially inaccuracies as it relates to the bill. The suggestion, for instance there is no employee choice. This bill is predicated upon employee choice. There is no ability of any employer to impose anything on any employee contained in this bill. The provisions of this bill are available only--only and exclusively--when the employee agrees. If the employer so much as suggests that the employee work overtime--the employee would be entitled to overtime compensation at one-and-one-half times the employees regular rate of pay. Any time the employer goes to an employee and asks for additional time beyond the 40-hour week it is automatically overtime. The difference in this bill is that the employee would have the chance to say, ``You know, I would like to take time-and-a-half sometime instead of being paid overtime for this work because I'm having such a tough time spending enough time with my family.'' That is employee choice. The Senator went through a long and rather arduous explanation about how that was not employee choice. The truth of the matter is, if the employee--at any time after the employee has opted for compensatory time--if the employee decides, ``well, I think I want the money instead, the second level of employee choice arises.'' That is, the choice to change his or her mind. Employees are not just endowed with the choice originally to ask for compensatory time. If an agreement has been reached that compensatory time will be allowed, then a second option comes to the employee, the option to say, ``Well, I don't think I really wanted to take the time off after all. Give me the money.'' You still have the money. This suggestion that there are no employee choices in this bill is simply not borne out by the bill itself. For instance, if the employer asks that the extra time be worked, if there is extra time that comes as a result of a request by the employer, or if the request is initiated by the employer, it is automatically overtime. One interesting case that came up really stunned me. During the winter of 1996, the Washington, DC area had a big, heavy snowstorm. A woman named Arlyce Robinson spoke before the Labor and Human Resources and testified that she was called on a Friday morning and told not to come to work due to the heavy snowfall. Therefore, Arlyce, along with all of her coworkers missed 1 day of work and suffered a 20-percent decrease in her salary. She and a couple hundred other people at her plant wanted to have that money. They needed the money--their fuel bills were going up because of the severe winter. They wanted, during the following week, to add 1 hour and 40 minutes a day to their work schedule so they could make up for the Friday missed. The current laws make it illegal for the employer to allow them to work that extra hour and 40 minutes on each of the days the next week in order to make up for the time lost on Friday. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct, these people are the poorest of the people that are working by the hour. They are suffering financial stress. If the employer is willing to let them work additional hours to make that up, what does the law say? The law says it is illegal, we cannot allow that to happen. Our bill would allow the employer to let that happen, allow the employer to say you can make up time or you can make up time in advance. You can bank flexible hours in order to ameliorate these stresses--these stresses that attend the work of the most needy of the workers. The Senator from Massachusetts kept asking the rhetorical question, who are we for? I tell you who we are for; we are for the working people here. Guess who already has flextime? The guys in the boardroom already have flextime. The guys with the paneled offices already have flextime. They never have to worry if they need to take time off to watch their son or daughter get an award at the high school. When Arlyce Robinson came to talk to us about this bill, she said she needed to have time off during the day occasionally to attend those responsibilities of her four grandchildren. She said, ``More and more, the extracurricular activities are in the daytime because it is safer for people to go to extracurricular activities in the daytime, safer for the kids if they are scheduled in the day,'' and she wanted to see one of her grandchildren play in sports or do other things. The guys in the boardroom with the walnut-paneled walls can take the time off. The supervisors paid on salary can take the time off. The folks who work for the Federal Government have flextime already. We have flextime for far more people than those who do not. There are about 79 million people in this country who are eligible for flextime while the people at the bottom end of the ladder--people who need to be able to spend time with their kids--who are trying to make ends meet, families where both parents have to be in the work force in order to have enough money to make ends meet. This group who does not have access to flexible work arrangments includes a large number of the most stressed people in this culture--the single parents who must spend the time working, they are the ones who desperately need flexible schedules. Whose side are we on? I tell you whose side we are on. We are not on the side of the guys who already have it. Sure, we are glad that Federal workers have flextime. If you interview the Federal workers, they tell you how well it works. Federal workers interviewed by the General Accounting Office--this is not a polling firm going out to get one result or another. The chairman of the committee, who has been so good in pushing this bill forward, knows the General Accounting Office is a governmental agency that just wants to get to the facts and the truth. They interviewed the hourly workers at the Federal Government who have basically the same components of this plan. What do they say? Mr. President, by a 10-to-1 ratio they say, ``This is great. We like this. We want this.'' That is whose side we are on. The Senator from Massachusetts suggests that the 40-hour work week is abolished. I do not know how you can read this bill and come to the conclusion that the 40-hour week is abolished. Everything in this bill is voluntary. Anyone who does not want to agree--and it takes the agreement of both the employer and the employee--cannot be forced to working such schedules. The single most popular program for Federal workers, the 2.9 million Federal workers in the country that enjoy this provision, is the ability to take a weekday off every other week so every other Friday or every other Monday is off. That means if they need to take a child to a doctor or schedule things, if they want to go fishing, hunting, or take a day of vacation with their children, it is something they can do. It is something they can do on their own without taking a pay cut. This does not empower employers to demand it. It empowers workers, if they can cooperate with their employers, to get it. No employer can mandate any provision in this bill. It is that simple. If the employer is not cooperating to give people time off the way they would otherwise want the time off, what is the choice of the worker? The worker can immediately say, ``Give me the money.'' This bill allows the worker to cash in any of the banked benefits or compensatory time benefits at any time. In case someone is worried--we do not want anything that would not protect the worker. We have gone to great lengths, we have doubled the penalties for abuses under the bill. We have said that at any time the employee wants the money instead of the time, they can automatically call for it. We have said that at the end of the year if the time has not been taken, give them the money. In every respect, any time this is not working, the current law prevails, the money is paid at regular overtime rates, individuals fall back to the normal 40-hour week. This is a voluntary measure. Some strange suggestion was made that because this was not exactly like family and medical leave, it did not have merit. I would like to ask those who would make that argument, like the Senator from Massachusetts, whether he believe that this abolishes family and medical leave? Every benefit that is available to people under family and medical leave will continue to be available to them. After this is enacted, after this is signed by the President, people will still have family and medical leave, so that all of the obligations available to them under that setting and in that situation still will be available to them. This is simply an additional way for people to accommodate the needs of their families. I do not think we would be getting the kind of letters we are; I do not think we would have Working Women's magazine, Working Mother magazine say, ``Get this done.'' I do not think newspapers like the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune would be endorsing this proposal. I do not think we would have people asking us to do something if family and medical leave were all that people wanted. This bill does not repeal or adjust or otherwise diminish family and medical leave. It simply says there are flexibilities that workers need in addition to that. There are differences between this and family and medical leave, and one of those differences is something that hard working Americans will really appreciate. The biggest single difference between this measure and family and medical leave is that family and medical leave has people taking time off without pay. I think most people would rather try to plan their schedules and develop the capacity to make up for things in advance so they did not have to take a pay cut every time they wanted to take some time off. I think that the people of the United States of America really want to be good moms and dads without taking a pay cut, because in a very strange way, whenever you take the pay cut, you impair your ability to be the kind of parent you want to be. Most people have both spouses working so they can meet the financial needs of their families. If meeting the needs of your family for time means you have less capacity to meet the need of your family for finances, it creates undue stress. This is a stress reduction matter. I am surprised that the Senator would indicate that somehow this competes with family and medical leave. This adds to the options of American workers. Sure, they are different. There are different standards for this iteration or that iteration. The primary difference is that this does not require you to take a pay cut to take time off. Family and medical leave simply requires you to take a pay cut to take time off. It is appropriate we will be getting this bill to the floor. We will have the full range of debate on it. It is important we be engaged on this matter. I think it is important we understand that workers need something more than what we already have. Workers are feeling this tension. I look at today's Washington Times, and it contains an article that said ``Moms of Today Don't Think They Are Doing As Good As Our Own Moms, Poll Says.'' I think we all sense the stresses of modern day life. It recounts a study that says a substantial number of moms today just feel that ``We really have a lot of juggling to do and unfortunately * * * our children suffer because of what we have to do * * * to maintain a living.'' ``We are doing a worse job than our mothers did.'' Well, I think mothers are doing a valiant job, but people are feeling the pressure. The study also found more than half the mothers who worked full time were burdened with time pressures and trying to balance motherhood with other aspects of their lives. ``Some of the pressures cited by mothers include trying to be in three places at once, making sure they get everything done without being stressed out and having enough time for themselves.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article from the Washington Times regarding mothers be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. This sensitivity is not just felt in polls. It is felt in the lives of real individuals. With this Mother's Day weekend in view, I will take you through the life of a mother who came to testify on this bill. Her job was incredible. People talk about overtime work. As far as I am concerned, there is not a mother in the United States of America who does not work overtime. I have observed only two mothers very closely, my own mother, and my wife, who is the mother of our three kids, and working overtime is an understatement. I am sure the chairman would agree. It is work all the time. I think it is important to provide some flexibility. Let me give a little schedule out of the life of Christine Korzendorfer, an executive assistant in a TRW's northern Virginia office, is one of the individuals who came to talk about the need for flexible working arrangements. This is Christine's picture here. She gets up at 5:30 in the morning and gets herself together by showering and dressing. About 6:30, she gets up her 2-year-old son, Ryan, to give him breakfast, yogurt and bananas. Those were the days, I remember them, and I am sure the Senator from Vermont remembers them. It is one thing to coax a child to eat, but if the child decides he is not going to eat, it can ruin your whole day. You better be well protected or poorly dressed. You are at the child's mercy if he decides not to eat. At 6:30 you put the yogurt and bananas together, feed the toddler, and you may have to bathe the toddler. I know Christine says she bathes the kid before he goes to bed at night, but sometimes a 2-year-old has to be bathed again in the morning. Then the 14-year-old in the household wakes up. So then from 7 to 7:15--after getting up at 5:30, a 6:30 feeding, getting up the 2-year-old and helping the 14-year-old get things together. At 7 or 7:15 in the morning, strap Ryan into the baby seat of the van and drive to the day care center. Of course, you have to leave your 14-year-old, at that point, with the right instructions and asking for the personal discipline on her part to get ready to go to junior high. Christine gets to the day care center and has to partly undress the kid she just dressed a short time ago. He is anxious about leaving his mom. Christine has to start distracting him, showing him something or another that might capture his attention, quiet him as much as possible before kissing him goodbye and sneaking out. And sometimes the sneak doesn't work. We have all been there, where the child clings. We have all had the scratches on the back of our necks or on our faces from a child who simply doesn't want to be left. Then, from 7:15 from 8 a.m. Christine drives to work. At work, she immediately is thrust into the day, sifting through, organizing. For Christine, an easy workday is from 8 to 4. She loves her job. Her coworkers really are another family to her. She works hard to keep them doing what they need to do, and she works hard to keep from being burned out. She eats lunch on the job, with ordered-in food from a fast-food chain. At 3:30, her daughter, Jennifer, the 14-year-old, gets home from school before Christine even leaves work. So she tries to get a call from her daughter. She would like to be home, but she cannot be, so she is sort of making up. The stress is there, but she is at least checking by phone. On the easy day, she drives home between 4 and 5 o'clock, picks up Ryan, straps him back into the seat. Sometimes--very often--she has to work overtime, but when she doesn't, she arrives home at 5 o'clock. Everybody wants a snack right off the bat. They are too impatient to wait for dinner. The snacks come first and then the dinner begins. Her husband plays with Ryan in the yard; dinner is at 6. Then Ryan wants to go back outside and play while mom is cleaning up the kitchen. Christine bathes Ryan, maybe, for a second time during the day, and everybody tries to go to bed in time to get up again at 5:30 in the morning. All the errands are run on the weekends, which really makes it tough because, in that setting, the time we would normally have for repose, relaxation, and recovery is spent grocery shopping, clothes shopping, running around. The one thing that interrupts the schedule is when the junior high student needs the assistance of a parent with homework, and it often means that a couple extra hours are injected. According to Christine, her daughter Jennifer had to have oral surgery a couple of weeks ago. Christine had to take unpaid leave on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday afternoon to take care of Jennifer at home. And because Christine has a lot of overtime--we have said that her short days are the 8 to 4 days--and she would very much like to have been able to spend comptime or flextime for those 3 days. However, since those options are not available, Christine had to take a 3-day pay cut for her to be the kind of mother she wants to be. This is one very conscientious woman. I might add that Christine and her husband now are expecting their third child. So this pressure is not likely to be abated. During her testimony before the Labor and Human Resources Committee's Employment and Training Subcommittee hearing, Christine asked the members to hurry up and pass the legislation so she could bank some comptime to use at the end of her current pregnancy. Mr. President, if we hurry, we might just make it. The point I want to make is that, as we approach this Sunday when we honor mothers who don't work just overtime, they work all the time, we have a responsibility to do what we can to give them at least the category of flexibility that the majority of workers in our culture enjoy. The boardroom enjoys flextime options; the managers enjoy flextime--the ones not paid by the hour, and most of them are not-- Government workers enjoy flextime and comptime, and, frankly, it is time for the working mothers of America to enjoy a comptime option. Harvard economist Juliet Schor has chronicled the crazy schedules that Americans are put through in a 1992 book called ``The Overworked American.'' She found that between 1969 and 1987, men worked an average of 98 more hours per year at the end of the period than they did at the beginning of the period. Here is the staggering statistic: during that same period--between 1969 and 1987--the average woman worked 305 more hours at the end of the period per year than she did at the beginning of the year. Not only are we working more, but the demands that we have for our families are not less; they may be more. There are more threatening influences on our families, I believe, in today's culture than there have been in the past. The need for direct parental involvement is something I believe the Senator from Massachusetts and I can agree to. I think kids do respond