[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14573-S14609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2076) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Biden amendment No. 2815, to restore funding for grants to 
     combat violence against women.
       McCain-Dorgan amendment No. 2816, to ensure competitive 
     bidding for DBS spectrum.
       Kerrey amendment No. 2817, to decrease the amount of 
     funding for Federal Bureau of Investigation construction and 
     increase the amount of funding for the National Information 
     Infrastructure.
       Biden-Bryan amendment No. 2818, to restore funding for 
     residential substance abuse treatment for State prisoners, 
     rural drug enforcement assistance, the Public Safety 
     Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, drug courts, 
     grants or contracts to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to 
     establish Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing, and law 
     enforcement family support programs, to restore the authority 
     of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to strike the 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Block Grant 
     Program, and to restore the option of States to use prison 
     block grant funds for boot camps.
       Domenici amendment No. 2819 (to committee amendment on page 
     26, line 18), to improve provisions relating to 
     appropriations for legal assistance.


                           Amendment No. 2816

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of the McCain amendment No. 2816 on which 
there shall be 60 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I intend to be brief, and I note the presence of the 
Senator from North Dakota here on the floor. I know that he needs at 
least 10 minutes of the 30 minutes for this side.
  I just want to recap the situation as I see this amendment. First of 
all, Mr. President, the choice is clear here what we are talking about. 
The question is whether we will auction this spectrum off, which, 
according to experts, the value is between $300 and $700 million, or it 
will be granted to a very large and very powerful corporation in 
America for considerably less money. Originally it was going to be 
about $5 million and up to $45 million, and now I understand it is 
about $100 million.
  I want to briefly describe the chronology of how we got where we are 
today. I want to repeat before I continue, I have no interest in this 
issue. There is no company in my State. There is no corporation that I 
have engaged in the dialog on this issue. I am simply involved in this 
issue, as is the Senator from North Dakota, because what is at stake 
here is whether the American taxpayers will be deprived of somewhere 
between $300 and $700 million.
  For the record, Mr. President, I point out that on September 16, 
1995, ACC, which was the original holder of the license for this 
spectrum, entered into an agreement with TCI to sell its spectrum to 
TCI for $45 million. The ACC costs at that time were estimated to have 
been $5 million. Such a sale would have meant that ACC would actually 
have profited from warehousing this spectrum for 10 years.
  In August and September of 1995, TCI had a sweetheart deal pending 
before the FCC as follows: TCI would give up some of the allocated DBS 
spectrum and in return receive the ACC at a cost of $5 million, which 
is to pay for costs incurred by ACC. The $5 million would not be paid 
in cash. Instead, it would 

[[Page S 14574]]
be in the form of Primestar stock, which could have a much greater 
value than the original $45 million.
  The spectrum given up by TCI is valued at substantially less value 
than the ACC spectrum. TCI would give up 11 channels at 119 degrees and 
spectrum, allowing DBS service be provided to Latin America, the 
Pacific rim, and China.
  No industry expert believes at this time that those markets will be 
nearly as lucrative as the U.S. market. The week of September 18, 1995, 
TCI proposes it be given the spectrum at 110 degrees west latitude 
orbit and gives up DBS spectrum as noted above, which is sold at public 
auction. Whatever the price such spectrum is sold for is the price TCI 
pays for the 110 degree west longitude orbit spectrum.
  September 25, 1995, it is reported that an alternative plan has been 
developed allowing Primestar access to DBS channels at prices well 
above $45 million. TCI expected to pay for advanced communications for 
channels. Now we hear about a plan where TCI will pay $100 million for 
the channels.
  Mr. President, if TCI says the spectrum is worth $100 million and 
they are prepared to pay $100 million, then let them bid $100 million. 
TCI is proposing they pay $100 million for the spectrum and they will 
give up other spectrum.
  Under this auction plan they could keep their current spectrum and 
win at auction the new spectrum. If all spectrum is equal, it does make 
good business sense for TCI to have as much spectrum as possible. Of 
course it does. TCI knows the value of spectrum and knows what it wants 
to give up is valueless compared to what it wants to receive.
  Why would one company change the amount it is willing to pay from $5 
to $100 million in a matter of months?
  Mr. President, last night--I have not had a chance to talk to my 
friend from Colorado. He proposed a compromise that the amendment 
should read that the auction should be conducted within 60 days, and I 
want to tell my friend from Colorado I am still prepared to accept that 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, there will be much discussion today 
about estimates of money, but very little about who stands to make it. 
Of course we are all interested in supporting actions that will aid the 
National Treasury. However, with regard to this amendment, as the 
Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, the Federal Communications 
Commission can hold auctions for the licenses in question, and as I 
understand it, is already considering a proposal that would raise even 
more money than we are currently considering in this amendment without 
any legislative intervention on our part.
  However, it should be noted in this debate that one of the supporting 
groups will definitely gain from the passage of this amendment. The 
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, the NRTC, which has 
loudly supported this amendment, has very good reason to do so. The 
NRTC has an exclusive contract in many rural areas to market the DBS 
service of General Motors' direct TV. So any delay in introducing 
significant high-power DBS competition will benefit the NRTC's 
exclusive sales deal.
  I do not criticize the NRTC for having such a deal, but I think it is 
important to know as we discuss this amendment and note who is 
supporting it, that the NRTC is far from a disinterested party. In 
fact, the delays that this amendment will create in the ability of any 
major competitor to challenge the dominance of direct TV works directly 
in favor of those such as the NRTC who retain monopoly sales rights in 
rural America.
  This is a far more complex subject than we are even aware. The 
implications of what this amendment would do are unknown. There have 
been no hearings. The expert agency is already considering the issues 
involved. It already has the authority to both do what is right and 
assure maximum benefit for the value of the licenses. It is bad public 
policy for this body to step in and interfere with the adjudicatory 
process of an agency when we don't even know who the parties are in the 
dispute.
  That is why the bipartisan leadership of the Commerce Committee 
opposes this amendment and why my colleagues should also oppose it. The 
modification of this amendment as offered by the Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain], seems to resolve our disagreement and heartily support 
this compromise.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


           Committee Amendment on Page 79, Lines 1 Through 6

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on last evening there was a managers' 
amendment. A mistake in the actual drafting was made. This has been 
cleared on both sides. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the 
committee amendment on page 79, lines 1 through 6, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendment on page 79, lines 1 through 6, was 
withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair and the staff who caught this for us. 
I am glad it is corrected.


                           Amendment No. 2816

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Just one word about the McCain-Dorgan amendment. Once 
again, this, of course, is the Congress injecting itself into the 
functions and responsibilities of the Federal Communications 
Commission. There is no question at this very moment the FCC can 
auction the so-called spectrum that is now in dispute. I emphasize 
``dispute'' because it is a legal case that has been in the courts, 
now, for over a year. It is on appeal.
  There has been a vote, so to speak, informally, at least, by way of 
reports. Lawyers call from both sides of this case. I understand, now, 
the vote is 2 to 2 at the FCC: Two members of the FCC disposed toward 
an auction, two disposed toward what they characterize as the 
recommendation of the staff--the staff that studied this case and 
handled the testimony and otherwise. There is one indecisive member.
  So we come with an amendment, without any hearings, without really 
knowing what we are talking about and doing, and we say we know how to 
grant licenses and everything of that kind, so hereby is the way to do 
it.
  The fact is, this Senator is very anxious, like all Senators, to find 
money. In fact, at this stage of the Congress, it is like tying two 
cats by the tails and throwing them over the clothesline and letting 
them claw each other. No Senator can put up an amendment that he does 
not take away money from some other Senator or some other function.
  So I cosponsored, with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the 
auction process that has already reaped some $9 billion. I went along, 
of course, with another $8.3 billion offset in the telecom bill by way 
of auction.
  So I am very much for auctions, and I am very much for the money 
being reaped by the Government itself. That is what we are here for, to 
look out for all the people.
  Having said that, I see the parties on the floor here, and they have 
been discussing it.
  So I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, under the time agreement, I yield myself 
such time as I may use from the time allocated to Senator McCain and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss this issue 
generally and begin by saying that I join Senator McCain, the Senator 
from Arizona, in offering an amendment. I do not have any special 
interest in this issue. I state, as Senator McCain did, that I do not 
have company headquarters or company interests in North Dakota dealing 
with this issue. I do not have any great concern or interest in who 
ends up with these licenses. That is not my interest. My interest today 
is with the taxpayer. The issue here is an issue of anywhere from $300 
to $700 million. Senator McCain, I think, has well described the 
history. But let me just thumbnail it again. 

[[Page S 14575]]

  Ten years ago, the Federal Communications Commission awarded special 
national licenses for the launching of direct broadcast satellite 
systems in three orbital locations. They are the only three orbital 
locations that are available that will provide DBS services nationally 
across the country. So 10 years ago, they awarded licenses for these 
slots would provide direct broadcast satellite services that would 
reach all across the country. Two of those licensees have performed, 
and have moved ahead. Another will launch soon. But one of the original 
licensees did not perform. It did not perform what is called due 
diligence. It had the license, but in 10 years did not perform due 
diligence and, therefore, the FCC said, ``Since you are not going to 
perform, we will take the license back.''
  The original licenses were awarded free of charge in exchange for 
them going ahead and developing these systems. They got the licenses, 
which had enormous value, free of charge. When one of the licensees did 
not perform, the FCC took it back.
  What value does it have? If the FCC were to auction it off, were to 
find a company now to run it, or who wants to participate in this DBS 
system, it is estimated that at an auction it would raise from $300 to 
$700 million. It has very substantial value. That is the value to the 
taxpayers. The taxpayers own this spectrum.
  What has happened is when the FCC pulled the license back and said, 
``If you are not going to perform, we will take the license back,'' and 
did, the company that was not performing began talking with other 
companies, especially large cable companies, and they began to try to 
make a deal for this in order to accomplish a handoff. That is the 
process that is now under discussion at the FCC.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona and myself is an 
amendment that says we think that this simply should go to auction. Let 
us just have an auction for the third slot. Let us have the taxpayers, 
the American public, benefit from the $300 to $700 million that will be 
raised.
  I do not care who wins the auction. I have no interest in any of 
these companies. It just ought to be auctioned, and the money raised go 
to the public Treasury, reduce the Federal deficit, or do other things. 
But in any event, the taxpayers ought to get full value for this 
spectrum.
  That is the point of the amendment. I might say that I think the DBS 
systems are breathtaking and wonderful achievements. They will provide 
spectacular new technology and competition in the rural areas of 
America and all over our country. The Presiding Officer is from 
Colorado, and Colorado has rural regions and small towns far away from 
many major locations, just as my State of North Dakota.
  I have often wondered how we, in small communities, are going to be 
able to take advantage of this communications breakthrough. This is 
part of the answer: Direct broadcast satellite systems that reach all 
parts of this country.
  These are wonderful things for our future. It is going to enhance 
communications and provide entertainment and information to everyone in 
this country. It represents competition, as well, competition to the 
wired cable systems in our country.
  So I am excited about all of this. I want all three systems to be up 
and operating.
  The point that we make in this amendment is not a point directed at 
any company, to favor any company or to penalize any company. God bless 
them all. Let them go at it and provide this breathtaking new 
technology. Our point is a point that we make on behalf of the 
taxpayers. We want this spectrum, which has significant value, to 
provide its value to the American taxpayer. This is a $300 to $700 
million question. And the question ought to be answered, in our 
judgment, in favor of the American taxpayer.
  That is why we bring this amendment to the floor. We want the FCC to 
auction that third license. That is what our amendment provides.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.


                    Amendment No. 2816, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment. The modification is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2816), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the pending committee amendment, insert the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC.   . COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF DBS 
                   LICENSES.

       No funds provided in this or any other Act shall be 
     expended to take any action regarding the applications that 
     bear Federal Communications Commission File Numbers DBS-94-
     11EXT, DBS-94-15ACP, and DBS-94-16MP; Provided further, that 
     funds shall be made available for any action taken by the 
     Federal Communications Commission to use the competitive 
     bidding process prescribed in Section 309(j) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. section 309(j)) 
     regarding the disposition of the 27 channels at 110 degrees 
     W.L. orbital location; Provided further, That the provisions 
     of this section apply unless the Federal Communications 
     Commission determines that an alternative adjudication would 
     yield more money for the U.S. Treasury.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the modification at the desk is very 
simple language. It adds one sentence that I have discussed with 
Senator Dorgan and with Senator Brown. At the end of the amendment, it 
adds the following language:

       Provided further, that the provisions of this section apply 
     unless the Federal Communications Commission determines that 
     an alternative adjudication would yield more money for the 
     U.S. Treasury.

  After discussion with Senator Brown and Senator Dorgan, Mr. 
President, that is the whole logic of what we are trying to do here. We 
find it not only acceptable, but a definition of what we are trying to 
achieve.
  I thank Senator Brown for agreeing to this modification.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I would like to yield 1 minute to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the modification that has been offered by 
Senator McCain is one that, as I understand it, would suggest that, if 
there is an alternative approach that would yield as much or more to 
the U.S. Treasury and the taxpayer, that would be acceptable. That 
presumes that approach meets the test of fairness, and meets all the 
other tests of fairness required under an FCC process.
  Again, it is not our intention on the floor of the Senate to be 
talking about who should be involved in this. I have no interest in 
that at all--none. The question is, What cost does the American 
taxpayer, who owns this spectrum, get for this process under these 
circumstances where one licensee did not perform and the license has 
been taken back by the FCC?
  We want full value for that spectrum. That is what our amendment asks 
for, and the modification does not change that request. I am pleased to 
accept the modification, as well.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice of support for the 
modification.
  We are all very wary of having Congress intervene in the middle of 
the adjudicatory action by the FCC. I think all Members are aware that 
there is a great deal of money available in the disposition of this 
matter. What I like so much about the modification, Mr. President, is 
simply this: It leaves the FCC free to pick an option that raises the 
most money for the Treasury. It puts this Congress in a position of not 
trying to dictate an option that may be less advantageous for the 
taxpayers. It makes it clear that the FCC retains some power to pick 
the best option for the taxpayers--one that will bring in the most 
revenue to the United States.
  Frankly, it seems to me that the modification represents the 
appropriate position both for the FCC and for this Congress. We should 
not be in the business of precluding the options of the FCC while they 
are adjudicating a matter.
  I commend the Senator from Arizona for his modification. I believe it 
settles this question in terms of this Chamber and that the measure has 
unanimous support.
  Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator wishes to retain his 
record vote. Obviously, if he does, that is fine. But my sense is that 
at this point the Chamber is ready to accept his modified amendment 
unanimously.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank again the Senator from Colorado. I 
do 

[[Page S 14576]]
not know a finer individual in the Senate than Senator Brown from 
Colorado. He has always had the interests of the constituents and 
fairness in mind. It has been a privilege for me to work with him on 
many, many issues, especially those that are in opposition to 
procedures around here that sometimes deprive the taxpayers of their 
hard-earned tax dollars in a way which is unacceptable to the vast 
majority of them. His agreement to modify this amendment so that it is 
more clear and achieves the goal which we seek is I think indicative of 
the individual.
  It is worth pointing out that the company which is directly affected 
by this legislation is located in his State. So I want to thank him for 
his agreement. I believe that he has strengthened what we are trying to 
do and that is to provide the taxpayer with the maximum amount of 
dollars for the property they actually own.
  Mr. President, I have a legal document that I think is important to 
bolster this argument I would like to ask unanimous consent be made a 
part of the Record. It is a series of legal opinions concerning this 
entire issue. I am pleased to note again that I am not a lawyer, but I 
do believe that on an issue like this the Congressional Record should 
contain legal documentation to bolster the argument the Senator from 
North Dakota and I have been making on the urgency and importance and 
the legality of having an auction of this spectrum to provide the 
taxpayers with the maximum return on this very valuable resource they 
own.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  No Holder of an FCC Construction Permit Has Any Right to Regulatory 
               Approval of FA Transfer for Private Profit

       Federal law does not provide a right to a private company 
     to hoard spectrum and then sell its bare bones construction 
     permit for private gain. Rather, the Federal Communications 
     Commission has a long-standing public policy against any 
     private party ``warehousing'' this scarce public resource. 
     Underlying this policy is the requirement contained in the 
     Communications Act of 1934 that a construction permit will be 
     automatically forfeited if the system in question is not 
     ready for operation within the time specified by the 
     Commission's rules or within such further time as the 
     Commission may allow. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 319 (b).
       The rules for the various services for which the Commission 
     issues licenses specifically address construction permit 
     requirements and the public policy objectives behind these 
     requirements. The Commission routinely revokes construction 
     permits or fails to grant time extensions to permit holders 
     who fail to construct a system on a timely basis as required 
     in each service.
       For example:
       Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service.--When the 
     Commission adopted in 1982 the licensing condition rules for 
     DBS service, it determined that these rules were necessary to 
     ``assure that those applicants that are granted construction 
     permits go forward expeditiously,'' Inquiry into the 
     Development of Regulatory Policy in Regard to Direct 
     Broadcast Satellites. Report and Order, 90 FCC Rcd. 676, 719 
     (1982). The rules provide that a construction permittee must 
     complete construction of a satellite of complete contracting 
     for construction of a satellite within one year of the grant 
     of the permit and be in operation within six years of the 
     construction permit grant, unless the Commission grants an 
     extension upon a proper showing in a particular case. 
     Transfer of control of the permit will not be considered to 
     justify an extension. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 100.19(b).
       In the ACC case, ACC entered into a contract with TCI for 
     reportedly $45 million in TCI stock contingent upon a second 
     extension of ACC's construction permit. ACC and TCI assumed a 
     business risk when it entered this contingent contract 
     because both companies were fully aware that ACC had been 
     ``hoarding'' spectrum as shown by the record developed at the 
     FCC. Any reliance these companies may have had on FCC 
     approval in this case would have been totally unreasonable 
     and unjustified under the FCC's current DBS rules. As the 
     International Bureau noted in its decision revoking ACC's DBS 
     construction permit.
       Advanced has had over ten years, including one four-year 
     extension, in which to construct and launch its DBS system. 
     It has failed to do so. It has thereby failed to meet the 
     Commission's due diligence rules--imposed a decade ago--to 
     ensure that the public received prompt DBS service. In the 
     meantime, the channels and orbital positions assigned to 
     Advanced have gone unused. Other DBS licensees have already 
     begun operation. Only by enforcing the progress requirements 
     of the Commission's rules can we ensure that allocated 
     resources will be efficiently and expeditiously put into 
     productive use.
       Advanced Communications Corp. Memorandum Opinion and Order 
     (Released April 27, 1995).
       Personal Communications Service (PCS).--Most recently, when 
     the Commission adopted rules for the new PCS service, it 
     specifically included construction requirements. Although the 
     Commission expressed the belief that the use of competitive 
     bidding (or auctions) would provide the winners with economic 
     incentives to construct, and conversely, disincentives to 
     warehouse the spectrum, nevertheless the Commission said ``we 
     continue to believe that minimum construction requirements 
     are necessary to ensure that PCS service is made available to 
     as many communities as possible and that the spectrum is used 
     effectively.'' Amendment of the Commission's Rules to 
     Establish New Personnel Communications Services, Memorandum 
     Opinion and Order (Released June 13, 1994). PCS licensees are 
     required to serve at least one-third of the population in 
     their licensed area within 5 years of being licensed and at 
     least two-thirds of the population in this area within 10 
     years. The rules specifically provide: ``failure by any 
     licensee to meet these requirements will result in forfeiture 
     or non-renewal of the license and the licensee will be 
     ineligible to regain it.'' 47 C.F.R. Sec. 24.203(a).
       Although the first PCS licensees were only awarded three 
     months ago, PCS licensees are already on notice that if they 
     do not build these systems in a timely fashion, the 
     Commission will revoke these licenses even though the 
     licensee may have paid millions of dollars for the privilege.
       Multipoint Distribution Service and Multichannel Multipoint 
     Distribution Service (AKA ``Wireless Cable'').--When the 
     Commission revised its rules with regard to fixed radio 
     services, the Commission noted that carriers who fail 
     promptly to construct facilities preclude other applicants 
     who are willing, ready, and able of delaying, or even 
     denying, service to the public. Revision of Part 21 of the 
     Commission's rules, 2 FCC Rcd. 5713 (1987). The Commission's 
     rules for these services provide that a license shall be 
     forfeited automatically when the period permitted under the 
     construction permit expires. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 21.44. See also 
     Cable TV Services, 8 FCC Rcd. 3204 (1993) (wireless cable 
     construction permit revoked for failure to construct); Miami 
     MDS Company, 7 FCC Rcd. 4347 (1992) (construction permit not 
     renewed because of failure to construct within allotted time 
     period).
       Television and Radio Broadcasting.--The Mass Media Bureau 
     routinely revokes construction permits or denies renewals for 
     unbuilt broadcast stations under delegated authority from the 
     Commission. These procedures are so commonplace that they are 
     oftentimes handled by letter from the Bureau rather than by 
     reported decision. See attached letter to New Orleans Channel 
     20 in which the Mass Media Bureau denies an extension of a 
     construction permit and denies transfer (sale) of the 
     construction permit. The construction permit rules for 
     broadcast stations are contained in 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.3534.


                     subpart a--general information

     Sec. 100.1 Basis and purpose.
       (a) The rules following in this part are promulgated 
     pursuant to the provisions of Title III of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, which vests authority in the Federal 
     Communications Commission to regulate radio transmissions and 
     to issue licenses for radio stations.
       (b) The purpose of this part is to prescribe the manner in 
     which parts of the radio frequency spectrum may be made 
     available for the development of interim direct broadcast 
     satellite service. Interim direct broadcast satellite systems 
     shall be granted licenses pursuant to these interim rules 
     during the period prior to the adoption of permanent rules. 
     The Direct Broadcast Satellite Service shall operate in the 
     frequency band 12.2-12.7 GHz.
     Sec. 100.3 Definitions.
       Direct Broadcast Satellite Service. A radiocommunication 
     service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by 
     space stations are intended for direct reception by the 
     general public. In the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service the 
     term direct reception shall encompass both individual 
     reception and community reception.


                  subpart b--administrative procedures

     Sec. 100.11 Eligibility.
       An authorization for operation of a station in the Direct 
     Broadcast Satellite Service shall not be granted to or held 
     by:
       (a) Any alien or the representative of any alien;
       (b) Any foreign government or the representative thereof;
       (c) Any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign 
     government;
       (d) Any corporation of which any officer or director is an 
     alien;
       (e) Any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the 
     capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their 
     representatives or by a foreign government or representative 
     thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a 
     foreign country;
       (f) Any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by 
     any other corporation of which any officer or more than one-
     fourth of the directors are aliens, if the Commission finds 
     that the public interest will be served by the refusal or 
     revocation of such license; or
       (g) Any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by 
     any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the 
     capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their 
     representatives, or by a foreign government or 

[[Page S 14577]]
     representatives thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws 
     of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public 
     interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such 
     license.
     Sec. 100.13 Application requirements.
       (a) Each application for an interim direct broadcast 
     satellite system shall include a showing describing the type 
     of service that will be provided, the technology that will be 
     employed, and all other pertinent information. The 
     application may be presented in narrative format.
       (b) Applicants may request specific frequencies and orbital 
     positions. However, frequencies and orbital positions shall 
     not be assigned until completion of the 1983 Region 2 
     Administrative Radio Conference for the Broadcasting-
     Satellite Service. The Commission shall generally consider 
     all frequencies and orbital positions to be of equal value, 
     and conflicting requests for frequencies and orbital 
     positions will not necessarily give rise to comparative 
     hearing rights as long as unassigned frequencies and orbital 
     slots remain.
     Sec. 100.15 Licensing procedures
       (a) Each application for an interim direct broadcast 
     satellite system shall be placed on public notice for 45 
     days, during which time interested parties may file comments 
     and petitions related to the application.
       (b) A 45 day cut-off period shall also be established for 
     the filing of applications to be considered in conjunction 
     with the original application. Additional applications filed 
     before the cutoff date shall be considered to have equal 
     priority with the original application and shall be 
     considered together in the assignment of frequencies and 
     orbital positions. If applications have included requests for 
     particular requencies or orbital positions, the cutoff date 
     shall be considered in establishing the priority of such 
     requests.
       (c) Each application for an interim direct broadcast 
     satellite system, after the public comment period and staff 
     review shall be acted upon by the Commission to determine if 
     authorization of the proposed system is in the public 
     interest.
     Sec. 100.17 License term.
       All authorizations for interim direct broadcast satellite 
     systems shall be granted for a period of five years.
     Sec. 100.19 License conditions.
       (a) All authorizations for interim direct broadcast 
     satellite systems shall be subject to the policies set forth 
     in the Report and Order in General Docket 80-603 and with any 
     policies and rules the Commission may adopt at a later date. 
     It is the intention of the Commission, however, that in most 
     circumstances the regulatory policies in force at the time of 
     authorization to construct a satellite shall remain in force 
     for that satellite throughout its operating lifetime.
       (b) Parties granted authorizations shall proceed with 
     diligence in constructing interim direct broadcast satellite 
     systems. Permittees of interim direct broadcast satellite 
     systems shall be required to begin construction or complete 
     contracting for construction of the satellite station within 
     one year of the grant of the construction permit. The 
     satellite station shall also be required to be in operation 
     within six years of the construction permit grant, unless 
     otherwise determined by the Commission upon proper showing in 
     any particular case. Transfer of control of the construction 
     permit shall not be considered to justify extension of these 
     deadlines.


                   subpart c--technical requirements

     Sec. 100.21 technical requirements
       Prior to the 1983 Regional Administrative Radio Conference 
     for the Broadcasting--Satellite Service, interim direct 
     broadcast satellite systems shall be operated in accordance 
     with the sharing criteria and technical characteristics 
     contained in Annexes 8 and 9 of the Final Acts of the World 
     Administrative Radio Conference for the Planning of the 
     Broadcasting-Satellite Service in Frequency Bands 11.7-12.2 
     GHz (in Regions 2 and 3) and 11.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1), 
     Geneva, 1977; Provided, however, That upon adequate showing 
     systems may be implemented that use values for the technical 
     characteristics different from those specified in the Final 
     Acts if such action does not result in interference to other 
     operational or planned systems in excess of that determined 
     in accordance with Annex 9 of the Final Acts.


                   subpart d--operating requirements

     Sec. 100.51 Equal employment opportunities
       (a) General policy. Equal opportunity in employment shall 
     be afforded all licensees or permittees of direct broadcast 
     satellite stations licensed as broadcasters to all qualified 
     persons, and no person shall be discriminated against in 
     employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, 
     or sex.
       (b) Equal employment opportunity program. Each station 
     shall establish, maintain, and carry out a positive 
     continuing program of specific practices designed to assure 
     equal opportunity in every aspect of station employment 
     policy and practice. Under the terms of its program, a 
     station shall:
                                                                    ____


                              [DA 95-944]

   Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554

       In the Matter of Advanced Communications Corporation, 
     application for extension of time to construct, launch and 
     operate a direct broadcast satellite system, application for 
     consent to assign direct broadcast satellite construction 
     permit from Advanced Communications Corp. to Tempo DBS, Inc., 
     application for modification of direct broadcast satellite 
     service construction permit; File Nos. DBS-94-11EXT, DBS-94-
     15ACP, DBS-94-16MP.


                      memorandum opinion and order

       Adopted: April 26, 1995.
       By the Chief, International Bureau.
       Released: April 27, 1995.

                            I. Introduction

       1. For more than a decade, Advanced Communications 
     Corporation (``Advanced'') has had leave to provide the 
     public with Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service. It has 
     had allocated to it scarce public resources--orbital 
     positions and channels--so that it could provide that 
     service. Advanced paid nothing for these resources. It was 
     obligated only to proceed with due diligence to provide the 
     service it promised. After more than a decade, Advanced has 
     not provided--and is not close to providing--DBS service to 
     the public. It has failed to meet its due diligence 
     obligation. Advanced must now return the public resources it 
     holds to the public so that these resources can be put to use 
     by others.
       2. Advanced has filed an application for a second four-year 
     extension of time in which to construct, launch, and initiate 
     service from its DBS system. Advanced has also filed an 
     application for consent to assign its construction permit to 
     Tempo DBS, Inc. (Tempo DBS). Finally, Advanced has applied 
     for authority to modify its construction permit to allow it 
     to substitute satellites now being constructed for Tempo 
     Satellite, Inc.\1\ Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (DVS), 
     EchoStar Satellite Corporation (EchoStar), DIRECTV, Inc. 
     (DirecTV), and Directsat Corporation filed objections to 
     Advanced's applications; Tempo Satellite and Nevada Direct 
     Broadcasting System (Nevada) filed supporting comments. 
     Advanced filed replies to the objections.\2\
     \1\ Tempo Satellite, Inc. (``Tempo Satellite'') is a 
     subsidiary of Tele-Communications, Inc. (``TCI''), a cable 
     operator. authorized to construct, launch, and operate 11 DBS 
     channels at orbital slots 166 deg. W.L. and 119 deg. W.L. See 
     Tempo Satellite, Inc., 7 F.C.C. Red 2728 (1992). Tempo DBS, 
     the proposed assignee, is an affiliate of TCI.
     \2\ Several of the pleadings submitted by the parties were 
     not timely filed or were not authorized under the 
     Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.45. Such pleadings 
     shall only be considered as informal requests for Commission 
     action of informal comments. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.41. The 
     parties' requests for extension of time are hereby denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       3. Advanced has had over ten years, including one four-year 
     extension, in which to construct and launch its DBS system. 
     It has failed to do so. It has thereby failed to meet the 
     Commission's due diligence rules--imposed a decade ago--to 
     ensure that the public receives prompt DBS service. In the 
     meantime, the channels and orbital positions assigned to 
     Advanced have gone unused. Other DBS licenses have already 
     begun operations.
       4. Only by enforcing the progress requirements of the 
     Commission's rules can we ensure that allocated resources 
     will be efficiently and expeditiously put into productive 
     use. In the past, we have given DBS permittees latitude in 
     meeting due diligence deadlines in order to ensure the 
     development of DBS services. As the Commission has previously 
     stated, however, such latitude is not appropriate in an era 
     in which DBS licensees are successfully operating and are 
     competing for subscribers. Accordingly, we deny Advanced's 
     application for an extension of time and declare its 
     construction permit null and void. We dismiss, as moot, the 
     pending assignment and modifications applications.

                             II. Background

       5. In 1984, Advanced applied for authority to construct and 
     launch a DBS system as part of the second processing round of 
     DBS applications. The Commission granted the application 
     subject to the condition that Advanced ``proceed with the 
     construction of its system with due diligence as defined in 
     Section 100.19(b) of the Commission's rules.'' 47 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 100.19(b).\3\ The due diligence requirement has two 
     components. First, the DBS permittee must begin or complete 
     contracting for construction of its satellites within one 
     year of the grant of its construction permit. Second, the 
     permittee must begin operation of the satellites within six 
     years of the grant of its construction permit, unless 
     otherwise determined by the Commission. Section 100.19(b) 
     provides that a transfer of control of the permit is not a 
     justification for extension of either of these deadlines. 
     Orbital positions and channels are not assigned to a DBS 
     permittee unless and until it demonstrates that it has 
     fulfilled the first component of the due diligence 
     requirement. Processing Procedures Regarding the Direct 
     Broadcast Service, 95 F.C.C. 2d 250, 253 (1983).
     \3\ Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc., 99 F.C.C. 2d 1369 
     (1984). Advanced's initial grant authorized it to provide 
     service from two satellites, each to deliver six channels to 
     half of the continental United States. Advanced subsequently 
     applied for, and was granted, authority to increase the 
     number of satellites in its system to five, and was later 
     granted authority to increase the number of channels to 27. 
     See Continental Satellite Corporation (``Continental''), 4 
     F.C.C. Red 6292 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       6. In October 1986, the Commission found that Advanced had 
     complied with the first component of the due diligence 
     requirement by contracting for the construction of its first 
     two DBS satellites. Advanced was ultimately assigned to the 
     100 deg. W.L. orbit location (channels 1-23, 25, 27, 29, 31) 
     and 148 deg. 

[[Page S 14578]]
     W.L. (channels 1-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31).\4\ In February 1990, 
     Advanced applied for a four-year extension of time, until 
     February 1994, in which to construct and operate its DBS 
     system. The Commission granted this request, extending the 
     deadline until December 7, 1994.\5\
     \4\ Tempo Enterprises, Inc. (``Tempo''), 1 F.C.C. Red 20 
     (1986).
     \5\ Advanced Communications Corp. (``Advanced''), 6 F.C.C. 
     Red 2269 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       7. In August 1994, Advanced applied for another four-year 
     extension of time, until December 1998, in which to construct 
     and operate its system.\6\ In September 1994, Advanced filed 
     an application for consent to assign its construction permit 
     to Tempo DBS.\7\ In October 1994, Advanced filed an 
     application to modify its construction permit to change the 
     technical design of the Advanced satellites to duplicate the 
     design of satellites then under construction for Tempo 
     Satellite under a separate DBS authorization.\8\
     \6\ Request for Additional Time to Construct and Launch 
     Direct Broadcast Satellites, DBS-84-01/94-11EXT (August 8, 
     1994).
     \7\ Request for Consent to Assign DBS Authorizations, DBS-94-
     15ACP (September 28, 1994).
     \8\ Application for Modification of Construction Permit, DBS-
     94-16MP (October 14, 1994). In November 1994, Advanced filed 
     an amendment to this modification request. Amendment of 
     Application for Modification of Construction Permit, DBS-94-
     16MP (November 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       8. Dominion, EchoStar, and Directsat oppose Advanced's 
     extension request. They contend that Advanced has not met the 
     first component of the due diligence requirement because 
     Advanced's contract with Martin Marietta does not meet due 
     diligence requirements, delays in construction were not due 
     to circumstances beyond Advanced's control, and Advanced has 
     ``warehoused'' its authorized frequencies. They argue that 
     Advanced has no valid construction permit and that Advanced's 
     applications for assignment and modification should be 
     declared moot. Directsat and Echostar maintain that Advanced 
     failed to initiate operation due to business decisions within 
     its control, that Commission precedent precludes grant of an 
     extension of time request based on Advanced's failure to 
     attract investors, and that grant of the extension request 
     would prejudice permittees who have significantly passed 
     Advanced in progress toward initiation of DBS service. 
     Dominion argues that under Commission rules, transfer of 
     control of an authorization does not warrant grant of a 
     request for extension of time.\9\
     \9\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 100.19(b) states that ``[t]ransfer of 
     control of the construction permit shall not be considered to 
     justify extension of the[  ] deadline[  ].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. Discussion

                           Extension request

       9. In adopting rules and policies for DBS service, we 
     determined that a due diligence requirement would ensure that 
     permittees would go forward expeditiously.\10\ Accordingly. 
     Section 100.19(b) of the rules for DBS service. 47 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 100.19(b), states that transfer of control of the 
     construction permit will not justify extension of due 
     diligence deadlines. We later noted that ``the rule was 
     intended to ensure the prompt initiation of DBS service for 
     the public, and must be enforced where permittees are allowed 
     to hold spectrum resource for which other applications exist. 
     . . .'' \11\
     \10\ Inquiry into the development of regulatory policy in 
     regard to Direct Broadcast Satellites for the period 
     following the 1983 Regional Administrative Radio Conference, 
     90 F.C.C. 2d 676 (1982).
     \11\ CBS, Inc., 99 F.C.C. 2d 565, 572 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       10. During the ``pioneering era'' of DBS technology in the 
     1980's, the Commission granted numerous extensions of due 
     diligence milestones. The Commission was reluctant to cancel 
     construction permits where permittees failed to initiate DBS 
     service ``in accord with a pre-established timetable set 
     without the benefit of experience.'' \12\ As technology 
     developed, however, the Commission gave permittees notice 
     that they could not expect additional extensions. We said in 
     1988, ``[a]s circumstances have evolved and demand for DBS 
     facilities may be increasing beyond the available supply of 
     orbit/channel resource[s], there does now appear [to be] a 
     need for stricter enforcement of the construction progress 
     requirements of the DBS rules.'' \13\
     \12\ United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. 
     (``USSB I''). 3 F.C.C. Rcd 6858, 6860 (1988).
     \13\ Id. at 6861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       11. In ruling on requests for extensions of time, the 
     Commission has stated that ``[t]he totality of 
     circumstances--those efforts made and those not made, the 
     difficulties encountered and those overcome, the rights of 
     all parties, and the ultimate goal of service to the public--
     must be considered.'' \14\ In granting Advanced's 1990 
     extension, the Commission relied on the substantial 
     developments in DBS satellite technology, the Commission's 
     development of its policy regarding channel and orbital 
     assignments, and the Challenger and Ariane launch vehicle 
     failures of the late 1980's.\15\ The Commission warned, 
     however, that ``continued reliance on experimentation, 
     technological developments and changed plans will not 
     necessarily justify an extension of a DBS authorization.'' It 
     further warned that it would ``closely scrutinize all 
     requests for extension of time within which permittees must 
     initiate DBS service.'' \16\
     \14\ Id.
     \15\ Id. at 6860.
     \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       12. Advanced asserts that a second extension is justified 
     under the Commission's rules (and is consistent with similar 
     extensions previously granted) because it has made 
     ``considerable efforts'' to develop DBS service, it has 
     pursued a joint venture agreement, and any delays have been 
     due to circumstances beyond its control. Advanced also 
     implies that the progress Tempo Satellite has made in 
     constructing its satellites should be attributed to Advanced 
     and that these efforts constitute a ``proper showing'' on 
     which to base an extension.
       13. Advanced first argues that an extension is warranted in 
     light of its efforts to reach a joint venture agreement over 
     a nearly three-year period beginning in 1992, even though 
     these negotiations ultimately failed.\17\ The Commission has 
     previously found that on-going negotiations do not justify an 
     extension of due diligence milestones.\8\ Failed negotiations 
     surely should fare no better. In denying an extension to 
     another DBS permittee, we held that failure to attract 
     investors, an uncertain business situation, or an unfavorable 
     business climate in general have never been adequate excuses 
     for failure [to] meet a construction timetable in other 
     satellite services.\19\
     \17\ In progress reports to the Commission, Advanced said, in 
     April 1992, that it expected negotiations to be completed in 
     ``the next month or two.'' In August 1992, Advanced reported 
     it has signed a letter of intent that called for execution of 
     an agreement within sixty days. In October 1992, Advanced 
     explained that negotiations were continuing, and in April 
     1993, stated it expected to reach an agreement within the 
     next month. In May 1993, it reported it was still in 
     ``complex negotiations,'' and in October 1993, it claimed 
     that negotiations were continuing. However, on December 30, 
     1994, Advanced indicated that negotiations had failed.
     \18\ USSB I, 3 F.C.C. Rcd at 6859. See also Report and Order 
     in CC Docket No. 81-704, 54 R.R. 2d 577, 597 n. 62 (1983).
     \19\ id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       14. Advanced also asserts that construction was delayed 
     because it needed to modify its system design. In granting 
     Advanced's first extension request. however, the Commission 
     advised Advanced that its decision to modify it technical 
     proposal was a business decision wholly within its control 
     that would not generally excuse its failure to meet the due 
     diligence requirements, To conclude otherwise would allow 
     permittees to ``extend indefinitely their nonperformance by 
     repeated modifications of their proposals.''\20\ DBS 
     technology has evolved to the point where permittees can made 
     design decisions and proceed with construction with relative 
     assurance that their system will be technologically 
     competitive when it is launched. In fact, two permittees have 
     launched DBS systems, which are both already providing 
     service.\21\ Advanced has not explained why it did not make 
     similar design decisions for its system, or why such 
     decisions were not wholly within its control. Accordingly, we 
     do not find that continued modifications to Advanced's system 
     warrant an extension of time.
     \20\ Tempo, 1 F.C.C. Rcd at 20.
     \21\ See, e.g., Semi--Annual DBS Progress Report filed by 
     Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., DBS- 84-02/81-07/93-03MP 
     (January 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       15. Advanced contends that an extension is justified 
     because the company has expended considered funds and 
     ``countless hours'' to implement its system. Advanced asserts 
     that the Commission has granted extension under similar 
     circumstances, citing United States Satellite Broadcasting 
     Company, Inc.\22\ In that case, the Video Services Division 
     of the Mass Media Bureau, in considering the ``totality of 
     the circumstances,'' found that the permittee, USSB, (1) has 
     expended $23 million, including a substantial payment towards 
     spacecraft construction; (2) had demonstrated that the 
     remaining financing for the completion and launch of the 
     satellite had been arranged; and (3) had executed launch and 
     various supplier contracts. Advanced, in contrast, has not 
     specified how much money it has spent.\23\ has not arranged 
     financing, and has not procured a launch contract. Advanced 
     has failed to show its progress constitutes sufficient 
     justification for a further extension of time. To the 
     contrary, it appears that Advanced wants to abandon its 
     business to Tempo DBS.
     \22\ United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. 
     (``USSB II''), 7 F.C.C. Rcd 7247, 7250 (1992).
     \23\ Advanced acknowledges that its expenditures on the 
     construction contract with Martin Marietta Astrospace are 
     less than one percent. Semi-Annual Status Report, DBS 84-01-
     88-05 MP and 84-01/88-05 Ext. (May 10, 1993). Subsequent 
     reports do not include payment amounts or percentages. See 
     Semi-Annual Status Reports, DBS 84-01-88-05 MP and 84-01/88-
     05 Ext. (October 6, 1993 and April 24, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       16. Advanced further states that it should be granted an 
     extension because it has ``remained in due diligence'' sine 
     we found it had met the first component of the due diligence 
     requirement by executing a construction contract. The facts 
     belie this conclusory assertion. The due diligence 
     requirement consists of two components. The fact that 
     Advanced continues to have a binding construction contract, 
     or that it has made all payments required by this contract 
     does not excuse its failure to meet the second part of its 
     due diligence requirement: operation of its direct broadcast 
     satellite system.\24\ Meeting the first due diligence 
     requirement does not justify failing to fulfill the second.
     \24\ USSB II at 7250. To the extent Advanced relies on its 
     contract with Tempo Satellite and TCI (pursuant to Advanced's 
     application to assign its construction permit) in arguing 
     that it is still in due diligence, we point out that this 
     contract underscores Advanced's lack of commitment to 
     establish its direct broadcast satellite system. The 
     assignment application indicates that Tempo Satellite has 
     arranged financing, executed contracts for satellite launch 
     and construction and for DBS receiving equipment, and has 
     spent $246 million on satellite construction. Advanced's sole 
     contribution to Tempo Satellite's system appears to be its 
     construction permit. For these reasons and the reasons stated 
     at paragraph 18, infra, we find that Advanced's latest 
     contract does not demonstrate a capability and commitment on 
     its part to operate a DBS system.
     
[[Page S 14579]]

       17. Advanced also asserts that the Commission's formulation 
     of its channel assignment policy \25\ and the delay in 
     granting previous modification requests constitute 
     circumstances beyond its control and warrants an extension of 
     time. However, the channel assignment policy was clarified in 
     1989.\26\ Advanced's proposed modifications to its orbit 
     locations and channel assignments were granted in 1991.\27\ 
     Advanced has not cited any circumstances that impeded its 
     ability to construct its system over the last four years. 
     Advanced has failed to show that delay in meeting the second 
     component of due diligence is due to circumstances beyond its 
     control.
     \25\ Continental, 4 F.C.C. Red at 6296-7 (1989).
     \26\ Id. at 6301.
     \27\ Advanced, 6 F.C.C. Red at 2274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       18. Finally, Advanced asserts that an extension of its 
     construction permit would be in the public interest, since it 
     is on the threshold of an advanced DBS system which will 
     benefit the public, and because doing so will promote the 
     efforts of those who have worked to create the DBS industry. 
     To do otherwise, Advanced argues, would discourage innovators 
     in all new technological industries.
       19. A further extension would not serve the public 
     interest. Advanced has made little progress in construction, 
     launch, and initiation of a DBS system in the past decade. 
     During the same period, two DBS satellites have been launched 
     and construction of others is underway.\28\ There is no 
     benefit to the public in allowing Advanced to continue to 
     waste orbital locations and channels while two permittees 
     have already initiated DBS service.
     \28\ See note 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       20. Advanced's current authorization required it to begin 
     operation of a satellite by December 7, 1994.\29\ If failed 
     to do so. The ``totality of the circumstances'' presented by 
     Advanced in its extension request does not justify granting 
     additional time in which to begin operation. Accordingly, we 
     deny Advanced's request for an extension of time to 
     construct, launch, and operate a direct broadcast satellite 
     system. Because Advanced has failed to satisfy this express 
     condition of its construction permit, the permit is null and 
     void by its own terms.
     \29\ Advanced, 6 F.C.C. Rcd at 2274
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         B. Other applications

       21. Inasmuch as we have concluded that Advanced's permit is 
     null and void, its pending applications for assignment of 
     that permit to Tempo DBS and related modification application 
     are moot and are accordingly dismissed.\30\ To the extent 
     Advanced suggests that construction progress on Tempo 
     Satellite's DBS satellites should be considered favorably in 
     evaluating Advanced's extension request, we disagree.\31\ The 
     Commission has based previous extensions of time on a finding 
     that the efforts made by the permittee ``reveal[] no lack of 
     capability or commitment'' to establish its DBS system.\32\ 
     Tempo Satellite's construction progress is irrelevant in 
     determining whether Advanced should be granted an extension 
     of time in which to construct and operate Advanced's 
     satellites.\33\ Moreover, we believe it would contravene the 
     public interest to consider Tempo Satellite's construction-
     progress in assessing Advanced's extension request. To do so 
     would reward permittees' inaction or failure to comply with 
     implementation milestones. Such warehousing precludes the use 
     of channel and orbital assignments by other service 
     providers, and will ultimately result in delays in service to 
     the public.
     \30\ To the extent the pleadings address Advanced's 
     applications for assignment and for modification of its 
     construction permit, such pleadings are likewise moot and 
     will not be considered.
     \31\ Under Advanced's proposal to assign its construction 
     permit to Tempo DBS, the satellites deployed under Advanced's 
     permit would be those now under construction for Tempo 
     Satellite, Inc., a DBS permittee. Application for 
     Modification of Construction Permit, DBS-94-16MP (October 14, 
     1994).
     \32\ USSB II at 7250.
     \33\ Advanced refers to the Commission's recent decision in 
     Directsat Corp., 10 F.C.C. Rcd 88 (1995), as support for 
     approval of the assignment of its construction permit to 
     Tempo DBS. In that case, the Commission approved the transfer 
     of control of DBS permittee Directsat Corporation from SSE 
     Telecom, Inc. to Echo/Comms. Unlike the circumstances here, 
     Directsat's ``investment in the development of its DBS system 
     has been substantial and the progress set fort in its semi-
     annual reports has been steady and consistent with the 
     schedule established in its construction contract.'' Id. at 
     para 4. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the 
     public interest in the expeditious provision of DBS service 
     to the public would be advanced by this sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       22. In its opposition to Advanced's petition for extension 
     of time, DBSC requests that some of Advanced's cancelled 
     channels be assigned to DBSC. DBSC's request was not made 
     within any designated filing period for modification 
     applications, and is hereby rejected. We will soon issue a 
     notice regarding the reallocation of cancelled channels and 
     available orbital positions.

                          V. Ordering Clauses

       23. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 0.261 
     of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 0.261, that the Application File No. DBS-94-11-EXT IS 
     DENIED and the construction permit issued to Advanced 
     Communications Corporation in Satellite Syndicated Systems, 
     99 F.C.C. 2d 1369 (1984) is declared null and void.
       24. It is further ordered, that Application File Nos. DBS-
     94-15ACP and DBS-94-16MP are dismissed as moot.
                                               Scott Blake Harris,
     Chief, International Bureau.
                                                                    ____


                              [FCC 82-285]

   Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554

       In the Matter of Inquiry into the development of regulatory 
     policy in regard to direct broadcast satellites for the 
     period following the 1983 Regional Administrative Radio 
     Conference; Gen. Docket No. 80-603.


                            report and order

       Adopted: June 23, 1982; Released: July 14, 1982.
       By the Commission: Commissioners Fowler, Chairman; Fogarty 
     and Rivera issuing separate statements; Commissioner Quello 
     concurring and issuing a statement.

                            I. Introduction

       1. On June 1, 1981, the Commission issued a Notice of 
     Proposed Policy Statement and Rulemaking (Notice), 86 FCC 2d 
     719, to consider proposed policies and rules to govern the 
     authorization of direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       However, we believe that the provision of HDTV service 
     should not exclude conventional television service. We note 
     that only one of the DBS applicants, CBS, proposes to 
     broadcast HDTV exclusively. We believe that any transition to 
     HDTV would deprive the public of the use of the band for 
     conventional television transmission. Moreover, HDTV 
     presently requires considerably more bandwidth than 
     conventional television signals, and therefore it reduces the 
     number of channels that can be provided within a given amount 
     of spectrum. Our present proposal would permit the band to be 
     used either/for HDTV or for conventional television signals, 
     as spectrum allocation permits and the market dictates. We 
     believe this approach serves the public interest better than 
     reserving the band exclusively for either service.

                 Licensing and Procedural Requirements

       111. The licensing and procedural policies and requirements 
     we are adopting are, with few exceptions, those that were set 
     forth in the Notice. In particular, applicants will be 
     required to conform to the technical guidelines specified in 
     the WARC-77 Final Acts. Furthermore, all interim 
     authorizations will be subject to modification, as the 
     Commission deems necessary, in order to comport with 
     determinations made at RARC-83 and any other policies and 
     rules which the Commission may hereafter conclude are 
     necessary or appropriate in the public interest. Deviations 
     from the guidelines of the WARC-77 or from the outcome of 
     RARC-83 may be permitted with Commission approval provided 
     they do not cause interference to operational or Commission 
     approval provided they do not cause interference to 
     operational or planned systems of other administrations in 
     excess of that specified in the Final Acts of the WARC-77 or 
     RARC-83.
       112. Applicants may request specific frequencies and 
     orbital positions. However, frequencies and orbital positions 
     will not be assigned until completion of the 1983 RARC. We 
     note that the number of frequencies, the orbital locations, 
     and the size of the service areas specified in the 
     applications we have received to date have varied 
     considerably. While we intend to take each applicant's 
     request fully into account, the Commission may, in acting on 
     a particular application, restrict the number of channels 
     assigned to any applicant, limit or modify the area to be 
     served, or impose any other conditions it deems necessary.
       113. The Commission will continue to accept applications 
     for DBS systems. In addition, the Commission intends in the 
     very near future to establish a second cut-off list for 
     applications.\99\ In view of the number of applications that 
     have been accepted to date and the number of potential 
     applications that may be filed, future applicants are 
     requested to indicate whether or not they would be willing to 
     operate their systems for non-eclipse-protected orbital 
     positions.
     \99\A number of the interim DBS applications filed in 
     response to the first cut-off date were found unacceptable 
     for filing. Some of these applications were subsequently 
     amended and may now be acceptable for filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       114. In lieu of stringent financial showings and subsequent 
     Commission analysis, we will require that parties granted 
     authorizations proceed with diligence in constructing interim 
     DBS systems. Interim DBS systems will be required to begin 
     construction or complete contracting for construction of the 
     satellite station within one year of the grant of the 
     construction permit. The satellite station will also be 
     required to be in operation within six years of the 
     construction permit grant, unless otherwise determined by the 
     Commission upon proper showing in any particular case. 
     Transfer of control of the construction permit will not be 
     considered to justify extension of these deadlines. We 
     believe that a diligence requirement will provide a more 
     orderly processing of applications and assure that those 
     applicants that are granted construction permits go forward 
     expeditiously.
       115. Each application for an interim DBS system shall 
     include a showing describing 

[[Page S 14580]]
     the type of service that will be provided, the technology that will be 
     employed, and all other pertinent information. The 
     application may be presented in narrative format.\100\ Each 
     application for an interim DBS system shall be placed on 
     public notice for 45 days, during which time interested 
     parties may file comments and petitions related to the 
     application. A 45 day cut-off period shall also be 
     established for the filing of applications to be considered 
     in conjunction with the original application. Additional 
     applications filed before the cut-off date shall be 
     considered to have equal priority with the original 
     application and shall be considered together in the 
     assignment of frequencies and orbital positions. If 
     applications have included requests for particular 
     frequencies or orbital positions, the cut-off date shall be 
     considered in establishing the priority of such requests. All 
     frequencies and orbital positions, however, shall generally 
     be considered to be of equal value, and conflicting requests 
     for frequencies and orbital positions will not necessarily 
     give rise to comparative hearing rights as long as unassigned 
     frequencies and orbital slots remain. Each application for an 
     interim DBS system, after the public comment period and staff 
     review, shall be acted upon by the Commission to determine if 
     authorization of the system is in the public interest.
     \100\ The Commission will carefully review each DBS 
     application for completeness. Accordingly, all applicants 
     should be sure that their applications contain a complete and 
     detailed technical showing and that the service to be 
     provided is adequately described. (See also Memorandum 
     Opinion and Order, FCC 81-500, and Memorandum Opinion and 
     Order, FCC 82-92.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       116. All authorizations for interim DBS systems shall be 
     granted for a period of five years. All licensee shall be 
     subject to the policies set forth in this Report and Order 
     and with any policies and rules the Commission may adopt at a 
     later date. It is the intention of the Commission, however, 
     that in most circumstances the regulatory policies in force 
     at the time of authorization to construct a satellite shall 
     remain in force for that satellite throughout its operating 
     lifetime.

                         VIII. Ordering Clauses

       117. Pursuant to Section 4(i) and 303 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i) and 303, it 
     is ordered, That:
       (a) Parts 2 and 94 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations are amended as set forth in Appendix C, 
     effective thirty days after publication in the Federal 
     Register.
       (b) Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations is amended to include a new Part 100 as set forth 
     in Appendix D, effective thirty days after publication in the 
     Federal Register.
       (c) The Petition for Expedited Relief submitted by the 
     Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Committee on 
     August 12, 1981 is granted to the extent indicated above and 
     is otherwise denied.
                                             William J. Tricarico,
                                                        Secretary.

       Appendices A and B--may be seen in FCC's Dockets Branch.


                               appendix c

       Parts 2, and 94 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
       A. Part 2--Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; 
     General Rules and Regulations.
       1. Section 2.106 is amended by revising the ``Service'' 
     column of the frequency bands listed below and by adding new 
     Footnotes NG139 and NG140 in proper numerical order to read 
     as follows:

Sec. 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations

                           *   *   *   *   *


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       United States            Federal Communications  
              ------------------------------          Commission        
                                            ----------------------------
                 Band (GHz)     Allocation     Band (GHz)     Class of  
                                                Service        Station  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............             6              7              8              9
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            

                           *   *   *   *   *
       (b) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in 
     peak or average values provided they are expressed in the 
     same parameters as the transmitter power.
       (c) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth 
     causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its 
     discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in 
     this section.
       (d) The following minimum spectrum analyzer resolution 
     bandwidth settings will be used: 300 Hz when showing 
     compliance with paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of this 
     section; and 30 kHz when showing compliance with paragraphs 
     (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
     Sec. 24.134 Co-channel separation criteria.
       The minimum co-channel separation distance between base 
     stations in different service areas is 113 kilometers (70 
     miles). A co-channel separation distance is not required for 
     the base stations of the same licensee or when the affected 
     parties have agreed to other co-channel separation distances.
     Sec. 24.135 Frequency stability.
       (a) The frequency stability of the transmitter shall be 
     maintained within  0.0001 percent ( 1 
     ppm) of the center frequency over a temperature variation of 
     -30 Celsius to +50 Celsius at normal supply voltage, and over 
     a variation in the primary supply voltage of 85 percent to 
     115 per cent of the rated supply voltage at a temperature of 
     20 Celsius.
       (b) For battery operated equipment, the equipment tests 
     shall be performed using a new battery without any further 
     requirement to vary supply voltage.
       (c) It is acceptable for a transmitter to meet this 
     frequency stability requirement over a narrower temperature 
     range provided the transmitter ceases to function before it 
     exceeds these frequency stability limits.


                        subpart e--broadband pcs

       Source: 59 FR 32854, June 24, 1994, unless otherwise noted.
     Sec. 24.200 Scope.
       This subpart sets out the regulations governing the 
     licensing and operations of personal communications services 
     authorized in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands.
     Sec. 24.202 Service areas
       Broadband PCS service areas are Major Trading Areas (MTAs) 
     and Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) as defined below. MTAs and 
     BTAs are based on the Rand McNally 1992 Commercial Atlas & 
     Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39 (``BTA/MTA 
     Map''). Rand McNally organizes the 50 states and the District 
     of Columbia into 47 MTAs and 487 BTAs. The BTA/MTA Map is 
     available for public inspection as the Office of Engineering 
     and Technology's Technical Information Center, room 7317, 
     2025 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.
       (a) The MTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 
     1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at 
     pages 38-39, with the following exceptions and additions:
       (1) Alaska is separated from the Seattle MTA and is 
     licensed separately.
       (2) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are licensed as a 
     single MTA-like area.
       (3) Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are 
     licensed as a single MTA-like area.
       (4) American Samoa is licensed as a single MTA-like area.
       (b) The BTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 
     1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at 
     pages 38-39, with the following additions licensed separately 
     as BTA-like areas: American Samoa; Guam; Northern Mariana 
     Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto Rico; San Juan, 
     Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The 
     Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce BTA-like service area consists of 
     the following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Agudilla, Anasco, 
     Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, 
     Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, 
     Mayaguez, Maricao, Maunabo, Moca, Patillas, Peuelas, Ponce, 
     Quebradillas, Rincon, Sabana Grande, Salinas, San German, 
     Santa Isabel, Villalba, and Yauco. The San Juan BTA-like 
     service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico.
     Sec. 24.203 Construction requirements.
       (a) Licensees of 30 MHz blocks must serve with a signal 
     level sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-
     third of the population in their licensed area within five 
     years of being licensed and two-thirds of the population in 
     their licensed area within 10 years of being licensed. 
     Licensees may choose to define population using the 1990 
     census or the 2000 census. Failure by any licensee to meet 
     these requirements will result in forfeiture or non-renewal 
     of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain 
     it.
       (b) Licensees of 10 MHz blocks must serve with a signal 
     level sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-
     quarter of the population in their licensed area within five 
     years of being licensed, or make a showing of substantial 
     service in their licensed area within five years of being 
     licensed. Population is defined as the 1990 population 
     census. Licensees may elect to use the 2000 population census 
     to determine the five-year construction requirement. Failure 
     by any licensee to meet these requirements will result in 
     forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible 
     to regain it.
       (c) Licensees must file maps and other supporting documents 
     showing compliance with the respective construction 
     requirements within the appropriate five- and ten-year 
     benchmarks of the date of their initial licenses.
     Sec. 24.204 Cellular eligibility.
       (a) 10 MHz Limitation. Until January 1, 2000, no license(s) 
     for broadband PCS in excess of 10 MHz shall be granted to any 
     party (including all parties under common control) if the 
     grant of such license(s) will result in significant overlap 
     of the PCS licensed service area(s) (MTAs or BTAs) and the 
     cellular geographic service area(s) (CGSA) of licensee(s) in 
     the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service 
     directly or indirectly owned, operated, or controlled by the 
     same party.
       (b) 15 MHz Limitation. After January 1, 2000, no license(s) 
     for broadband PCS in excess of 15 MHz shall be granted to any 
     party (including all parties under common control) if the 
     grant of such license(s) will result in significant overlap 
     of the PCS licensed service area(s) (MTAs or BTAs) and the 
     cellular geographic service area(s) (CGSA) of licensee(s) in 
     the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service 
     directly or indirectly owned, operated, or controlled by the 
     same party.
       (c) Significant Overlap. For purposes of paragraphs (a) and 
     (b) of this section, significant overlap of a PCS licensed 
     service area and CGSA(s) occurs when ten or more percent of 
     the population of the PCS service area, as determined by the 
     1990 census figures for the counties contained therein, is 
     within the CGSA(s).

[[Page S 14581]]

       (d) Ownership Attribution. (1) For purposes of paragraphs 
     (a) and (b) of this section, ``control'' means majority 
     voting equity ownership, any general partnership interest, or 
     any means of actual working control (including negative 
     control) over the operation of the licensee, in whatever 
     manner exercised.
       (2) For purposes of applying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
     section, and for purposes of Sec. 24.229(c) (40 MHz limit in 
     same geographic area), ownership and other interests in 
     broadband PCS licensees or applicants and cellular licensees 
     will be attributed to their holders pursuant to the following 
     criteria:
       (i) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock 
     interest amounting to 5 percent or more of the equity, or 
     outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of a broadband 
     PCS licensee or applicant will be attributable.
       (ii) Partnership and other ownership interests and any 
     stock interest amounting to 20 percent of more of the equity, 
     or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of a 
     cellular licensee will be attributable, except that ownership 
     will not be attributed unless the partnership and other 
     ownership interests and any stock interest amount to 40 
     percent or more of the equity, or outstanding stock, or 
     outstanding voting stock.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                                                    ____


                              [FCC 94-144]

   Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554

       In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's rules to 
     establish new personal communications services; Gen Docket 
     No. 90-314; RM-7140, RM-7175, RM-7618.


                      MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Adopted: June 9, 1994.
       By the Commission: Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness, and 
     Chong issuing separate statements.
       Released: June 13, 1994.

                           *   *   *   *   *


                      V. Construction requirements

       147. In the Second Report and Order, we stated our 
     expectations that broadband PCS would be a highly competitive 
     industry and that licensees would have the incentive to 
     construct facilities to meet the demand for service in their 
     licensed areas. We concluded that specific channel loading 
     requirements are unnecessary; however, we required licensees 
     to meet specified construction benchmarks to ensure efficient 
     spectrum utilization and service to the public. Specifically, 
     we required licensees to offer service to one-third of the 
     population in their service area within five years of 
     licensing, two-thirds of the population in their service area 
     within seven years, and 90 percent of the population within 
     ten years. We stated that failure to meet these requirements 
     would result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee 
     would be ineligible to regain it.\227\
     \227\ See Second Report and Order at para.para. 132-134.

                           *   *   *   *   *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     PacBell opposes Sprint's suggestion that cellular carriers be 
     permitted to include their existing coverage in meeting PCS 
     coverage requirements.243
     \243\ See PacBell Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       153. MCI asserts that some relaxation of the construction 
     requirements is necessary if base and mobile power limits are 
     not substantially increased.244 US West opposes the 90 
     percent construction requirement, asserting that 90 percent 
     coverage will increase the cost of PCS fourfold compared to a 
     67 percent population coverage requirement. It states that a 
     stringent construction requirement is not necessary to 
     prevent warehousing of spectrum because the spectrum will be 
     purchased at auction. As part of its filing, US West submits 
     an analysis of nine large western BTAs that indicates that 
     increasing population coverage from 67 to 75 percent results 
     in only a moderate increase in the geographic area that must 
     be served. On the other hand, increasing population from 75 
     to 90 percent results in a very large increase in the 
     geographic area that must be covered.245
     \244\ See MCI Comments at 17.
     \245\ See US West Reply at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       154. Decision. We believe that PCS will be a highly 
     competitive service and that licensees will have incentives 
     to construct facilities to meet the service demands in their 
     licensed service areas. Further, we believe that our use of 
     competitive bidding for PCS licensing and the restrictions on 
     the amount of spectrum that a licensee may control in a 
     geographic area will limit the likelihood that spectrum will 
     be warehoused. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that 
     minimum construction requirements are necessary to ensure 
     that PCS service is made available to as many communities as 
     possible and that the spectrum is used effectively. We note 
     that the Reconciliation Act amendments require the Commission 
     to impose performance requirements.246 While we agree 
     with GCI, NYNEX, and others that construction requirements 
     are needed to ensure service in a timely fashion, we also 
     agree that relaxation of the requirements is desirable to 
     ensure an economical deployment of the service to promote 
     opportunities for PCS ``niche'' services, and to facilitate a 
     competitive market.247
     \246\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(i)(4)(B), as amended by the 
     Reconciliation Act.
     \247\ See Comments at 13; NYNEX Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       155. Accordingly, we are amending the construction 
     requirements as follows. All 30 MHz broadband PCS licensees 
     will be required to construct facilities that provide 
     coverage to one-third of the population of their service area 
     within five years of initial license grant and to two-thirds 
     of the population of their service area within ten years. We 
     will require the 10 MHz licensees to meet a single 
     construction requirement of providing coverage to one-fourth 
     of the population of their service area within five years; or 
     alternatively, they may submit an acceptable showing to the 
     Commission demonstrating that they are providing substantial 
     service. We recognize that these requirements are less than 
     the requirement for narrowband PCS licensees, but we believe 
     this difference is appropriate given the higher expected 
     construction costs involved for broadband PCS.248 
     Moreover, since licensees must purchase their licenses, they 
     will have added economic incentives to construct their 
     systems as rapidly as possible and introduce service to a 
     significant percentage of the population. In this regard, we 
     also believe that these relaxed construction requirements may 
     increase the viability and value of some broadband licenses, 
     especially those in less densely populated service areas. 
     Finally, since most areas are already served by cellular and 
     SMR providers, we believe it unnecessary to require PCS 
     licensees to provide identical or similar services to areas 
     where it is uneconomic to do so. With regard to the 10 MHz 
     licensees, we believe that the reduced construction 
     requirement will make these licenses more attractive to 
     applicants intending to provide residential, cutting-edge 
     niche services or services to business and educational 
     campuses where the population may be small except during 
     business or school hours.
     \248\ The construction requirements for narrowband PCS are 
     set forth in Memorandum Opinion and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-
     314 and ET Docket No. 92-100, 9 FCC Rcd 1309, 1313-1314, 
     para.para.27-34 (1994), recon. pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       156. At the five-year benchmark we will require all 
     licensees, and again at the 10-year benchmark for 30 MHz 
     licensees, to file a map and other supporting documentation 
     showing compliance with the construction requirements. 
     Licensees failing to meet the population coverage 
     requirements described above will be subject to the license 
     forfeiture penalties adopted in the Second Report and 
     Order.\249\ We recognize that even with these requirements, 
     factors such as incumbent microwave operation or sparse 
     population density in some instances could make compliance 
     difficult. In instances where the circumstances are unique 
     and the public interest would be served, the Commission will 
     consider waiving the requirements on a case-by-case 
     basis.\250\ These revised construction requirements will 
     ensure efficient spectrum utilization and promote significant 
     nationwide coverage without imposing substantial cost 
     penalties on licensees that serve less densely populated 
     areas. In this regard, we believe that these changes 
     generally address the concerns of those parties that 
     suggested lowering the construction requirements for 
     designated entities or for BTA service areas.\251\
     \249\ See Second Report and Order at para.para. 133-134.
     \250\ See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
     \251\ We will also allow the licensee to use, if they choose 
     to do so, the 2000 census to determine the 10-year 
     construction requirement, rather than the 1990 census 
     specified in the Second Report and Order. This change ensures 
     that licensees will not be required to meet benchmarks based 
     on obsolete data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       157. We also recognize the desirability of encouraging more 
     than one provider to serve a diverse geographic area, and 
     note that resale of a licensee's geographic area to other 
     entities, subject to the licensee's control, is not 
     prohibited by our rules. Accordingly, we recognize that 
     licensees may resell spectrum, and believe that this will 
     facilitate the deployment of PCS. Whether or not the licensee 
     enters into resale arrangements, it will be responsible for 
     insuring that the coverage requirement and all the other 
     requirements of our rules are met. The reseller will not be a 
     separate licensee, but rather, will operate subject to the 
     control of the licensee. We believe that resale will 
     encourage service provision, particularly to rural areas, and 
     allow smaller, predominantly rural companies to participate 
     in PCS. We intend to examine in another proceeding whether 
     resale arrangements confer attributable interests on the 
     reseller. See Section IV, supra.
       158. In summary, our relaxed construction requirements will 
     foster provision of PCS services and will promote diversity 
     in their provision. Permitting licensees to resell service 
     subareas, subject to the licensee's control, will permit 
     smaller, rural companies to provide PCS without participating 
     in the competitive bidding process. Finally, we intend to 
     monitor closely the development of PCS in rural and other 
     under-served areas and, if necessary, will readdress these 
     construction requirements to ensure that our goals for wide 
     area service are met.

