THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole Nation.

[Page: H4974]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes them who deserve child support for their children.

   In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator PAUL WELLSTONE in my district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact that they cannot get mental health services for their children because of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of their frustration, because of the lack of services .

   The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be determined.

   I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal.

   Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want each person in this Nation to have justice.

   I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It is a good amendment.

   Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation . I stood here in the same spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility.

   Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington should take on that responsibility.

   This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal role the Legal Service Corporation provides.

   In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much higher than reality.

   This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction.

   Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation .

   My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the program has not been authorized since the 1980s.

   We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that representation. But here is a program that the track record has not been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington.

   Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

[Time: 16:00]

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation . If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor.

   Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million.

   Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two-thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence.

   Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance.

   One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation.

   Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services . In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time.

   I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation .

   I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services , and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me.

   Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation . They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have.

   Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off?

   I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get

[Page: H4975]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens.

   Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity.

   The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity.

   I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines.

   The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys.

   So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society.

   To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots.

   Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities.

   Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill.

   Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year.

   The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate.

   We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding.

   So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day.

   Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way.

   Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented.

   I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people.

   Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less.

[Time: 16:15]

   So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment.

   As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request.

[Page: H4976]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system.

   Legal Services Corporation -funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children.

   The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud.

   I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents