Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use a couple of minutes of leader time to compliment the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This is a particularly difficult problem for many in the Upper Midwest. We now have more than 500 South Dakotans infected by West Nile and seven people have died. Last week 41 cases were reported in 1 day in our State. That we had only 37 cases last year versus over 500 is a sign of the dramatic increase in the problem we are now experiencing. This is a very serious health issue. Tribal populations, in particular, in South Dakota are concerned about accessing the West Nile funding that is available. This amendment contains a tribal set-aside which will help them to access the funds directly from the CDC. While the problem is particularly acute in South Dakota right now, West Nile virus, as the Senator from Louisiana has pointed out, is a national problem. Over 4,150 cases across the country have now been identified, and nationwide more than 280 people have already died. This situation is a national issue that deserves far more national attention than the CDC has been able to give it so far. That is why the amendment is so critical and that is why I am hopeful that, on a bipartisan basis, we can support it this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am afraid the Senator from Illinois is exactly right. This is a license to import Third World wage standards into the United States--to turn the clock back 65 years. That is exactly what we are doing. We are telling the workers that you are not only not going to get overtime, but this is just the beginning. If they get away with this, where does it end? The Senator is right about unemployment, whether the number is 2.7 million or 3.3 million. There were 93,000 last month alone. The situation is going from bad to worse. We are not only losing jobs, but those who have jobs are losing pay. As the Senator from Illinois said so well, we are importing Third World standards on those wages as a result of these proposed regulations.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just prior to the caucus recess I had the opportunity to talk to Senator Frist about the pending schedule. We both had indicated to each other that it was our expectation we would talk to the caucus about where we are with regard to that schedule. I had indicated it would be my expectation we could complete our work on the Labor, Education appropriations bill prior to September 11; I couldn't guarantee it, but that would be my expectation. What we really wanted was an opportunity to do what Senator Harkin has been calling for since he offered his amendment on the overtime regulation last Friday. We have said if we can get a vote, which is, of course, the right of any Senator to expect if he offers his amendment, if we have that vote, if they cooperate, then certainly we can reciprocate. It is our desire is to reciprocate and cooperate. However, I come to the floor this afternoon simply to reiterate how vitally important this issue is. Eight million people in this country today will be affected by the vote to be taken here. With absolutely no consultation, with no public hearings, with little public debate, last spring the administration promulgated new rules weakening overtime protection for workers. Again, as I said, there was no consultation with us or the millions of workers affected before the most sweeping change in overtime rules was issued. The overtime regulations have changed over the years but, as Senator Harkin has so ably and eloquently pointed out, this is the first time the Department of Labor has used their efforts to update the salary threshold as a back door to take away overtime protection for millions of workers. This is a major constraint being created in the overtime rules. What is remarkable is that overtime pay now accounts for 25 percent of the income of workers who work overtime--25 percent. These rules affect firefighters. It affects policemen. It affects first responders in various ways--emergency medical technicians, licensed practical nurses, pilots, dental hygienists, health technicians, electrical technicians, air traffic controllers. They are all affected, and that is not a complete list. Senator Harkin has noted it was just last Friday we passed S. Res. 210. I will not reread the whole thing, he did such a good job earlier today, but we cite: . . . the more overworked employees feel, the more likely they are to report making mistakes, feel anger and resentment toward employers and coworkers, and look for a new job . . . Whereas 46 percent of salaried workers are parents with children under the age of 18 who live with them at least half-time . . . Whereas nearly one out of every four Americans--over 45 million Americans--provided or arranged care for a family member or friend in the past year . . . With all those ``whereas's''--again, I will not repeat them all--we concluded just last Friday, unanimously, that it is the position of the Senate that we should reduce the conflict between work and family life; that this should be a national priority; that the month of October-- next month--should be designated as ``National Work and Family Month''; and that the President should issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe ``National Work and Family Month'' with appropriate ceremonies and activities. If I had been on the Senate floor, I would have offered an amendment. I would have called for the passage, as well, of the Harkin amendment. How could you possibly proclaim ``National Work and Family Month'' and then tell millions of workers who earn overtime pay that they don't have the right to the protection that the Fair Labor Standards Act has provided them now for over 65 years? The Republicans' actions makes a mockery of this resolution. This is a critical vote. Whether it is today, tomorrow, or it is at some point in the future, we will have a vote on this legislation. We will vote on whether to protect American workers against this incredibly sweeping and irresponsible attack on their right to be compensated for overtime worked in this country today. Nothing could be more important. As far as we are concerned, nothing in this bill is any more important than this amendment. I come to the floor again to express the hope that we can have the vote today and that we can move to complete our work on the bill this week and send the right message, along with the resolution we just passed last Friday, that we do respect the right of all workers and that we respect their right to be paid fairly for the work they do.