                        VI. Technical Standards

               A. Roaming and interoperability standards

       159. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission 
     provided maximum flexibility in technical standards to allow 
     PCS to develop in the most rapid, economically feasible and 
     diverse manner. Specific technical standards were prescribed 
     only to the extent necessary to avoid harmful interference. 
     The Commission recognized that several industry 

[[Page S 14582]]
     technical and standards groups were addressing matters related to PCS 
     technical standards. It encouraged those groups to consider 
     ways of ensuring that PCS users, service providers, and 
     equipment manufacturers could incorporate roaming, 
     interoperability and other important features in the most 
     efficient and least costly manner, noting that PCS will be 
     more useful to the extent that users are not limited by 
     geography or by their ability to use their equipment with 
     different systems.
       160. Petitioners' Requests. NCS, Motorola, and TIA request 
     that we reconsider our decision not to adopt PCS 
     interoperability requirements.\252\ NCS requests that we 
     adopt standards to ensure interoperability and nationwide 
     roaming.
     \252\ Texas Emergency also requests that we adopt a uniform 
     standard for enhanced emergency 911 services. These matters 
     are addressed in Section VI.E.

                           *   *   *   *   *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       (a) The MTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 
     1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at 
     pages 38-39, with the following exceptions and additions:
       (1) Alaska is separated from the Seattle MTA and is 
     licensed separately.
       (2) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are licensed as a 
     single MTA-like area.
       (3) Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are 
     licensed as a single MTA-like area.
       (4) American Samoa is licensed as a single MTA-like area.
       (b) The BTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 
     1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at 
     pages 38-39, with the following additions licensed separately 
     as BTA-like areas: American Samoa; Guam; Northern Mariana 
     Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce Puerto Rico; San Juan, 
     Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The 
     Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce BTA-like service area consists of 
     the following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, 
     Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, 
     Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, 
     Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez, Moca, Patillas, 
     Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincon, Sabana Grande, 
     Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba, and Yauco. The 
     San Juan BTA-like service area consists of all other 
     municipios in Puerto Rico.
     Sec. 24.203 Construction requirements.
       (a) Licensees of 30 MHz blocks must serve with a signal 
     level sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-
     third of the population in their licensed area within five 
     years of being licensed and two-thirds of the population in 
     their licensed area within 10 years of being licensed. 
     Licensees may choose to define population using the 1990 
     census or the 2000 census. Failure by any licensee to meet 
     these requirements will result in forfeiture or non-renewal 
     of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain 
     it.
       (b) Licensees of 10 MHz blocks must serve with a signal 
     level sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-
     quarter of the population in their licensed area within five 
     years of being licensed, or make a showing of substantial 
     service in their licensed area within five years of being 
     licensed. Population is defined as the 1990 population 
     census. Licensees may elect to use the 2000 population census 
     to determine the five-year construction requirement. Failure 
     by any licensee to meet these requirements will result in 
     forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible 
     to regain it.
       (c) Licensees must file maps and other supportive documents 
     showing compliance with the respective construction 
     requirements within the appropriate five- and ten-year 
     benchmarks of the date of their initial licenses.
     Sec. 24.204 Cellular eligibility.
       (a) 10 MHz Limitation. Until January 1, 2000, no license(s) 
     for broadband PCS in excess of 10 MHz shall be granted to any 
     party (including all parties under common control) if the 
     grant of such license(s) will result in significant overlap 
     of the PCS licensed service area(s) (MTAs or BTAs) and the 
     cellular geographic service area(s) (CGSA) of licensee(s) in 
     the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service 
     directly or indirectly owned, operated, or controlled by the 
     same party.
                                                                    ____


                   Federal Communications Commission

                 [8 FCC Rcd 3204; 1993 FCC LEXIS 2397]

       In the Matter of the Authorization of Cable TV Services, 
     Inc., For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service 
     station WHT578 on the F-group channels at Deadhorse, Alaska; 
     File No. 2506-CM-P-83.
       Release-number: DA 93-524.
       May 14, 1993 Released; Adopted May 5, 1993.
       Action: [*1] Order on reconsideration.
       Judges: By the Chief, Domestic Facilities Division.
       Opinion by: Keegan.


                                opinion

       1. Introduction. After the cancellation by the Domestic 
     Facilities Division (Division) on delegated authority of its 
     authorization to construct and operate Multichannel 
     Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) station WHT578 on the 
     F-group channels at Deadhorse, Alaska, Cable TV Services, 
     Inc. (Cable) requested reinstatement of its authorization.
       2. Background. Although acknowledging that it had failed to 
     complete construction by the deadline, Cable states, on 
     reconsideration, that its authorization should be reinstated 
     because it lost its financing and was unable to obtain 
     substitute financing prior to the expiration of its 
     construction period. Approximately six weeks after the 
     construction expiration date, Cable filed an extension 
     application. Cable justifies the late filing of its extension 
     application because it was still searching for financing and 
     it had orally advised Commission staff of its financing 
     problems. Cable also argues that its authorization should be 
     reinstated because, with the exception of video programming 
     currently provided by satellite, no one but Cable would 
     provide multichannel [*2] video programming to the residents 
     of Deadhorse.
       3. Discussion. Section 319(b) of the Communications Act of 
     1934, as amended, ``provides that a construction 
     authorization will be automatically forfeited if the station 
     is not ready for operation within the time specified in the 
     construction authorization, or such further time as the 
     Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under 
     the control of the grantee.'' Miami MDS Co. and Boston MDS 
     Co., 7 FCC Rcd 4347, 8347, 4348 (1992). The expiration date 
     of Cable's construction authorization appeared on the face of 
     the authorization. The authorization also contained the 
     following express provision: ``This permit shall be 
     automatically forfeited if the facilities authorized herein 
     are not ready for operation within the term of this permit. . 
     . .'' At the time, this automatic forfeiture provision was 
     specifically embodied in Section 21.44 of the Commission's 
     Rules. n1 Vidcom Marketing, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 1945 n.3 (Dom. 
     Fac. Div. 1991).
       ``Carriers who fail promptly to construct facilities 
     preclude other applicants who are willing, ready, and able to 
     construct from access to limited and valuable spectrum. This 
     has the effect of delaying, [*3] or even denying, service to 
     the public. Revision of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 
     FCC Rcd 5713 (1987).'' Miami MDS Co. and Boston MDS Co., 7 
     FCC Rcd 4347, 4349 (1992). Cable's loss of financing and 
     failure to obtain new financing did not toll its construction 
     deadline. Cable's construction authorization was 
     automatically forfeited pursuant to Section 319 of the 
     Communication's Act, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 21.44 and the terms of 
     the authorization. Cable's lack of financing fails to justify 
     reinstatement of its authorization. Cable asserted in its 
     initial application that it was financially qualified under 
     47 C.F.R. Sec. 21.17. Thus, it is the applicant's independent 
     business judgment that it is financially qualified. 
     Therefore, an independent business judgment to delay 
     construction for financial reasons would not be a cause 
     beyond the applicant's control, justifying an extension of 
     time to construct an MMDS station. See W. Lee Simmons, Inc., 
     2 FCC Rcd 4290 (1987) (extension applicant's business 
     decision not to construct was within its own control); Joe L. 
     Smith, Jr., Inc., 5 Rad Reg. 2d 582 (1965); accord Radio 
     Longview, Inc., 19 FCC 2d 966, 968-71 (1969); Beta Television 
     Corp., [*4] 27 FCC 2d 761, 763 (Rev. Bd. 1970). Cable was 
     required to file its extension application prior to the 
     expiration of its construction authorization. 47 C.F.R. Secs. 
     21.11 and 21.44(a). Cable failed to do so. Therefore, its 
     extension application is hereby dismissed as untimely filed.
       n1 Section 21.44(a) stated inter alia as follows: ``A 
     construction permit shall be automatically forfeited if the 
     station is not ready for operation within the term of the 
     construction permit. . . .''
       4. Conclusion and Ordering Clause. Have carefully 
     considered all of the arguments and evidence presented, we 
     find that Cable TV Services, Inc. automatically forfeited its 
     construction authorization for failure to construct prior to 
     the specified expiration date, reinstatement of the 
     authorization is not justified, and its extension application 
     was late filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the request 
     for reinstatement filed by Cable TV Services, Inc. regarding 
     the above-referenced MMDS authorization is denied and its 
     extension application is dismissed. This order is issued 
     pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Sec. 0.291, and is effective on its 
     release date. See 47 C.R.R. Secs. 1.4(b), 1.106, and 1.115. 
     [*5]

                                              James R. Keegan,

                              Chief, Domestic Facilities Division.
                                            Common Carrier Bureau.
     Sec. 73.3533 Application for construction permit or 
         modification of construction permit.
       (a) Application for construction permit, or modification of 
     a construction permit, for a new facility or change in an 
     existing facility is to be made on the following forms:
       (1) FCC Form 301, ``Application for Authority to Construct 
     or Make Changes in an Existing Commercial Broadcast 
     Station.''
       (2) FCC Form 309, ``Application for Authority to Construct 
     or Make Changes in an Existing International or Experimental 
     Broadcast Stations.''
       (3) FCC Form 313, ``Application for Authorization in the 
     Auxiliary Broadcast Services.''
       (4) FCC Form 330, ``Application for Authorization to 
     Construct New or Make Changes in an Instructional Television 
     Fixed and/or Response Station(s), or to Assign to Transfer 
     Such Station(s).''
       (5) FCC Form 340, ``Application for Authority to Construct 
     or Make Changes in a Noncommercial Educational Broadcast 
     Station.''
       (6) FCC Form 346, ``Application for Authority to Construct 
     or Make Changes in a Low Power TV, TV Translator or TV 
     Booster Station.''
       (7) FCC Form 349, ``Application for Authority to Construct 
     or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM Booster Station.'' 

[[Page S 14583]]

       (b) The filing of an application for modification of 
     construction permit does not extend the expiration date of 
     the construction permit. Extension of the expiration date 
     must be applied for on FCC Form 307, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Sec. 73.3534.
     Sec. 73.3534 Application for extension of construction permit 
         or for construction permit to replace expired 
         construction permit.
       (a) Application for extension of time within which to 
     construct a station shall be filed on FCC Form 307, 
     ``Application for Extension of Broadcast Construction Permit 
     or to Replace Expired Construction Permit.'' The application 
     shall be filed at least 30 days prior to the expiration date 
     of the construction permit if the facts supporting such 
     application for extension are known to the applicant in time 
     to permit such filing. In other cases, an application will be 
     accepted upon a showing satisfactory to the FCC of sufficient 
     reasons for filing within less than 30 days prior to the 
     expiration date.
       (b) Applications for extension of time to construct 
     broadcast stations, with the exception of International 
     Broadcast and Instructional TV Fixed stations, will be 
     granted only if one of the following three circumstances have 
     occurred:
       (1) Construction is complete and testing is underway 
     looking toward prompt filing of a license application;
       (2) Substantial progress has been made i.e., demonstration 
     that equipment is on order or on hand, site acquired, site 
     cleared and construction proceeding toward completion; or
       (3) No progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond 
     the control of the permittee (such as delays caused by 
     governmental budgetary processes and zoning problems) but the 
     permittee has taken all possible steps to expeditiously 
     resolve the problem and proceed with construction.
       (c) Applications for extension of time to construct 
     International Broadcast and Instructional TV Fixed stations 
     will be granted upon a specific and detailed showing that the 
     failure to complete was due to cause not under the control of 
     the permittee, or upon a specific and detailed showing of 
     other sufficient to justify an extension.
       (d) If an application for extension of time within which to 
     construct a station is approved, such an extension will be 
     limited to a period of no more than 6 months except when an 
     assignment or transfer has been approved that provides for a 
     longer period up to a maximum of 12 months from the date of 
     consummation.
       (e) Application for a construction permit to replace an 
     expired construction permit shall be filed on FCC Form 307. 
     Such applications must be filed within 30 days of the 
     expiration date of the authorization sought to be replaced. 
     If approved, such authorization shall specify a period of not 
     more than 6 months within which construction shall be 
     completed and application for license filed.
     Sec. 73.3535 Application to modify authorized but unbuilt 
         facilities, or to assign or transfer control of an 
         unbuilt facility.
       (a) If a permittee finds it necessary to file either an 
     application to modify its authorized, but unbuilt facilities, 
     or an assignment/transfer application, such application shall 
     be filed within the first 9 months of the issuance of the 
     original construction permit for radio and other broadcast 
     and auxiliary stations, or within 12 months of the issuance 
     of the original construction permit for television 
     facilities. Before such an application can be granted, the 
     permittee or assignee must certify that it will immediately 
     begin building after the modification is granted or the 
     assignment is consummated.
       (b) Modification and assignment applications filed after 
     the time periods stated in paragraph (a) will not be granted 
     absent a showing that one of the following three criteria 
     apply: (1) Construction is complete and testing is underway 
     looking toward prompt filing of a license application; (2) 
     substantial progress has been made i.e., demonstration that 
     equipment is on order or on hand, site acquired, site cleared 
     and construction proceeding toward completion; or (3) no 
     progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control 
     of the permittee (such as delays caused by governmental 
     budgetary processes and zoning problems) but the permittee 
     has taken all possible steps to expeditiously resolve the 
     problem and proceed with construction.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                                                    ____


                   Federal Communications Commission

                         [1985 FCC LEXIS 3169]

       In the matter of WULT-TV
       June 10, 1985 Released; June 4, 1985
       Opinion by: [*1] McKinney.
     Opinion: New Orleans Channel 20, Inc., Rochester, NY.
     Re: BMPCT-840710KH, BAPCT-840727KG, WULT-TV, New Orleans, LA.
       Gentlemen: This refers to the above-captioned applications 
     for an extension of time within which to construct Station 
     WULT-TV, New Orleans, Louisiana, and for consent to 
     assignment of the construction permit, a petition to deny n1 
     each of the applications, filed by Marvin Gorman Ministries, 
     Inc. (MGMI), and related pleadings.
       n1 Applications for extension of time to construct are not 
     subject to petitions to deny. Therefore, the petition to deny 
     the extension of time application will be treated as an 
     informal objection filed pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the 
     Commission's Rules.
       The Commission granted the construction permit for Channel 
     20 on October 10, 1980, following a settlement agreement 
     among three competing applicants. An application for 
     assignment of the construction permit was granted on January 
     25, 1982. The assignment was not consummated and on March 15, 
     1983, a second assignment application was granted, and was 
     consummated on June 28, 1983. On August 9, 1983, the 
     Commission granted the permittee's application for [*2] a six 
     month extension of time to construct. No construction was 
     undertaken following any of the grants. On February 8, 1984, 
     the Commission granted an additional six month extension of 
     time to construct, subject to the condition that, not later 
     than May 9, 1984, you would file a progress report with the 
     Commission. By letter dated May 9, 1994, rather than 
     submitting a progress report, you informed the Commission 
     that because of the drain on your time and resources and lack 
     of success in obtaining a suitable construction site, you had 
     decided to assign the permit to another entity better able to 
     pursue construction of the station. Consequently, you have 
     once again requested an extension of time to construct in 
     order to assign the permit to another entity. It again 
     appears that no construction has been undertaken. You state 
     that the proposed assignee stands ready to pursue 
     construction of the station once the assignment application 
     is approved.
       In its objections, MGMI contends that you have had ample 
     time in which to secure a site, have failed to do so, have 
     received two extensions previously for failure to find a 
     site, and that you have made little effort to procure a 
     transmitter [*3] site. Under these circumstances, MGMI argues 
     that you should not be allowed to profit from the sale of the 
     construction permit which would result if the Commission 
     grants the requested extension. MGMI alleges that you have 
     not been diligent in your efforts to secure a transmitter 
     site, and that you assertion that you have, lacks 
     credibility. MGMI points out that several of its officers 
     know of available sites for a transmitter, and that ten other 
     applicants for Channel 49 in New Orleans have specified 
     available sites. MGMI notes that two of the principals of New 
     Orleans Channel 20, Inc. have been holders of the 
     construction permit for Channel 20 since 1980. Therefore, 
     MGMI argues, it is unreasonable to believe that these 
     principals could not have produced a transmitter site within 
     this four year time span. Further, MGMI states that the 
     public interest has been successively undercut by your 
     continuing attempt to hold on to the construction permit. 
     MGMI asserts that your failure to construct over the past 
     four years has removed the channel from the community and 
     prevented any other party from applying to use it.
       In opposition, you state that the objections are not based 
     on [*4] the present set of circumstances, but on the previous 
     extension applications and the previous applications for 
     assignment of the construction permit which cannot be 
     revisited. You argue that the public interest would be served 
     by extending the construction permit and allowing the station 
     to go on the air promptly. You assert that the public 
     interest would not be served by opening up the channel for 
     multiple competing applications. You note that LeSea 
     Broadcasting, the proposed assignee, has committed itself to 
     constructing the station, and it hopes to have the station on 
     the air in seven months. n2
       n2 The proposed assignee states that it has: (1) secured a 
     transmitter site and filed an application to modify the 
     Channel 20 construction permit to specify the new site; (2) 
     placed a contingent order for broadcast equipment in the 
     amount of approximately $2.5 million; (3) located a suitable 
     studio site; and (4) reached agreements in principle with 
     individuals who will be the station's operations manager and 
     chief engineer.
       Additionally, you maintain that past Commission cases made 
     it clear that an extension of time is appropriate where a 
     permittee that has not constructed a station [*5] proposes to 
     assign the permit to a party that is prepared to proceed with 
     construction. Gross Broadcasting Co., 41 FCC 2d 729 (1973); 
     New Television Corp., 65 FCC 2d 680 (Rev. Bd. 1977); Hymen 
     Lake, 56 FCC 2d 379 (Rev. Bd. 1975). You state that in the 
     past, where there has been a firm commitment from the 
     proposed assignee to construct and the probability of early 
     inauguration of UHF television, as here, the Commission has 
     consistently found that the public interest would be served 
     by extending the time for construction. You contend that the 
     extension and assignment of the Channel 20 permit would bring 
     new television service to New Orleans at the earliest 
     opportunity. Further, you allege that MGMI has failed to 
     offer any support for its legal position and has provided no 
     basis for overturning long-established Commission policy.
       In reply to your opposition, MGMI maintains that you have 
     not submitted any showing of circumstances beyond your 
     control which prevented construction and, therefore, the 
     permit should be forfeited. MGMI alleges that in the 11 
     months you have controlled the permit, you have made no 
     discernible effort to find a site, order equipment, [*6] or 
     to begin any type of television operation in New Orleans. 
     Yet, MGMI states, you now hope to receive $250,000 for 
     transferring the permit to another party.
       Before an extension application can be granted, Section 
     73.3534(a) of the Commission's Rules requires either a 
     specific and detailed showing that the failure to complete 

[[Page S 14584]]

     construction within the time provided was due to causes 
     beyond a permittee's control or that there are other matters 
     sufficient to justify the extension. In the past, where an 
     assignee made a firm commitment to construct expeditiously 
     and the Commission was persuaded that the assignment 
     represents the fastest way to have the station activated, the 
     pendency of the assignment application can be considered to 
     be such an ``other matter.'' King Communications, Inc., 47 RR 
     2d 109, 110 (Rev. Bd., 1980). However, the filing of an 
     assignment application does not automatically entitle the 
     permittee to an extension of time to have the station built. 
     Moreover, subsequent to the King decision, the Commission has 
     clearly stated that it will take a much closer look at 
     extension applications. See, e.g., Revision of Form 301, 50 
     R.R. 2d 381, 382 (1981); MEKAOY [*7] C. (KTIE), 48 RR 2d 815, 
     817 (Broadcast Bureau, 1980).
       Here, we note that it has been four years since the 
     construction permit was issued for Channel 20. During this 
     time, the Commission has granted two assignment applications 
     and two applications for extension of time to construct. Yet, 
     no construction has commenced and it appears that no 
     equipment has been ordered. In granting the last extension of 
     time to construct, the Commission granted the request subject 
     to the condition that not later than May 9, 1984, a progress 
     report would be filed with the Commission. However, on May 9, 
     1984, you informed the Commission that you had decided to 
     assign the permit to another entity. Thus, on July 10, 1984, 
     you filed an application for extension of time to construct 
     and on July 27, 1984, an application for assignment of the 
     construction permit.
       In this case, the permit was assigned to you on the 
     assumption that you would build promptly. The last extension 
     application was approved on the assumption that its grant 
     would expeditiously result in a new service to the public. 
     These expectations have come to nought.
       Accordingly, on the basis of the facts set forth in your 
     application, [*8] the Commission is unable to find that 
     construction of the station was prevented by causes beyond 
     your control and the Commission does not find the existence 
     of other matters which would warrant an extension. The filing 
     of the assignment application, under the circumstances, does 
     not warrant an extension of time. You are advised that your 
     application for an extension of time within which to 
     construct Station WULT, New Orleans, Louisiana, is denied, 
     your construction permit is canceled, your call sign is 
     deleted, and your application for assignment of the 
     construction permit to LeSea Broadcasting, Incorporated, is 
     dismissed, as moot.
           Sincerely,
                                                James C. McKinney,
                                         Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would still like to have a rollcall vote 
on this issue, but I have no further reason to debate the issue. So I 
would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.


       Transitional Funding For United States Travel And Tourism 
                             Administration

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wanted to alert my colleagues it will be 
my intention later on today when the floor opens up to offer an 
amendment with Senator Burns to provide transitional funding----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would withhold.
  We are in a controlled time.
  Mr. BRYAN. I think my statement would take perhaps 7 or 8 minutes, if 
there is a parliamentary concern.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will yield the Senator from Nevada 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Then I will yield the Senator from Nevada 11 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 11 
minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from North Dakota for his 
courtesy.
  As I indicated, Mr. President, it will be my intention to offer, with 
the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, an amendment 
later on today to provide transitional funding for the U.S. Travel and 
Tourism Administration.
  This funding would permit an orderly transition into a new public/
private-sector entity. This amendment enjoys the support of a number of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, including, among many others, 
Senators McConnell, Hollings, Murkowski, Inouye, Thurmond, and Daschle.
  I might also note, Mr. President, that the National Governors' 
Association at their recent annual meeting endorsed the concept 
embodied in this proposed amendment.
  Mr. President, none of us is unmindful of the fact that the current 
budget pressures demand some extraordinary responses. So the purpose of 
this amendment is simply to provide some transitional funding until 
this public-private partnership can be organized.
  As part of this effort, the Congress, the administration, and the 
travel and tourism organization that are needed best to promote the 
travel industry are going to need some time to put this into effect. To 
cut off funding cold turkey, as is contemplated in the present form of 
this bill, would be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament.
  All of our competitors spend considerably more than we do on their 
national tourism offices. In fact, the United States ranks 23d, 
spending just $16 million while countries like Greece, Mexico, and 
Spain, spend more than $100 million each year. In fact, putting this in 
some context, Mr. President, we rank behind such powerhouses as Tunisia 
and Malaysia in terms of the amount of money we are spending.
  Unfortunately, these spending figures are having a dramatic impact on 
our share of the world's tourism market. In 1993, the United States 
enjoyed almost 19 percent of the world's tourism receipts. This has 
declined to 15.6 percent this year, and is expected to shrink to 13.8 
percent by the end of the decade. The chart that I have prepared will 
indicate that rather dramatic decline. In 1993, 18.7 percent; 1994, 
17.9 percent; 1995, estimated this year, 15.6 percent; and by the end 
of the century, 13.8 percent.
  Now, this is more than just a statistical observation. It has real 
impact. The loss in the U.S. share of the world's tourism market can be 
translated into a significant impact on our trade deficit and on 
employment. If we were able to keep our world tourism share from 
shrinking, we would improve our trade balance--that is a plus, Mr. 
President--by $28 billion and increase employment by 370,000 people by 
the year 2000.
  Those are significant industries. Very few industries can shape our 
economy to this extent. Travel and tourism is already the second 
largest employer in our Nation after health care. It employs either 
directly or indirectly 13 million Americans.
  Now, this indicates the trade surplus balance, something that is 
always of concern to us. We are running, in terms of our international 
trading accounts, a deficit.
  This clearly indicates that tourism--international tourism; we are 
not talking about domestic tourism; this is international tourism--can 
be a substantial, positive, contributing factor. The estimate this year 
is $18.1 billion, that is, in effect, more people coming to the United 
States from abroad, spending money in your State, Mr. President, and 
others who are on the floor and my own as opposed to Americans 
traveling abroad and spending money in foreign countries--$18.1 billion 
to the good as we say.
  The opportunity we have as a nation is that international travel and 
tourism is growing rapidly. By the year 2000 more than 661 million 
people will be traveling throughout the world. That is roughly twice as 
many people as traveled in 1985. What we need to do is to capture our 
share of this tourism market. We need to put the muscle of the public 
and private sector together in a public/private-sector relationship to 
make sure we advance this market, fully exploit this market to make 
sure that we get our fair share of the international travel dollar. And 
to do this we need to develop a new strategy, jointly with the private 
sector, to energize our international tourism efforts.
  The amendment which we will be offering later today would provide $12 
million in funding for USTTA, for the transition into this new public/
private-sector entity. What this entity will look like is being 
formulated as we 

[[Page S 14585]]
speak. It should be available for scrutiny at the upcoming White House 
Conference on Travel and Tourism.
  Australia and Canada have recently created such public/private-sector 
partnerships. These new organizations are each spending approximately 
$100 million this year and have developed creative and aggressive 
programs in promoting national tourism on behalf of their respective 
countries.
  I do not come here to defend our current tourism effort. It is in 
need of a major overhaul. But terminating this program cold turkey is 
not the appropriate step to take. We must make a transition into a new 
market entity. This transition is important for all of us. It gives us 
time to begin implementing the recommendations that will emerge from 
the White House conference on tourism, time to help kick off the 1996 
summer Olympics in Atlanta, in time to make a transition into a new 
public/private-sector partnership.
  Later on, Mr. President, I will urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which enjoys wide bipartisan support. And I note the work of 
my distinguished colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, who is a prime 
cosponsor with me.
  Mr. President, I do not know if anyone else needs to speak, but I 
reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor.
  Noting no other Senator on the floor, I 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 2815

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, 
which would increase our commitment to addressing the menace of 
domestic violence.
  Mr. President, violence against women is one of this country's most 
important and pressing problems. Every 5 minutes a women is raped. 
Every 12 seconds a woman is battered. In fact, these figures reflect 
only reported crimes--the actual incidence rates probably are even 
higher.
  These numbers are mind-numbing and appalling. Yet they fail to convey 
the horror and the long-term physical and emotional harms that victims 
suffer. Sexual assault can have a devastating impact on a woman, 
especially if she cannot get access to needed counseling and support 
services. These harms can last a lifetime. It's therefore critical that 
counseling and other services are available to all victims.
  That is one reason why last year I was proud to cosponsor the 
Violence Against Women Act. This act offers a comprehensive approach to 
fighting family violence and sexual assault.
  Under the act, Federal funds are distributed to the States for victim 
support services, for training of law enforcement officers, for 
expansion of law enforcement and prosecution agencies, and for the 
development of more effective programs to prevent violent crimes 
against women.
  Funds have already been distributed to the States under this act, and 
it's off to a good, strong start. But it's only a start. The job is far 
from done.
  Unfortunately, in its current form, this bill would take a step 
backward in the battle against domestic violence. Last year, Congress 
authorized about $175 million for fiscal year 1996. Yet the bill would 
cut that level by $75 million.
  In my view, that cut would be a big mistake. We simply should not 
turn our back on the commitment that we made last year to fighting 
violence against women.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which would provide critical additional funds for the 
Violence Against Women Act. It's time to make the fight against 
domestic violence a top national priority.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for restoring funding 
for the Violence Against Women Act programs. When we passed the 
Violence Against Women Act as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994, we responded to the crisis of domestic 
violence that exists throughout this country, in rural and urban 
communities, among poor, middle class, and the rich, affecting women 
and children of all races and religions. Those programs are among the 
most important parts of the comprehensive legislation we considered and 
passed last year after 6 long years of debate.
  To have gutted these programs through the appropriations process 
would have been wrong. To have done so when the funding for them was 
assured through the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund would have 
breached our commitment to the American people. A 99 to 0 vote in favor 
of restoring this funding sends a powerful message to those who would 
have cut funding for these important programs.
  Law enforcement and community-based programs cannot be kept on a 
string like a yo-yo if they are to plan and implement programs to begin 
to deal with domestic violence and its prevention. They need to be able 
to initiate programs and hire staff and have a sense of stability if 
these measures are to achieve their fullest potential.
  I know, for instance, that, in Vermont, Lori Hayes at the Vermont 
Center for Crime Victims Services; Judy Rex and the Vermont Network 
Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse; Karen Bradley from the 
Vermont Center for Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Abuse; and 
others, provide tremendous service under difficult conditions. Such 
dedicated individuals and organizations, working in a most difficult 
area, on problems that were once thought to be intractable, ought not 
be promised support and then frustrated just as they are about to 
expand needed programs and services throughout the State. Vermont was 
the first State to apply for and the first State to begin receiving its 
Violence Against Women Act grant. The Governor and his advisers had 
made plans and promises and announced grantees through the State. That 
implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs ought to proceed 
without further delay, distraction or diminution.
  What Congress needs to do is to follow through on our commitments, 
not to breach them and violate our pledge to law enforcement, State and 
local government, and the American people. Invading trust funds 
dedicated to Violence Against Women Act programs is simply not 
justifiable. Neither the elimination of the corporate alternative 
minimum tax nor capital gains taxes is sufficient reason for this cut.
  Funding for important programs implementing the Violence Against 
Women Act and our rural crime initiatives should not be cut without 
debate and justification. There has been neither.
  Earlier this year I offered a resolution rejecting the ill-advised 
House action cutting $5 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
Fund. The Senate agreed and proclaimed its intent to preserve the trust 
fund so that we could fulfill the promise of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act and our commitment to do all that we can to 
reduce violent crime in our local communities. The action we take today 
takes an important step in that same direction and preserves to our 
Violence Against Women Act programs funds that are needed for their 
proper implementation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Regular order, Mr. President.


                       vote on amendment no. 2815

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now vote on the Biden amendment No. 2815.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 474 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford 

[[Page S 14586]]

     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  So the amendment (No. 2815) was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2816, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the McCain amendment 
is now in order. There are 4 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, Senator 
Brown, for his perfection of this amendment, which has allowed us to 
agree on this very important savings of between $300 and $700 million 
for the taxpayers of America. I thank Senator Brown for that.
  I yield what remaining time I have to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the Senator's 
remarks. I hope the Members of the Senate will vote to approve this 
amendment. It does deal with $300 to $700 million that ought to inure 
to the benefit of the taxpayers of this country, and that is why we 
offered the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. May we have an explanation of the amendment? I understand 
it is a good amendment, but I would like to know what it is if we are 
going to be voting on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. If those Members 
having discussions could please retire to the Cloakroom?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment expresses, legally, that the 
U.S. Senate is in favor of obtaining the maximum value for a spectrum 
which is valued between $300 and $700 million. This is done by auction. 
The perfecting amendment by Senator Brown is that, in case there is 
another way to gain more money for the taxpayers, that path should be 
pursued by the FCC as well.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no particular reason to enter into 
any discussion on this amendment. But when we get 4 minutes allotted 
for explanation of these amendments, that is a very worthwhile 
injection into the unanimous-consent request. It means something, for 
the rest of the Members to understand what we are voting on.
  I am not on the committee that has jurisdiction of that particular 
subject. I would just like a little clearer explanation. I expect to 
vote for the amendment. I hear a lot of good things about it. But I am 
sure a lot of Members have not heard debate on it. I have not.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the reason my remarks this morning were 
brief is that we came at 9 o'clock this morning and began a debate on 
this very amendment per the unanimous-consent request last evening. 
There was debate on both sides of the amendment beginning at 9 o'clock 
this morning. My intention was not to take up any more of the Senate's 
time. It was debated both this morning and partially last night.
  I think the amendment is a good agreement. I respect the Senator from 
West Virginia's interest in making sure everybody understands what we 
are voting on just prior to the vote, but I think we have had a good 
debate on this. I hope the Members will support the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is there any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 19 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am one of those Senators who stayed around 
all afternoon waiting on a vote yesterday. I was told there would be a 
vote at 9 o'clock last night, so I went home about 6:30 or 7 to get 
some dinner, to be with my good wife, Lady Byrd, and my little dog, 
Billy Byrd.
  So I came back. Then, after I got back, it was my understanding there 
was not going to be any vote until this morning. So, as a result of all 
of that, to make a long story short, I did not get to listen to the 
debate. I do not know about other Senators, but, with that kind of 
discussion here, it is pretty hard to keep body and soul together with 
a good meal once in a while, let alone understand what is in these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the amendment No. 2816, 
as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 475 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  So the amendment (No. 2816), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2819

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, is the pending business the Domenici 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that is the pending 
business.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have before us an appropriations 
bill. We have imposed, on top of the House bill, our particular 
appropriators' likes and dislikes. But the underlying bill that the 
House sent to us essentially says, ``Let's keep the Legal Services 
Corporation, but let's make sure that those things that the Legal 
Services Corporation has been doing that many Senators and many people 
in this country don't think they ought to be doing, that those things 
be prohibited.''
  The House did not abolish the program. The House in the 
appropriations bill funded legal services with these prohibitions 
attached. 

[[Page S 14587]]

  What I am going to do now is to take the amendment that came out of 
the subcommittee that is on the floor on legal services, and I am going 
to substitute for it something very much like the House bill. So for 
those who wonder whether this amendment, the Domenici-Hollings and many 
others, whether this bill will permit the Legal Services Corporation to 
do business as usual, I submit to them we are going to let this Legal 
Services Corporation do what the House said they can do.
  And what is that?
  First, let me say that this approach to justice came under the regime 
of Richard Nixon. And what he said then I believe applies today, and 
maybe more so.
  He said:

       [It] gives those in need new reason to believe that they 
     too are part of ``the system'' . . . [by doing what we have 
     learned] that justice is served far better--

  And continuing with his quote--

     and differences are settled more rationally within the system 
     rather than on the streets. Now [he said in the 1970's] is 
     the time to make legal services an integral part of our 
     judicial system.

  Now, since that point until now, legal services has had a rocky 
career. There is no doubt about it. It has been debated on the floor. 
And it has been perilously close--but for Senator Rudman as a stalwart, 
perhaps it would have been changed and it would not be around. But 
essentially what the Senator from New Mexico intends is that this 
program be around as Richard Nixon intended.
  Should not the poor people in the country should be served by lawyers 
when they themselves have a need for a lawyer. In fact, it was 
mentioned back in the days when the Legal Services Corporation was 
established that lawyers would be down there with the poor people 
taking their case, the idea of storefront justice.
  I say to everyone, I do not know what is wrong with the United States 
of America saying to the needy people of this country that the judicial 
system is not only for the rich. What is wrong with that? Why should a 
Republican be ashamed to say that? That is what America is all about.
  What we do not want, at least this Senator does not want, is the 
legal services to be suing the Legislature of the State of New Jersey 
when they are adopting a new welfare program and saying, ``You can't do 
that.'' I think they should leave that to somebody else. And this 
program ought to be for the individual poor people who have a need for 
a lawyer.
  Let me suggest--although it is a criminal case, so it does not 
necessarily apply to what we are doing, I say to the Senator from South 
Carolina--but has anybody ever seen a situation, such as the O.J. 
Simpson trial, where somebody who has plenty of money gets plenty of 
justice?
   But here we have in a poverty neighborhood an American citizen who 
is being thrown out of their house, and they have a legitimate reason 
as a tenant to remain there. But if they do not get a lawyer, they are 
out on the streets.
  If that same thing existed and there was a tenant in a million dollar 
house for the summer and the landlord wants to throw them out, they 
will get justice, will they not? They will get justice. They will get a 
lawyer. Why should that poor person not get that?
  Frankly, I am one of those who wants to make Government smaller. I 
want to balance the budget. I do not take a back seat to anybody on 
this. But what I am trying to do in this amendment is to return the 
level of funding to legal services to what it was 3 years ago. I am 
cutting 15 percent, I say to the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, 
15 percent from this funding. Frankly, there are not a lot of programs 
getting cut much more than 15 percent. There are some, and some are 
zero, but for the most part, 7, 8, 9 percent, even in these very 
difficult times.
  I want to read the prohibitions, and might I say, Mr. President, I am 
fully aware--I am fully aware--that a number of people are going to 
vote for my amendment and it will be adopted. It will be adopted, you 
can count on it. There are a number of people who do not like all these 
prohibitions, but they are going to vote for it. They are going to vote 
for this amendment because they do not want to see an appropriations 
subcommittee, which probably had one hearing for 1 hour, 1\1/2\ hours, 
2 hours, decide in a funding bill to do away with this program and 
create a new block grant that we do not even understand and, at the 
same time, provide such a small amount of funding for the next year 
that there will not be anything being done for the poor people.
  We might just as well say for the next year there is nothing going to 
be done under the funding level here. If anybody wants to challenge me 
on that, do not look at the budget authority number, look at the 
outlay. It is a little tiny bit; $53 million in outlays for the whole 
next year. The House put in $278 million; $53 million versus a House 
Republican conservative $278 million. I bring it up to $340 million, 
which is 15 percent less than last year.
  Let me read the prohibitions. If there is anyone here who does not 
think the Domenici-Hollings amendment wants to make this program work 
for individual American needy people in their personal litigation, let 
me read the prohibitions.
  First, you cannot use any of this money or any money from other 
sources that is in the Legal Services Corporation to advocate policies 
relating to redistricting.
  No class action lawsuits--no class action lawsuits--can be filed. To 
revert back to what I just described: Individual legal services for 
individual Americans in need, for their case and their cause and only 
that.
  You cannot use it for influencing action on any legislative, 
constitutional amendment, referendum, or similar procedures of 
Congress, State, or local legislative bodies. The same as the House.
  You cannot use it for legal assistance to illegal aliens. Americans, 
Americans are what we have in mind, American citizens.
  Supporting, conducting training programs relating to political 
activities, abortion litigation, prisoner litigation--same as the 
House--welfare reform litigation, except to represent individuals on 
particular matters that do not involve changing existing law.
  I can go on with the rest. I put them in the Record last night. If 
anybody has any questions on them, I will be pleased to answer them.
  I know sitting on the floor right now are perhaps two Senators who 
would rather have less of these, and I understand that. But I want to 
do one thing at a time this year. I do not want to do away with the 
program. I do not want a block grant program designed in an 
appropriations subcommittee which I believe essentially is destined to 
get rid of the system.
  I have left one part of this discussion to my good friend Senator 
Hollings because, obviously, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Gramm from Texas, is going to get up and talk about the offsets. I have 
not been privy to reading what he might say, nor has he shared it with 
me, but I can see it coming.
  He is going to suggest, for instance, that salaries and expenses for 
the Federal judiciary, that I took a little bit of money away from--
yes, I did. But we have consulted regularly on that and, basically, we 
are convinced that because we have increased it sufficiently, to take a 
small amount off, they are going to be all right, as compared to doing 
away with legal services for the needy and the poor.
  He is going to talk, for instance, about U.S. attorneys. Let me just 
tell you about that one. I know the argument. The argument is going to 
be: There are a lot of criminals out there who need to be prosecuted. 
Are we going to take away prosecutions of those people to keep legal 
services?
  Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, what actually happened is 
the subcommittee took the President's budget on new U.S. attorneys, 
which was more than adequate. All the U.S. attorneys around said, 
``That's a great number,'' and the subcommittee increased it, maybe 
increased all of those kinds of funding, so there would not be anything 
left for a program like this. Then we come along and say, ``Let's bring 
it down to the President's budget,'' and we are cutting U.S. attorneys.
  Having said that, there are a number of other things. I am going to 
ask if my good friend, Senator Hollings, who is my cosponsor, who has 
chaired this subcommittee and is the ranking member, might address the 
Senate now with 

[[Page S 14588]]
reference to his feelings on this amendment. And with particularity, if 
he can talk a little about the offsets, I would appreciate it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
New Mexico and former ranking member and the former chairman of our 
subcommittee.
  In short, Senator Domenici talks with expert knowledge, intimate 
knowledge, of this particular appropriations measure.
  First, Mr. President, Legal Services is a many splendored thing. I do 
not say that lightly. Yes, it was an idea that came to fruition, you 
might say, under President Nixon. But it was long since due, if you 
please. We had many in the vineyards who had been working over the many 
years. In the 1920's, Charles Evans Hughes; our former President, Chief 
Justice William Howard Taft; and Elihu Root supported the formation of 
a standing committee on legal aid work in the American Bar Association. 
And Taft wrote, in 1925:

       Something must be devised by which everyone, however lowly 
     and however poor, however unable by his means to employ a 
     lawyer and to pay court costs, shall be furnished the 
     opportunity to set this fixed machinery of justice going.

  Then it was some 40 years later, almost 50 years later, that our 
distinguished former President, Richard Nixon, came in 1970 with the 
American Bar Association. When I say a ``many splendored thing,'' 
everybody thinks voluntarism begins in Washington, families begin in 
Washington, and everything that is done begins in Washington.
  The fact of the matter is that society has been very concerned about 
the poor having their day in court. We, as old-time trial lawyers, know 
that, yes, with respect to damage suit cases and injury cases whereby 
you can get a verdict, there is a long since-established system that 
has worked extremely well--and now the Brits, by the way, are coming to 
it--whereby we take it on a contingent basis because we know the poor 
injured do not have the money to investigate, do not have the money to 
pay hourly payments that they get in Washington.
  There are 60,000 lawyers under billable hours running around this 
town who have never been in a courtroom. On the contrary, the poor can 
come to a trial attorney. He will take care of the court expenses, the 
medical expenses of the doctors testifying, the experts drawing plats 
and what have you. And if he loses his case, the poor do not owe the 
lawyer anything. That is a contingent fee basis of trial work.
  But when it comes to these smaller cases where there is not any 
contingency to be paid--namely, a domestic case, an unemployment case, 
a landlord-tenant case--for the poor, in these types of cases, there is 
no time in it or benefit with it with respect to the practicing bar. 
And they have been more or less shut out over the many, many years 
until President Nixon and the Legal Services Corporation under the 
American Bar Association got started.
  Now, what has developed? Mr. President, I think there are over 
130,000 lawyers. Imagine that. Do away with this and give it to the 
Governors with block grants and try to find the lawyers who are going 
to come in on this particular thing. They will start putting tanks on 
the lawn again and buying airplanes and everything else of that kind. 
As the distinguished chairman of my subcommittee knows, you get that 
fish--what do we call it, the ``funk'' or the ``monk'' fish, whatever 
it was.
  I refer, Mr. President, to when we had the stimulus bill and they had 
asked the poor mayors what they would like to do to stimulate the 
economy. They came up with cemeteries. They came up with golf courses. 
They came up with parking garages down there for the youngsters to park 
at Easter-time on Fort Lauderdale beach. We had to put in all kinds of 
restrictions there on the local effort and what local people can spend 
for legal services, or not spend.
  What you are doing is really destroying, if you please, one of the 
finely honed societal developments, led, if you please, by the American 
Bar, and former Associate Justice Lewis Powell when he was the 
president of the American Bar Association, and President Richard Nixon.
  I remember it well. I had been involved in this since the early days. 
We have had stormy times. After it got started, everybody was jumping 
up and down on the Capitol steps, saying ``Hey, hey, go away; how many 
did you kill today?'' and all of that. Yes, we were paying them--Legal 
Services were paying them. I had to treat that with amendments and say, 
no, let us get back. We are not paying for demonstrating groups to 
come.
  As the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has referred to, and as 
concerned as the Senator from Texas and the Senator from South Carolina 
are, the next thing you know a couple years ago, there went Legal 
Services suing the State of New Jersey.
  That is not the intent. There are plenty of moneys for class actions 
for these other groups. You have to keep it couched and carefully 
controlled in order to maintain the credibility and the effectiveness 
of the program.
  So I welcome the restrictions that have been put on by Senator Gramm 
and others here with respect to class actions and illegals and 
otherwise. Let us make sure that we maintain the integrity of the 
program. There were 250,000 cases last year, and, yes, with a $400 
million appropriation. The communities come, the local governments and 
State governments, and the various bar associations, and they pitch in 
over $255 million--over half again what we appropriate at the Federal 
level. If you put in a Federal program--if you put in block grants--I 
can tell you right now they are not going to come with any moneys. You 
really are messing up a many, many splendored thing.
  So the Senator from New Mexico is following right now in the 
footsteps of the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Rudman. I will 
tell you right now, do not get in Senator Rudman's way if you were 
going to challenge the Legal Services. He would knock over chairs and 
tables and come at you. I used to get out of the way. I am glad to get 
out of the way now under the leadership of Senator Domenici for the 
most worthwhile program that has been developed in a bipartisan fashion 
and should be maintained as such.
  What about these offsets? First you have to understand that the 
moneys taken from the Department of Justice have to be understood. I 
think I have the exact figure here. After all of the offsets are taken 
in the Domenici-Hollings amendment, what happens is we still have 
increased the Department of Justice a tremendous amount in percentage--
some 18-percent increase over this year. In other words, let us not 
argue. Let us take and try on the offsets from the Department of 
Justice, because I am a champion of that particular Department, having 
been the chairman, and ranking member now, and on this subcommittee for 
over 25 years. The FBI will have an 18.3-percent increase. The FBI, 
with its attorneys and otherwise, will be left with a $418 million 
increase in this budget for 1996 over 1995.
  So, in no way are we cutting back. It is a tremendous increase. The 
truth of the matter is, I was actually amazed--and I have sworn I am 
not going to ever use any charts around here. I am tired of it. If we 
want to balance the budget, we ought to put a tax on charts used by us 
politicians on the floor of the Senate and I think we could balance the 
budget. Every time I look around, somebody is running out with one of 
these mischievous charts.
  It is jogging my memory here. By 1983, after almost 200 years of 
history, we got to a $3 billion budget in the Department of Justice. 
Mind you me, having been the chief law enforcement officer, having been 
a Governor of a State, we have argued, and still argue, that the police 
powers--those that belong rightfully at the local level--that the 
primary function of the State government is its police powers to 
enforce the law.
  So we have been very askance about the Federal Government coming in 
on all of these particular initiatives because we in Washington like to 
get reelected.
  We identify with the hot-button crime issue and we throw money at it. 
We have had more crime bills come spewing down the road. We have $1 
billion backed up there in the Bureau of Prisons. We are building them 
like 

[[Page S 14589]]
gangbusters all over the land, all because crime is a hot-button item.
  It took 200 years to get to $3 billion. This budget here for 1996 
will carry us to $16.95 billion--17 billion bucks.
  Actually, the increase--taking the offsets in our Legal Services 
amendment--the increase will exceed $3 billion, even accounting for 
these offsets in the Department of Justice. In other words, in 1 year 
we are increasing the Justice budget by the amount that the total 
budget was just a few short years ago.
  We think it is needed. As I say, I was on the committee. I did not 
just do it willy-nilly, but we wanted to respond to immigration, border 
patrol, the prison system, the Marshals Service, the FBI, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, and on down the list. We have been working 
and working and working.
  Here we come with an offset respecting the particular crime lab. Now, 
with respect to that crime lab, I know full well that the Department of 
Justice is working with the Department of Defense to get that new 
laboratory. It is a technical support center. That is over $300 million 
in new initiatives.
  Earlier this year, Judge Freeh came up with that particular need 
after the tragic incident down there in Oklahoma. Just sort of like a 
pinata, broke it, and all the gifts went in all directions. We just 
started anywhere that anybody came up from the Justice Department. We 
voted aye, we said you got that, do not worry about it, and everything 
else.
  Looking at that laboratory which we support out there at Quantico, we 
know full well that the Justice Department is conferring now with the 
Department of Defense, and they do not even have the site and the land 
and everything else.
  What we are trying to do is support the requirement as needed, and to 
back up the money and the particular offset. It is not a question of us 
not supporting the technical support center, but once we get the site 
we have to draw the plans and everything else of that kind. What we 
need to do is go in a deliberate fashion there.
  With respect to the topography lab, it is a new one. There is an 
effort in this Government along that line. You have to speak advisedly 
because most of this is classified, but I can tell you here and now if 
you have served on the Intelligence Committee--I served with the Hoover 
Commission back in the 1950's investigating these type of activities--
that they are awfully, awfully expensive. The effort, I think, that we 
have now in the Government is more than adequate without starting a new 
one.
  I defer to the chairman of our Intelligence Committee, the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and our 
ranking member, Senator Robert Kerrey of Nebraska. I am confident that 
the offsets there are not going to injure in any fashion the efforts of 
law enforcement or the Department of Justice.
  With respect to the working capital fund, what we need to do is get a 
little bit of discipline there. We have been liberal. In fact, we like 
it when we handle these appropriations. If we had a working capital 
fund in everybody's subcommittee, the chairman and the ranking member 
could allocate around, somewhat like Plato's famous saying that a 
politician ``makes his own little laws and sits attentive to his own 
applause.'' All we need to do is not tell people about this working 
capital fund and we can sit around and divide money up all year long. 
The offset here is not going to hurt the Department of Justice, in any 
fashion.
  With respect to the conference success, I want to quote to you the 
inspector general's observations contained in the annual report: ``We 
are concerned that a successful decennial census could be jeopardized 
if the Bureau attempts to accomplish too much too soon.''
  Now, we never had any hearings on the census on our side of the 
Capitol. The distinguished chairman, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, over on 
the House side did have deliberate hearings that went into the census 
budget in detail, and the amounts offset in the Domenici-Hollings 
amendment provide $67 billion that we came in on this particular 
appropriations over the House, which is $60 million above the current 
year.
  In reality, Mr. President, what we are doing is almost like 
conferees--we can see ahead down the road when we confer with our House 
friends on a conference of committees to finalize the figure that we 
are going to reconcile this backwards.
  What happens is that Senator Domenici has very wisely come and said 
we should do a little of the reconciling at this particular point to 
save an awfully important entity. We do not want to change this to any 
kind of block grant. We do not want to be cutting it back.
  These lawyers--they are inspired. I commend the law schools of the 
country over for inspiring these young attorneys coming out to do good, 
to offer public service--with many of them wanting the experience and 
saying, ``I will give a little bit of time now to the public. I will 
learn and be able to better represent, and I will be doing some good 
for the communities in which I live.'' So they come in there.
  I think the average fee of any legal service lawyer--they are earning 
around $30,000 to $33,000 a year. No, that does not take these Ivy 
League boys who come and go into downtown Washington and downtown New 
York who start out at $80,000 a year and everything else. That is not 
the case. We are not enriching any lawyer. We are enriching society.
  This amendment is well conceived. The offsets, I can say, will never 
cause injury. On the contrary, what is still left is over and above the 
House side. Even though our budget, our 602(b) allocation was $1 
billion below the House, we still come in $750 million above the House 
with these particular offsets. We are in good, strong shape. I think 
the Senator from Texas would want to join us in this amendment.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes as 
the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the 
authorizing committee for the Legal Services Corporation, to express 
strong support for the Domenici-Hollings amendment.
  I want to say why I do so. We have had an extensive hearing in the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee. We heard from witnesses on both 
sides of the issue. I have introduced legislation in the Senate as a 
companion measure to the McCollum-Stenholm bill that is under 
consideration in the House. We will soon be marking up this legislation 
in the Labor Committee.
  As Senator Domenici pointed out quite correctly, the language in the 
Domenici-Hollings amendment is agreed to by some and not by others. It 
is language that returns the Legal Services Corporation to its original 
mission. It is language that reforms the program in a way that restores 
it to what it was supposed to be when the legislation was passed and 
became law.
  The most important part of this amendment is that it restores funding 
for the Legal Services Corporation. That point has already been well 
made by Senator Domenici and Senator Hollings. As Senator Domenici also 
noted, this amendment has important reforms and tight restrictions on 
permissible activities. I would just like to reiterate those, if I may, 
very briefly. In terms of operational reforms:

  Frist, a competitive bidding system will be required for awarding LSC 
grants based on quality and cost effectiveness of service; second, the 
governing board of LSC grantees will establish priorities for the types 
of cases to be handled. thrid, the LSC grantees will be required to 
keep time sheets identifying the client and matter under consideration; 
fourth, LSC grantees will be restricted in their use of non-LSC funds. 
and fifth, finally, there are new safeguards requiring the 
identification by name of plaintiffs and statement of facts underlying 
the case before initiating litigation or settlement negotiations.
  On the restrictions side, Legal Services grantees: May not lobby for 
passage or defeat of legislation, may not represent illegal aliens, may 
not participate in training programs and political activities, may not 
take redistricting cases, may not participate in abortion litigation, 
may not participate in class actions, may not challenge welfare reform, 
may not defend tenants evicted from public house projects because of 
drug dealing, may not take fee-generating cases, and may not solicit 
clients.
  These are all very important restrictions. Some, as Senator Domenici 
pointed out, were far too restrictive for 

[[Page S 14590]]
some of our colleagues. Nevertheless, I believe these restrictions 
provide the necessary guidance to take Legal Services back to its 
primary mission, which is providing assistance to those who need legal 
representation and cannot afford it.
  It is very important that low income individuals have the same access 
as anyone else to the legal system. But it seems to me, over the years, 
the Legal Services Corporation has gone far beyond its initial mandate 
when the law was passed under President Nixon's leadership.
  So, for all of those reasons, I strongly support and have high regard 
for the legislation that has been put forward as an amendment by 
Senator Domenici and Senator Hollings.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is correct, is it not, that the competitive bidding 
of grants is in this amendment? You stated it as being part of your new 
reauthorizing, but you have noted it is in this amendment also, is that 
not correct?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. That is right, the competitive bidding is based on 
quality and cost effectiveness.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there are an awful lot of points to make in 
opposition to this amendment. Let me begin by saying it is very 
interesting that those who came here today to defend the Legal Services 
Corporation refuse to defend it. The best they can do in the way of 
defense is to give us a list of outrageous abuses that they propose 
that we try to stop. That is a very weak defense indeed.
  But I do not want to begin by talking about legal services, and going 
through the list of numerous organizations who support the committee's 
position and strongly oppose the Domenici position to bring back a 
Federal Legal Services Corporation. There are really several issues in 
debate here, and the one I want to begin with is about the choices that 
are made to allow Senator Domenici to fund the Legal Services 
Corporation at $340 million.
  Our dear colleague from South Carolina glosses over those decisions 
by simply saying that we are providing a lot of money to fight violent 
crime and drugs, and so taking some of that money away from that battle 
in order to fund legal services is probably a good thing. This is one 
of those occasions where I wish we could sit around the kitchen table 
of every working family in America and discuss this issue. If we could, 
this amendment, and probably those who advocate it, would be thrown out 
of the kitchen. But let me go through the programs that are cut by the 
Domenici amendment, and their ramifications.
  Because our colleagues are so desirous of preserving the Legal 
Services Corporation as a Federal entity, many of them, who have stood 
on the floor of the Senate and argued for block granting decisionmaking 
back to the States when it served their purpose, now oppose letting 
States run a program which is a renegade program, which has abuses that 
probably equal or exceed that of any other similar Government program 
funded in the modern era by our Government. But let me start by going 
through what is being cut, what is being denied to the American people 
to provide $340 million to legal services. And then I will try to talk 
about why legal services does not deserve the $340 million.
  First of all, the Domenici amendment cuts the general legal 
activities of the Justice Department by $25,131,000. In listening to 
Senator Hollings, you get the idea we are just throwing so much money 
at the Justice Department they do not know what to do with it, they 
have all the prosecutors they need to prosecute every drug dealer and 
every violent criminal in America. The only problem with that argument 
is the American people know that does not reflect reality.
  In fact, our bill, which Senator Domenici cuts from, already provides 
$10 million below the level requested by President Clinton in his 
proposed appropriation for the Justice Department. So, before we would 
cut the $25 million from the legal activities section of the Justice 
Department, as Senator Domenici proposes, we already, because of lack 
of funds, had cut it by $10 million.
  Where is this money coming from? Since the average person in America 
does not understand what the general legal activities of the Justice 
Department does, here is what it does.
  It prosecutes organized criminals, it prosecutes major drug 
traffickers, it prosecutes child pornographers, it prosecutes major 
fraud against the taxpayer, it prosecutes terrorism and espionage 
cases. These cuts will mean that we will have 200 fewer prosecutors in 
America next year, if this amendment passes, who will be prosecuting 
organized crime, major drug traffickers, child pornographers, major 
fraud against the taxpayer, and terrorism and espionage cases.
  I remind my colleagues, we are already providing $10 million less 
than what the President has requested. But the Domenici amendment would 
further cut the level of funding for those prosecutors to prosecute 
organized crime, major drug traffickers, child pornographers, and fraud 
against the taxpayer, terrorism and espionage by another $25 million.
  Legislating is about choosing. And what the Domenici amendment says 
is a federally run Legal Services Corporation, a program that is so 
filled with outrageous actions that even in this amendment Senator 
Domenici seeks to curb their abuses--the Domenici amendment says that 
funding that Federal program is more important than providing 
prosecutors to prosecute organized crime and the other crimes that I 
have outlined.
  The second cut made by the Domenici amendment, in order to fund legal 
services, is cutting $11 million from the U.S. attorneys office.
  I remind my colleagues, and the American people who might be watching 
this debate, that our U.S. attorneys are our first line of defense. 
They are the people who try cases in Federal court. They are the people 
who prosecute major drug dealers. The amendment that is offered by 
Senator Domenici, to preserve the Federal Legal Services Corporation, 
will terminate at least 55 assistant U.S. attorneys who otherwise would 
have been employed in prosecuting violent criminals and drug felons, 
pornographers, and terrorists.
  I believe that legislating means making choices. I ask my colleagues, 
is preserving the Federal Legal Services Corporation rather than 
letting the States run it through a block grant program worth taking 55 
assistant U.S. attorneys out of prosecution in America? My answer is 
no.
  We had a discussion about construction for the FBI. As I read the 
amendment, what is being cut here is not crime labs, though I strongly 
support them, what is being cut is the very heart of new facilities 
construction at the FBI Academy. The Domenici amendment, in the name of 
preserving a federally run Legal Services Corporation, a corporation 
which as of today has filed a lawsuit against every State in the Union 
that is trying to implement welfare reform by requiring welfare 
recipients to work, which is funding drug dealers who are trying to 
stay in public housing units so that they can more efficiently market 
drugs, in seeking the preservation of this Federal program, the 
Domenici amendment would require cutting the FBI Academy and its 
construction at Quantico by some $49 million.
  I have a letter from the head of the FBI. Unfortunately, as Senator 
Hollings noted, it is a classified letter. But it is certainly not 
classified material that the head of the FBI has said that our 
facilities are becoming antiquated; that as we have cut the President's 
request for the FBI in recent years, we have not kept up our 
infrastructure and that we are not going to be able to maintain our 
training if we do not build new facilities. I remind my colleagues that 
by a vote of 91 to 8, we passed the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention 
Act, which authorized the expenditure of these moneys. I remind my 
colleagues that the FBI Academy does not just train FBI agents and 
Federal law enforcement officials, but in fact, last year, it trained 
1,225 State and local law enforcement officials.
  Obviously, the question that we have to ask is this: Is preserving 
the Federal Legal Services Corporation rather than 

[[Page S 14591]]
block granting it to the States--as we are block granting aid to 
families with dependent children, as we are block granting Medicaid--is 
preserving this program as a Federal program run out of Washington, DC, 
worth denying the facilities we need in Quantico to train FBI agents 
and to train 1,225 State and local law enforcement officials?
  Mr. President, my answer to that question is clearly no. Anyone who 
has found themselves in the jurisdiction of a Federal court knows that 
we have a real problem in the Federal court system because it is very 
difficult to get a case to trial.
  In terms of getting civil justice, we are now talking about years of 
waiting to get a case before the court. In terms of criminal justice, 
in bringing violent criminals to justice, we are talking about a long 
wait because we do not have enough courts, we do not have enough 
judges, and we do not have enough prosecutors.
  The Domenici amendment, in order to preserve a federally run Legal 
Services Corporation--which is opposed by every organization in America 
from the Farm Bureau Federation to Citizens Against Government Waste--
would cut $25 million from our Federal courts. That $25 million, for 
example, could fund 400 probation officers to supervise convicted 
criminals in America.
  I ask my colleagues, is it worth denying 400 probation officers 
supervising criminals in order to fund the Federal Legal Services 
Corporation? My answer is no. Let me remind my colleagues that the 
funds that would be cut include funds that provide mandatory drug 
testing for all convicts who are released to assure that while they are 
on parole and on the streets, they remain drug free. Is a cut in 
funding for this program worth making to preserve a federally funded 
Legal Services Corporation? My answer is no.
  Mr. President, there are a lot of other programs that have been cut 
here. Strong cases can be made for them. I want to make one more case. 
It is not a case that is going to sway anybody because if you are not 
swayed by these other cuts, then you are not going to be swayed by 
this. If you have long ago decided that this agency we call Legal 
Services, which has such a poor record that not even those who would 
fund it can defend it, then no amount of prosecutors, no amount of 
training police officers, no amount of drug testing for convicted 
felons who are walking the streets on probation, no amount of 
supervision is going to change your position.
  But I do want to mention one other offset which very few people find 
moving, but I think it is important; that is, substantial cuts in 
census are included in this offset. Most people do not understand the 
census. It is obvious that Alan Greenspan understands the census 
because Alan Greenspan, in testimony before the Banking Committee, 
asked that we fully fund data gathering. The apportionment of 
population in terms of measuring the number of people in America to 
decide how many Congressman each State has depends on the census.
  The allocation of funding for programs, from the FBI to the new 
Medicaid Program to virtually every other program undertaken by the 
Federal Government, depends on the census. We are getting ready to have 
the 2,000 census, the millennium census. It is the only millennium 
census that we are ever guaranteed to take in the United States of 
America. I hope it will be the first of many. But this is a critically 
important census.
  If we take the recommendations of Senator Domenici and we cut funding 
for this census, we are going to have to make the funding up in future 
years as we get closer to the year 2000. If we make this cut now, the 
2000 census will be more inefficient. It is going to cost more money. 
And I do not believe that this is an exchange that should be made.
  Let me talk about the amendment itself, and then turn to the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  It is interesting to me that this amendment has a great big budget 
gimmick in it. And the great big budget gimmick in it is that it has a 
delayed obligation. For those who do not understand what that means, 
let me try to explain. One of the things some people often do in 
Congress when they want to spend money but do not want people to know 
that they are spending money is to use a delayed obligation, which 
means they provide money but do not let the money kick in at the 
beginning of the fiscal year. In this case, the money would kick in a 
month from the end of the fiscal year, on September 1, so that there is 
a huge surge of $115 million that would become available on that date, 
30 days before next year's budget would have to be written.
  Now, what is the purpose of this budget gimmick? The purpose of this 
budget gimmick is not only to commit a huge surge of contracts for 
legal services a month before the new budget, but it also makes it 
difficult next year for us not to fund those programs because they will 
already be underway, and so when the chairman of this subcommittee next 
year writes a budget, that chairman will be looking at $115 million of 
programs that will kick in just 30 days before the end of the fiscal 
year.
  What is the purpose of this gimmick which we have denounced over and 
over and over again? I have heard many Members of the Senate stand up 
and denounce these delayed obligations as basically perverting the 
budget process itself.
  What is the purpose of this? The purpose of this is basically to try 
to get the level of spending in this program up at the end of the year 
so that next year it will be harder to achieve the savings to which we 
have already committed in trying to achieve our balanced budget.
  Let me talk about legal services, and I want to begin by asking 
unanimous consent that letters from the Citizens Against Government 
Waste in opposition to any attempt to restore or increase funds to the 
Legal Services Corporation, the Christian Coalition, the American Farm 
Bureau, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, 
the Coalition for America, the Eagle Forum, that these letters strongly 
opposing the Domenici amendment and supporting the action of the 
committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Letters in Opposition to the Legal Services Corporation

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The Council for Citizens Against Government 
     Waste (CCAGW) and our 600,000 members support H.R. 2076, the 
     Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations 
     for FY 1996. CCAGW commends Subcommittee Chairman Phil Gramm 
     and Appropriations Chairman Mark Hatfield for sending to the 
     floor a bill which spends $4.6 billion less than the budget 
     request and $1 billion less than the House version of H.R. 
     2076.
       The $26.5 billion spending bill prioritizes the budgets for 
     each agency under its jurisdiction. For example, the Justice 
     Department receives $15 billion for FY 1996, almost $3 
     billion more than in FY 1995, to fight our nation's crime 
     problem. But with a nearly $5 trillion national debt, there 
     is always more to cut from spending bills.
       CCAGW supports the following amendments:
       The McCain amendment to mandate the Federal Communications 
     Commission to auction the one remaining block of Direct 
     Broadcast System spectrum. If this spectrum is auctioned, 
     communication industry experts believe it will sell for 
     between $300 to $700 million. It is in the best interest of 
     the American people that the spectrum be sold at public 
     auction.
       The Grams amendment to eliminate the East-West Center and 
     the North/South Center, saving taxpayers $11 million next 
     year.
       CCAGW opposes the following amendments:
       Any attempt to restore or increase funds to the Federal 
     Maritime Administration.
       The Inouye amendment to restore funds to the Federal 
     Maritime Administration.
       The Bumpers amendment to restore funds for the Small 
     Business Administration.
       The Bumpers amendment to restore funds for the Death 
     Penalty Resource Centers.
       CCAGW urges you to support these amendments and H.R. 2076. 
     It prioritizes cuts while ensuring that state and local law 
     enforcement agencies are properly funded. CCAGW will consider 
     these votes for inclusion in our 1995 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
                                                        President.
                                                   Joe Winkelmann,
                                                   Chief Lobbyist.
     
