[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25264-25265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DAYTON. I also wish to comment briefly on the Omnibus 
appropriations measure which is before us and to express my concern 
about one omission which has severe consequences for my home State of 
Minnesota, which is the elimination of the Senate's action to prevent 
Minnesota and other States from having their title I education funding 
cut last year and this year.
  In 2004, Minnesota was 1 of 12 States to suffer a reduction in title 
I funding. Minnesota schools received $12.3 million less in fiscal year 
2004 than we did in 2003. We lost that $12.3 million in funding, even 
though our number of title I-eligible students increased by over 3,600. 
For this fiscal year 2005, Minnesota is only one of two States in the 
Nation to lose title I money, even though the number of our title I-
eligible students will increase again.
  In this conference report, Minnesota will receive $15.3 million less 
than we did 2 years ago for title I education with probably 10,000 more 
poor students.
  The Senate bill corrected the worst of that injustice. It said that 
no State would lose title I funding if their number of poor students 
increased. It didn't give those States any more money, even though that 
is what we should get--more title I money to serve more title I-
eligible students. It only protected us from getting less funding. Now 
even that protection has been removed.
  Presumably, the House conferees would not agree to it. They have all 
of their porkbarrel projects in the bill, all of their unnecessary 
spending, and even their shameful attempt, as has been discussed here 
tonight, to allow their leaders to examine the tax returns of law-
abiding Americans. All that garbage is in the bill, but the funding for 
poor students in Minnesota was taken out of the legislation.
  Our schools in Minnesota are already hard hit by other funding cuts. 
Now they must provide their services to more students with less money.
  So much for compassionate conservatism, so much for No Child Left 
Behind. Those slogans ought to be prosecuted for consumer fraud. They 
don't tell the truth. Even worse, they are betrayals of our Nation's 
children, of our neediest children.
  Once again, this legislative process has impoverished the truly needy 
while it enriches the truly greedy.
  Poor schoolchildren don't have full-time lobbyists to prowl the Halls 
of Congress and serve their interests. Poor schoolchildren can't make 
big campaign contributions to big people who even make bigger 
contributions to their special projects. Poor schoolchildren have to 
depend upon us and on the House.
  The Senate stood up for poor schoolchildren in Minnesota this year. 
The House Republicans let them down in the $388 billion spending bill, 
a foot and a half of paper. In all that money, the House Republicans 
cut our funding by $25 million for the poorest kids in Minnesota. And 
then they went home.
  They should come back on Monday and remove the tax inspection 
atrocity from this bill. And when they do, they should also correct the 
terrible injustice they served upon the children of Minnesota.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I first thank my friend from 
Minnesota for his very kind remarks and for the tenacity with which he 
oversees, supports, and advocates for the education of the children of 
his State. I admire his priorities.
  I wish I could say the same thing about another action taken today in 
the House of Representatives. We have a neighbor with which we have had 
long historic and cultural ties. The case could be made that there 
would not be a United States of America today but for the aid of this 
neighbor. And that neighbor is the country of Haiti. Haiti is the 
poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, one of the poorest countries 
in the world. It is a country with a gigantic illiteracy problem, a 
gigantic health problem, a gigantic unemployment problem. We have 
demonstrated the fact that actions in Haiti have an effect on our 
national interests by having invaded Haiti repeatedly during the 20th 
and now into the 21st century.
  Our typical invasion has been to deal with whatever was defined as 
the immediate problem, stay there for a brief period of time, and then 
leave. Soon all the problems that caused our previous involvement 
recurred.
  We invaded Haiti yet again earlier this year. I am concerned we may 
well have to repeat that if we do not take action to deal with two 
fundamental problems. One is security, the second is jobs.
  In terms of security, we left Haiti in June of this year with the 
understanding that the United Nations would provide significant 
security forces. Approximately 6,000 were committed from a variety of 
nations in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere. As of the middle of 
last month, less than half of those 6,000 commitments had been 
fulfilled. That contributes substantially to violence, to threatening 
the stability and continuation of the government. It has encouraged the 
same kind of forces that used to man the Tonton Macoutes and the 
military services of the Duvaliers to seek a hope that they might 
resurrect themselves.
  Second is that the economy of Haiti has continued, as unbelievable as 
it is, to slide further into wretched poverty.