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from California has articulated it better than I did. I would call it bitter irony as we approach September 11 in recognition of so many first responders who gave their lives--and in some cases because of the injuries inflicted gave their livelihoods--as we pass additional commemoration on September 11 resolutions of praise and gratitude to the first responders, how ironic that there would be an effort to promulgate a regulation that takes away their rights to compensation which they so richly and justly deserve. How ironic. The Senator from California is right. If we are going to pass these commemorations again--and indeed we should--let us make them meaningful. Let us say that we also recognize the contribution you make every day--not just what you contributed on September 11, 2001, but what you are contributing on September 11, 2003, and every single day you come to work. Let us acknowledge that contribution. Let us acknowledge it with a meaningful commitment in pay by overturning this harsh regulation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was struck by the extraordinary statement made by the administration last week in a statement of administration policy. Last week it said we know there is approximately $21 billion in here for education and for those going to college. The NIH funding is about $28 billion. This bill will affect every school district in America. It will affect children under title I and disabled children under IDEA. It will affect afterschool programs, preschool programs, and school lunch. It will affect virtually every aspect of education in America. And the President said he is going to veto this legislation if we overturn the regulation on overtime. What kind of message does that send to America and to those who heard this President say over the course of his time in the White House that education is important to him, and that education is a special priority to him? Apparently, it is not as much of a priority as it is to ensure that we don't pass an amendment protecting workers from losing their earned overtime.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has put his finger on the right word, ``contemptuous.'' There was a contemptuous attitude on the part of this administration with regard to the importance of the minimum wage. With regard to the importance of pension security, how many millions of workers have been adversely affected by the corporate governance scandals over the last couple of years? There is not one peep out of this administration when it comes to pension security. How many millions of workers, especially those first responders, 8 million workers, will be affected by this ban on overtime pay? How many millions of workers are affected each and every day by the health and safety issues they continue to fight--ergonomics and a whole array of other issues, issues we have forced the Senate to consider over the years as we try to make the workplace a safer and healthier place for all workers? On each and every one of these issues and many more, this administration has demonstrated a contemptuous attitude. I say it is the most antiworker administration we have seen, at least in my time in public life.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator's appreciation of the impact of this amendment on nurses is absolutely correct. I commend the Senator, again, for his extraordinary efforts and his leadership over the last couple of weeks. He has made me so proud. Every working person in America owes Senator Harkin a debt of gratitude for his powerful articulation of their cause, as we have addressed this and other issues affecting employees, not just nurses. In answer to his question, absolutely, nurses are affected because nurses often work extraordinarily long hours earning overtime. In fact, there is probably no category of workers today, at least in the health care field, more overworked than our nurses, in large part because of the shortage the Senator has addressed in his question. We have a chronic shortage of nurses in America, especially in rural areas and especially in South Dakota. Far too many nurses in South Dakota would be adversely affected by this regulation. We have to recognize what a blow it would be to them. If 25 percent of their income is derived from overtime, we are taking away one- quarter of their purchasing power in one fell swoop by this regulation. That is why this is such a critical fight for us and why it is so important to make this case on this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. President, that this resolution could have been written by a good employer because the good employers that you and I talk to in Iowa and South Dakota understand and agree with what this resolution recognizes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from Iowa, that is exactly the case. You do not need to be an accountant to realize the dramatic financial consequences this will have on so many working women but especially those who are faced with extraordinary childcare costs today. I am disappointed on that front. I understand we will take up the welfare reform reauthorization tomorrow. I am told the childcare funding increase was cut from $5.5 billion to $1 billion in the markup before the Finance Committee. I am astounded that anyone could, with a straight face, say we want you off of welfare to work but we will cut your access to childcare under this legislation. So not only is the problem for working women reflected in this regulation but in the very legislation we could address as early as tomorrow in the Finance Committee. This legislation cries out for fairness for working women, for those working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. There is no way we can pass the resolution we passed last Friday calling for a recognition of the American worker during the month of October and fail to recognize the importance of repealing this regulation before October even begins.