[[Page S 14592]]



                                          Christian Coalition,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1995.
     Re Key Vote Notice: Eliminate Legal Services Corporation--
         Support Block Grants for LSC.
       Dear Senator: The Senate will soon consider the FY 1996 
     Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary. On 
     behalf of the 1.7 million members and supporters of the 
     Christian Coalition, I urge you to vote against any 
     amendments that would weaken the committee-approved provision 
     regarding the block grant for Legal Services Corporation 
     (LSC).
       LSC is a failed agency. Elimination of the Corporation and 
     instead providing legal services to the poor through block 
     grants to the States, as the Appropriations Committee 
     approved, is the minimum that Congress can do to begin to put 
     an end to the well known abuses of the Corporation. The block 
     grant alternative provides a better delivery system for legal 
     services to the poor and breaks up the monopoly currently 
     enjoyed by the Corporation.
       Christian Coalition opposes any amendments that would 
     restore the Corporation, increase funding or in any way water 
     down the restrictions currently provided for in the bill. 
     Before the 1996 election, Christian Coalition will distribute 
     50-60 million voter guides and congressional scorecards. 
     Weakening amendments regarding LSC will be key votes.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Brian C. Lopina,
     Director, Governmental Affairs Office.
                                                                    ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: In a very short time, the Senate will 
     consider H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State 
     Appropriations bills, as amended by the Senate Commerce, 
     Justice, State Appropriations subcommittee. The portions of 
     this bill which pertain to delivery of legal services for the 
     indigent will create an entirely new program for this 
     purpose. This program is designed to function, much like 
     public defender programs which provide legal representation 
     for indigent criminal defendants. We believe this program 
     will meet the goal of ensuring civil legal assistance for the 
     poor without the many problems which have plagued the Legal 
     Services Corporation since its inception in 1974. With 
     specific respect to the delivery of legal aid to the 
     indigent, we urge you to support H.R. 2076 as reported by the 
     Appropriations Committee.
       The operative provisions of H.R. 2076 with respect to legal 
     services were modeled on a bill introduced by Rep. George 
     Gekas (R-PA) and recently reported to the House by the 
     Judiciary Committee. This legislation was carefully crafted 
     to ensure that the federal program would finance 
     representation for causes of action for which there is no 
     other provision for payment of attorney's fees, or where it 
     is highly unlikely that the ``target'' would have resources 
     with which to pay attorney's fees. Thus, the bill did permit 
     grantee attorneys to pursue ``deadbeat dad'' cases, but not 
     employment law cases (because most employment discrimination 
     and other types of employment laws provide for the recovery 
     of attorney's fees for a successful plaintiff). We urge you 
     to oppose any effort to add to the bill provisions allowing 
     causes related to employment law, constitutional challenges, 
     and consumer fraud.
       We believe the Gekas legal services bill, as included in 
     H.R. 2076, will create a federal program that will provide 
     basic legal services for indigent people.
                                                    Dean Kleckner,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                               September 14, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than 250,000 families 
     which the Family Research Council represents, I would like to 
     urge you to expedite the intent of the House-passed budget 
     resolution by declining to reauthorize the Legal Services 
     Corporation (LSC). Reform of the Corporation is not an 
     acceptable option due to the fact that it has not been 
     successful within the last fifteen years, particularly since 
     liberal activists who favor a militant agenda have been 
     charged with the oversight of the program. Past experiences 
     have shown that merely adding restrictions to the program is 
     a futile gesture.
       The LSC was created to perform legal services for the poor 
     and the underprivileged, yet the liberal agenda of its 
     proponents has overtaken for its original mission. The 
     antifamily litigation that the LSC supports is appalling. We 
     have found cases where LSC has litigated with a pro-abortion 
     agenda, they have been active in blocking attempts to reform 
     welfare, aiding the homosexual agenda, supporting the notion 
     that children have rights independent of their parents, and 
     representing convicted criminals in civil cases.
       The Legal Services Act, as amended in 1977 and in 
     subsequent appropriations acts, prohibit LSC from being 
     involved in abortion related cases. Nonetheless, LSC has 
     remained firmly committed to abortion on demand and has 
     worked around the law in an attempt to secure unlimited 
     taxpayer-funded abortions. LSC has worked against waiting 
     periods, physicians' consent, parental consent, parental 
     notification and spousal notification. This blatant disregard 
     for the congressional intent is another facet in the argument 
     to not reappropriate.
       Attempts to reform LSC have failed and it should be 
     abolished. During consideration of the Commerce-Justice-State 
     Appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee passed a 
     compromise proposal that provides $210 million for state 
     level legal assistance in FY 1996. While we believe that 
     these funds would be better dedicated to deficit reduction, 
     we can accept the Committee's action. I strongly urge you to 
     oppose any effort that may be made to undermine the 
     Committee's proposal through the amendment process, including 
     efforts to restore funding for the fatally flawed Legal 
     Services Corporation.
           Sincerely.
                                                    Gary L. Bauer,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                   Christian Coalition et al.,

                                               September 14, 1995.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Senate will soon be voting on the 
     Commerce, Justice State and Judiciary Appropriations bill. 
     The subcommittee bill includes a proposal to provide legal 
     services to the poor through a state administered grant 
     structure, rather than through the Legal Services 
     Corporation.
       On behalf of the millions of members of our collective 
     organizations, we strongly urge you to vote in favor of the 
     state grant proposal. Here are several strong reasons to 
     support a state grant rather than the Legal Services 
     Corporation:
       There is accountability. Attorneys are required to keep 
     time records. These records are subject to audit. Currently, 
     Legal Services Corporation grantees are accountable to no 
     one--no time records, no audits. That leads to mischief.
       Attorneys will receive funds after they perform legal 
     services, not before. Currently, Legal Services Corporation 
     grantees receive a pot of money up front, and spend it as 
     they see fit without accountability. That lead to mischief.
       The state grant proposal breaks up the Legal Services 
     monopoly. It enables attorneys and law firms all across 
     America to openly compete for legal services contracts. If 
     ever there was a case for open competition and against a 
     monopoly, this is it. The Legal Services Corporation has not 
     credibility when it comes to being wise stewards of the 
     taxpayer's money.
       The state grant proposal restricts the legal causes of 
     action for which taxpayer funds can be used to a specified 
     list of noncontroversial legal needs such as bankruptcy 
     actions and cases of spousal abuse. There would be no more 
     taxpayer funded lawsuits related to abortion, labor strikes, 
     etc.
       Restrictions to prohibit mischief are included. There would 
     be no more taxpayer-funded lobbying, grass roots organizing, 
     class action lawsuits, etc.
       We strongly urge you to vote against any amendments to 
     strip out the bill's state grant proposal for legal services. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Christian Coalition,
     Family Research Council,
     Traditional Values Coalition,
     Eagle Forum,
     Concerned Women for America,
     American Family Association,
     Life Advocacy Alliance.
                                                                    ____



                                       Coalitions for America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Office of the Majority Leader,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     House of Representatives,
     Office of the Speaker,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Bob and Newt: In the budget-cutting atmosphere on 
     Capitol Hill these days, it is important not to overlook the 
     Legal Services Corporation. Here the need is not merely to 
     cut some of its programs, reduce its budget or to try yet 
     again to reform it, but rather to eliminate it entirely. This 
     year, President Clinton has proposed $415 million for the 
     Legal Services Corporation budget. That amount, however 
     significant, pales in comparison to the trouble and expense 
     this agency causes.
       The agency charged with providing legal services for those 
     who could not afford to pay for them instead because a hotbed 
     of judges and legal activities who used their authority to 
     interpret the law to fit their personal ideology. The Legal 
     Services Corporation has an agenda that includes providing 
     benefits for illegal aliens, alcohol and drug addicts, and 
     criminals. It accomplishes this task by suing any and all 
     levels of government to prevent them from putting the brakes 
     on any kind of welfare spending, and indeed to increase 
     welfare benefits whenever and wherever it can do so.
       Here are some examples of the Legal Services Corporation at 
     work:
       In 1992, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services won 
     disability benefits for a 40-year old heroin addict by 
     making the case that his addiction kept him from being 
     able to work.
       In North Carolina, an LSC grantee stopped the eviction from 
     a public housing unit of a tenant who had shot and killed a 
     child in the complex.

[[Page S 14593]]

       The LSC has blocked eviction of drug dealers from public 
     housing units on technicalities such as the charges being 
     ``too vague.''
       In Virginia, a public housing tenant who had acted in a 
     violent and dangerous manner won her case with aid from LSC 
     because some minor mistakes were made in the attempted 
     eviction.
       In addition, the LSC has blocked efforts by states to 
     establish paternity for child support payments, opposed 
     Medicaid program cuts, and demanded that criminals in mental 
     health facilities be granted the right to vote.
       In short, the Legal Services Corporation has sought to 
     subvert every federal, state or local effort to penalize, 
     restrict, reform or otherwise hold accountable an individual 
     for his or her behavior. Measured by the exact nature of its 
     ``legal services,'' it has been estimated that the true cost 
     of the Legal Services Corporation since its founding has been 
     some two trillion dollars, with no end in sight.
       We understand that in normal Congressional politics it is 
     easier to reduce an agency's funding than to eliminate 
     entirely both the funding and the agency. In this case, 
     however, no other solution will do. The Legal Services 
     Corporation is wholly bad, and if now, in the time of a 
     Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, it is merely 
     reduced, it will certainly spring back to life later with 
     greater vigor. It must be killed, dead.
       We stand ready and willing to work with the leadership of 
     both Houses in pursuing this objective, but we will accept no 
     lesser goal nor outcome. Quite simply, if the Legal Services 
     Corporation is not eliminated in this year's budget--funded 
     at zero--we cannot be credible in arguing to our members and 
     supporters that the Republican Party means that it says about 
     creating change in Washington.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul Weyrich,
                                                National Chairman.


                     coalitions for america members

       Morton C. Blackwell, VA GOP National Committee.
       Andrea Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition.
       ------ ------, National Center for Policy Analysis.
       Amy Moritz, National Center for Public Policy Research.
       Mike Korbuy, United Seniors Association.
       Penny Young, Concerned Women for America,
       Ronald W. Pearson, Conservative Victory Fund.
       Brian W. Jones, Center for New Black Leadership.
       Joan L. Hutu, American National Council for Immigration 
     Reform.
       Brian Lopina, Christian Coalition.
       D. Scott Peterson, Conservative Victory Committee.
       ------ ------, Association of Concerned Taxpayers.
       Martin Hoyt, American Association of Christian Science.
       Major F. Andy Messing, Jr., USAR (ret.), National Defense 
     Council Foundation.
       Martin Mawyer, Christian Action Network.
       Peter T. Flaherty, Conservative Campaign Fund.
       Kenneth F. Boehm, National Legal and Policy Center.
       ------ ------, The Conservative Council.
       Karen Kerrigan, President, Small Business Survival 
     committee.
       Fred L. Smith, Jr., Competitive Enterprise Institute.
       James Wootton, Safe Streets Coalition.
       ------ ------, Eagle Forum.
       James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association.
       Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform.
       Michael Farris, President, Home School Legal Defense 
     Association.
       Kevin L. Kearns, President, United States Business and 
     Industrial Council.
       Michael E. Dunker, Family taxpayer's Network.
       Grant Danes, Assistant Director, Christian Network 
     Association, Inc.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think it would be useful for the American 
people to get some idea what the Legal Services Corporation is doing. 
The Heritage Foundation has put together a list of lawsuits that 
describe the horror stories that have come into existence as a result 
of the Legal Services Corporation and its actions. Let me just read the 
first one, but I am going to ask that all of these be put in the 
Record. The first one is a Georgia Legal Services lawsuit June 15, 
1995. Here is a short summary.
  The Legal Services Corporation defended a Miss Whitehead from 
eviction after crack cocaine was found in her apartment, arguing that 
she had not violated her lease because she was not present at the time 
the search warrant was executed.
  I have page after page after page of these horror stories, and let me 
turn to the last page. Here is a lawsuit--I will just pick the second 
one on the page. The Legal Services Corporation sued to obtain 
unemployment benefits for a teacher fired for drug possession, arguing 
that the teacher had not lost his job through misconduct.
  I am perfectly aware--and I do not want anybody to be confused--that 
Senator Domenici has nothing like the restrictions on legal services 
that I would impose in the committee bill, but he cannot stand here and 
defend the Legal Services Corporation, and instead he has proposed 
limiting actions they can take.
  I should like to remind my colleagues that this is the same Legal 
Services Corporation that President Reagan was not able to rein in as a 
Federal program. I am hopeful that if the amendment is successful, 
which I hope it will not be, we can at least enforce some of these 
restrictions.
  I also can go through other examples of Legal Services misconduct. 
Let me just pick one here on agriculture because the American Farm 
Bureau very strongly opposes this amendment. This is a lawsuit filed by 
the Legal Services Corporation on June 23, 1995. All these examples are 
from this year or last year. You do not have to go back 20 years to 
find horror stories.
  The Legal Services Corporation sued a tomato farmer, the neighbor who 
rented the labor camp to the farmer, their crew leaders, and the tomato 
packing company when a farm worker got injured while reaching under a 
moving truck at a labor camp.
  Every day in America the Legal Services Corporation is hassling 
American agriculture.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this very short, concise 
list of abuses, most of which occurred in 1994 and 1995, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      LSC LITIGATION HORROR STORIES                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       LSC grantee and source                    Description            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                       DEFENDING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY                      
                                                                        
   Legal Services Corporation litigation has prevented public housing   
  authorities from evicting drug dealers in Georgia, New York, Florida, 
  and Connecticut. The LSC has also defended tenants who engage in the  
 malicious destruction of property in public housing projects. Finally, 
  one LSC grantee even contested the eviction of a tenant whose son had 
    shot and killed a child living in a neighboring apartment in the    
  complex. Query: How does this sort of litigation improve the lives of 
                              poor people?                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Legal Services: Macon        Defended against eviction of       
 Housing Authority v. Tabitha         Tabitha Whitehead after crack     
 Whitehead: Testimony by John         cocaine was found in her          
 Hiscox before House Jud.             apartment, arguing that she had   
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       not violated her lease because she
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).            was not present at the time the   
                                      search warrant was executed.      
LSC grantee:.......................                                     
    Testimony by Michael Policy      Public Housing Authority (PHA)     
     Pileggi before House Jud.        prevailed in evicting Victoria W. 
     Subcommittee on Commercial and   following the confiscation of 66  
     Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).        vials of crack cocaine in her     
                                      unit. To avoid eviction, legal    
                                      services filed a chapter 7        
                                      bankruptcy petition on her behalf 
                                      that led to an automatic stay.    
    Wexford Ridge Associates v.      Defended against an eviction for   
     Bankston (1993): ``The Real      drug dealing, arguing that a      
     Cost...''., by Phillips and      notice stating the tenant was     
     Ferrara.                         ``dealing cocaine out of your     
                                      unit'' was too vague.             
    Housing Authority of Norwalk v.  Defended against the eviction of a 
     Harris, Conn. Super. No. SPNO    man whose daughter was selling    
     9009-10295 (1993).               drugs on the property, claiming   
                                      that he was not aware of the      
                                      activity.                         
    Charlotte Housing Authority v.   Defended against eviction even     
     Patterson (1994): ``The Real     though the tenant's son had shot  
     Cost . . .'', by Phillips and    and killed a child who had been   
     Ferrara.                         living in another apartment in the
                                      complex.                          
    Moore v. Housing Authority of    Successfully argued that the local 
     New Haven Connecticut Conn.      Public Housing Authority (PHA)    
     Super. Ct. (1993): ``The Real    must repair apartment damage even 
     Cost...'', by Phillips and       though it was caused by the tenant
     Ferrara.                         or her guests.                    
Georgia Legal Services:                                                 
    Macon Housing Authority v Tina   Defended against eviction of Tina  
     Burke: Testimony by John         Burke after drug dealing was      
     Hiscox before House Jud.         observed in her apartment, arguing
     Subcommittee on Commercial and   that she did not violate her lease
     Adm Law (June 15, 1995).         because she was not in possession 
                                      of crack cocaine or cash at the   
                                      time of the arrest.               
    Macon Housing Authority v.       Defended Patricia Osborne from     
     Patricia Osborne: Testimony by   being evicted after undercover    
     John Hiscox before House Jud.    officers purchased crack cocaine  
     Subcommittee on Commercial and   outside her back door.            
     Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).                                          
    Macon Housing Authority v. Enga  Fought the eviction of Enga Scott  
     Scott: Testimony by John         and her son Shon after Shon pled  
     Hiscox before House Jud.         guilty to possession of cocaine   
     Subcommittee on Commercial and   with intent to distribute.        
     Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).                                          
Neighborhood Legal Services:         Has repeatedly defended tenants in 
 Testimony by Harriet Henson before   Pittsburgh from eviction for      
 House Jud. Subcommittee on           reasons including tearing up the  
 Commercial and Adm. Law (June 15,    property, violating the lease     
 1995).                               (having dogs), and dealing drugs  
                                      in their apartments.              
Legal Services of Greater Miami:     Argued that a landlord of a        
 Furr v. Simmons (1993): ``The Real   government-subsidized housing     
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  facility in Florida could not     
                                      evict a tenant whose daughter was 
                                      dealing drugs on the premises     
                                      because he had prior knowledge of 
                                      the drug activity and had failed  
                                      to take action to stop it.        
LSC grantee: Buffalo Municipal       Successfully argued that a public  
 Housing Authority v. Jones (1993):   housing tenant in New York who had
 ``The Real Cost...'', by Phillips    engaged in criminal or drug       
 and Ferrara.                         activity could not be evicted     
                                      without 30 days prior notice.     
Connecticut Legal Services:          Stopped termination of a tentant's 
 Edgecomb v Housing Authority, U.S.   housing subsidy for drug related  
 Dist. Ct. for the District of        criminal activity because the     
 Conn. (1994): ``The Real             tentant had not been allowed to   
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  confront and cross-examine        
                                      witnesses. Legal service lawyers  
                                      were awarded $20,000 for this     
                                      case.                             
LSC grantee: Allen v. Great          Defended a tenant against eviction 
 Atlantic Management Co. (1993):      who had engaged in violent and    
 ``The Real Cost...'', by Phillips    destructive conduct on the        
 and Ferrara.                         property.                         
                                                                        
                                                                        

[[Page S 14594]]
                                                                        
                              FAMILY CASES                              
                                                                        
 Legal Services Corporation attorneys have provided legal assistance to 
    the poor in some very curious ways. LSC grantees have filed suits   
   arguing that unemancipated minors have a right to their own public   
 housing units, that children should be able to terminate their parents'
rights over them, and that homosexuals should be able to adopt children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehigh Valley Legal Services:        Represented a 16-year-old juvenile 
 Testimony by Kenneth Boehm before    delinquent in his quest to retain 
 House Jud. Subcommittee on           parental rights to the child he   
 Commercial and Adm. Law (June 15,    fathered by raping a 13-year-old  
 1995). The Morning Call (March 2,    girl. The father had a history of 
 1995).                               other criminal offenses and has   
                                      repeatedly failed to comply with  
                                      his probation.                    
Legal Service of Greater Miami: Cox  Represented two homosexuals in     
 v. Florida 656 So.2d. 902 (1995).    their fight to overturn a Florida 
                                      law that prohibits homosexuals    
                                      from adopting a child.            
Idaho Legal Services: Testimony by   Sued on behalf of the Ogala Sioux  
 Kenneth Boehm before House Jud.      Tribe for custody of a 4-year-old 
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       boy who has lived with his        
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).            adoptive family since he was born.
                                      The tribe claimed rights because  
                                      the boy is half-Sioux. The boy's  
                                      family had to sell their home to  
                                      raise money for the case.         
Legal Services of Greater Miami: K   Argued that children should be able
 v. K (1992): ``The Real Cost of      to sue to terminate their parents 
 the Legal Services Corporation,''    rights over them.                 
 by Howard Phillips (Conservative                                       
 Caucus) and Peter Ferrara                                              
 (National Center for Policy                                            
 Analysis), June 14, 1995.                                              
Central Pennsylvania Legal           Sued to force the Reading (PA)     
 Services: Rodriques v. Reading       Housing Authority to accept as    
 Housing Authority 8 F.3d. 961        tenants minors who had not been   
 (1993): ``The Real Cost . . .'',     emancipated from their parents.   
 by Phillips and Ferrara.                                               
Legal Services Organization of       Sued the state to stop termination 
 Indiana: Indiana Dept. of Public     of AFDC benefits to a parent whose
 Welfare v. Hupp 605 N.E.2d 768       children had been removed from her
 (1993).                              home by the state because she had 
                                      failed to exercise responsibility 
                                      for the day-to-day care and       
                                      control of the children.          
                                                                        
                              CHILD SUPPORT                             
Legal Services Corporation grantees have successfully blunted efforts by
  North Dakota and Michigan to require welfare mothers to identify the  
          deadbeat dads of their children to welfare officials.         
Legal Assistance of North Dakota:    Successfully argued against states 
 S. v. North Dakota Department of     requiring mothers receiving       
 Human Services 499 N.W. 2d. 891      welfare subsidies to identify the 
 (1993).                              fathers so the state can pursue   
                                      him for child support.            
Oakland Livingston Legal Aid in      Successfully argued against states 
 Michigan: In Re Schirrmacher         requiring mothers receiving       
 (1993): ``The Real Cost . . .'',     welfare subsidies to identify the 
 by Phillips and Ferrara.             fathers so the state can pursue   
                                      him for child support.            
                                                                        
                                 HOUSING                                
                                                                        
      Legal Services Corporation grantees have sued state and local     
  governments to demand expensive new housing ``rights.'' These rights  
  include more government subsidized housing, higher rental allowances, 
     and payment of child care, furniture storage and transportation    
 expenses. LSC grantees have also attempted to silence ordinary citizens
  who oppose the placement of housing for drug addicts and the mentally 
                       ill in their neighborhoods.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSC grantee:                                                            
    Herrara v. City of Oxnard        Sued City of Oxnard (CA) to demand 
     (1994): ``The Real Cost . .      more government subsidized        
     .,'' by Phillips and Ferrara.    housing.                          
    Lubold v. Snider (1993): ``The   Suit against Pennsylvania arguing a
     Real . . .,'' by Phillips and    ``right to shelter'' provided by  
     Ferrara.                         the government.                   
Legal Aid Society of NYC: McCain v.  Suit against New York City arguing 
 Dinkins 84 NY 2d. 216 (1994).        a ``right to shelter'' provided by
                                      the government.                   
Coalition to End Homelessness w/Amy  Suit against New Haven (CT) arguing
 Eppler-Epstein, Esq.: Hilton v.      a ``right to shelter'' provided by
 City of New Haven 233 Conn. 701      the government.                   
 (1995).                                                                
LSC grantee: Jiggetts v. Perales     Sued New York City to establish    
 202 A.D. 2d. 341 (1992).             higher rental allowances.         
Cambridge and Somerville Legal       Sued to stop reductions in monthly 
 Services: Aguirre v. Gallant         rental allowances in              
 (1993): ``The Real Cost . . .,''     Massachusetts.                    
 by Phillips and Ferrara.                                               
Western Massachusetts Legal          Demanded under an emergency housing
 Services: Berrios v. Gallant         assistance program in             
 (1991): ``The Real Cost . . .,''     Massachusetts for furniture       
 by Phillips and Ferrara.             storage, moving expenses, child   
                                      care, transportation, and more.   
National Center for Youth Law:       Argued that citizens could not     
 Testimony by Kenneth Boehm before    oppose the establishment of       
 House Jud. Subcommittee on           housing in their neighborhood for 
 Commercial and Adm. Law (June 15,    recovering drug addicts and the   
 1995).                               mentally ill.                     
LSC grantee: Testimony by Michael    Claimed that PHA failed to timely  
 Pileggi before House Jud.            transfer Christine L. from a five-
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       bedroom unit to a six-bedroom unit
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).            even though PHA has a limited     
                                      number of six-bedroom units and,  
                                      in fact, was able to transfer her 
                                      within seven months of her initial
                                      request.                          
Community Legal Services Inc., of    Sued Philadelphia Housing Authority
 Philadelphia, PA: Gwendolyn Smith    on behalf of Gwendolyn Smith,     
 v. Philadelphia Housing Authority    claiming PHA failed to perform    
 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern       over 20 repairs in her unit. An   
 Dist. of PA. (1995): Testimony of    investigation showed that much of 
 Mike Pileggi before House            the damage was caused by the      
 Judiciary Subcomm. on Commercial     tenant (fire damage, holes punched
 and Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).        in walls and doors).              
Community Legal Services: Lupina     Represented Lupina R. in a civil   
 Rainey v. Philadelphia Housing       rights lawsuit against PHA even   
 Authority U.S. Dist. Ct. for the     though they suspected her for     
 Eastern Dist. of PA. (1993):         engaging in criminal conduct      
 Testimony of Mike Pileggi before     including dealing drugs, extorting
 House Judiciary Subcomm. on          money, loan sharking, and filing  
 Commercial and Adm. Law (June 15,    bogus bankruptcies on behalf of   
 1995).                               PHA tenants.                      
LSC grantee: Testimony of Mike       Filed suit against Philadelphia    
 Pileggi before House Jud.            Housing Authority on behalf of    
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       Krissy J., claiming that a $50    
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995).            check owed to her was not timely  
                                      processed. The case was settled   
                                      immediately, yet PHA had to pay   
                                      over $500 in attorney's fees to   
                                      legal services.                   
                                                                        
                             CRIMINAL RIGHTS                            
                                                                        
   Legal Services Corporation grantees have pursued a number of novel   
 theories all designed to broaden the rights of convicted criminals. In 
one instance, an LSC grantee challenged Washington state's reform of its
   parole laws that would have ensured longer sentences for convicted   
                               criminals.                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSC grantee:                                                            
    Decker v. Wood (1992): ``The     Sued to demand that criminals in a 
     Real Cost...'', by Phillips      mental health facility be allowed 
     and Ferrara.                     to vote.                          
    Thorton v. Sullivan U.S. Dist.   Sued to obtain Social Security     
     Ct. for the District of          disability benefits for a thief   
     Alabama: Testimony by Dean       who was injured while committing  
     Kleckner before Senate           the crime.                        
     Committee on Labor and Human                                       
     Resources (June 23, 1995).                                         
Evergreen Legal Services: Powell v.  Sued to prevent changes in the     
 Du Charme (1993): ``The Real         Washington parole laws from being 
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  applied to those currently in     
                                      prison. The reformed laws would   
                                      have ensured longer sentences for 
                                      convicted criminals.              
National Legal Aid and Defender      NLADA was the only group to oppose 
 Association: Testimony by Kenneth    a bill (passed the House by a vote
 Boehm before House Jud.              of 432 to 0) requiring criminals  
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       to pay compensation to their      
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995), The New    victims. NLADA represents legal   
 York Times (Feb. 8, 1995).           services lawyers and receives     
                                      substantial funding from LSC      
                                      grantees.                         
Georgia Legal Services: Testimony    Filed petitions to get the release 
 by Kenneth Boehm before House Jud.   of David Naggel from a maximum    
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       security mental hospital. Nagel   
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995), Los        was imprisoned for murdering both 
 Angeles Times (Nov. 12, 1994).       of his grandparents when they     
                                      refused to give him the keys to   
                                      their car.                        
Greater Orlando Area Legal           Sued Orange County on behalf of 18 
 Services: Testimony by Kenneth       former inmates to eliminate       
 Boehm before House Jud.              segregation of inmates based on   
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       whether or not they have been     
 Adm. Law (June 15, 1995), The        exposed to the AIDS virus.        
 Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 30, 1994).   Infected inmates were returned to 
                                      the general inmate population     
                                      without notification to other     
                                      inmates.                          
Legal Assistance Foundation of       In pioneering ``inmates rights,''  
 Chicago: Duran v. Elrod 760 F. 2d.   this case set a legal precedent   
 756 (1985).                          that has resulted in cable        
                                      television and expensive weights  
                                      rooms in prisons.                 
                                                                        
                                 ALIENS                                 
  Legal Services Corporation grantees have filed lawsuits arguing that  
   aliens, both legal and illegal, are eligible for welfare benefits,   
  Medicaid, Social Security disability benefits and food stamps. In one 
lawsuit, an LSC attorney argued that an alien who was deported twice for
 criminal activity was entitled to Social Security retirement benefits. 
LSC grantee: Graham v. Richardson    Argued that states may not deny    
 403 U.S. 365 (1991).                 welfare benefits to aliens.       
Gulfcoast Legal Services: Smart v.   Sued to obtain Social Security     
 Shalala 9 F.2d. 921 (1993).          retirement benefits for an illegal
                                      alien who had been deported twice 
                                      for criminal activity.            
Pine Tree Legal Assistance of        Sued to obtain Social Security     
 Maine: In Re Doe (1992): ``The       disability benefits for an alien  
 Real Cost...'', by Phillips and      seeking political asylum.         
 Ferrara.                                                               
Western Reserve Legal Services in    Sued to obtain AFDC, Medicaid, and 
 Ohio: Joudah v. Ohio Department of   food stamp benefits for an alien  
 Human Services 94 Ohio App. 3d.      family seeking political asylum.  
 614 (1994).                                                            
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo       Filed suit to force California to  
 County: Gillen v. Belshe (U.S. Ct.   provide health services, welfare, 
 App. for the First Circuit):         and food stamps while deportation 
 Testimony by Dean Kleckner before    proceedings are pending.          
 Senate Committee on Labor and                                          
 Human Resources, (June 23, 1995).                                      
California Rural Legal Services:     Sued to prevent enforcement of INS 
 Naranjo-Aguilera v. INS 30 F.3d.     regulations that would deny aliens
 1106 (1994).                         the right to participation in an  
                                      agriculture program if they have  
                                      been convicted of a felony or two 
                                      misdemeanors.                     
California Rural Legal Assistance:   Sued to challenge regulations      
 Catholic Social Services v. Reno:    governing the twelve month amnesty
 Testimony by Dean Kleckner before    program enacted by Congress that  
 Senate Committee on Labor and        requires illegal aliens to        
 Human Resources (June 23, 1995).     demonstrate that they lived       
                                      continuously in the U.S. from Jan.
                                      '82 until Nov. '86 and that they  
                                      are financially responsible.      
California Rural Legal Assistance:   Sued to challenge regulations      
 Zambrano v. INS 972 F.2d. 1122       governing the twelve month amnesty
 (1992).                              program enacted by Congress that  
                                      requires illegal aliens to        
                                      demonstrate that they lived       
                                      continuously in the U.S. from Jan.
                                      '82 until Nov. '86 and that they  
                                      are financially responsible.      
                                                                        