  There was legislation introduced by my good friend, Senator DeWine of 
Ohio--I was pleased to cosponsor it--which would have given to Haiti 
some of the benefits which this Congress has recently provided to the 
poorest nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, to allow Haiti to have some hope 
of building an economy that allows some 75,000 to 100,000 Haitians to 
get a job, generating a sufficient income to support their

[[Page 25265]]

families. That legislation passed this Chamber unanimously. It had the 
total support of the Senate. That legislation went to the House of 
Representatives. Senator DeWine and I and others testified before the 
Ways and Means Committee as to the urgency of action, both the 
humanitarian aspects of this legislation, but, also, frankly, the self-
interests of the United States of America in avoiding another collapse 
of that neighboring country.
  I have been joined now by Senator DeWine. Senator DeWine has given an 
enormous amount of compassionate, aggressive leadership to this issue, 
and we had every expectation that we were on a track to get this 
legislation adopted in the House of Representatives until our first 
disappointment occurred when the leadership of the Ways and Means 
Committee decided to abandon the legislation that had already passed 
unanimously in the Senate and adopt a competing but much diluted bill 
for their effort to provide some assistance to Haiti.
  I cannot speak for Senator DeWine, but I speak for myself, that I was 
disappointed the extent of the legislation that the Senate had passed 
looked as if it was unlikely to be enacted, but at least there would be 
something that the U.S. Congress would have done for the people of 
Haiti and again for our own self-interest. Unfortunately, we have heard 
in the last 36 hours that it looks as if even that thin response will 
not be brought before the House of Representatives during this session 
of Congress.
  I am extremely disappointed at what that says about our real values 
in terms of feeling a kindredship with our neighbors within this 
hemisphere. I am also disappointed at what that says about the Chambers 
of the U.S. Congress. My hope burns eternal, and now that it appears as 
if there is a reasonable expectation that we will return the week of 
December 6 to take final action possibly on the omnibus monstrosity 
that stands before the Senate, and hopefully also on the subject of my 
previous remarks, intelligence reform, I hope we would also place on 
the agenda at that last hour an opportunity for Members of Congress to 
show they were not cold-hearted and without concern for fellow human 
beings, and that this effort, as minimal as it is, would be a symbol of 
our concern and, hopefully, a platform from which more effective and 
extensive U.S. action could be taken.
  Mr. DeWINE. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield.
  Mr. DeWINE. Would my colleague agree--my colleague certainly is an 
expert on Haiti, having traveled there many times--the situation in 
Haiti is certainly not getting any better today; with this trade 
legislation we have talked about, both the House version of the bill 
and the Senate version of the bill would appreciably help the situation 
for the people of Haiti as well as help our foreign policy.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Absolutely. In fact, in addition to all the 
systemic problems I cited, in the last few months Haiti has been hit 
with two dramatic climate-based tragedies. Earlier in the year on the 
east side of the country there were massive floods that resulted in the 
deaths of over 1,000. Then during this hurricane season on the western 
part of Haiti, there were similar floods that cost in excess of 1,000 
lives.
  I would refer my colleagues to a program that appeared just last 
night on the ``NewsHour'' about the circumstances in Gonaives, the 
third largest city in Haiti, which was the epicenter of that hurricane 
that hit just a few weeks ago. And yet today the circumstances are, if 
anything, worse than they were the day after the hurricane passed.
  So I say to the Senator, yes, anything that we could do that would 
help and would show our willingness to help would be very well received 
in Haiti.
  Mr. DeWINE. I wonder if my colleague from Florida would yield for 
another question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. DeWINE. My colleague has studied this issue, I know, extensively. 
I wonder if he would agree that the proposed bill from the Senate, as 
well as the proposed bill the House was considering, while both would 
have a significant impact on the people of Haiti in the future as far 
as actual job creation, it would have, really, minimal impact, if any 
impact, on the United States as far as jobs. In fact, would he agree 
also that some of the experts we have consulted believe these two bills 
would actually help create jobs in the United States?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I say to the Senator, of all the exports that 
come in to Haiti, the vast majority come from the United States of 
America, including most of their food. Therefore, if the purchasing 
power of the Haitian people is even minimally increased, it will make a 
good neighbor and a good consumer of U.S. goods even more capable of 
doing so.
  So I agree with the Senator's economic assessment that the modest 
amount of aid that we are giving, not in the form of aid but rather aid 
through trade, will redound to our economic benefit as well as to our 
sense of national comity with our neighbors in the hemisphere.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague who has been such a 
leader on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________