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, the one we adopted last Friday: Whereas the quality of workers' jobs and the supportiveness of their workplaces are key predictors of job productivity, job satisfaction, commitment to employers, and retention. Every good employer in South Dakota understands that. That is as clear and as unambiguous a principle of good management as you will ever find. So is the next one: Whereas there is a clear link between work-family policies and lower absenteeism. So the Chamber of Commerce could write that. If we want to make sure we have low absenteeism, if we want to make sure we have high job productivity, job satisfaction, commitment to employers, and retention, what do you do? You tell those workers in more than just a resolution that their contribution matters, and that if we are going to ask them to work longer than a 40-hour workweek, we are going to compensate them for that. We became one of the most productive nations in the world over the course of the last 70 years. Why? Because we had the most productive workers. Why did we have the most productive workers? Because there were enough businesses who understand those basic principles of good business. That is all we are suggesting. Let's stick to those principles. Our country deserves no less.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his contribution and for his clarity with regard to the impact this will have on the workers who he has again addressed, and women in particular. The irony could not be more evident. As we praise the American workers' productivity, we take away their very right to fair and just compensation. We drive them into schedules that require even longer hours, away from their children, away from their families. We adopt resolutions lauding them--the American worker and the working family-- for the entire month of October. Yet we can't take 15 or 20 minutes on a Tuesday afternoon in September to say that we mean what we say in October--we are going to make sure you get the overtime you deserve when you work over 40 hours. How bitter of an irony is that? Then, perhaps the irony of ironies, as we turn our attention once again to the great tragedy of 2001, in just 2 days, we will come to the floor and we will speak with reverence for those who lost their lives. We will thank those who continue to put their lives on the line. We will express, in as heartfelt a way as I know everyone can, on Thursday, how grateful we are to the first responders, to the policemen and the firemen all across this country--in South Dakota, in Massachusetts, and every place else--and then turn right around and take away their overtime. How, in Heaven's name, can we say to any of them, with any credibility: We care for you. We support you. We are grateful to you. But we just don't want you to pay you the overtime you have earned. Let's not do that. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, ought to rise above that kind of hypocrisy and say: We are not only going to support you next month, we are not only going to support you this Thursday, but we are going to support you every day--by simply supporting the law that has been on the books since 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act. That is what this amendment is about, and that is why it is so important to many of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with what the majority leader has just described as the current understanding. It is not our intention to ask for unanimous consent. That is not necessary. We have a number of amendments under regular order that can now be called up. It is our hope that we could get at least through four of them, perhaps more. It is also our expectation that we will have additional amendments offered tonight with an understanding that those votes will occur in a stacked sequence tomorrow morning, following the vote on the overtime amendment. I believe it is possible for us to finish our work tomorrow if we put in a full day. We have lost a lot of time, unfortunately. But I think we can make up for that lost time tomorrow, with the understanding that Senators have to travel to their States, in many cases. We know of at least eight Senators, those most affected by 9/11, who will want to be in their States on Thursday. I think it is important that we accommodate their understandable need to be in the States they represent. To do that, we really, out of necessity, will have to try to finish tomorrow night. I think we can do that. The managers on both sides have done a very good job of working through the list of amendments we have, and we are prepared to vote on a substantial number of amendments already. If we do that tomorrow, with the assurances given by the majority leader--and there is also one other assurance. It is my understanding from previous conversations that we would be going to another appropriations bill as the next order of business whenever we complete this one. I know there is the outstanding question of when the so-called legislative veto of the FCC rule will occur, but except for that, it is the understanding, I think, on both sides, that we will stay on appropriations bills for the foreseeable future. Mr. President, it would be my hope that we could begin voting soon to accommodate that schedule. I would like to work with the majority leader to complete our work on time tomorrow night. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I understand the regular order, that would be the first amendment. With his cooperation, I see no reason why, at least on our side, we couldn't begin the vote almost immediately.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment regarding the global AIDS fight. I commend Senator Durbin for his brave leadership on this issue. Less than 4 months ago, the President signed into law a bill authorizing his administration to spend $3 billion for the next 5 years on a comprehensive program to combat AIDS. Congress passed this legislation in response to the President's call for action in his State of the Union address. Legislators on both sides of the aisle commended the President for his leadership and vision in recognizing the need to launch a major offensive against the spread of a disease that has already killed 25 million people worldwide, and infected 42 million more. Unfortunately, President Bush's call to action proved to be nothing more than empty rhetoric. Despite Congress's commitment to combating AIDS, President Bush's own budget request has fallen fall short of his promises, seeking under $2 billion, more than $1 billion less than what he is authorized to spend. President Bush argues that the full $3 billion amount cannot be invested effectively in the fight against HIV/AIDS, citing the lack of administrative infrastructure in Africa and other regions plagued by the disease. He says that he does not believe Africa and Asia can absorb so much in the way of resources for the fight against AIDS. I wholeheartedly disagree. I traveled to Africa last summer and visited with health care workers and their patients at Africa clinics in South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, and Kenya. I saw the overwhelming positive impact of voluntary counseling and testing programs on women in Soweto and Nairobi and Kasane. Those who test positive are taught to prevent the virus's spread, and those who test negative are taught to stay virus-free. I saw how Nevirapine can save a child's life when it prevents mother-to-child transmission of the virus. I saw what we in the United States now consider a standard course of anti-retroviral drugs rescue an AIDS-ridden man from the virtual throes of death. My trip to Africa showed me clearly that what Africa needs to fight AIDS is not fewer resources, but more. I believe that the $3 billion Congress has authorized not only can be spent, but is desperately needed. First, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria assures us it can put millions of dollars of additional resources to critical use immediately. Moreover, as the President argued in France earlier this spring, additional investments in the Fund from the United States will pressure our friends in Europe and Asia to contribute their fair share to this fight. Second, additional resources can dramatically expand the remarkable training programs the United States runs through the CDC, NIH, and USAID, particularly in those countries not included in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief covered, so that we can jumpstart our efforts to improve health infrastructure in those countries already struggling with HIV/AIDS--and those, like India, we know soon will be. Third, we ought to vastly expand education programs in schools and universities throughout Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, increase the voluntary counseling and testing centers that have already helped thousands of AIDS-positive men and women, and expand the work of those centers to provide treatment for those who need it. As the Washington Post reported recently about local women overturning that country's tradition of the sexual healer, women armed with information and options will halt the transmissions of this deadly disease. It's easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the problem. Misinformation and misguided traditions exacerbate this crisis and absolutely must be addressed. But there are thousand of public health experts and community leaders across Africa and Asia who understand the problem and are ready to take these concrete steps to save millions of lives--if they only had the resources. We cannot hide from the fact--nor should we want to--that if we make an investment now, we have the opportunity to avoid a tragedy of far greater proportions. For example, since the President's historic announcement in January, new studies have found what we feared may be the case--the epidemic is moving with a vengeance into huge population centers like India, where U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance remains inadequate--and we remain unprepared. Senator Durbin's amendment will restore AIDS funding to the full level authorized in this chamber earlier this year. It says, very simply, that we will fulfill our promise. I commend the Senator for his commitment to seeing the U.S. lead the world in this essential fight, and I encourage my colleagues to cast their votes for saving lives.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to offer an amendment in a moment, and I will ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments, but I would first like to announce we are prepared to go to conference on Energy. I am sure later on today we will ensure that the conferees are announced. I have been working with the distinguished ranking member on Energy, Senator Bingaman. He and Senator Dorgan, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Ron Wyden, and Senator Tim Johnson, along with Senator Baucus from the Finance Committee, will be our conferees on the Energy Committee. I thank Senator Akaka for his willingness to allow Senator Baucus to take his place as a conferee as a result of the decision not to bifurcate conferences but to keep the conference membership together. Senator Baucus will be an official part of the entire conference, and Senator Akaka kindly allowed Senator Baucus the opportunity to represent the Finance Committee as it relates especially to tax issues. I know there was some comment that our Republican colleagues were waiting for us. We were told right before the August recess that they were not ready to go to conference and so we did not anticipate the need to appoint conferees until we were told a couple of days ago that they were now ready. Of course, we are prepared now to do so as well. So there was not any delay on our part. This is something we wanted to do for a long time. Given the fact we were told they were not ready, we did not feel the need to expedite this matter until we returned. On another matter, I know there was a good deal of discussion this morning on an amendment that we will take up next week, but I wanted to speak to the amendment myself and that is the amendment relating to the overtime regulation. Our economy has been hemorrhaging jobs over the last 3 years. We have lost more than 3.2 million private sector jobs since January of 2001, including 2.4 million jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. At the same time, incomes are flat. The only way many Americans can make ends meet is to work overtime. I know there are many Americans, and many South Dakotans, who I talked to over the course of the last couple of weeks, during the month of August, who told me that were it not for overtime they would lose up to a fourth of their income. For millions of working families, overtime pay makes the difference between their ability to pay bills and their fear of greater indebtedness. Health bills, education bills, clothing bills, grocery bills, rent, mortgage, child care, all of that is possible. The reason they work so hard and so long--and I might say that the average workweek has now grown to a larger number of hours than it has been in more than 50 years. This overtime pay reliance is possible because 65 years ago this country made a promise to the workers who drive our economy forward. It was called the Fair Labor Standards Act. It struck a balance between the needs of business and the rights of workers. It actually required employers to pay employees time and a half for every hour of overtime worked, and that now has been the law of the land, as I said, for 65 years. This simple and fair bargain has improved the lives of hard-working Americans all over this country, expanded the job market by providing an incentive to employers to hire more people when business was good. It has been vital to our economy, and I think it has been the essence of prosperity for many families. If the administration now gets its way, all of the practice and commitment we have made to workers for 65 years will be swept away and 8 million Americans will be forced to take a pay cut. This spring, the administration revealed its plans to undo protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and end overtime for 8 million workers. This is an outrage. Overtime is giving families the means to save for a house or a college education. For hundreds of thousands of families, it lifts them out of poverty. This is what the White House wants to abolish. Just yesterday, the White House released its Statement of Administration Policy. It declares that if the Senate acts to protect workers' overtime pay in this bill, the President will veto it. The message comes through loud and clear. For them, abolishing overtime is more important than every other provision in this bill. Let's be clear. This is one of the most egregious and brazen attacks on the American working family in years. The White House proposal would affect workers all over the country and virtually every sector of the economy. As I said, while I was home in South Dakota during the August recess, I heard from all kinds of people who came up to me on the streets, in stores, concerned about these changes and they told me how it would devastate them: nurses and physician assistants caring for our sick, teachers educating our children, criminal investigators keeping our neighborhoods safe, and millions of others. We need these people to do their jobs and to do them well. Frequently, their jobs ask that they work long hours away from their families. Their time is valuable. Their work is critical. They deserve to be paid fairly. We should be taking every possible step to increase job opportunities for working Americans, but changing the FLSA will not only undermine efforts to increase employment but lead to even more lost jobs as employers cut staff and demand increased hours from remaining employees. This is a critical moment for our economy. Workers are struggling. Interest rates are rising. The number of people who are unemployed increases every single day. The answer to our economic problems is not to take still more money out of the pockets of working Americans. We cannot allow workers to be forced to spend more time on the job and have less pay to show for it. Next week we will have an opportunity to vote on the Harkin amendment. I must say for working families all over this country, I do not think there will be a more important amendment this entire Congress. I would hope on a bipartisan basis we would say to this administration that 65 years of progress in treating Americans right and fair ought not be reversed by some regulation in this administration or by anybody else. Let us show on a bipartisan basis that we stand with the workers. We will continue to provide them the overtime pay they deserve. Amendment No. 1568 to Amendment No. 1542

Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and this amendment be considered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Collins who have been partners in this effort. I thank them for their cosponsorship and I appreciate very much their help in addressing this challenge. America's rural schools today educate nearly 40 percent of the children in our country. Many face funding challenges because of limited tax bases, their remote locations, and the large geographical areas they serve. The Rural Education Achievement Program is part of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is designed to help schools in rural communities address these challenges and make sure rural students have access to a high quality education. Unfortunately, this program, like so many others in the new law, is grossly underfunded. The amendment we offer today provides an additional $132 million to fully fund the REAP Program at the authorized level--I emphasize the ``authorized'' level--of $300 million. REAP is the first Federal program dedicated to helping rural schools address the unique challenges they face. It consists of two sections, the Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program and the Rural and Low-Income Schools Program. Small school districts generally receive low levels of funding under formula programs because of their small student populations, which are a very characteristic part of who they are. They also receive fewer competitive grants than their urban and suburban counterparts because they do not have grant writers. The Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program provides supplemental grants to rural schools with 600 or fewer students. It also allows these schools to combine their formula funds into one flexible fund to address their most critical areas of need. In the first full year of funding, more than 4,000 school districts applied to receive funding under the program. Of that group, 3,500 had never received competitive funds from the Department of Education. Over 85 percent of those who applied never received competitive funds in previous years from the Department of Education. The average award in this program was $18,000. While the grants are small, most districts at least doubled the total funding they received from the Federal Government, and are able to use these resources to address many of their very critical needs. The Rural and Low-Income Schools Program is targeted to larger rural districts that have high levels of poverty. These grants flow through State education departments to eligible local districts. The resources are used to enhance teacher recruitment and retention, educational technology acquisition, afterschool enrichment activities, and other areas that pose challenges for low-income rural districts. More than 2,000 districts benefitted from this program in 2002, with an average award in that year of $30,000. Nearly 40 percent of America's schoolchildren attend public schools in rural areas in small towns with populations of under 25,000. Almost 50 percent of the Nation's public schools are located in rural areas in small towns and 41 percent of public school educators teach in rural community schools. Rural schools face formidable challenges in meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind Act because their budgets are particularly limited. I was in Kadoka, South Dakota in early August and a teacher approached me on the street. All he wanted to talk about was the No Child Left Behind Act. All he could say is that, for them, compliance was almost impossible unless they get some help. He pleaded with Congress to recognize the unique problems the No Child Left Behind Act presented to rural schools, especially Kadoka. Per-pupil costs tend to be higher in rural districts. Because classes are smaller, the cost of providing teachers is higher per student. Superintendents in South Dakota are also concerned about the impact of the new teacher qualification requirements. Many teachers in rural schools teach several subjects but may not have degrees in all of those subjects. This, too, was an issue the teacher in Kadoka mentioned to me and expressed grave concern about. He noted it can be very difficult to find a good biology teacher, but in a small school that person often teaches general science and chemistry as well as physics because they have no other choice. Similarly, transportation costs can be significantly higher in rural districts since buses must travel longer distances with fewer students. In spite of these circumstances, rural schools are expected to apply the same academic standards and obtain the same higher results as urban and suburban school systems under the new law. Additional funding for rural school programs is desperately needed to help these schools address their unique challenges so they, too, can improve student proficiency. My State has a particularly large number of rural school districts. More than two-thirds of our districts have fewer than 600 students. Administrators tell me they do not have the staff to deal with the paperwork needed to complete Federal grants. For example, when I notified our schools that the Early Reading First Program was seeking proposals, Jack Broome, the superintendent from Burke, SD, responded that while he thought his students might benefit he was unable to assign anyone to fill out the preapplication which was more than 100 pages long. He serves fewer than 250 children. Of those, 15 to 20 students need additional help with reading. REAP, however, is much easier to apply for and those funds are helping to fill that gap. Although 2002 is the first year schools could participate in this program, 135 out of 177 school districts in South Dakota are currently participating just a year later. Nearly 40,000 children benefit in my State alone. School administrators tell me how much they appreciate and need this help. Doug Voss is the superintendent in