                                 WELFARE                                
                                                                        
  Legal Services Corporation grantees have won hundreds of billions of  
dollars in expanded rights to welfare benefits. In recent years, the LSC
 has sought to obstruct or stop welfare reform in nearly every state in 
   which it has been attempted, including New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio,   
 Minnesota, New York and California. What follows are but a few examples
          of litigation inspired by LSC grantees in this area:          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Services of New Jersey: C.K.   Sued the state and federal         
 v. Shalala (1994).                   government when they adopted a    
                                      welfare experiment to eliminate   
                                      routine increases in welfare      
                                      subsidies to recipients having    
                                      children.                         
Michigan Legal Services: Babbitt v.  Sued the state when AFDC benefits  
 Michigan Department of Social        were reduced in 1992 under an     
 Services (1991): ``The Real          appropriations bill requiring     
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  statewide across-the-board budget 
                                      cuts.                             
Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati&     Sued Ohio to stop reductions in the
 Legal Aid Society of Dayton:         state's General Assistance        
 Daugherty v. Wallace 87 Ohio App.    benefits. They argued there is a  
 3d. 228 (1993).                      right to welfare under the state's
                                      Constitution.                     
National Center for Youth Law:       Sued Arkansas to force the state to
 Angela R. v. Clinton 999 F.2d. 320   expand its child welfare system.  
 (1993).                                                                
Kansas Legal Services: Allen v.      Won full SSI benefits for a        
 Sullivan (1991): ``The Real          claimant on the grounds that the  
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  room and board his mother provide 
                                      could not count as income because 
                                      it would have to be repaid.       
LSC grantee:                                                            
    In Re Leistner (1994): ``The     Won public assistance for a minor  
     Real Cost...'', by Phillips      even though the parents' home was 
     and Ferrara.                     available and won the claim that  
                                      applicants were not required to   
                                      pursue potential alternative      
                                      resources as a condition of       
                                      eligibility for food stamps.      
    Bland v. New Jersey Department   Won continued AFDC benefits for a  
     of Human Services (1993):        recipient who became a VISTA      
     ``The Real Cost...'', by         volunteer rather than get a job.  
     Phillips and Ferrara.            The stipend she received from     
                                      VISTA was excluded from her income
                                      in calculating AFDC eligibility.  
    National Peurto Rican Coalition  Demanded expansion of the          
     v. Alexander (1992): ``The       Department of Education's         
     Real Cost...'', by Phillips      vocational education program      
     and Ferrara.                     regardless of the availability of 
                                      Federal funds.                    
Western Massachusetts Legal                                             
 Services:                                                              
    Testimony by Kenneth Boehm       Filed suit on behalf of Arthur     
     before House Jud. Subcommittee   Cooney to get him back on welfare 
     on Commercial and Adm. Law       after he spend the $75,000 he won 
     (June 15, 1995), USA Today       in a lottery. Most of his winning 
     (Jan. 10, 1995).                 went to drugs and gambling.       
    Testimony by Kenneth Boehm       Published a brochure detailing how 
     before House Jud. Subcommittee   to take advantage of a welfare    
     on Commercial and Adm. Law       rule allowing recipient to collect
     (June 15, 1995), Readers         cash windfalls without losing     
     Digest (July 1994).              public assistance for more than a 
                                      month.                            
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal    Successfully struck down 6-month   
 Services: Mitchell v. Stetfen        residency requirement for General 
 (1992): ``The Real Cost...'', by     Assistance benefits in Minnesota. 
 Phillips and Ferrara.                                                  
Monroe County Legal Assistance       Brought suit against residency     
 Corp.: Aumick v. Bane (1993):        requirement for receiving New York
 ``The Real Cost...'', by Phillips    General Assistance benefits.      
 and Ferrara.                                                           
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo       Sued to strike down a one-year     
 County: Green v. Anderson (1993):    residency requirement for full    
 ``The Real Cost...'', by Phillips    AFDC benefits.                    
 and Ferrara.                                                           
                                                                        
                                MEDICAID                                
                                                                        
     Legal Services Corporation grantees have sought, and often won,    
     expensive expansions of the Medicaid programs in states such as    
    California, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New York, and Maine.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSC grantee: Clark v. Cage (1993):   Successful suit against California 
 ``The Real Cost . . .'', by          demanding increased benefits under
 Phillips and Ferrara.                the state's Medicaid program. The 
                                      LSC grantee won $1.2 million in   
                                      legal fees.                       
Vermont Legal Aid: Garrett v. Dean   Sued to stop a 2% cut in Vermont's 
 (1993): ``The Real Cost . . .'',     Medicaid program.                 
 by Phillips and Ferrara.                                               

[[Page S 14595]]
                                                                        
LSC grantee: Felix v. Casey (1993):  Sued Pennsylvania to challenge     
 ``The Real Cost . . .'', by          limits on cold medications and    
 Phillips and Ferrara.                dental services under state       
                                      Medicaid program.                 
Legal Services of Eastern Missouri:  Brought suit against Missouri      
 Nemnich v. Strangler (1992): ``The   challenging limits on the services
 Real Cost . . .'', by Phillips and   provided under state Medicaid     
 Ferrara.                             program.                          
LSC grantee:                                                            
    Sweeney v. Bane (1992): ``The    Sued to stop New York from         
     Real Cost . . .'', by Phillips   requiring co-payments for its     
     and Ferrara.                     Medicaid program.                 
    Fulkerson v. Commissioners       Sued to stop the adoption of a     
     (1992): ``The Real Cost . .      system of co-payments for the     
     .'', by Phillips and Ferrara.    Maine Medicaid program.           
National Center for Youth Law:       Sued California to extend its      
 Barajas v. Coye (1992): ``The Real   Medicaid program to cover         
 Cost . . .'', by Phillips and        preventive dental services for    
 Ferrara.                             children.                         
                                                                        
                                 FARMING                                
                                                                        
    Legal Services Corporation grantees have initiated many frivolous   
         lawsuits against farmers, ten of which are listed here:        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmworkers Legal Services of North  Filed numerous frivolous class     
 Carolina: Testimony by C. Stan       action lawsuits intended to       
 Eury before Subcommittee on          strongly discourage the use of the
 Commercial and Administrative Law,   H2A temporary agricultural worker 
 (June 15, 1995).                     program to supplement the labor   
                                      force when there is an            
                                      insufficient supply of U.S.       
                                      workers.                          
LSC grantees: Testimony by Harry     Multiple lawsuits filed by LSC-    
 Bell before Subcommittee on          funded attorneys in Florida have  
 Commercial and Administrative Law,   prompted the sugar cane growers to
 (June 15, 1995).                     mechanize rather than continue    
                                      their efforts to maintain a H2A   
                                      temporary guest-worker program.   
Friends of Farmworkers, Inc.:        After losing most of a lawsuit     
 Testimony by Dean Kleckner before    against Phil Roth, a fruit grower 
 Senate Committee on Labor and        in Pennsylvania, FOF demanded     
 Human Resources, (June 23, 1995).    $65,000 in attorney's fees from   
                                      Mr. Roth, an amount more than 100 
                                      times greater than the disputed   
                                      wages found to be due to the      
                                      workers involved in the case.     
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality:  Sued tomato farmer, the neighbor   
 Testimony by Dean Kleckner before    who rented the labor camp to the  
 Senate Committee on Labor and        farmer, their crew leaders, and   
 Human Resources, (June 23, 1995).    the tomato packing company when a 
                                      farmworker got injured while      
                                      reaching under a moving truck at  
                                      the labor camp.                   
Michigan Migrant Legal Action        Sued DeBruyn Produce on behalf of  
 Program: Testimony by Robert         three farm workers in an effort to
 DeBruyn before Senate Committee on   use a very minor housing dispute  
 Labor and Human Resources, (June     to bring employer provided housing
 23, 1995).                           under landlord tenant law.        
Texas Rural Legal Aid: Testimony by  Sued DeBruyn Produce on behalf of  
 Robert DeBruyn before Senate         27 plaintiffs, claiming that they 
 Committee on Labor and Human         were owed a full crop year's      
 Resources, (June 23, 1995).          wages. In fact, none of the       
                                      plaintiffs appeared in the        
                                      company's employee, tax, or       
                                      workers' compensation record. They
                                      never worked for the company.     
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality:  Initiated litigation to undermine a
 Testimony by Harry Bell before       cooperative dispute resolution    
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       agreement between pickle growers  
 Administrative Law, (June 15,        and a farmworkers' union (Farm    
 1995).                               Labor Organizing Committee).      
LSC grantee: Testimony by Harry      An LSC attorney sued a grower in   
 Bell before Subcommittee on          South Carolina for improper       
 Commercial and Administrative Law,   payment of a farmworker even      
 (June 15, 1995).                     though there was documented       
                                      evidence that the worker was in   
                                      jail in North Carolina at the time
                                      of the alleged violations.        
Farmworkers Legal Services of North  Litigated against the North        
 Carolina: Testimony by C. Stan       Carolina Employment Security      
 Eury before Subcommittee on          Commission, resulting in the      
 Commercial and Administrative Law,   destruction of a successful       
 (June 15, 1995).                     interstate clearance system used  
                                      as a means to recruit farmworkers 
                                      that provided continuity of       
                                      employment to the workers.        
California Rural Legal Assistance:   Charged Gerawan Farming with       
 Testimony by Dan Gerawan before      numerous violations relating to   
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       damaged housing. During the trial 
 Administrative Law, (June 15,        it was proven that the damage was 
 1995).                               not intentional, but that CRLA had
                                      actively promoted the intentional 
                                      damage and even prohibited repairs
                                      from being done.                  
                                                                        
                           DISABILITY PROGRAMS                          
                                                                        
   Legal Services Corporation grantees have aggressively sought Social  
   Security disability benefits for alcoholics and heroin addicts. LSC  
 attorneys have also sought disability benefits for novel categories of 
 disability such as ``antisocial personality disorder'' and ``attention 
  deficit disorder.'' In one instance, LSC attorneys argued an employer 
   could not require an alcoholic worker to attend AA meetings on the   
     theory that alcoholism is a disability protected under the ADA.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Legal Assistance Foundation of      Sued to obtain SSI disability      
 Chicago: Jones v. Shalala (1993):    benefits for 44-year-old due to   
 ``The Real...'', By Phillips and     alcohol and opinoid dependence and
 Ferrara.                             antisocial personality disorder.  
Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan    Obtained Social Security disability
 Denver; Trujillo v. Sullivan         benefits for an alcoholic with    
 (1992): ``The Real Cost...'', By     back pain.                        
 Phillips and Ferrara.                                                  
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal    Won disability benefits for a      
 Service: In Re X (1992): ``The       heroin addict, claiming he was    
 real Cost...'', by Phillips and      incapable of working.             
 Ferrars.                                                               
Alaska Legal Services: S v.          Won Social Security disability for 
 Sullivan (1992): ``The Real          an alcoholic who was not able to  
 Cost...'', by Phillips and Ferrara.  work because he could not stop    
                                      drinking.                         
Merrimack Valley Legal Services:     Won SSI benefits for a drug addict 
 Smith v. Sullivan (1993): ``The      suffering from migraines and      
 Real cost...'', by Phillips and      arthritis.                        
 Ferrara.                                                               
New Orleans Legal Assistance         Won benefits for a 56-year-old     
 Corporation: Schultz v. Nelson       woman who claimed to have         
 (1993): ``The Real Cost...'', by     tendonitis that prevented her from
 Phillips and Ferrara.                engaging in productive work.      
Central California Legal Services:   Sued an employer contending, a     
 Testimony by Harry Bell before       warehouse worker with a history of
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       alcohol abuse could not be        
 Administrative Law, (June 15,        required to attend Alcoholic      
 1995).                               Anonymous meetings as a condition 
                                      of employment arguing that        
                                      alcoholism is a disability under  
                                      the Americans with Disabilities   
                                      Act.                              
Legal Aid Society of San Diego:      Asserted that Attention Deficit    
 Testimony by Harry Bell before       Disorder is a disability within   
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       the meaning of the Americans with 
 Administrative Law, (June 15,        Disabilities Act. The client was a
 1995).                               welfare recipient who was studying
                                      for a degree in criminal justice  
                                      as part of a state-sponsored      
                                      training program.                 
                                                                        
                                  OTHER                                 
                                                                        
 Legal Services Corporation grantees routinely bring other cases with no
logical connection to serving the needs of the poor. These include cases
  to secure unemployment benefits for a teacher who was fired for drug  
use, challenging the use of literacy tests as a criteria for high school
   graduation and challenging a public health law designed to prevent   
     individuals from intentionally spreading infectious diseases.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Legal Services: Meyerson,  Challenged the establishment of a  
 A., ``Nixon's Ghost'', Policy        functional literacy test as a     
 Review, Summer 1995.                 criterion for high school         
                                      graduation in Florida. The test   
                                      measures this ability to fill out 
                                      basic job application, do basic   
                                      comparison shopping, and balance a
                                      check book.                       
Vermont Legal Aid: Rodriguez v.      Sued to obtain unemployment        
 Vermont Department of Employment     benefits for a teacher fired for  
 (1992): ``The Real Cost...'', by     drug possession, arguing that the 
 Phillips and Ferara.                 teacher had not lost his job      
                                      through misconduct.               
Legal Aid Society of Orange County:  Sued claiming that the city's      
 Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1993):    prohibition on camping out, using 
 ``The Real Cost...'', by Phillips    sleeping bags, and storing        
 and Ferrara.                         personal property, in the city    
                                      streets was unconstitutional.     
Evergreen Legal Services:                                               
    Roulette v. City of Seattle      Sued claiming the city's           
     (1993): ``The Real Cost...'',    prohibitions on sitting or lying  
     by Phillips and Ferrara.         on sidewalks in commercial areas  
                                      and aggressive begging were       
                                      unconstitutional.                 
    Ledesma v. Seattle School        Sued to demand bilingual education 
     District (1991): ``The Real      in Seattle schools.               
     Cost...'', by Phillips and                                         
     Ferrara.                                                           
Georgia Legal Services Martin v.     Challenged Georgia state law       
 Ledbetter: Testimony by Dean         permitting involuntary            
 Kleckner before Senate Committee     hospitalization of individuals    
 on Labor and Human Resources,        with infectious diseases who      
 (June 23, 1995 .                     represent a danger to public      
                                      health.                           
California Rural Legal Aid:          Sued to kill the Targeted          
 Testimony by Harry Bell before       Industries Partnership Program,   
 Subcommittee on Commercial and       joint federal-state project to    
 Administrative Law, (June 15,        direct labor law enforcement      
 1995).                               resources at problem employers,   
                                      with the resultant spectacle of   
                                      one taxpayer-funded entity suing  
                                      another.                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------



  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I also have another letter by a former 
Legal Service Corporation president, Terry Wear, explaining why in his 
experienced opinion the Legal Services Corporation cannot be reformed 
and should either be turned over to the States or be eliminated 
entirely. Frankly, he recommends that it be eliminated. I ask unanimous 
consent that this comprehensive letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Law Offices of Terrance J. Wear,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1995.
     Senator Phil Gramm,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gramm: My purpose in writing is to outline 
     some of the problems that I encountered during my tenure as 
     President of the Legal Services Corporation during portions 
     of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and to comment on S. 
     1221, the Senate companion bill (introduced by Senators 
     Kassebaum and Jeffords) to HR 1806, the McCollum-Stenholm 
     legal services bill.
       By way of background, the federally funded component of the 
     legal services program is one of Lyndon Johnson's poverty 
     programs, having originated in the Office of Economic 
     Opportunity in the Johnson Administration's Department of 
     Health, Education & Welfare. The program was taken out of HEW 
     in 1974, and set up in a free standing non-profit corporation 
     similar in structure to that of the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting.
       The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) now disburses 
     approximately $400 million annually in taxpayer funds, in the 
     form of grants to local legal services providers, which in 
     turn use these funds to hire full-time lawyers, who in turn 
     provide civil legal services to eligible poor persons. Over 
     the last fifteen years, the existing grantees have been able 
     to insulate themselves from competition for these grants, and 
     the same grantees now receive the monies year after year.
       The President nominates candidates to the Corporation's 11-
     member Board of Directors, and these nominees are subject to 
     Senate confirmation. Other than that, the President (and the 
     Executive Branch) has no control over the actions of the 
     corporation, its Board of Directors, or its approximately 320 
     grantee legal services providers.
       Some believe that the LSC, and the federal component of the 
     legal services program, was structured this way purposely; so 
     no one (other than the local legal services grantees) could 
     control which cases they handle. The grantee providers pick 
     and choose the specific cases they handle, in order to 
     ``raise the consciousness'' of the persons being sued, as 
     well as the communities in which these persons reside. They 
     sue to ``strike a blow'' for a favorite cause, or to create 
     legal precedents that they believe are ``favorable'' to poor 
     persons as a class, rather than to the individual poor client 
     whose name appears on the court pleadings. Cases are pursued 
     for purposes of setting these kinds of legal precedents, even 
     when such action is not in the best interest of the client 
     being represented. (See e.g., ``War on the Poor,'' National 
     Review, May 15, 1995; pp. 32-44.)
       Often, these programs refuse to serve poor persons with 
     ``run of the mill'' or ``mundane'' legal problems; preferring 
     to concentrate on the ``sexy,'' ``snazzy,'' or ``high 
     profile'' cases that promote their view of ``how society 
     should be.'' Let me cite just one example: A legal services 
     program in Washington state refused to help a poor single 
     mother (and her three children) with a landlord-tenant 
     problem (and the woman lost her rental unit as a result), 
     because the program was ``too busy'' with other matters.
       The ``other matters'' that the program chose to handle at 
     the time this woman was seeking legal assistance included:
       Helping an alcoholic father, who claimed he was unable to 
     work because of his ``disability,'' avoid paying child 
     support for his children;
       Preventing a public housing authority from evicting two 
     tenants who had not disclosed their prior criminal histories 
     in their rental applications, as they were required to do; 
     and 

[[Page S 14596]]

       Obtaining a nationwide permanent injunction blocking 
     federal reductions in the cash and medical welfare benefits 
     given to newly arrived refugees.
       These examples clearly demonstrate the desire of many legal 
     services programs to handle the ``high profile'' cases, in 
     which they can ``strike a blow'' for a particular cause, at 
     the expense of individual poor persons with ``mundane'' legal 
     problems.
       The ``housing authority'' example deserves further 
     examination: Oftentimes, legal services programs try to block 
     the eviction of known drug dealers from public housing units; 
     effectively allowing these people to ply their trade for 
     these housing units, and effectively putting the other 
     tenants (and their children) into a drug war ``free fire 
     zone.'' Under the existing legal services system, there is 
     nothing anyone can do to prevent these government-funded 
     lawyers from doing these things, regardless of the suffering 
     they inflict on the innocent families who live in these 
     housing units.
       There are dozens of other examples of legal services 
     lawyers inducing or aiding and abetting conduct that is self-
     destructive. Space does not permit me to mention them all, 
     but some of the most egregious examples include:
       Several legal services programs routinely advise poor 
     parents to get a divorce, and poor non-abused teenagers to 
     set up households of their own, all for purposes of 
     maximizing the total amount of welfare payments that the 
     group can obtain.
       Other legal services programs work to obtain federal 
     disability payments (amounting to hundreds of dollars per 
     month) for alcoholics and drug addicts, who then use these 
     funds to ``feed'' their self-destructive habits.
       A legal services program obtained government disability 
     payments for a convicted burglar; using as the basis for his 
     claim the injuries the burglar sustained during the course of 
     committing his crime.
       Another legal services program helped a convicted rapist 
     get custody of the child he sired as a result of the rape, 
     even though a psychologist testified that the rapist was 
     likely to harm the child.
       Lastly, a legal services program employee being paid by the 
     U.S. taxpayers used his position to organize civil unrest in 
     New York's Attica Prison, in order to use this unrest to 
     ``commemorate'' the anniversary of the 1971 Attica Prison 
     riots, in which 43 inmates and guards were killed.
       Based upon my experiences with the federal legal services 
     program, I do not believe the current program is salvageable; 
     consequently, it should be ended now. Some Members of 
     Congress, such as Congressman McCollum, have suggested that 
     the corporation and the current program should be continued, 
     with restrictions placed on what the legal services lawyers 
     could do, the kinds of cases they could handle, etc. This 
     approach does not take into account the history of the 
     program, and the past failed attempts to do the very same 
     thing. Let me mention some examples:
       When the federal legal services program was set up under 
     the corporation in 1974, restrictions were written into the 
     statute saying that legal services lawyers could not engage 
     in political activities; or handle abortion 
     cases, desegregation cases, etc. During the Reagan and 
     Bush Administrations, similar attempts were made to limit 
     the kinds of activities and cases that could be handled by 
     legal services personnel. These restrictions were 
     implemented through Appropriations Acts ``riders'' that 
     were added to the bills that funded the program.
       Many of these restrictions were effectively circumvented by 
     the legal services lawyers; or were openly violated in the 
     case of the handling of abortion cases. The plain facts are 
     that the legal services activities are not interested in 
     having their activities restricted in any way; and will not 
     abide by the McCollum restrictions:
       For example, certain legal services grantees handled 
     several abortion cases during my tenure as LSC President, and 
     refused to stop when I ordered them to do so. These programs 
     then used the money, which I had given them to help poor 
     people, to pay for a law suit to block imposition of the 
     discipline I imposed on them. They successfully stalled my 
     attempts to curtail their activities, even through they were 
     clearly in violation of the federal Legal Services 
     Corporation Act. These law suits dragged on for several 
     years, and were subsequently settled by one of my successors, 
     on condition that no disciplinary action be taken against 
     these programs.
       In 1980, after completion of the national census, the legal 
     services programs spent over 28,000 hours and over $600,000 
     in federal funds on Congressional redistricting activity. 
     Their purpose was to redistrict ``in'' those Members or 
     candidates who were sympathetic to the political and social 
     goals of these activists, and redistrict ``out'' those who 
     were not. During the 1980s, many legal services programs 
     tried to carry out this same sort of activity at the State 
     and local levels.
       In 1989, I caused the corporation to enact a regulation 
     prohibiting the involvement of the legal services programs in 
     redistricting, as it was clearly ``political activity'' which 
     was forbidden under the Legal Services Corporation Act. I was 
     then promptly sued by three of the legal services programs 
     that I was funding. These programs used the money, which I 
     had given them to help poor people, to pay for a law suit to 
     keep me from enforcing this regulation; and successfully tied 
     up its enforcement for more than three years.
       The Congress should not be fooled by the McCollum attempt 
     to reform the existing legal services program. There is no 
     reason to believe a new set of restrictions of the kind 
     proposed by Congressman McCollum (and Senators Kassebaum & 
     Jeffords) will be any more effective than the earlier sets of 
     restrictions were. These activist lawyers will simply exploit 
     the ``loop holes'' in the McCollum restrictions, ignore them, 
     or file law suits to challenge those they do not like; and 
     the restrictions will be suspended for 4 or 5 years, while 
     these cases work their way through the courts. The activists 
     will use the courts to effectively gut any attempt to 
     regulate their behavior, and will ``wait the Congress out'' 
     until it gives up and goes on to other things.
       This conclusion is particularly noteworthy, in light of the 
     announced intent, on the part of the legal services lawyers, 
     to make ``the road to welfare reform a legal obstacle 
     course'' for the Congress. In the April 1995 issue of the 
     American Bar Association (ABA) Journal (pp. 82-88), the 
     activists threw down the gauntlet to this Congress, by 
     outlining just how they intend to sue the legal system, and 
     the federal dollars they are given, to attack any effort to 
     reform the current welfare system.
       I'm also heartened to note, however, that ending the 
     current legal services program will not end legal services 
     for the poor:
       The Gekas legal services bill (H.R. 2277), as introduced, 
     provides for a transitional system of block grants to the 
     States, which will be used to fund legal services for poor 
     persons. I'm aware that you have incorporated this bill into 
     the Senate version of the State, Commerce, Justice 
     Appropriations bill, and that the Gekas bill will become law 
     if this appropriations bill is enacted.
       Among other things, the grants authorized in the Gekas bill 
     will be awarded competitively; and, while existing grantees 
     will be eligible to compete for these grants, the grant 
     awarding process will not be ``stacked'' in their favor.
       I believe viable grant candidates, who have no ``social'' 
     agenda but who are genuinely interested in helping individual 
     poor persons with their legal problems, will compete for 
     these grants; will win large numbers of them, and will do a 
     good job for their poor clients.
       The Gekas bill will also pay grantees after they have 
     finished their work; rather than giving the grantees money up 
     front, as the McCollum bill would do. Under the Gekas 
     approach, if a grantee does things that are prohibited, the 
     grantee will not be paid for them, and its grant will be 
     terminated. This should be a particularly effective way to 
     ensure that taxpayers' funds are used only for the kinds of 
     activities permitted in the Gekas block grant program.
       Even the liberal Washington Post agrees that downsizing of 
     the federal legal services program is inevitable, and that 
     the block grant approach in the Gekas bill will allow more of 
     the ordinary problems of poor people to be handled, leaving 
     the ``high profile'' cases of interest groups like the ACLU. 
     (See, Washington Post Editorial, September 18, 1995.)
       Many of the current legal services programs receive 
     substantial funding from IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust 
     Accounts), private charities and endowment funds, the United 
     Way, and State and local governments. I'm advised that, in 
     1993, non-LSC funding for legal services amounted to $246 
     million; as compared with $357 million in funding from the 
     federal government. Consequently, the two-year phase out of 
     the federal legal services program, as provided for in the 
     House Budget Resolution and in the Gekas legal services bill, 
     will not end legal services for the poor.
       There also are approximately 900 legal aid programs that 
     are not affiliated with the federal legal services program; 
     these programs will help ``take up any slack'' that may 
     result from the termination of the federal portion of the 
     legal services program.
       There also are other substantial private pro bono efforts 
     that are underway to aid poor persons. For example--
       The American Bar Association has suggested to its 375,000 
     members that they donate 50 hours per year of free legal 
     services to low-income people.
       The New York City bar association recently raised $3 
     million for its own legal services program, which provides 
     free legal services for indigent families, and others.
       The Iowa State Bar Association has adopted a resolution 
     urging its members to donate ``a reasonable amount of time, 
     but in no event less than 20 hours per year'' to pro bono 
     legal activities.
       These kinds of activities are underway in many states; and 
     will cushion the termination of federal funding for legal 
     services. Also, virtually all the states have formal or 
     informal systems under which lawyers in private practice 
     provide pro bono legal services to poor persons.
       Whenever the Congress or the States attempt to revise any 
     ``poverty'' program; the proponents of the program rail about 
     ``mean-spirited attacks on the poor.'' These attacks are 
     usually the ``knee-jerk'' responses of people and 
     institutions with special interests to protect. In this 
     situation, it is not the poor who are complaining, but rather 
     the lawyers who benefit from the program. In fact, this 
     program has become a general welfare program for lawyers, 
     rather than one primarily benefiting poor people; and it is 
     the lawyers who are lobbying for its retention.
       The ``knee-jerk'' responses about ``mean-spirited attacks 
     on the poor'' are usually 

[[Page S 14597]]
     overstated; cases in point are the attacks that were levied on the 
     welfare reform programs instituted in the States of Michigan 
     and Wisconsin. When these reforms were proposed, there was a 
     great ``hue & cry'' about hurting the poor, but this has 
     proven not to be the case at all. I believe this earlier 
     pattern is being repeated here, and that the Legal Services 
     Corporation and its 320 grantees will not be missed when they 
     are gone.
       It is interesting to note that there have been no ``poor 
     persons'' who have come forward to testify in any of the 
     Congressional hearings held on the legal services program. I 
     believe this is true, at least in part, because poor people 
     do not rank legal services as a high priority in their lives, 
     and do not believe the current program has been all that 
     helpful to them.
       In fact, the lawyer-activists who have used the funds in 
     this program to promote their view of ``how society should 
     be;'' do so without regard to the effects of their actions on 
     the poor, i.e., the poor persons who must live next to the 
     drug dealer whom legal services has kept from being evicted. 
     These poor people have to live with the consequences of the 
     ``social experiments'' of these activists; and, I suspect, 
     are getting tired of them.
       If someone must ``take the blame'' for the demise of the 
     Legal Services Corporation and the federal funding for its 
     grantees, it rightly must be the legal services activists who 
     have abused the program through their irresponsible behavior, 
     and their past refusal to accept common sense reform. The 
     facts speak for themselves; they clearly demonstrate that the 
     Legal Services Corporation and its grantees, at a minimum, 
     use federal monies for a lot of ``stupid'' things. The 
     current program is not susceptible to reform because of the 
     attitudes and behavior of the activists who receive these 
     federal funds; serves no useful purpose, and should be 
     terminated.
       I hope these thoughts are helpful to you. I stand ready to 
     meet with you at any time if I can be of service to you as 
     you consider this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Terrance J. Wear.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am sure there will be others who want to 
debate this amendment, and so let me summarize my arguments and then 
yield the floor so that we can continue the debate.
  Legislating is about choosing. Legislating is about deciding what is 
worth doing and what is not worth doing. Although it sometimes appears 
that the same laws of economics do not apply to the Federal Government 
that apply to families and businesses. Every day families have to say 
no. Seldom does Government say no. One of the reasons that families 
have to say no so often is because Government cannot; $1 out of every 
$4 earned by the average American family with two children now goes to 
Washington so that Government can say yes so often.
  However, even in the Federal Government, we have to make choices. The 
Domenici amendment asks us to choose. It asks us to choose between 
funding legal services and providing funds for the prosecution of 
organized crime, drug trafficking, child pornography, fraud against the 
Government, terrorism, and espionage. It asks us to choose between 
funding the Legal Services Corporation over funding 55 U.S. attorneys 
and 55 support personnel that in each of the judicial districts in 
America could use to make our streets safer, that could be prosecuting 
people who have preyed on innocent men and women, who could be 
prosecuting people who are selling drugs at the door of every junior 
high school in America.
  The Domenici amendment asks us to choose. It asks us to choose a 
federally funded Legal Services Corporation over funding for an FBI 
Academy at Quantico, VA, which is critically important to maintaining 
our ability to train 1,225 State and local police officers every year.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the highlight of a law enforcement 
career in America is coming to the FBI Academy. My proposal would allow 
each and every one of these 1,225 people, who are chosen because they 
are the finest America has in law enforcement, to come to the FBI 
Academy, to be trained so they can go back and train other State and 
local law enforcement officials, in things that are critical--when to 
use deadly force and when not to, how to exercise judgment, how to 
carry out their function. They need this sort of training so that when 
some brutal predator criminal kills one of our neighbors, we are able 
to apprehend them, convict them, and hopefully, if they are richly 
deserving, put them to death.
  And, Mr. President, this is not a priority that just I as a Member of 
the Senate have set; 91 Members of the U.S. Senate, including the 
authors of this amendment which would cut this program, voted for the 
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995, which authorized us to 
begin to upgrade the infrastructure of the FBI Academy.
  I do not believe that reasonable working Americans would choose to 
spend $49 million on the Legal Services Corporation over spending that 
money to upgrade the FBI Academy, thereby allowing us to train more and 
better law enforcement officials for America.
  I do not believe, Mr. President, that the average working American 
family would support taking $25 million away from our Federal courts, 
money that could be spent on 400 probation officers to supervise 
convicted felons who are walking the streets, in order to fund a 
Federal legal services program.
  We all heard of this case--one of the cases, in fact, that President 
Clinton ran a TV ad on--about a brutal murder that occurred. What he 
did not tell us was that this brutal murderer had been convicted of a 
violent crime, was in prison, had been released, and was being 
supervised by a parole officer. He had to meet with the parole officer 
once a year--once a year he had to show up for a meeting. And he went 
out and killed somebody. And the President tells us as a result of that 
we ought to ban guns.
  But the point is, we do not have so many probation officers that we 
can simply afford a cut that would lead to 400 fewer.
  This is a critically important area, and I urge my colleagues in 
their zeal to preserve the Legal Services Corporation as a Federal 
program to ask themselves, not would you want it if it were free, but 
are you willing to cut funding for the Federal judiciary by $25 million 
knowing that with $25 million we could fund 400 more probation 
officers, that we could have funding that is needed for such programs 
as mandatory drug testing of criminals that are on release walking the 
streets of America? Those are the choices that we have to make and 
these are the questions we must ask.
  Now, I have not gone into great lengths in talking about the Legal 
Services Corporation. Many of the areas that they are engaged in are 
those in which the public perceives to be an abuse of power, whether 
you are talking about suing every State in the Union that has tried to 
reform welfare--the provisions in our bill, in allocating a block grant 
to the States to provide legal services, have very, very stringent 
limits that say, if you take any of this money for legal services, you 
cannot use it, nor any other money in this bill, to try to block 
welfare reform in America.
  The Domenici language is not as strong as our language in terms of 
limiting the action or the use of legal services funding. It is a step 
in the right direction, but why not give this program back to the 
States? What is it about this program, other than the political base 
that it enjoys, that is so different from aid to families with 
dependent children? Can we trust the States with seeing that poor 
people are fed cannot we trust the States to see that legal services 
are provided?
  What is it about this program that makes it so different than 
Medicaid? I assume that those who support this amendment, at least some 
of them, will support block granting Medicaid. We called for it in our 
budget and I assume we have the votes to do it. That has to do with 
people's health, with their access to medical care. How is it that can 
we trust the States to run Medicaid but yet we cannot trust them to 
administer funds for legal services?
  Well, let me say this, Mr. President. I believe the Legal Services 
Corporation is a renegade agency which has spent a tremendous amount of 
resources promoting a political agenda. I think the superstructure of 
the agency which will be preserved by the Domenici amendment is engaged 
in an activity which is the right of every free citizen. Every free 
citizen has a right to advocate their views, no matter how extreme 
someone else may feel they are. And I defend that right. But they do 
not have the right to do it with taxpayers' money.
  If they object to reforming welfare, let them run for the legislature 
and explain to people that they do not want welfare recipients to have 
to work. But 