to direct parental involvement. He cited the fact that children actually recover faster from illness when there is more time with parents. I can agree to that. We need to provide a way for parents to do that, and we should not ask them to take a pay cut in order to be able to spend more time with their children, whether it is recovering from an illness or whether it is something else. Again, 305 additional hours, on the average, women at work in 1987 than there was in 1969. Working mothers are stressed. Millions of moms wake up at 6, or earlier, in the morning to hustle their kids out of bed, make breakfast and lunch before sending the kids to the bus or dropping them off at day care. After the hectic morning hours, they show up for work ready to meet the demands of the day. We enjoy a great standard of living, a high level of productivity in the United States of America. There are lots of reasons for it, but one of the primary reasons we have the standard of living we do is that women work in the marriage. When the Fair Labor Standards Act went into effect in the 1930's, only one out of six mothers of school-aged children was in the work force. But today, about 75 percent--or 9 out of 12--of the mothers of school-aged children are in the work force. There is a benefit to the culture in that. We have a high standard of living. As a nation, we are competitive and productive. To think that somehow we can ignore the needs of the people who are the source of that productivity and competitive standing is just to have our heads in the stand. After 8 or 9 hours of work, women pick up the kids from some practice, or a babysitter, and go home to make dinner, sometimes with the assistance of the family, sometimes not. Often, each person in the family has a different shift, and that makes the schedule even more hectic. But there is a real challenge here. I think it is very important. The study indicates that, in addition to the 40-plus hours a week a working mom puts in on the job, the average mother adds about 25 to 45 additional hours at home. That is not just overtime, that is where we talk about the fact that women are working all the time. You know the problems that can exist often in the middle of a school day: a school nurse calls to announce a child is ill and needs to be picked up. Under today's labor law, a mother who takes Friday afternoon off to take her flu-stricken son home can't make up that time on the following Monday. She must suffer a pay loss for those hours. We want to correct that. She can't go to a ``bank'' of pre-work time and say, I have 3 or 4 hours in reserve so that I won't have to have my pay disrupted; I can go and I don't have to choose between my paycheck and my child. No one wants to do that. No one would choose their paycheck. We don't want to put people under that stress. They could just go to an account that they would have for flexible working arrangements or compensatory time, and employers who understand the value of workers are eager to cooperate with workers to help them meet the needs of their families. The Senator from Massachusetts made a number of remarks that, in my judgment, suggest that employers aren't eager to help employees resolve these difficulties. I think that may have been the case at some time in history. But there are many, many employers who are very eager to help their employees do well with both their families and on the job. As a matter of fact, Working Women magazine features the 100 best companies each year, and companies compete for this. They say, ``You should work for us because we have this kind of willingness to work with you, and we should be partners in an enterprise that isn't just a business enterprise, but the enterprise of helping you be successful.'' Well, I believe that our ability to add to the arsenal of things that can help people meet the needs of their families and the workplace is a tremendous responsibility, and we should take that responsibility seriously and we should address it. To suggest that to have flexible working arrangements means that we can't have or won't have the family and medical leave opportunity is simply wrong. To suggest that if these new arrangements aren't identical to family and medical leave, they are bad, is to ignore the fact that family and medical leave can meet one category of demand, and flexible working arrangements can meet another category of demand. And to ignore the fact that the category of need exists for flexible working arrangements is to ignore the thousands of workers that have contacted us, and to ignore the experience of people in the public sector and salaried workers and people in the boardroom who have been using flexible work approaches for a long time. I am very grateful to the chairman of the Labor Committee, the Senator from Vermont, and to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Ohio, for their excellent work in this respect. I look forward to the debate. This is not a pay reduction bill. I kind of get the idea that those who oppose this bill know that it is not, because this is a way for people to take time off without taking the pay cut. I kind of get the idea that those who oppose this bill feel like a good offense must be their best defense because, frankly, to suggest that this is a pay cut bill is to misrepresent it in terms of the thing that makes it most strong, and that is this is the ability of people to meet the needs of their families, without sacrificing their pay in order to do so. It is with that in mind that I look forward to the debate next week and to the ultimate passage of this measure by the U.S. Senate. It, indeed, would be the very single best Mother's Day gift that this Government could extend to the people of America. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow Senators will speak on the subject of the flex time/comp time bill, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, until the hour of 12:30. However, no rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session of the Senate. On Monday the Senate will consider the IDEA legislation and/or the CFE Treaty. If an agreement can be reached for the consideration of the IDEA bill for Monday, then any votes ordered with respect to that bill would be stacked to occur on Tuesday. As always, all Senators will be notified when any votes are ordered.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 26, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Brownback.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am proud to join with the Senators Domenici and Wyden in introducing the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 to reform the juvenile justice system in order to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. In 1994, juvenile courts handled an estimated 120,200 drug offense cases, a jump of 82 percent from 1991. Violent crime arrests among juveniles in 1995 was 12 percent higher than the level in 1991 and 67 percent above the level in 1986. This year, Mr. President, it seems as though incidents of juvenile violence are occurring every day and everywhere. In Alton, IL, two teens were gunned down--one shot twice in the face and the other shot once in the back of the head when he turned to flee--by a 15-year-old of East St. Louis who had driven 30 miles to carry out the shooting. In Dayton, KY, a 15-year-old killed her 5-month-old son. She was given the maximum sentence--30 days of detention. In Montgomery County, MD, a 14-year-old girl along with three adults were arrested for two bank robberies in Silver Spring. In Boston, MA, three schoolgirls--two 14-year-olds and one 15-year- old--were charged with putting knives to the throat or stomach of classmates and stealing their gold jewelry and lunch money. As these incidents demonstrate, the perpetrators of violence and their victims are getting younger. Similarly, gang activity is getting worse in our inner cities, suburbs, and rural communities. A 1995 nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies reported a total of 23,388 gangs, and 664,906 gang members in their jurisdiction. In comparison, a 1993 survey showed an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. The need for juvenile justice reform is clear, especially in light of the fact that probation was the sentence handed out for 56 percent of the 1992 juvenile court cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent whether the offense was a felony or misdemeanor in nature. Mr. President, this bill takes substantial steps toward addressing the problems of violent juvenile offenders and the prevalence of youth gangs. The Federal Government would assist State and local efforts in dealing with the epidemic of juvenile crime by helping target the most violent and problematic offenders. Mr. President, the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 would provide $1.5 billion over 5 years in incentive grants to encourage and assist States in reforming their juvenile justice systems. States are encouraged to revise their laws to reflect three much- needed reforms. First, juveniles age 14 or older who commit serious violent crimes--such as murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, or serious drug offenses--should be tried as the adult criminals they are. By making sure that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime, this proposal would deter juveniles who