Centerville, SD, an agricultural community which educates about 250 students. They receive $17,809 in REAP funds, an increase of more than 10 percent above the amounts they received from other Federal programs. They used their funding to hire a part-time elementary schoolteacher, provide more training for other teachers, and expand their reading incentive program. John LaFave, the superintendent of the Hansen school district, received $16,474. That represented a 10 percent increase in their Federal support. The Hansen school district serves 326 students. They used refunds to hire two teaching assistants to work with their growing population of English language learners. The President's budget has actually proposed that we eliminate funding for the REAP program, for 2 years in a row. He did it last year, but Congress objected. He wanted to do it again this year. The amendment I have offered would ensure that no student in a rural community is left behind as schools work to implement education reform under the No Child Left Behind Act. We simply cannot turn our backs on the needs of these rural communities. They are doing all they can to comply. Their intent is good. They are troubled; they are concerned; they are frustrated by their inability to comply because they don't have the resources. Our amendment is very simple. It just says we are going to provide the funding authorized under the law by title VI of the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001. That is all it does. These funds will be spent to enhance key areas outlined by the law, including teacher recruitment and retention, professional development, education technology, parental involvement, school safety, drug use prevention--all in an effort to enhance the academic achievement among rural students as we are demanding they do under the law. This program is going to help many school districts, not only in my State but I daresay in every single State in the country. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I hope we could see overwhelming bipartisan support as we take it to a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say, first, I think the distinguished chairman, as always, does a fine job in working with the allocation with which he is presented. That is not only his choice, I know in many respects he has fought hard for greater allocations so we can address many of these issues. So my argument is not with him. He is making the most out of a very difficult situation. Having said that, let me just say a couple of other things. We have used the same mechanism in an offset for this amendment that our colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, used in offering his amendment to increase the subcommittee's allocation for fiscal 2004. So I join with Senator Stevens in using what apparently is an appropriate and acceptable mechanism for the offset. So we have the offset. But I would make one other point. Again, I say this with all deference to the chairman of the committee. I don't remember how he voted on the budget. I didn't vote for the budget. I didn't vote for these allocations. I didn't vote for the priorities that that budget presents--$3 trillion of tax cuts over the course of the next 10 years. We are going to be asked--I am told this morning by the White House-- to find another $70 billion for Iraq. I am not sure yet what my vote will be. I want to hear the justification from the administration. I would like to ask them what their offset is. I would like to know how much money we are spending in rural Iraq for education compared to what we are spending in rural South Dakota. If we can find $70 billion for Iraq over the course of the next few months, I think we can find a few million dollars to fund the authorized amount of education funding for rural America so that we can go back and tell them they have the resources and now we want them to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. I don't know what answer I give to a school superintendent in South Dakota when he says, You tell me I don't have the resources, and then you--Daschle--go and vote for $70 billion for Iraq. Explain that to me. I don't have an answer. Again, that is not the chairman's problem. But that is a problem I have. That is a problem of priorities that I think this administration is yet to explain. So I don't buy the administration's argument that we just do not have the funds for education when we have all these funds and there is apparently more where that came from when we need it for Iraq. Again, I compliment the chairman for the work he does in meeting many of the needs we have. He has a tough job. But on this issue, I think we can find the funds if we have the desire.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I congratulate our friend and colleague, Frank Lautenberg, on reaching a historic milestone: With the last vote, Senator Lautenberg became only the fourth New Jersey Senator in history to cast 6,500 votes in the Senate. Not bad for a freshman. That incredible accomplishment is a reflection of Senator Lautenberg's deep commitment to his State, to his Nation, and to this Senate. One of the many reasons we are grateful he decided to end his retirement and return to the Senate is, over one 3-year period, covering the second session of the 101st Congress and both sessions of the 102nd Congress, Senator Lautenberg did not miss one vote. Out of 876 cast, he did not miss 1 single vote. The following year, he missed only 1 of 394 votes cast. He is what we all know to be a workhorse. I am not sure if we should call him New Jersey's senior Senator or New Jersey's junior Senator, but there is no doubt he is a remarkable Senator. I congratulate him again on this milestone. I look forward to seeing him cast many more votes in this Chamber. Congratulations. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for a couple of minutes to respond.