[[Page S 14598]]
they should not be able to take taxpayer money to file those lawsuits.
  If they believe that the Government ought to be involved in 
elections, or they believe the Government ought to be involved in other 
areas, let them get out and engage in the public policy debate, but not 
with the taxpayers' money.
  I do not believe that we are going to be able to solve these problems 
if we keep this infrastructure in place. I think that the only thing 
that is going to change the focus of the Legal Services Corporation to 
the legal needs of poor people is to eliminate the Federal 
superstructure, a superstructure and bureaucracy which has proven 
beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has a social and political agenda. I 
oppose its agenda. It has a right to an agenda, but not at the 
taxpayers' expense.
  I believe we can meet the legitimate legal needs of the poor by 
setting up a block grant which was supported by the subcommittee and by 
the full committee. That block grant will give the money back to States 
and, within the guidelines which will say that no entity taking this 
money can file lawsuits to block welfare reform, keep drug dealers in 
public housing, or any of all the other things that this agency is 
famous, or infamous, for. It would be administered by the States, with 
greater supervision and control, where people in an area who are 
outraged about an action cannot just write their two Senators and their 
one Congressman, but actually get the legislature and the Governor to 
make a change.
  Is that not logical reform? Is that not what the Contract With 
America was about? Is that not what the party I represent stands for? I 
think it is.
  I think this is a clear-cut choice. And I want our colleagues to look 
very closely at these offsets and understand the damage we are doing to 
law enforcement, to our anticrime and anti-violence efforts by 
providing this funding level to the Legal Services Corporation. The 
$340 million that would be provided under the Domenici amendment is 
taken away from programs that, not only in my opinion, but I would 
assert in the opinion of virtually any reasonable working American, are 
of much greater importance.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
let me just respond to three or four of the Senator's points.
  First of all, Mr. President, so everybody will understand, I will try 
to address a couple issues of the Senator from Texas with reference to 
what we are cutting.
  It is interesting, when this side of the aisle, including my 
wonderful friend from Texas, when you are not really cutting something, 
but merely reducing its growth, you like very much to tell everybody, 
``We're not really cutting, we're just reducing the growth.'' In 
discussing my chosen offsets for this amendment, he chooses to ignore 
that. So let me give you a couple of examples. I think you ought to 
know that if these examples strike home--and every one of the Senator's 
examples is festered with the same problem, every one of them has the 
same problem in terms of how they are attempting to mislead us.
  First, let us talk a minute about the U.S. attorneys. The amendment 
that we have funds the U.S. attorneys at $28 million above the U.S. 
House of Representatives. Frankly, I do not believe the U.S. House of 
Representatives would be cutting U.S. attorneys knowing the 
subcommittees over there and what their desires are about 
crimefighting.
  The U.S. attorneys, under this proposal, will increase $87 million. 
No cut. U.S. attorneys in America will have a 10-percent increase. So 
whatever the good Senator from Texas said, we are providing $87 million 
in new money for U.S. attorneys; not a cut, an increase.
  Frankly, if you want to increase something in a committee so that you 
can say you are the greatest crime-fighter in the world and one up 
everybody, then go ask the Justice Department, ``Well, if you don't get 
that, how many are you going to lose?'' that is, in essence, every 
argument the Senator has made.
  The truth of the matter is, there will be many, hundreds of new U.S. 
attorneys, even after we provide legal services for the poor.
  Let me talk about the FBI. The discussion here sounds like this 1,225 
people from the hinterland that we train we are not going to be able to 
train because of the Domenici amendment. Absolutely untrue. They will 
all be trained, there is no question about it. So you can strike all 
that talk. They will all receive education and training.
  This proposal that is funded in the bill is the following: $52 
million for some additions to their training center at Quantico. They 
do not have a site yet, they do not have a plan yet, and the estimates 
are they will spend $5 million of the $52 million at the most this 
year. All of it will be spent next year and the year after.
  What is wrong with saying since you cannot spend it, since you do not 
have a plan, is there anything wrong with saying, let us provide legal 
services for the poor, if that is what it takes? Frankly, I do not 
believe, if the Director of the FBI was sitting across the table and 
told about this, that he would stand up and say, ``I insist on $52 
million that I don't need, that won't be spent until next year and 
because I want it so much, I would like no poor people to have any 
legal services in America.'' Does anybody believe that?
  Let me go on to just a couple more.
  General legal activities. My good friend from Texas has made an 
argument about all these professionals they are going to lose. Under 
the committee bill general legal activities is slated to increase by 
$13.4 million.
  I could go on with each one of them. I have tried my very best to be 
as honest as I can about U.S. attorneys. They are going up 
dramatically, not coming down. FBI construction; the now named 
candidates from around the country will be trained. We are just not 
going to put money in for a building they do not have a plan or site 
for. We can do it next year if we find, indeed, they are prepared to 
allocate the funding.
  My last point has to do with my good friend from Texas talking about 
a budget gimmick. Frankly, Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, 
I do not let too many gimmicks get through, but they get through. Every 
appropriations bill has some kind of forward funding in it. In fact, I 
suggest, and if my good friend from Texas would like me to pull the 
bill, I will, but I suggest it is way back in my recollection that the 
last time he was ranking member for the HUD and NASA bill, that there 
was over $1 billion forward funded in order for them to get a bill 
through.
  Check the number. Maybe it is $850 million, but it is close to a 
billion. And it was praised on the floor by my good friend from Texas.
  But mine is not the gimmick he describes. As a matter of fact, we 
phased our funding because we want to encourage the Legal Services 
Corporation to implement a competitive bidding system for grants in a 
timely manner. The first $225 million will be released in order for the 
Corporation to continue service. The additional money at the end is 
going to be used as incentive money to implement competition and to 
supplement earlier funding for legal services.
  Last but not least, Mr. President, I looked at all these letters my 
good friend from Texas has submitted for the Record in opposition to my 
amendment. I have copies of them now. I am about as close to the Farm 
Bureau as anybody in this Senate. Frankly, if the Farm Bureau knew that 
the Domenici prohibitions, which are similar to the House, were going 
to be adopted as part of the law, they would not write this letter. And 
that is what it is going to be, because both bills prohibit the kind of 
actions that the farming community, and many others, are arguing about, 
complaining about the abuses, which I acknowledge. They would say, 
``Great, if you want to have legal services with these prohibitions, we 
are not against helping the poor.''
  There is not a single one of these organizations who wants to go on 
record saying, ``We don't want any legal services for the poor of the 
United States.'' They do not want the abuses.
  Why are we apt to stop the abuses this time when we never have 
before? I 

[[Page S 14599]]
will say it plain and simple. I do not intend to in any way antagonize 
my Democratic friends, but the fact of the matter is, we never had a 
Republican House, that is why we never got the prohibitions.
  They are in the House bill. They put the prohibitions in. We are 
going to put them in. There will not be a Commerce, Justice bill 
without the prohibitions in, and there will be no funding for legal 
services without the prohibitions. When you put all the prohibitions 
in, when you understand the nature of the reductions we had to make, I 
am sure many who listened to the Senator from Texas will take another 
look. They will clearly decide that even the average working man that 
my friend from Texas uses so wonderfully in talking about not wanting 
to pay taxes and they are the ones that are working and that they ought 
to get out and pull the wagon, that if you put an average working man 
or woman in a room and you say, ``If these abuses are not there and it 
is just providing an attorney for a poor person whose opponent has an 
attorney and they are desperately in need, average working man and 
woman in America, would you like to say to those people, you get 
nothing, you go defend yourself, do away with legal services?'' Well, I 
will take that issue to the average working men and women in this 
country, and I believe by an overwhelming majority they are decent 
people and understand if you are in litigation, you have to have some 
help. If you are a poor person and getting sued, you are involved in a 
landlord-tenant dispute, any of the thousands they handle--let me tell 
you, they are handling, on an individual basis, huge numbers--
thousands--if somebody knows, maybe they can insert it into the Record. 
They have nothing to do with class actions.

  My closing remark is if you are worried about the abuses, about class 
action, about suits against legislators or Governors, or welfare, those 
are gone in the Domenici amendment, finished, they are not around 
anymore.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me respond to the points Senator 
Domenici has made. First of all, the committee bill does not eliminate 
legal services. It eliminates the Federal entity, the Federal 
bureaucracy, but gives funds to the States with stricter prohibitions 
than the Domenici amendment, so that the funds can be used through 
State-run programs, without this overarching Federal bureaucracy and 
its political agenda, so that the funds available can truly go to help 
poor people with real legal needs.
  So the suggestion that the alternative is the Domenici way or no way, 
simply does not bear up under scrutiny.
  Now, with regard to the gimmick used when we are talking about 
funding, the question is not do we have more prosecutors than we had 
last year after the Domenici cuts are made. The question is, Do we have 
more prosecutors than we need? The point is, for example, in the 
general legal activities of the Justice Department, we have provided 
$10 million less than Bill Clinton says we need to prosecute organized 
crime and major drug traffickers and child pornography and major fraud 
against the taxpayer and terrorism and espionage. We have provided $10 
million less than the President says we need. The Domenici amendment 
would take away $25 million more, eliminating 200 prosecutors from the 
Justice Department. Now, those are 200 additional prosecutors who would 
have been there were we not maintaining the Federal Legal Services 
Corporation.
  That is the choice. Do you want them there or not? Senator Domenici 
says, well, look, they were not there last year, were you not happy 
without them? No. The American people want more prosecutors. The 
American people want to go after organized crime and drug traffickers 
and child pornographers and fraud against the taxpayers and terrorism 
and espionage. So the question is: Do you want 200 more prosecutors 
doing these things, or do you want a Federal Legal Services 
Corporation? That is the question.
  Senator Domenici says, well, you will end up with more U.S. attorneys 
under the bill even with his cut. That is true, but it is not very 
relevant. The point is, the American people want to grab criminals by 
the throat and not let them go in order to get a better grip. The 
American people, I believe, given a choice of spending $11 million so 
they can have 55 more assistant U.S. attorneys and 55 more support 
personnel to go after people selling drugs at every junior high school 
in America, I think given that option, they would choose to have them 
there.
  In terms of the FBI Academy, the argument made is that they do not 
need new facilities. Well, everybody associated with the FBI says they 
do. They say that the infrastructure is becoming antiquated.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield, I did not say they did not 
need it.
  Mr. GRAMM. I believe the Senator said they just will not be able to 
build a new facility as soon.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I said they cannot build it because they do not have a 
location or a plan, and they cannot spend the money.
  Mr. GRAMM. All I know is that the head of the FBI asked me both in 
testimony and in a letter, to provide the funds because he said it was 
needed. I think the Senator is talking about the technical support 
center. I am talking about the FBI Academy. As I read the amendment, it 
is cutting the academy and not the technical support center.
  In any case, our infrastructure and our effort to fight violent crime 
and drugs is getting old. When we had testimony before the 
subcommittee, the head of the FBI said that one of his top priorities 
was to try to upgrade the training facilities, which is desperately 
needed. I think that is a priority item.
  Look, it is a matter of choice. You may want a Federal Legal Services 
Corporation more than you want to modernize the training of the FBI 
Academy. That is a perfectly legitimate choice. But it is a choice, 
this is not a free amendment. This amendment will mean fewer 
prosecutors and fewer convictions. It will mean facilities that will 
not be modernized as rapidly. It will mean a lower quality of training. 
It will mean fewer people will get trained. That is the choice that you 
are making and it is not a choice that can be wished away.
  Now, you can say, well, we still would be doing more than we were 
doing last year. But the point is, we will not be doing as much as we 
are capable of doing.
  In terms of the Farm Bureau, I would be happy to call in the Farm 
Bureau and ask Senator Domenici, if they do not support his position, 
if they would rather do it my way, if he would pull his amendment down. 
My feeling is that they would rather eliminate this Federal 
superstructure, which basically has, since the beginning of the Legal 
Services Corporation, pursued a political agenda, a political agenda 
that we are trying to deal with right here in this very amendment. This 
amendment is not as strong in dealing with this agenda as we are in the 
committee bill, which is why I want to preserve the committee bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the poorest 
of the poor of this land. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of 
the first Americans of this land, the native American, the Indian.
  In 1788, our forefathers, the elected representatives of the first 
nine States of this Union, gathered to ratify and adopt the 
Constitution of the United States. This noble document has served us 
for over 200 years. In the first article of this great document is a 
provision that recognizes the important role and the specific role 
played by the Federal Government of this United States to carry out 
obligations that we solemnly promised by treaty and by law. It also 
recognizes the sovereignty of these people. These were proud people. 
They numbered at that time in excess of 50 million in North America. 
Today, I am sorry to say they number less than 3 million. At the moment 
of the signing of the Constitution, these great people exercised 
dominion over 550 million acres of land, and we recognized and honored 
that at that moment.
  Today, the descendents of these Indians exercise dominion over 50 
million acres of land. Because these Indians, who exercise dominion 
over all these lands--including the land on which we are standing at 
this moment--we the 

[[Page S 14600]]
people of the United States, because of their granting of title to 
these lands to us, promised by treaty that as long as the Sun rises in 
the east and sets in the west, we will make certain that their lives 
will never be placed in jeopardy, that we will provide them with 
shelter, health, and education.
  I am sorry to say we have not lived up to these obligations. In fact, 
our predecessors, the U.S. Senators of the older days, were faced with 
the ratification of 800 treaties. Of the 800 treaties, our predecessors 
felt that 430 were not worthy of our consideration. These treaties were 
signed by the President of the United States, or a proper 
representative, and signed by the chiefs and great leaders of Indian 
lands.
  We said, ``You give us this land, and we will provide you with 
help.'' Mr. President, 430 are still in the files. The reasons are very 
simple. After these treaties were ratified and signed by the President 
and sent to the Senate, they found gold or they found oil or people 
wanted to settle on their lands. I am happy to say we did ratify some--
370 of them.
  History shows that we proceeded to violate provisions in every single 
one of them. The reasons are easy. Whenever this Nation was confronted 
with a choice of priorities--what is more important, U.S. attorneys or 
the plight of the Indians--the Indians always came out at the end. It 
never failed.
  That is the history of the United States. So today, instead of owning 
this land, they have dominion over 50 million acres. Last August, a few 
weeks ago, it was announced by the Labor Department that the 
unemployment rate of this land was 5.6 percent; in Indian country, the 
average is over 40 percent. In some of the reservations, it gets closer 
to 90 percent. It is a sorry sight, but 13 percent of the families of 
this land live in poverty below the poverty line; in Indian country, it 
is 51 percent, half of the families. In most instances, the only legal 
assistance available in Indian country is through this program, the 
legal services program.
  I am not speaking of $340 million. I am not speaking of offsets. I am 
speaking of $10 million. The Domenici amendment includes $10 million, a 
program that has paid for the services of 150 lawyers to deal with the 
problems of Indians throughout this land. There are 33 legal service 
programs and they service 2 million Indians living on reservations.
  Without these resources, Mr. President, these tribes and these 
Indians would have no access to legal assistance. I do not think any of 
my colleagues would think for a moment that law firms would open up 
their branches in a Hopi mesa or in some Pueblo Tribe. I cannot think 
of any law firm opening up their practices in Navajo land. There they 
are almost always located far away from the urban centers of this 
country.
  Lawyers do not find it profitable to go to Indian country; 80 percent 
are unemployed, 50 percent of the families are below the poverty line--
they cannot pay any lawyers's fee. They have to depend upon legal 
assistance and legal services program.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the Domenici amendment because it 
has the sensitivity to recognize our obligations. It is a small amount, 
$10 million. I am sorry to say the committee bill does not involve $10 
million. I believe a clarification of this point is necessary.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas noted that this amendment, the 
committee amendment, was adopted by the subcommittee and adopted by the 
full committee. Technically, that is correct.
  In the subcommittee, we were all told, ``Let's not take up matters of 
controversy.'' That is a practice of the Appropriations Committee. 
``Let's not waste our time. Let's not take up matters of controversy. 
Let's wait until we get to the floor.''
  The same thing happens in the full committee. Otherwise, we would 
still be in that room, S-126, debating this measure.
  Mr. President, I have no idea, because the votes were not taken, but 
I have a feeling that if votes had been taken in the full committee, 
the Domenici amendment would have been adopted.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will not place too much weight 
upon the statement that this was adopted by the subcommittee and 
adopted by the full committee. This is where the controversy is 
debated. This is where the major decisions of the Appropriations 
Committee are determined.
  Mr. President, I speak and I rise to support the Domenici amendment. 
It fulfills our obligations as those who followed our forefathers. I 
think it is about time we maintain and keep our promises.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I want to thank the Senator from Hawaii for 
his very powerful statement about conditions in Indian country. It has 
been my great honor and privilege to work with him for many, many years 
on Native American issues. I know of no greater advocate for native 
Americans than my dear friend from Hawaii.
  However, he and I have a very different view of the impact of the 
legislation as proposed. I will ask my friend from Texas in a minute to 
respond to a couple of questions.
  The fact is, in this present legislation, we have for the first time 
carried out the intent of the government-to-government relationship and 
respectful tribal sovereignty which we have sought for years.
  This legislation, as crafted by the Senator from Texas, provides for 
direct block grants to tribal governments for legal services on the 
same terms as State governments.
  To me, that is a major and important step forward. The present 
legislation also calls for the State or tribal governments with 
significant numbers of Indian households below the poverty line to 
receive 140 percent of what they would otherwise receive. I have not 
seen that before. Now, the Domenici amendment, as I understand it, 
strikes that provision of the bill. It strikes section 120 of the bill 
as reported.

  If the Domenici amendment is adopted, then we will lose that 
government-to-government relationship. We will lose the 140 percent of 
what they would otherwise receive. Frankly, I do not understand why all 
of us would not be supporting provisions that provide direct block 
grants to the tribal governments--which is entirely in keeping with 
what I have been trying to do for the last 13 years, that is, respect 
tribal sovereignty--and provide the funds directly to those tribes.
  If the manager of the bill, my friend from Texas, would respond, is 
it not true that in this legislation, in his proposed legislation, the 
States or tribal governments with significant numbers of Indian 
households below the poverty line would receive 140 percent of what 
they would otherwise receive? Is that a correct statement on my part, I 
ask the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is a correct statement. States that have substantial 
Indian population will receive 140 percent of what would be their 
normal allocation. This was the amendment offered in committee by 
Senator Stevens, aimed specifically at dealing with this problem.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it not true that this is the first time that we have 
made this kind of special consideration for native Americans, that 
would give them as much as 140 percent of what they otherwise would 
receive? Is that a correct statement?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is correct. As far as I am aware, this is the first 
time a special provision has ever been made for Native Americans.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it also not true the tribes are block granted these 
funds outside of any involvement on the part of the State, which is in 
keeping with the government-to-government relationship that we are 
trying to achieve?
  Mr. GRAMM. It is true. In fact, the money goes directly to the tribe, 
bypassing the State.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Domenici amendment, as I understand it, strikes the 
provision in section 120 of the bill we were just talking about; is 
that correct also?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have to say, in all due respect to my friend from 
Hawaii, my dear, dear friend from Hawaii, and my friend from New 
Mexico, why we would want to destroy what is clearly a very important 
step forward in this process, it is something, frankly, I cannot 
support. I hope Senator Domenici will modify his amendment, would seek 
to modify his amendment to give 140 percent of present funding to areas 
where 

[[Page S 14601]]
Indian households, significant numbers of Indian households below the 
poverty line, would receive those extra benefits; that he would modify 
his amendment that would provide for direct block granting.
  It is not so important to me, very frankly, how much money there is, 
which is obviously one aspect that is important. But, for us to filter 
these moneys through the States, simply does not work on any program.
  I urge my colleagues, who are interested in how this legislation 
treats native Americans, to reject the Domenici amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may briefly comment on the statement 
just made, the committee amendment contributes funds to States on the 
basis of the census. Yes, it does say Indians should get 140 percent 
more than other Americans. Under the present program, the program that 
is now in effect at this moment, Indians receive about 5 times what we 
in Washington, or New York, or Chicago receive. For obvious reasons, 
Mr. President: 51 percent live in poverty; 80 percent are unemployed. 
It should be 5 times. If we adopted the committee amendment, it will 
not be 5 times; it will be less than 2 times. In fact, the present 
scheme is not sufficient but it is much, much better than what the 
committee amendment proposes.
  So I hope my colleagues will support the Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici 
amendment. I would like to address a comment made by the Senator from 
Texas. I think he is exactly right. This is a matter about choices. We 
are called upon to make choices each and every day in this Chamber.
  When it comes to priorities, for example, the Senator from Texas 
cited requests from the FBI Director or from the Clinton White House. 
If we look at the defense bill, the Clinton White House did not request 
money for the B-2 bomber. The Secretary of the Air Force did not 
request money for the B-2 bomber. Somehow, $500 million is added for 
the B-2 bomber program, just another downpayment on a $30 billion 
project. That is a choice that has been made. It does not apply to this 
particular bill, but we make choices.
  Would I rather see $500 million applied to other programs? Low-income 
heating assistance? Assistance for the poor? Feeding programs for 
children? I would put my priority over there. But soon we will be 
presented with a measure that will add another $500 million to keep a 
program alive, a program the Pentagon is not even requesting.
  So, we are faced with choices. I took the floor the other day in 
opposition to the space station--a $100 billion program. I think we can 
find better ways of spending $100 billion--such as satisfying our 
research and development needs in medicine--than to put it in a space 
station which is going to cost us more and more as our European 
partners decline to make their contributions.
  As the Senator from Texas has articulated the issue, he said, 
basically, if you are for more prisons and prosecutors and taking drug 
addicts and pushers and terrorists off the streets, then you will 
support him. But if you are in favor of protecting the poor or 
providing legal services to the poor, if you want to have that kind of 
a dichotomy, that kind of a balance, then you will support Senator 
Domenici.
  Really, it is a nice positioning on the part of the Senator from 
Texas. But it seems to me that we have an obligation to provide poor 
people in this country with an opportunity to get to the courthouse. It 
is something that every one of us enjoys. We can afford it. But in this 
bill, we are saying, ``Poor, no longer will you have a Legal Services 
Corporation. We do not like this structure. It has a left-wing agenda. 
We do not want any left-wing agenda.'' But I submit, if we genuinely 
aspire to have a system of ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' as it is 
written on the front of the Supreme Court, then our neediest citizens 
must have access to that system.
  The facts simply do not support the contention that legal services 
organizations are promoting a left-wing agenda. About one-third of the 
cases involve family violence. We have a serious problem in this 
country dealing with family violence. People are being abused. There 
are 52,000 clients seeking protection from abusive spouses, who are 
represented by attorneys funded through the Legal Services Corporation. 
There are 240,000 poor senior citizens who are represented by legal 
services attorneys. Tens of thousands are represented in landlord-
tenant disputes. Tens of thousands were assisted in applications for 
public benefits. But our answer is, ``We do not want this structure 
anymore. We do not want a Federal hand in this anymore. We want to turn 
this all back to the States.''
  By the way, you do not just turn a Federal program back to the States 
at no cost. Under the block grant proposal, 50 separate States, with 
their own bureaucracies, will have to administer the funds. And unless 
the Domenici amendment is passed, none of the funds can go to a legal 
services organization; they can only go to individual lawyers. If you 
take away the Federal structure and you prohibit money from going to 
established organizations within the State, the funds must go to 
individual attorneys. Then, eventually, you will find very little 
representation for the poor.
  ``Let the private lawyers take care of this,'' you say--pro bono 
work. I used to do a lot of it myself. I used to think I had an 
extension of the Pine Tree Legal Assistance operation in my law firm 
because there were a lot of poor people who came to the door who simply 
could not afford to pay the legal fees, and I represented them.
  But we are deluding ourselves if we think we are going to see an 
expansion of these points of light, that many thousands and tens of 
thousands of law firms are going to undertake representation for all of 
the needs of the poor or take on and fight the landlord-tenant 
disputes. How many poor people have complaints against the landlords--
slum lords, in many cases--of uninhabitable, rat-infested, asbestos 
ridden residences. We say, ``Well, tough luck. You are poor. You do not 
get representation.''
  The law firms are not going to give you their youngest attorneys. 
They are on corporate mergers now. That is a higher priority at the law 
firm. They say, ``We have big mergers taking place. We do not have time 
to allow you to engage in bringing a lawsuit to protect people from 
uninhabitable conditions.''

  Mr. President, I am not entirely satisfied with the Domenici 
amendment, as it places unprecedented restrictions on legal services 
organizations such as Maine's Pine Tree Legal Assistance. Unlike 
previous LSC legislation, this bill not only places restrictions on 
Federal funds, it also restricts how organizations such as Pine Tree 
may spend money received from State grants, State bar associations, and 
private donations. This is a Federal mandate. We are telling States 
like Maine that they cannot give grants to legal services organizations 
to represent immigrants or pursue class action lawsuits.
  There are times, in my own State, when State legislators ask legal 
services attorneys for advice about how they should shape laws and 
regulations to help out people in need. We cannot do that under the 
Domenici approach. These attorneys cannot be called to testify before 
legislative hearings. They cannot file class action suits. So basically 
it is pretty restrictive. The amendment does not go as far as I would 
like to see it go.
  Let me provide one example. A number of years ago there was a lapse 
in a Federal program that provided assistance for displaced workers. 
The Maine Legislature requested advice from Pine Tree Legal Assistance 
to determine how the law could be changed to ensure that these workers 
could qualify for State unemployment benefits. But under the amendment, 
Pine Tree would have to remain silent; its expertise would be wasted.
  I am going to support the Domenici amendment, however, because I 
believe we have an obligation to see to it that poor people in this 
country have access and keys to the courthouse. There is a major trial 
taking place right now which thankfully is coming to a close. Not many 
people in this country can afford that kind of representation. 

[[Page S 14602]]
That is in a criminal case. I am talking about the civil actions now. 
Not very many people in this country, especially those at the very 
lowest of the economic strata, can call up an attorney and say, ``Would 
you represent me against this claim? Would you represent me against my 
husband or against my wife? I am being abused. I need help.'' ``Sorry. 
We do not have any money to help you.''
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the Domenici 
amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senators from New Mexico and South Carolina. This 
amendment will allow continuation of legal services to low-income 
individuals.
  The credibility of the American legal system demands that all 
Americans, regardless of their economic station in life, have access to 
the courts. To put the promise of justice beyond the reach of a group 
of people because they cannot afford proper representation defies the 
notion of equal justice for all.
  Since its inception in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation has 
worked to provide equal access to the justice system to a group of 
Americans which is sadly growing larger in number and increasingly 
disenfranchised from our democratic way of life.
  An editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently noted that 
the Legal Services Corporation helps people in very basic, and 
important ways. They help:

       . . . the child who needs health care, the elderly couple 
     negotiating their way through Medicare, the battered woman 
     who needs help getting a divorce and child custody, the 
     victims of consumer fraud.

  I think we would all agree that these are all laudable goals. And 
yet, if you look at the language contained in H.R. 2067, you will see 
that the battered woman who needs help getting a divorce and child 
custody is foreclosed from utilizing Legal Services for that purpose. 
What could be so controversial about helping a battered woman and her 
children out of a violent and abusive situation? Nothing. And yet, the 
language contained in the bill currently being considered, prohibits 
the use of funds to obtain a divorce.
  However, Mr. President, this very troubling provision is but one 
example of the shortsightedness of eliminating the Legal Services 
Corporation. Although it is not without its detractors, the Legal 
Services Corporation provides basic legal services to the poor of this 
Nation in an efficient, cost-effective manner.
  As has been noted many times, only 3 percent of the total Legal 
Services appropriation is used for administrative purposes. The 
remainder is sent out to the various legal service organizations 
throughout this Nation. Ninety-seven percent of the Legal Services 
Corporation's funding goes directly to local programs to address 
priorities established at the local level.
  Throughout this Congress we have heard time and time again that 
decentralization is the key to many of our problems--let the people in 
the communities make the decisions. Legal Services does that now and 
this bill eliminates it.
  Ninety-seven percent of the Corporation's funds are distributed 
directly to organizations like Legal Action of Wisconsin, Western 
Wisconsin Legal Services, Wisconsin Judicare, and Legal Services of 
Northeastern Wisconsin. All of these local organizations know and 
understand the needs of the poor throughout the State of Wisconsin and 
are dedicated to addressing them. Under the present system, they make 
the decisions, they set the priorities.
  Not only does the language in the bill eliminate the decentralized 
system that exists today, it replaces it with a more onerous and 
traditional inside the beltway style bureaucracy. Under the proposed 
language, the Department of Justice would become the primary grant 
administrator to the States. The money no longer goes directly to the 
providers, it goes to the States. The States in turn establish their 
own administrative structure to oversee and administer the money to the 
local organizations, which ultimately provide legal services for the 
poor. These additional layers of bureaucracy will increase 
administrative costs and result in less money being available to help 
the poor.
  If the goal of this body is to slow delivery of legal services to the 
poor and to create more bureaucracy, then we should support the 
proposed block grant. However, if the goal is, as it should be, to 
maintain a workable delivery system of legal services to the poor in 
this Nation, then the efficiency, flexibility and the decentralization 
of the current Corporation is the obvious choice.
  Mr. President, we often hear about the need for private enterprise to 
pick up where Government leaves off. The citizens of Wisconsin are very 
fortunate to have a private bar dedicated to ensuring legal 
representation to all people. I know that other Senators can say the 
same of their home States.
  But we delude ourselves if we think these dedicated private attorneys 
alone can meet the enormous needs of the poor. I have been contacted by 
many organizations from Wisconsin, all concerned about, and working to 
help, the poor in our State. Each of these groups, be it the Wisconsin 
State Bar, the Association for Women Lawyers, the Milwaukee Bar 
Association or any of the others that contact me, knows that the 
elimination of the Legal Services Corporation will seriously hamper the 
ability of this Nation's poor to obtain legal representation.
  If we follow the committee language, and effectively exclude millions 
of poor Americans from one of this Nation's most important 
institutions--the justice system--we risk creating a society where 
justice exists only for those above the poverty line. Such a result is 
unacceptable.
  I appreciate that no one approves of every case that legal services 
undertakes, but the proposed amendment seeks to address some of the 
concerns that people have raised regarding the scope of Legal Services 
activities. Some may think the restrictions in the amendment go too 
far, others, not far enough. However, we must not lose sight of the 
fact that our goal should be to maintain a system of legal 
representation for the poor that allows them to avail themselves of the 
protections of the American justice systems.
  Protections that many of us, the more fortunate in our society, may 
take for granted. However, imagine the importance we all would place in 
these protections should they disappear or be placed just beyond our 
grasp. And yet, the language in this bill potentially subjects millions 
of poor people in this Nation to just such a reality.
  The amendment offered by the Senators from New Mexico and South 
Carolina acknowledges the essential fact that we must preserve the 
access of the poor in this Nation to the judiciary. This amendment 
allows this Nation to move ahead toward equal justice for all, rather 
than retreat from this noble goal. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article in the July 19 edition of the 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled ``Legal Services for Poor Need 
Protection'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 19, 1995]

                Legal Services For Poor Need Protection

       The Legal Services Corp., which gives the poor access to 
     lawyers, has been fighting for its survival this year as 
     never before. The agency still stands. But in House action so 
     far, its funding has been lopped by a third and major 
     restrictions have been placed on its activities.
       A weakened agency still does not satisfy the extreme right, 
     which has put, you might say, a contract out on the 
     organization. Some congressmen are expected to try to make 
     good on that contract in House action this week.
       House members most certainly must rebuff this attempt to 
     kill Legal Services, the major source of funds for Legal 
     Action of Wisconsin. America will have no hope of being a 
     fair society if the poor lack reasonable access to lawyers; 
     justice simply won't be served.
       We are not talking big bucks here, at least not by federal 
     standards. The proposed budget for next year stands at $278 
     million, down from the current $415 million. Legal Action's 
     share currently is $2.4 million.
       Like its counterparts across the country, Legal Action of 
     Wisconsin represents poor people in myriad civil cases--the 
     child who needs health care, the elderly couple negotiating 
     their way through Medicare, the battered woman who needs help 
     getting a divorce and child custody, the victim of consumer 
     fraud.
       The firm doesn't handle frivolous cases. Most are settled 
     without even going to court. And for want of staff Legal 
     Action serves only a small share of those who need its help.