currently believe that the law cannot touch them. Second, the States are encouraged to ensure that records of juveniles under age 15, who are found to be delinquent regarding serious violent crimes and serious drug offenses, are maintained and made available to law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, prosecutors, adult criminal courts, and appropriate school officials. Finally, the States are encouraged to establish graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, ensuring a sanction for every delinquent or criminal act and that the sanctions increase in severity based on the nature of the act. The sanctions should also escalate with each subsequent delinquent or criminal act, and should include mandatory restitution to victims, longer sentences of confinement, or mandatory participation in community service. For States that enact such reforms, additional grant funds would be made available to implement at least 5 of 18 accountability-based practices including: record-keeping for juvenile criminals age 14 or older who commit offenses equivalent to an adult felony; increasing victims' rights concerning information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of their juvenile attackers; mandatory restitution to victims of juvenile crimes; public access to juvenile court proceedings; parental responsibility laws; zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents; implementation of a Serious Habitual Offenders Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]--a comprehensive and cooperative information and case management process for police, prosecutors, schools, probation departments, corrections facilities, and social and community aftercare services; establishment of community-wide partnerships involving county, municipal government, school districts, and others to administrator a unified approach to juvenile delinquency; antitruancy initiatives; alternative schooling for juvenile offenders or juveniles who are expelled or suspended from school for disciplinary reasons; tougher penalties for criminal street gang crimes; and the establishment of penalties for juvenile offenders who use a firearm during a violent crime or a drug felony. The bill would provide $200 million in formula grants, a $130 million increase over the FY1997 level for each fiscal year, FY1998 through FY2002. Under current law, states and localities must comply with several mandates to be eligible for these funds. For example, states must currently ensure that (1) no status offender may be held in secure detention or confinement; (2) juveniles cannot be held in jails and law enforcement lockup in which adults may be detained or confined for any period of time; and (3) complete sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders in secure facilities. These mandates are costly and burdensome on state and local law enforcement efforts. For example, in February of this year, I visited with law enforcement and juvenile justice officials in Kirksville, MO, a rural community in Northeast Missouri, who told me about a problem that is all too common for rural communities. A deputy juvenile officer said that local law enforcement officers were able to apprehend four Missouri 15-year-olds who had brutally murdered a Iowa farm wife in October of 1994, and were even able to secure confessions to the murder. However, the Kirksville police could not detain the murderers because the Federal law prohibits juveniles from being held in jails in which adults may be detained and Kirksville did not have secure detention facilities. As a result, the teens had to be detained in other Missouri facilities. Two of the teen had to be transported to Boone County, MO-- 100 miles from Kirksville--while the other two teens had to be taken to Union, MO, more than 200 miles away. The legislation introduced today would eliminate this absolute jail and lockup prohibition. If enacted, the Kirksvilles of our country would no longer have to bear additional costs in trying to find a completely separate facility in order to detain violent juvenile offenders. A thorough reform of juvenile justice systems must also include participation by our charitable and faith-based organizations. Government needs to rebuild civil society by fostering a partnership with charitable and faith-based organizations to promote civic virtues and individual responsibility. Govenrment needs to look beyond its bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all programs and give assistance to those groups toiling daily in our communities, often publicly unnoticed and virtually unaided by Government. For example, Teen challenge, which is headquartered in Missouri, receives little or no local, State, or Federal government financial assistance. Teen Challenge is a nonprofit, faith-based organization that works with youth, adults and families. Teen challenge has 16 adolescent programs in several states, including Florida, Indiana, and New Mexico. Most of the juveniles in the program has drug or alcohol problems. A large number of the adolescents have been physically or sexually abused. Almost all of them had a major problem with rebelling against authority, according to a 1992 survey of Indianapolis Teen Challenge. Thirteen percent were court-ordered placements. This same study indicated that 70 percent of the graduates were abstaining from illegal drug use. Mr. President, this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to allow states to conduct with, or make grants to, private, charitable and faith-based organizations to provide programs for at-risk and delinquent juveniles. Charitable and faith-based organizations have a proven track record of transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people, by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. Under this bill states would be allowed to enroll these organizations as full-fledged participants in caring for and supporting juveniles who are less fortunate. The bill also proposes reforms to the federal criminal justice system consistent with those it encourages those states to adopt. The legislation strengthens the federal law by requiring the adult prosecution of any juvenile age 14 or older who is alleged to have committed murder, attempted murder, robbery while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon, assault or battery while armed with a dangerous weapon, forcible rape or a serious drug offense. Repeat juvenile offenders would also be subject to transfer to adult court, if they have 2 previous adjudications for offenses that would amount to a felony if committed by an adult. Juvenile criminals found delinquent in U.S. district courts of violent crimes would be fingerprinted and photographed, and then the fingerprints and photograph are sent to the FBI to be made available to the same extent as that of adult felons to law enforcement agencies, school officials, and courts for sentencing purposes. In addition, the bill would clearly express the intent of Congress with regard to special education students who commit criminal acts at school or school-related events. Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Morgan v. Chris L., upheld the ruling of a district court that the Knox County Tennessee Public School violated the procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by in essence filing criminal charges against a student with a disability. IDEA provides grants to states and creates special due process procedures for children with disabilities. In this case, a student diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder kicked a water pipe in the school lavatory until it burst--a crime against property--resulting in about $1,000 water damage. The Knox County School District filed a petition in juvenile court against the child. The disabled student's father filed for a due process hearing under the IDEA to review the filing of the petition in juvenile court by the school. The hearing officer ordered the school district to seek dismissal of its juvenile court petition and that decision by the hearing officer was upheld by the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals concluded that under ``IDEA's procedural safeguards, the school system must adopt its own plan and institute a [multi-disciplinary] team meeting before initiating a juvenile court petition.'' The problem with the circuit court's holding is that the special due process procedures for disabled students take several months, and sometimes a year, to complete. The practical effect of the ruling is that schools, as a matter of law, cannot unilaterally file charges against disabled students unless students' parents consent to such referrals. Schools must keep a student in school--potentially endangering others--and wait until the completion of the due process procedures required by IDEA. In addition to Tennessee, other States--such as Georgia, Ohio, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire--allow individuals, including school officials who witness students committing crimes at school, to file petitions in juvenile courts against the students. School officials should not be required to exhaust the IDEA's significant due process procedures before filing criminal juvenile petitions against students with disabilities. The ramifications of the sixth circuit's ruling have been immediate and troubling for school districts. Citing the ruling of the Chris L holding as authority, a Knox County, TN chancellor recently set aside the juvenile conviction of a high school special education student-- because he is deaf in his right ear--who brought a butterfly knife to school. The chancellor court based its decision on the fact that the school had failed to convene a multidisciplinary team before referring the student with a disability to the juvenile court. The chancellor, when asked about his ruling, reportedly said, ``There's a serious question to whether or not a student under this IDEA program can be charged at all.'' The bill we are introducing today would make it clear to the Tennessee chancellor and other courts that students with disabilities who commit criminal acts on school property are not shielded from immediate referral to juvenile court or law enforcement authorities under IDEA's special due process procedures. We must restore the capacity of schools to create secure environments where all students can learn and achieve their highest potential. Mr. President, this bill would assist State and local governments in increasing public safety by holding juvenile criminals accountable for their serious and violent crimes, by encouraging accountability through the imposition of meaningful sanctions for delinquent acts, and by improving the extent, accuracy, availability, and usefulness of juvenile criminal records and public accessibility to juvenile court proceedings. In short, Mr. President, enactment of the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 would be a significant step in the right direction toward addressing America's juvenile crime problem.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent S. 672 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I understand that S. 672 now is ready to be read for a third time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:15 a.m., on Friday, May 9. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exception: Senator D'Amato for up to 30 minutes from 9:15 to 9:45. I further ask unanimous consent that the time in morning business from 9:45 to 12:30 be equally divide between the majority leader or his designee and the Democratic leader or his designee for opening remarks relating to the flex time/comp time legislation known as the Family Friendly Workplace Act.

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, I am proud to join with the Senators Domenici and Wyden in introducing the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 to reform the juvenile justice system in order to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. In 1994, juvenile courts handled an estimated 120,200 drug offense cases, a jump of 82 percent from 1991. Violent crime arrests among juveniles in 1995 was 12 percent higher than the level in 1991 and 67 percent above the level in 1986. This year, Mr. President, it seems as though incidents of juvenile violence are occurring every day and everywhere. In Alton, IL, two teens were gunned down--one shot twice in the face and the other shot once in the back of the head when he turned to flee--by a 15-year-old of East St. Louis who had driven 30 miles to carry out the shooting. In Dayton, KY, a 15-year-old killed her 5-month-old son. She was given the maximum sentence--30 days of detention. In Montgomery County, MD, a 14-year-old girl along with three adults were arrested for two bank robberies in Silver Spring. In Boston, MA, three schoolgirls--two 14-year-olds and one 15-year- old--were charged with putting knives to the throat or stomach of classmates and stealing their gold jewelry and lunch money. As these incidents demonstrate, the perpetrators of violence and their victims are getting younger. Similarly, gang activity is getting worse in our inner cities, suburbs, and rural communities. A 1995 nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies reported a total of 23,388 gangs, and 664,906 gang members in their jurisdiction. In comparison, a 1993 survey showed an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. The need for juvenile justice reform is clear, especially in light of the fact that probation was the sentence handed out for 56 percent of the 1992 juvenile court cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent whether the offense was a felony or misdemeanor in nature. Mr. President, this bill takes substantial steps toward addressing the problems of violent juvenile offenders and the prevalence of youth gangs. The Federal Government would assist State and local efforts in dealing with the epidemic of juvenile crime by helping target the most violent and problematic offenders. Mr. President, the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 would provide $1.5 billion over 5 years in incentive grants to encourage and assist States in reforming their juvenile justice systems. States are encouraged to revise their laws to reflect three much- needed reforms. First, juveniles age 14 or older who commit serious violent crimes--such as murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, or serious drug offenses--should be tried as the adult criminals they are. By making sure that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime, this proposal would deter juveniles who currently believe that the law cannot touch them. Second, the States are encouraged to ensure that records of juveniles under age 15, who are found to be delinquent regarding serious violent crimes and serious drug offenses, are maintained and made available to law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, prosecutors, adult criminal courts, and appropriate school officials. Finally, the States are encouraged to establish graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, ensuring a sanction for every delinquent or criminal act and that the sanctions increase in severity based on the nature of the act. The sanctions should also escalate with each subsequent delinquent or criminal act, and should include mandatory restitution to victims, longer sentences of confinement, or mandatory participation in community service. For States that enact such reforms, additional grant funds would be made available to implement at least 5 of 18 accountability-based practices including: record-keeping for juvenile criminals age 14 or older who commit offenses equivalent to an adult felony; increasing victims' rights concerning information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of their juvenile attackers; mandatory restitution to victims of juvenile crimes; public access to juvenile court proceedings; parental responsibility laws; zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents; implementation of a Serious Habitual Offenders Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]--a comprehensive and cooperative information and case management process for police, prosecutors, schools, probation departments, corrections facilities, and social and community aftercare services; establishment of community-wide partnerships involving county, municipal government, school districts, and others to administrator a unified approach to juvenile delinquency; antitruancy initiatives; alternative schooling for juvenile offenders or juveniles who are expelled or suspended from school for disciplinary reasons; tougher penalties for criminal street gang crimes; and the establishment of penalties for juvenile offenders who use a firearm during a violent crime or a drug felony. The bill would provide $200 million in formula grants, a $130 million increase over the FY1997 level for each fiscal year, FY1998 through FY2002. Under current law, states and localities must comply with several mandates to be eligible for these funds. For example, states must currently ensure that (1) no status offender may be held in secure detention or confinement; (2) juveniles cannot be held in jails and law enforcement lockup in which adults may be detained or confined for any period of time; and (3) complete sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders in secure facilities. These mandates are costly and burdensome on state and local law enforcement efforts. For example, in February of this year, I visited with law enforcement and juvenile justice officials in Kirksville, MO, a rural community in Northeast Missouri, who told me about a problem that is all too common for rural communities. A deputy juvenile officer said that local law enforcement officers were able to apprehend four Missouri 15-year-olds who had brutally murdered a Iowa farm wife in October of 1994, and were even able to secure confessions to the murder. However, the Kirksville police could not detain the murderers because the Federal law prohibits juveniles from being held in jails in which adults may be detained and Kirksville did not have secure detention facilities. As a result, the teens had to be detained in other Missouri facilities. Two of the teen had to be transported to Boone County, MO-- 100 miles from Kirksville--while the other two teens had to be taken to Union, MO, more than 200 miles away. The legislation introduced today would eliminate this absolute jail and lockup prohibition. If enacted, the Kirksvilles of our country would no longer have to bear additional costs in trying to find a completely separate facility in order to detain violent juvenile offenders. A thorough reform of juvenile justice systems