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
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 -- (House of Representatives - June 22, 2000)

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
It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system.

   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.

   When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court.

   A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care.

   As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together.

   Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services , that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services . Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services . So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future.

   But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later.

   So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country.

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

   Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world.

   However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation . This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million.

   What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available.

   Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests.

   Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans.

   So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment.

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

   (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services .

   Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation , we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services , only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts.

   There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income 

[Page: H4977]  GPO's PDF
people to receive basic Legal Services . The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular.

   But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society.

   In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services . We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now.

   Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services . I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd.

   Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too.

   We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation.

   This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law.

   I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

   Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves--the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended.

   As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation .

   Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget.

   Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency.

   Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack.

   Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services , that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted.

   Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation.

   I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least.

   As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises.

   Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. SERRANO).

   The amendment was agreed to.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   COUNTERTERRORISM FUND

    For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.

   Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to stand here with the support of others to support this amendment.

   It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave women who step forward.

   In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children across this country, and we must continue this success.

   We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women. 

[Page: H4978]  GPO's PDF
While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. 

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