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
There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income
[Page: H4977] GPO's PDF
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
Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong and brave women.
HELP VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners.
The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go.
HELP CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY
Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find safe haven against violence in the home.
The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take care of our children.
SENIOR CITIZENS
Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems.
Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. DEGETTE
Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DEGETTE:
Page 4, after line 14, insert the following:
site security reporting
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000.
Ms. DEGETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) and the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN), to protect the health and safety of millions of Americans.
[Time: 16:30]
The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the surrounding communities.
Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living near these facilities can be prepared.
In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by the President last year.
In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have occurred on American soil.
Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use extremely dangerous materials.
One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 2002.
Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and criminals.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the funds to carry out this requirement.
In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BLILEY), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman YOUNG) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the RECORD.
Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and secure.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp of
[Page: H4979] GPO's PDF
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