must also include participation by our charitable and faith-based organizations. Government needs to rebuild civil society by fostering a partnership with charitable and faith-based organizations to promote civic virtues and individual responsibility. Govenrment needs to look beyond its bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all programs and give assistance to those groups toiling daily in our communities, often publicly unnoticed and virtually unaided by Government. For example, Teen challenge, which is headquartered in Missouri, receives little or no local, State, or Federal government financial assistance. Teen Challenge is a nonprofit, faith-based organization that works with youth, adults and families. Teen challenge has 16 adolescent programs in several states, including Florida, Indiana, and New Mexico. Most of the juveniles in the program has drug or alcohol problems. A large number of the adolescents have been physically or sexually abused. Almost all of them had a major problem with rebelling against authority, according to a 1992 survey of Indianapolis Teen Challenge. Thirteen percent were court-ordered placements. This same study indicated that 70 percent of the graduates were abstaining from illegal drug use. Mr. President, this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to allow states to conduct with, or make grants to, private, charitable and faith-based organizations to provide programs for at-risk and delinquent juveniles. Charitable and faith-based organizations have a proven track record of transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people, by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. Under this bill states would be allowed to enroll these organizations as full-fledged participants in caring for and supporting juveniles who are less fortunate. The bill also proposes reforms to the federal criminal justice system consistent with those it encourages those states to adopt. The legislation strengthens the federal law by requiring the adult prosecution of any juvenile age 14 or older who is alleged to have committed murder, attempted murder, robbery while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon, assault or battery while armed with a dangerous weapon, forcible rape or a serious drug offense. Repeat juvenile offenders would also be subject to transfer to adult court, if they have 2 previous adjudications for offenses that would amount to a felony if committed by an adult. Juvenile criminals found delinquent in U.S. district courts of violent crimes would be fingerprinted and photographed, and then the fingerprints and photograph are sent to the FBI to be made available to the same extent as that of adult felons to law enforcement agencies, school officials, and courts for sentencing purposes. In addition, the bill would clearly express the intent of Congress with regard to special education students who commit criminal acts at school or school-related events. Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Morgan v. Chris L., upheld the ruling of a district court that the Knox County Tennessee Public School violated the procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by in essence filing criminal charges against a student with a disability. IDEA provides grants to states and creates special due process procedures for children with disabilities. In this case, a student diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder kicked a water pipe in the school lavatory until it burst--a crime against property--resulting in about $1,000 water damage. The Knox County School District filed a petition in juvenile court against the child. The disabled student's father filed for a due process hearing under the IDEA to review the filing of the petition in juvenile court by the school. The hearing officer ordered the school district to seek dismissal of its juvenile court petition and that decision by the hearing officer was upheld by the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals concluded that under ``IDEA's procedural safeguards, the school system must adopt its own plan and institute a [multi-disciplinary] team meeting before initiating a juvenile court petition.'' The problem with the circuit court's holding is that the special due process procedures for disabled students take several months, and sometimes a year, to complete. The practical effect of the ruling is that schools, as a matter of law, cannot unilaterally file charges against disabled students unless students' parents consent to such referrals. Schools must keep a student in school--potentially endangering others--and wait until the completion of the due process procedures required by IDEA. In addition to Tennessee, other States--such as Georgia, Ohio, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire--allow individuals, including school officials who witness students committing crimes at school, to file petitions in juvenile courts against the students. School officials should not be required to exhaust the IDEA's significant due process procedures before filing criminal juvenile petitions against students with disabilities. The ramifications of the sixth circuit's ruling have been immediate and troubling for school districts. Citing the ruling of the Chris L holding as authority, a Knox County, TN chancellor recently set aside the juvenile conviction of a high school special education student-- because he is deaf in his right ear--who brought a butterfly knife to school. The chancellor court based its decision on the fact that the school had failed to convene a multidisciplinary team before referring the student with a disability to the juvenile court. The chancellor, when asked about his ruling, reportedly said, ``There's a serious question to whether or not a student under this IDEA program can be charged at all.'' The bill we are introducing today would make it clear to the Tennessee chancellor and other courts that students with disabilities who commit criminal acts on school property are not shielded from immediate referral to juvenile court or law enforcement authorities under IDEA's special due process procedures. We must restore the capacity of schools to create secure environments where all students can learn and achieve their highest potential. Mr. President, this bill would assist State and local governments in increasing public safety by holding juvenile criminals accountable for their serious and violent crimes, by encouraging accountability through the imposition of meaningful sanctions for delinquent acts, and by improving the extent, accuracy, availability, and usefulness of juvenile criminal records and public accessibility to juvenile court proceedings. In short, Mr. President, enactment of the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997 would be a significant step in the right direction toward addressing America's juvenile crime problem.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, May 1 is a special day in the United States of America. It has been designated and observed as a national day of prayer. Citizens across the country--having recognized that those of us in positions of responsibility need the kind of wisdom to allow us to make good decisions--have today been observing this National Day of Prayer in our behalf. I rise to thank them. Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the crisis that perhaps did more to threaten this country and at the same time, more to unify it than any other crisis in history, continued to have a strong commitment and dedication to the concept of prayer when he called upon the Nation to reserve a time for repentance, for introspection, and for prayer. This Nation has survived great challenges--yet still faces great challenges. I believe that its success in the face of challenge in large measure is due to the fact that people have prayed. A couple thousand years ago, when the Apostle Paul was writing a letter to his friend Timothy, he advised Timothy to say, ``Pray for each other and pray especially for those who are in authority that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all Godliness and honesty.'' I think that was good advice 2,000 years ago, and it is good advice today. I rise today, as we close this day in the U.S. Senate, to say to those Americans who have been a part of this observance, referred to as the ``National Day of Prayer,'' thank you for your prayers and, as a matter of fact, I think all America owes a debt of gratitude to those who have carried the well-being and welfare of this country to God in prayer on a regular basis. It is with that in mind that I believe the National Day of Prayer is a strong symbol that we have prayer all year--on a continuing basis so that we might do things that advance the very cause for which I think God sent his Son to the world--that we might live life and live it more abundantly. That is the true position of Government, that we would create conditions under which people could live and live in greater abundance and greater freedom. So I take this moment to reflect upon those who have cared enough to pray for us and to extend to them my appreciation for what they have done in our behalf. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in moving to consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is an act which would help us accommodate the needs of families by recognizing that there are competing stresses. Most families feel two important stresses in their lives: One, the need to be with their families and to do for their families what their families require; the other is to provide resources, financial resources, for the family. These two stresses have put us in a unique condition, in terms of the way families operate. In the 1930's, when we enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act, it was clear that very few families found both parents as wage earners. As a matter of fact, in the 1930's, only one out of every six women with school-aged children worked outside the home. We have seen these two stresses--the requirement to spend time with our family and the requirement to provide financial resources in order to support our family--drive both parents in many situations into the workplace so there is this tension that exists in the workplace. It is a tension that relates to how we accommodate our families at the same time we provide the financial resources for our families. That being the case, the sponsors of S. 4 sought to find a way that we could say to families: We understand how important it is to you to get the financial resources to support your children. We understand how much you need to spend time with your children. Finally, we want to say to American families that we understand how important it is that you spend time with your children without sacrificing the financial resources that your family needs. The solution--we thought it best to provide a way for people to be able to work flexible work schedules. This is not a way for people to take a pay cut or to lose resources. We already have the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows people to take a pay cut in order to meet a family emergency. But public policy in this country should not require American workers to take a pay cut in order to be a good mom or dad in this country. Most people have the understanding that they want to be able to both meet the financial needs of their family and meet the social needs that are attendant to being a mom or dad. That is what this bill would do. This bill would simply allow flexible work schedules to be arranged, when the employee and the employer agree--when there is agreement on both parties--it cannot be a coerced agreement. The bill provides specifically, that if there is coercion--either direct or indirect coercion--that there are enhanced, heightened, and substantial penalties involved. Therefore, when there is a voluntary agreement between the employer and employee, the employee in overtime situations can opt to take time-and-a-half off instead of getting time-and-a-half pay. And, where there is an employee who does not get overtime work regularly, and that happens to be most of the hourly workers in the country--the vast majority of citizens do not get overtime work. In those settings, where an employee never has an opportunity to earn overtime compensation, there should be an opportunity for people to say to the boss, ``If I work an extra hour this week, calling that flextime, can I take an hour off next week when my son or daughter is going to get an award at the high school and I need to take an extended lunch hour? Can I take some time off next week if I need to go take a group of kids to the soccer game? I will work the hour this week.'' Americans really are not aware that that is against the law for hourly workers right now. For an employer to trade with an employee an hour in 1 week, and say you can make it up in the next week, if the hour in the next week puts the person over 40 hours--it simply is illegal to make that up on an hour-for-hour basis. If you want to take the hour off this week and make it up next week, it is now a responsibility of the employer to make it up at a time-and-a-half basis. So you have to pay time and a half. Most employers cannot afford that, so they do not have that kind of flexible working arrangement. It is pretty clear to me that most Americans would like to have the opportunity to swap an hour, sometimes, one week for an hour the next week. Under this bill, if the employer asked, suggested, or even hinted that he wanted an employee to work over 40 hours in a week, the employee would be entitled to overtime pay. In order to bank hours on an hour-for-hour basis, the employee ``initiate and request'' the ability to work the additional hour. So, there are a number of components of this bill, all of which are designed to relieve the stress of working families, all of which are designed to give Americans more time with their families. These provisions are designed to do it without forcing you to take the time off without pay. The real challenge we have in our culture is to continue to sustain our families financially but also to continue to sustain our families in their abilities to do the kinds of things they need to do together. What is important to note is that, in addition to the overtime provision, which can be compensated at time and a half, there is also the flextime provision of the bill which attends to workers who are not normally able to get overtime work. The Census Bureau collects data on a regular basis. Out of their data they collected in 1996, the data revealed that only 4 percent of working women who work on an hourly basis reported that they get regular overtime pay. It would be fine for those women if they could take that overtime and convert it to time-and-a-half off. But let's be serious. If we were only going to address the stresses and tensions that exist in the families of that 4 percent of the work force, we are not really going to do much to improve the lives of very many people. We need to be able to address this tension and this stress that exists in the work force generally. That is why it is important to offer the flex-time parts of this bill, which allow a person to say, ``I will work an extra hour this week in return if the boss will let me take that hour off next week, or vice versa.'' Those are the kinds of provisions that have been available in the public sector for the last 20 years. In 1978, sponsored by Congresswoman Ferraro, of New York, and Congresswoman Schroeder, of Colorado, we enacted the law in the Federal system which provided for flexibility in employment for Federal workers. The same provisions, which we now are offering before the Senate, ought to be extended to workers around the country in the private sector. What is interesting is that the system has worked so well at the Federal and local level. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office wanted to see what the impact of having these kind of work rules was on governmental performance, on morale of workers. When the General Accounting Office surveyed the workers they found out that workers approved or expressed their appreciation for this kind of working arrangement at a 10-to-1 ratio. So, for every 1 worker here who said, ``I am not enthusiastic about this, I do not really care for it,'' 10 workers said they approved it. Frankly, you cannot get that 10-to-1 ratio of workers to agree that today is Thursday afternoon. That is an overwhelming endorsement. That is a clear statement by workers, the workers themselves--union workers, nonunion workers--that this system works. One of the features that is allowed in the Federal Government system that would be allowed and available in the private sector under this bill would be the ability of workers and their employers, upon the agreement and voluntary--voluntary consent of both parties, to schedule work over a 2-week period to average 40 hours a week. This was extremely popular in the Federal Government, because it allowed people to work 9 days in the 2-week period instead of 10 days in the 2-week period. Working 9 days in the 2-week period really meant that workers had every other Friday off, so they would work 8 days at 9 hours a day for 72 hours and then the ninth day they would work 8 hours. That took them to 80 hours. Then, with that in mind, having worked 80 hours in the 2-week period, 45 hours in the first 5 days and 35 hours in the next 4 days, those 2 weeks together constituted 80 hours. And each second week, Friday would be off. The opportunity is apparent, here, in terms of the ability to spend time with your children; the ability to tend to things that can only be done during business hours. This is one of the reasons, when Federal employees are asked about the program, they endorse it overwhelmingly. It is one of the reasons why unions in the Federal arena insist on these provisions, these capacities, these flexibilities. It is one of the reasons why individuals in the work force ought to really have this opportunity in the private sector. Having worked flawlessly for the last 20 years, increased productivity, built morale, and been endorsed by workers overwhelmingly, it is time for us to say to the work force generally: This is something you should have. Federal workers have it. It is time that ordinary workers in the private sector have it. I should not say ``ordinary'' because I do not want to suggest that the other workers are extraordinary. The point is, salaried workers have had flexibility for a long time. The boardroom has had flexibility for a long time. The guys who run the company never seem to have difficulty in being able to take time off to see their kids get an award, or even to play a game, or a round of golf, or perhaps link up with some of their friends at a predetermined time for a fishing trip or outing, or to even be volunteers, when it is necessary, to help their communities. But the hourly individuals are the ones who have faced that challenge. Of course, the people who have felt the squeeze the most, I think, are the moms who have gone into the work force since the 1930's. There are 28.8 million working women who work by the hour in this country and it is time for us to say to them: You should be entitled to some of the same flexibility that people in the boardroom or at the head of the company or the salaried workers of America have had. It is time for us to say to them you should be entitled to some of the same opportunities to work with your family as the people who work for the Federal Government have had. It is time for us to say to them it would be appropriate for you to have the same capacity to volunteer and to help your children in their athletic activities, or academic activities, or extracurricular activities, as the people who work for State and local governments have had. It is time to give the average worker in the United States of America, that individual who has served, working hard on an hourly basis, these same benefits that have been enjoyed by individuals who have worked on a salaried basis and have worked for the U.S. Government, for State governments, or for local governments. Some individuals have indicated that perhaps it is enough for us to just address the issue of comptime. I would just suggest, because comptime is available only to workers who work overtime regularly, that we ought to think carefully about limiting the flexible working arrangements that we think ought to be available to American workers to those who are normally endowed with the right to work overtime. Overtime is not the prerogative of most American workers. Estimates run as high as a third of the workers get regular overtime. The census clearly indicated only 4 percent of the hourly workers who were women in 1996 said they got regular overtime. What if you would triple that number from 4 percent to, say, 12 percent? You would still only have one woman working by the hour out of eight who received regular overtime. If we are going to provide flexibility to only one out of eight women, it seems to me we have missed the boat; or only two out of eight men, because twice as many men work in jobs that get overtime as women do. If you take the universe of people who get overtime work, it is a 2- to-1 population in favor of men who have worked in the jobs that historically get overtime. I do not think it is appropriate for us to try to limit what we do to individuals who have had the good fortune to find themselves in jobs where they would traditionally get overtime, especially when that means that it would only result in maybe one out of eight women in the work force working by the hour, having the flexible options, having the capacity to have an adjustable schedule the way people do in the boardroom, the way people do in State government, the way people do in the Federal Government. I think it is time for us to say to America generally, ``We understand it's tough to balance the competing demands of the homeplace and the workplace. We understand that when you take time off, you don't want to lose money doing so, because you wouldn't be working in the first place if you could afford to lose money by taking time off.'' We need to say, ``We understand you don't want to take a pay cut to be a good mom or dad.'' We need to say, ``We understand that you want to be a volunteer and you will need to have flexible working arrangements from time to time.'' We want to build a framework that says to them, ``If, indeed, those are your aspirations, here is the way you can accomplish them. At least you and your employer can together agree voluntarily that these kinds of things can be done.'' I emphasize the word ``voluntarily,'' because that is the way the bill would work. If there is coercion, either direct or indirect coercion, the bill provides for elevated, extraordinarily high penalties. It says, ``If you are going to coerce workers, beware, you are going to have a doubling of the penalties you previously had in overtime settings.'' Second, in order to provide a further incentive for employers, who are offering compensatory time off options, to not only allow employees to take the time when they need it but also to not see it as a cost savings, the bill provides that if an employee has chosen a comptime option, if at any time the employee changes their mind, the employee only has to say ``Nope, I've changed my mind. I would like to have the money back instead of the time and a half off.'' So, if someone had originally said, ``I'll take time and a half off,'' thinking that would please the employer in some way, they can reverse that decision. In addition, if he believed he needed to accept the comptime, in lieu of financial compensation, it would be coercion and double current penalties could be assessed. As an ultimate backup to make sure we don't have any abuse of the workers here, we have a situation built right into the structure of the bill so that at the end of the year, all the time and a half that is there as comptime is automatically paid as time and a half and at time- and-a-half rates. So what we have here is a clear voluntary situation. You do not have any incentives for any employer to distort the voluntarism. You have employers who really understand that, if they can help employees be good parents, they are going to be better employees and, together, with a happier employer and happier employee, people are going to be able to meet the needs of their family without taking pay cuts. That it is a win-win situation. That is what we targeted. We built protections into the bill and structurally designed the bill, so that compensatory time can be converted quickly and efficiently. It is automatically converted if it is not used by the end of the year and we have provided elevated penalties in the event that there is a problem with any coercion, direct or indirect. I might add as well, in the event the employer and employee in this measure do not agree to take time off as compensatory time, if there is no agreement on it, we fall back under the 1930's Fair Labor Standards Act. In other words, nothing is done to deprive any worker who wants to live under the terms and conditions of the law as it now exists from working under those conditions. What we really have is an ability of the worker and the employer to choose to be more flexible and, if either one is dissatisfied, that choice is reflected in the continuation of the status quo: The 40-hour week continues to be in existence; the required payment of overtime at time and a half payment instead of time and a half off continues in existence. So the ultimate security for any worker is that the worker can choose to operate in the same framework of legal protection that worker has at this very time. This is an attempt to say to the work force, ``We know that you are stressed. We know that the demands of your house and the demands of your job are competing, and when they collide, if possible, we would like to give you the option of being able to work it out with your employer and to work it out in a framework of protections that are likely to result in your being able to succeed.'' We are doing this, not with some program we have dreamed up, not with some novel, untested, untried set of opportunities. We are doing this with a program that has been in existence now since 1978, almost 20 years, in the Federal Government. We are doing this by proposing for the private sector the kind of flexible working arrangements which have been available in the public sector and which workers in the public sector have endorsed at a 10-to-1 ratio, which workers in the public sector, be they union workers or nonunion workers, are eager to continue, and when contracts are negotiated, there is an insistence that these kinds of provisions continue to be available. I might just add one other thing about the President and his involvement. The President, in his campaign, called for ``flexible work arrangements'' for citizens. He used that very language. He used that language again in his State of the Union Message. He talked about ``flexible working arrangements.'' When the President of the United States, President Clinton, came into office, he noticed that there was a small group of executive branch workers who didn't have the privileges that were accorded to the rest of the Government workers regarding flexible working arrangements and compensatory time. When the President made that observation, he did the right thing. The President said to the rest of the workers, ``I'm going to extend the benefits of these kinds of working relationships by Executive order to you as Federal workers, because these are the kinds of things which will help you do a good job, they will help us get good work, and they will help you resolve the tension between your family and your workplace.'' What was good for the President of the United States in his campaign, what he remarked on favorably in his remarks to the Congress, what he indicated was appropriate by way of Executive order, is good for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.