[[Page S 14603]]

       Though only a tiny fraction of Legal Action's work, class 
     action lawsuits draw the most attention because of their wide 
     impact. Far-right critics act as if federally financed law 
     firms think up exotic challenges to the status quo just to 
     promote a far-left agenda. But these legal challenges flow 
     out of the real needs of poor people.
       For instance, mothers complained to Legal Action that 
     because they couldn't afford child care, they were having a 
     tough time getting training or education to get off welfare. 
     Legal Action successfully sued the state, forcing it to 
     satisfy its obligation to the federal government to pay for 
     child care for 4,000 parents.
       Unwisely, restrictions in the current House bill would 
     prevent such lawsuits in the future. Class action suits 
     against government and welfare mitigation would both be 
     banned.
       The most immediate threat, however, is a move to kill Legal 
     Services altogether. Fairness demands that the House turn it 
     back.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Texas for his 
leadership and what he has done to make the changes in the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  Mr. President, House and Senate conferees are expected to begin 
meeting soon to consider welfare reform legislation. I sincerely hope 
that the conference report contains illegitimacy provisions like a 
family cap and a restriction on cash benefits to unwed minor mothers.
  But no matter how strong the welfare conference report turns out to 
be, it will not succeed in ending welfare dependency unless we also 
reform the Legal Services Corporation, the agency which has for years 
furnished the rope to hang welfare reform efforts in the States.
  For example, the State of New Jersey was granted a waiver in 1992 by 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to institute a family 
cap provision denying an increase in welfare benefits for women who 
have more children while already receiving welfare.
  The Legal Services Corporation sued the New Jersey Department of 
Human Services to challenge the family cap. Rightly, the U.S. District 
Court decided that it is perfectly legitimate for the State of New 
Jersey to implement a family cap.
  But they had to defend it against the Legal Services Corporation.
  Welfare reform is not the only arena where Legal Services attorneys 
have defied common sense and hurt the very people whose interests they 
claim to represent and have sued the people who are paying them.
  In my own State of North Carolina, in a pattern that is repeated all 
over the country, Legal Services attorneys have caused growers who 
employ seasonal workers to lose millions of dollars defending 
themselves against frivolous nonexistent lawsuits. They have extorted 
money from growers by threatening them with lawsuits unless they settle 
up--to the tune of $500 per nonexistent violation, per worker.
  As the Senator from Maine talked about some of the people not having 
the money to sue and the need for legal services, what we are talking 
about here are small people trying to make a living defending 
themselves against legal services, and they do not have the money to 
hire the lawyers either.
  Even for a small family farmer with 10 acres or less of crop acreage, 
this can add up to tens of thousands of dollars. For a small farmer, 
that can add up to bankruptcy. And a bankrupt farmer can not hire 
seasonal laborers or anybody else.
  In recent years, North Carolina produce farmers have been a target of 
Legal Services attempt to destroy the Department of Labor's H2A 
Program, which brings in temporary foreign workers to harvest crops for 
farmers who cannot find enough domestic workers.
  But Legal Services have harassed these people to the extent that the 
program is no longer functioning. This program is designed to help 
farmers and workers. But they have been harassed by the Legal Services 
so often that they have simply stopped using it or the farmers have 
been put out of business.
  Legal Services is nothing more than an entitlement program for 
activist lawyers. We simply subsidize them and pay them.
  My colleague and friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, has a reasonable 
and innovative block grant solution which I strongly support. I 
personally would feel better to end the disastrous program of Legal 
Services altogether. But we cannot do that.
  Therefore, I oppose adamantly the amendment by the Senator from New 
Mexico, and I urge my colleagues to do the same and to support the 
Senator from Texas. He is doing what needs to be done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen.
  Mr. President, what is at issue here, when all is said and done, is 
whether or not we as a nation are going to support the idea that each 
and every person, regardless of their income, is going to receive equal 
protection under the law. That is really what having a Legal Services 
Corporation is all about. Ensuring that people are treated equally 
under the law. Not just the wealthy but, everyone.
  Mr. President, this is in the very best of the tradition of our 
country. Speaking for Minnesotans, this is the Minnesota ethic. 
Minnesotans believe in equal protection under the law. Minnesotans 
believe that regardless of a person's station in life he or she should 
be entitled to representation in our court system.
  Mr. President, I will reluctantly support the Domenici amendment. To 
do otherwise is to have a proposal that will essentially eliminate what 
I would call the heart and soul and integrity of the Legal Services in 
the United States of America. In that sense, I believe Senator Domenici 
has made an enormous contribution. But I have some serious misgivings 
about the Domenici amendment albeit, I admire what the Senator from New 
Mexico is trying to accomplish. I believe he has made a real 
contribution toward fairness in our country through his amendment. But 
by the same token, this is a very steep price we will pay for rescuing 
Legal Services. There is a price for agreeing to the restrictions in 
the Domenici amendment.

  Mr. President, we had this debate before in this Chamber last 
Congress. A debate that I was very active in. It was a debate with my 
colleague from Texas, as a matter of fact.
  When you have a restriction that says you are going to have a 
prohibition on welfare reform litigation, then I would ask the 
following question: Has this just become a kind of mean season on the 
poor of this country?
  Mr. President, we are talking about children. The most vulnerable 
members of our society. Not too long ago we made a profound mistake in 
agreeing to the so-called welfare reform measure that passed this body. 
At that time, I think Senator Moynihan said it better than anyone. He 
essentially said that for the first time in over a half a century, we 
as the U.S. Senate, will say there will be no floor beneath which 
children could fall.
  Mr. President, you and I have had a debate on this issue. It has been 
an honest difference of opinion. But if we are going to say that, and 
we are also going to say there is no kind of national community 
commitment, no sort of obligation, responsibility or standard in 
relation to nutrition, in relation to making sure that every child at 
least has an adequate diet, that in and of itself I think is a turning 
back of the clock, away from the very best of this country, because I 
think it will be more children are going to go hungry and more children 
are going to be impoverished.
  Now what we have is a restriction that says in addition to no 
national standard, no floor, there will be restrictions on Legal 
Services lawyers who rightfully want to challenge any of the laws or 
practices that are called welfare reform.
  How can we argue that Legal Services lawyers will not be able to 
issue any challenges when we do not know exactly what is going to 
happen back 

[[Page S 14604]]
in the States and back at the county level.
  There are all kinds of examples. Suppose, for example--I had an 
amendment which dealt with the whole issue of domestic violence--you 
have a woman who has been battered. Imagine what it would be like if 
you had been battered steadily for 2 years. You have two small 
children, and you are told you go into a work program or you lose your 
assistance. Suppose she could not because she had not healed; she is 
not ready to work physically or mentally. Under these draconian 
restrictions a woman would not be able to receive Legal Services 
representation to challenge this particular restriction. Where is the 
fairness in that? Is this just? I submit to my esteemed colleagues, 
that this is not justice and it is not fair.
  Mr. President, this strikes me as just being a mean season on the 
poor. Senator Domenici has made a real contribution because he is 
attempting to make sure we do not pass any extreme proposals, which is 
I believe the Gramm proposal is about. But these restrictions trouble 
me, and these restrictions should not be the price people pay to 
receive the most basic legal representation to protect their rights.
  I hope that when it comes to authorization we will have a debate, and 
we will be able to come up with constrictive solutions to some of these 
problems.
  Mr. President, what happens if a mother is told she has to work but 
because of a prior work experience she has a bad back? People quite 
often think it is an excuse--she has a herniated disk, and she cannot 
do the kind of physical work she used to do. She says I can no longer 
perform this type of work, or there is no one to take care of my small 
children, and she might be cut off. She has no legal representation?
  What happens if we go back to what used to be the man-in-the-house 
rule, and it is decided at the county level that a woman who is single 
now, has been through a divorce, and a male friend visits her one day, 
and somebody is there from the welfare department who determines she 
should be cut off because there is a man in her house that can support 
her. Will she have legal representation to challenge this kind of 
determination? No.
  I do not know how we can have this kind of restriction when we do not 
even know how it is going to be at the State and local level. What if 
it is repressive? What if it is harsh? What if it is degrading? What if 
it violates the Constitution of the United States of America? Are we 
saying a whole group of citizens, which, by the way, are women and 
children, are not going to have legal representation?
  Mr. President, the Gramm proposal goes beyond the goodness of 
America. The Gramm proposal to essentially gut legal services goes 
beyond the goodness of Minnesota. I believe the Gramm proposal will be 
voted down. I think the Domenici amendment will pass, and it should 
because the whole idea of equal protection under the law is an idea 
that fires the imagination of Americans. This about basic fairness and 
justice.
  What I worry about as I look at these restrictions, whether it be 
welfare or whether it be a broad definition of lobbying, or whether it 
be advocacy or no class action lawsuits, is that I believe we are 
heading in the wrong direction because ultimately what this debate is 
about--is about power and powerlessness in America. And if you are 
going to say that, yes, there will be funding for Legal Services but we 
will so severely restrict what you can do that those who are powerless 
do not have the ability to challenge some of the powerful institutions 
in America, then we just deepen all of the inequalities.
  Hospitals are supposed to take care of sick people. Welfare agencies 
are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of the people they 
serve. Schools are supposed to educate children, all children. Housing 
agencies are supposed to be concerned about housing, housing for all 
people. It is written somewhere that just because you are poor, you do 
not get adequate representation.
  Are we now saying that a whole group of citizens in America, 
disproportionately women, disproportionately children, are no longer 
going to have access to lawyers who can challenge some of those 
discriminatory policies?
  I will tell you what this is going to do, Mr. President. It is going 
to breed contempt for our legal system among the very citizens we do 
not want to see have that contempt.
  We have young people who are growing up in communities across our 
country, in more brutal circumstances and conditions than any of us 
want to admit. I think the Senator from Hawaii, [Mr. Inouye], has 
probably been the champion for people in Indian country. He knows their 
condition better than maybe any other Senators here.
  If we have young people growing up in more brutal circumstances than 
any of us want to face up to, and we are now going to severely restrict 
what Legal Services lawyers can do, we are just going to breed contempt 
on the part of those young people in this system. They are going to see 
no way that they can seek redress of grievances through our system; 
they are going to see a legal system they are not going to believe in; 
they are going to see a political system they are not going to believe 
in; they are going to see a nation that they believe betrays the very 
idea of equal justice under the law. Where do you think that is going 
to take us?
  When young people growing up in poverty, growing up in impoverished 
communities, growing up under brutal circumstances do not see any way 
through the legal system that they can seek redress of grievances, do 
not see a system through which there is an opportunity for them working 
within our system in a nonviolent way to improve their lives, it 
creates an enormous vacuum.
  I will tell you what fills that vacuum. I have been to a lot of these 
communities. What fills that vacuum is the politics of despair, the 
politics of cynicism, and all too often the politics of hatred.
  Mr. President, the Gramm approach is to extreme; it goes too far. 
What the Senator from Texas has done is to belie the best of America. 
Senator Domenici is right with his amendment. But as to the 
restrictions in the Domenici amendment, I hope later on as we move 
forward on legal services, we will be able to have a good discussion 
and we will be able to make the kinds of changes that will provide poor 
people in America with strong legal representation.
  Just because you are poor does not mean you should not be able to 
challenge those who have the power in America. Just because you are 
poor or just because you are living in a poor community or just because 
you are a whole community that is denied a voice or just because you 
are a whole community that does not have the power, does not mean you 
should not be entitled to some legal services lawyers that can work 
with you. It should not mean you cannot be entitled to challenge the 
policies and practices that discriminate against your families, that 
hold your families down, that lead to inadequate housing, that lead to 
your children not having an adequate education, that lead to health 
care institutions that sometimes do not take care of you.
  You should be able to challenge those policies and practices. You 
should be able to challenge those institutions. That is the best of 
America. That is equal justice under the law. With these restrictions, 
that is not going to happen. So, Mr. President, to conclude, I will not 
cosponsor the Domenici amendment because of the restrictions, but I 
certainly will vote for it.
  I think the Senator from New Mexico, my friend, is making a real 
contribution: A little more fairness, a little more justice, a little 
more compassion, a little bit more of what is right in America.
  My God, Mr. President is this the mean season on the poor? I hope 
when it comes to authorization, we will be able to look at these 
restrictions and we will be able to make the kinds of changes that will 
lead to legal services, and will provide people in this country, poor 
people, whether they live in urban America or rural America or suburban 
America, with equal protection under the law. That is what this 
amendment is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support the Domenici-Hollings amendment 
restoring funding for the Legal 

[[Page S 14605]]
Services Corporation. This amendment will ensure that poor people in 
underserved ares continue to get legal advice. The Domenici-Hollings 
amendment contains important restrictions on the use of funds by the 
Legal Services Corporation. These restrictions, which were also 
supported by the House, are necessary to ensure that abuses that have 
occurred in the past do not continue. The funding that is provided 
under this amendment can not be used for things like class actions, 
lobbying, or representing illegal aliens. These restrictions are to 
ensure that funding is used to provide the traditional legal services 
that are most needed by poor people.
  I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico and his staff for 
accommodating the special needs of Native Americans and those in areas 
like Alaska where travel to remote villages increases costs. Last year 
the Alaska Legal Services Corporation successfully completed 4,629 
cases. In most cases the people who the Corporation represented had no 
where else to turn for legal advice because they could not afford to 
hire an attorney.
  The poor people in my State--and across America--need the help of the 
Legal Services Corporation. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there are few examples that better 
illustrate the case of good intentions gone awry than the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  Created in 1974 to relieve the burden of an expensive legal system 
for poor Americans, the Legal Services Corporation has become in many 
instances the instrument for bullying ordinary Americans to satisfy a 
liberal agenda that has been repeatedly rejected by the voters.
  Mr. President, I wish to make clear at the outset that I support 
efforts to help low-income Americans by ensuring that they are not shut 
off from legal redress, especially where important constitutional 
rights are concerned. And I also have no doubt that the existing legal 
services framework has produced good programs and employs good people 
who are devoted to providing the very best representation to those who 
otherwise could not afford it.
  But as the Washington Post noted on September 18, 1995, the model of 
providing legal services to the poor has become twisted into something 
``more ambitious: a powerful network of poverty lawyers funded by 
Washington and backed up by university-based centers of expertise, that 
would help not just individual clients but `the poor' as a whole.''
  There are two points to be made about this outcome: First, despite 
many dedicated lawyers who have undoubtedly helped poor clients through 
Legal Services grants, the inevitable result of this shift in focus has 
been to hurt those whom the Corporation was created to help. The 
impoverished individual who has run-of-the-mill, but important, legal 
needs is shunted aside by Legal Services lawyers in search of sexy 
issues and deep pockets. And in some cases the agenda of helping the 
poor as a class has perpetuated and deepened the worst aspects of a 
welfare state that has utterly failed poor Americans.
  Second, this twisting of the original purpose of the Legal Services 
Corporation is antidemocratic. In most cases, what passes as a class 
action lawsuit--whether it addresses welfare benefits, or employer-
employee relations--is nothing more than a policy dispute that should 
be, and often has been, the subject of the legislative process. To 
subvert the legal system in order to overturn legislative judgments is 
fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
  How did this happen? A lack of accountability. The very structure of 
the Legal Services Corporation has produced this result. Although the 
Corporation has an 11-member board, the reality is that money flows to 
over 300 local nonprofit groups with attorneys accountable to no one. 
This is not an accident. With the best of intentions, the idea was that 
the Corporation should be insulated from political pressures. But this 
laudable goal was taken too far. Laws addressing the misappropriation 
of Federal funds, for example, are not even applicable to the 
Corporation under the terms of the act creating it.
  Thus, this is not a case of passing more laws and creating an 
increasingly complex regime to govern the operation of the Legal 
Services Corporation. The problem cannot be papered over. The problem 
flows from the present structure of how we provide legal services to 
the poor.
  The time has come to end this abuse of the legal process and return 
to the original purpose--providing the means to help the poorest among 
us to cope with their genuine and individual legal needs.
  I am committed to providing some mechanism that provides legal 
assistance to the impoverished among us. But in this, as in so many 
other areas, it is time to return power and responsibility back to 
where it belongs--the States. Supporters of the present Legal Services 
framework will undoubtedly claim that the poor will suffer. I believe 
that is wrong. The legislation before us provides a responsible 
response to the legitimate legal needs of the poor--a block grant 
program that can be run by those closest to the needs of their citizens 
and implemented with the appropriate safeguards that have heretofore 
eluded the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support repeal of the Legal 
Services Corporation Act.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we enter into the debate as to whether 
we should convert yet another Federal program into a block grant, it 
would behoove us to consider fully the wise comments of our former 
colleague, Gov. Lawton Chiles. I ask unanimous consent that the 
following letter from Governor Chiles, which questions the wisdom of 
transforming the Legal Services Corporation into a block grant, be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Office of the Governor

                              Tallahassee, FL, September 14, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Congress, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to inform you of my 
     position on the Legal Aid Block Grant Act of 1995 contained 
     in the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill (HR 2076) 
     which would provide that funds in FY 1996 for the legal 
     services organizations be routed through the governor's 
     office of distribution.
       First, I urge you to consider the efficiency of the current 
     system. Only 3% of the funds which are allocated are spent on 
     overhead, and the remainder reaches the direct delivery 
     system in the states. This efficiency would be difficult to 
     duplicate at the state level, especially as we will have to 
     invent a delivery system at a time of fiscal change.
       Second, after a review of this matter and its implications 
     for State government responsibility, I have determined that 
     the burden to Florida is great and that there is no increased 
     benefit to the state in channeling such funds through this 
     office.
       In summary, I am asking you to vote against a block grant 
     proposal for legal services. As usual, I appreciate your 
     efforts to achieve fiscal responsibility while providing for 
     the needs of our less fortunate citizens.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lawton Chiles.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I stand here to pledge my support for the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Domenici, which preserves 
the Legal Services Corporation.
  This organization has been both efficient and effective in providing 
legal services to the poor, so that those who are most vulnerable in 
our society have access to the courts, not just those who can afford 
it.
  Contrary to the rhetoric of some of my colleagues who oppose the 
Domenici amendment, the vast majority of cases handled by the Legal 
Services Corporation are not controversial--they are individual cases 
arising out of everyday unfortunate problems--losing a job, suffering a 
serious illness, facing the breakdown of family relations of simply 
dealing with Government redtape.
  As someone who has long sought to do what I could do to prevent and 
to fight against family violence, I am most grateful for the help that 
the Legal Services Corporation provides to victims of family violence.
  In fact, representation of victims of family violence is the single 
largest category of cases handled by local legal services programs--
accounting for one out of every three cases processed last year.
  In 1994 alone--the year we passed the Violence Against Women Act--
local 

[[Page S 14606]]
legal services programs handled more than 50,000 cases in which women 
sought legal protection from abusive husbands, and over 9,000 cases 
involving neglected and abused children.
  This amendment places a number of prohibitions on the Legal Services 
Corporation, but keeps this much-needed organization intact, enabling 
it to continue to provide traditional legal services to those who 
desperately need them.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator 
Domenici's amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  In my home State of New Mexico, the Legal Services Corporation has a 
proven track record. Without this program, there are few alternatives 
if any for the poor to have access to the legal system. Many of the 
people who benefit from Legal Services were once considered part of the 
middle class. However, as a result of unemployment, illness, divorce or 
aging, these people are now left without the means to afford a private 
attorney. Some of the people who are helped by this program are: the 
senior citizen living on social security in rural New Mexico who is a 
victim of a consumer fraud scam; the disabled veteran who has had VA 
health benefits denied; the woman who has children and is trying to 
escape form an abusive relationship.
  There are many reasons to vote against the block grant approach 
adopted by the appropriations committee. By eliminating the Legal 
Services Corporation, a new bureaucracy is created because States now 
have to set up administrative structures to fund and oversee legal 
services programs. This new bureaucracy with higher administrative 
costs will soak up much needed resources. Further, the block grant 
proposal limits legal representation to the ``most basic needs.'' For 
example:
  A person may still be represented in an eviction case; there will 
still be services available to probate a will; in cases of child abuse; 
in seeking a protective order; file a petition for bankruptcy; a quiet 
title action.
  However, the question becomes: Are these the only legal services that 
the poor seek? Obviously, the answer is no. Other possibilities have 
been prohibited by the block grant and that is the heart of the problem 
with this appropriations bill. Here are some types of things that will 
not be permitted under the block grant: assistance in a divorce 
(applies to abusive situations); abortion; applying for veterans 
benefits; obtaining home ownership; credit access; Indian/Tribal Law 
issues; paternity; adoption; rights of the physically disabled; and 
consumer-related law (elderly scams).
  There are many reasons to support the Legal Services Corporation, but 
the primary one remains the reason this program was created in the 
first place--it is the most cost efficient way to allow the poor to 
have access to our legal system. If the goal of a block grant is to 
allow local control and flexibility, then the Legal Services 
Corporation is already accomplishing this objective.
  Mr. President, this particular system is not broken. The Legal 
Services Corporation uses only 3 percent of its budget towards 
administrative expenses. The decision making is divided among those 
with knowledge in poverty law. Currently, the mid-level bureaucracy is 
eliminated because grants do not have to be approved by State or local 
governments.
  In essence, this appropriations bill is placing the burden on the 
shoulders of those who are not represented in this debate, the poor, 
and I urge my colleagues to restore the Legal Service Corporation.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President I would like to inquire of the Senator from 
New Mexico as to the intent of his amendment with regard to the 
International Trade Commission.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As my colleagues know, I intended this amendment to be 
the first amendment before the Senate.
  I intended for some weeks to offer an amendment to retain the Legal 
Services Corporation and to provide it with adequate funding to 
continue providing legal assistance to those who could otherwise not 
afford it.
  That amendment was drafted to the bill reported by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Last night the distinguished full committee chairman filed a 
reallocation of funding to the subcommittee, and the Senate adopted an 
amendment to restore some $400 million to various programs in the bill 
including $4 million for the ITC.
  This amendment made significant changes to the bill as reported, and 
thus affected the amendment that I am offering with other Senators.
  I would like to clarify that the intention of the Domenici amendment 
is to take a reduction in the International Trade Commission [ITC] by 
$4 million from the level approved in the managers amendment rather 
than from the level of funding reported in the original bill.
  It is not my intention to reduce the ITC by 30 percent as some may 
assume from a literal reading of the amendment.
  I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues over the use of 
the ITC funding as an offset. As a conferee on the bill, I will work 
with Chairman Hatfield to sustain a level of funding that will be 
adequate to support the work of the International Trade Commission.
  Mr. ROTH. I appreciate the clarification from my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico. I am greatly concerned about the impact of 
the proposed appropriations reductions on the ITC. I hope the conferees 
will provide the maximum level of funding possible for the ITC in the 
final bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to 
increase funding for legal services, and to retain the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  Mr. President, the debate over this bill, when you get right down to 
it, is a debate about priorities.
  And in my view, little is more important than ensuring that all 
Americans have access to justice.
  After all, the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law'' is at the 
heart of our democratic system. Every American is supposed to have the 
same legal rights. No matter their race. No matter their religion. No 
matter whether they are rich or poor.
  Today's Legal Services Corporation helps make this principle a 
reality.
  It protects victims of domestic violence.
  It defends senior citizens and veterans against bureaucrats who 
arbitrarily deny them benefits.
  It forces landlords to follow the law in eviction procedures.
  It stops nursing homes from dumping patients who have become 
expensive or difficult to serve.
  It helps the mentally ill and disabled get the benefits to which they 
are entitled.
  And it helps ensure that Constitutional rights are real for all 
Americans, whether or not they can afford their own lawyer.
  Mr. President, the need for legal services among low-income people is 
intense. Over 50 million Americans are living near the poverty level, 
and potentially eligible for legal services. One of every four children 
under six lives in poverty.
  For people like these, Mr. President, legal services can mean access 
to critical support from an absent parent. It can mean a decent home to 
live in. Access to health care. Access to education. Or escape from a 
violent home.
  Despite these critical needs, Mr. President, 70 percent of our 
country's least fortunate lack access to any legal services. One reason 
is that the number of legal services attorneys has been cut by one-
third since 1981.
  A recent survey found that, on average, legal services programs 
turned away 43 percent of eligible individuals because they lacked 
sufficient resources. For some programs, the rate was as high as 60 
percent.
  Mr. President, given these shortfalls, we ought to be increasing 
funding for legal services, not cutting it. Yet the bill approved by 
the Appropriations Committee would cut funding from legal services from 
$400 million to $210 million. That, in my view, would be an outrage.
  This amendment would increase that level to $340 million. That does 
not go far enough, and would leave the Legal Services Corporation with 
a significant cut. Still, it is a big improvement. And, from all 
indications, it is the best we can do for now.
  I also want to express my concern about the restrictions on legal 
service 

[[Page S 14607]]
lawyers that are included in this amendment. For example, the amendment 
would prohibit LSC lawyers from pursuing class action suits. I think 
that is a mistake. If a group of poor people are harmed by wrongful 
conduct, why should each person have to pursue a remedy individually? 
That only increases litigation, increases costs, and makes it more 
difficult for poor people to get justice. I do not think it makes 
sense.
  But having said that, Mr. President, I realize that many of my 
colleagues feel strongly about this and other restrictions. And it 
appears that at least many of these restrictions are necessary to 
ensure that the program as a whole is supported and funded.
  So, in conclusion, I want to commend Senator Domenici for taking the 
lead in this area, and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. The Legal Services Corporation deserves our support. Because 
each and every American deserves access to justice.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity now to review 
some of the restrictions on the Federal Legal Services Corporation and 
its national bureaucracy that would be imposed under the Domenici 
amendment.
  As I said earlier, I believe these provisions are far less 
restrictive than those that are in the bill, but there are several that 
I want to comment on and, I think, in commenting really make the point 
that as long as you have this national superstructure, you are not 
going to curb these abuses.
  One of the restrictions in the Domenici amendment is to limit the 
ability of the Legal Services Corporation to file lawsuits that have to 
do with redistricting; that is, lawsuits that have to do with deciding 
where lines are drawn in terms of State legislatures and in terms of 
congressional redistricting.
  The only problem with this restriction is it is already the law of 
the land. We currently have a ban on the ability of Legal Services 
Corporation to engage in lawsuits that relate to representation and to 
redistricting in legislatures and in Congress. But a perfect example of 
how this fails is that this restriction was in place in 1990 when the 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, which is funded by the Legal Services 
Corporation, challenged a redistricting plan in Texas in that year, in 
what the Bush administration saw as a violation of the congressional 
prohibition on lawsuits involving redistricting.
  When the Bush-appointed Legal Services Board attempted to discipline 
the Texas Rural Legal Aid by reducing their funds, the Texas Rural 
Legal Aid sued the Legal Services Corporation. As a result, funds 
continued to be provided to the Texas Rural Legal Aid for the remainder 
of the Bush administration, when the new Clinton board was seated, they 
settled the case out of court.
  So here is a perfect case in point where there has been a violation 
of a restriction on legal services funding. They clearly violated the 
rules in 1990, and when the Legal Services Board, appointed by 
President Bush, tried to step in and penalize them for violating the 
rules they went to court and continued to receive funds. Then the 
Clinton Legal Services Board settled the case out of court.
  That is a perfect example of where we already have the restriction 
and, yet, with a Federal bureaucratic overlay on this program, we are 
unable to enforce the intent of Congress.
  A second provision I look at is a prohibition against legislative 
lobbying, but there is a major loophole in the Domenici amendment on 
this issue as well. The major loophole is subsection 14(b) where funds 
are allowed to be used to lobby for more money and for fewer 
restrictions. I am not sure what else they would lobby for, but I think 
that is exactly what most people have in mind when you say that you are 
limiting their ability to lobby. If they can lobby to get more money 
and to get fewer restrictions, then they are clearly free to lobby.
  The Domenici amendment has a requirement that there be timekeeping, 
that there be separate accounting, that there be monitoring, that there 
be no attorney-client waiver. And yet, routinely, these provisions are 
circumvented from monitoring on the grounds of the attorney-client 
privilege. I think it is a legitimate concern of whether we are going 
to be able overcome the assertion of that privilege when the Legal 
Services Corporation does not want to abide by the rules and when its 
client does not want to abide by the rules. I would like to have some 
assurances that, in fact, the rule is going to be abided by.
  Another major problem has to do with public housing. In the list of 
abusive cases by Legal Services Corporation, probably no list is longer 
of those that I had included in the Record than the list of cases that 
involves public housing.
  The Domenici amendment would prohibit legal services from defending a 
tenant who was charged with drug violations. But I want to remind my 
colleagues that often the tenant who has the contract with the public 
housing project is not the person who is charged. Often, they are 
simply abetting the crime by allowing a friend or children to use their 
unit of public housing for that purpose.
  As I read the amendment, if they are charged with shooting and 
killing someone, there is no provision prohibiting a legal services 
defense. We deal only with drugs, not with guns, and not with violence. 
But I think, again, when you start looking at each one of these things, 
you find how very difficult it is to enforce these provisions, so long 
as there is a governing entity that basically wants the Legal Services 
Corporation to do these things.
  I think these are very real concerns, and I think that these are 
concerns that need to be dealt with.
  Finally, I just want to make note, I did not mention it before, and 
not that I expect that anybody is going to be greatly moved by it, but 
when we adopted a budget in the Senate and in the House we called for 
Legal Services Corporation funding at $278 million. The Domenici 
amendment would raise that funding level to $340 million. While it is 
not technically a violation of our budget, it is interesting to note 
that we are being called upon here to cut Federal prosecutors, to 
reduce Federal courts, to reduce funding for U.S. attorneys, to reduce 
FBI funding for construction at the FBI Academy in order to fund a 
level for the Legal Services Corporation which is above the level which 
was called for in the budget that was adopted in the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Texas a 
question, just from the standpoint of those who have other amendments 
and those who are calling and asking me as to where we are. I think we 
have had a good debate. I compliment him on the quality of his debate, 
and I wonder if there is any thought that he might have as to when we 
might vote. It does not matter to me. Last night, I indicated a genuine 
interest in voting quickly. Frankly, if we do not want to get a bill, 
that is up to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me say to the Senator, it is my understanding that 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Lautenberg are on their way here to speak 
on behalf of the bill.
  Let me call those who have suggested to me that they might be 
interested, and it may well be at that point that we could reach a 
determination as to whether I want to make a motion or whether I just 
simply want to have a vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we withhold on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas withhold?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want to read one more time and 
make one more observation, there is no doubt that the principal concern 
about 

[[Page S 14608]]
the Legal Services Corporation has been class action lawsuits, 
lobbying, soliciting work, and a number of issues, and I will go 
through a list in a minute.
  But I want to remind everyone again, we have never been able to 
literally write all of these prohibitions into the law.
  Again, I want everyone to know the reason for the prohibitions is 
because legal services, when it was founded by Richard Nixon in 
association with the American Bar, intended this to represent 
individual poor people in individual cases, not to represent a class of 
poor people suing a welfare agency or suing a legislature or suing the 
farmers as a class.
  We have never been able to put those kinds of prohibitions into law 
because we never had agreement between the House and the Senate. So I 
want everyone to know that, with few exceptions, the House has already 
agreed to the same kind of prohibitions that are in this bill. The 
House does not block grant this in their appropriations bill. They have 
funded it.
  So with reference to the House, the only difference is that we seek 
to add some money so that this program gets cut 15 percent, which we 
think, in comparison to other things, is clearly fair, and we put the 
same prohibitions and some additional ones in.
  So if this bill ever gets signed into law, and unless it does, there 
will be no funding unless we have an ongoing continuing resolution for 
the whole year, and it will be close to last year's level--10, 15 
percent like we have. If a bill is going to come out and get signed, it 
is going to have these prohibitions and, once and for all, that is 
going to be the law.
  Having said that, just a budget remark because my friend from Texas 
said it right. He said, technically, that this bill calls for more 
money than the budget resolution. I would not want anybody to think 
that is a rare exception around here either. Frankly, what is really 
binding is the total amount of the dollars. If we were able to write in 
the budget resolution and designate the funding level for every 
program, then there would be no need for annual appropriations. The 
appropriators could go out of existence. Some might say that is a good 
idea. I know the occupant of the chair is wondering, and I also believe 
we ought to appropriate every 2 years instead of every 1. I do not know 
why we do not change that. It has been proven very worthwhile in many 
States. But we still have a law that says the appropriators decide with 
finality. So there is no violation of the budget. If that were the 
case, every bill appropriations bill that came through here would be in 
violation because they all have items with different funding levels 
than the assumption in the budget resolution--maybe 20, 30 times in 
each bill. That is the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee, and 
the Senate as an institution. Only if we breach the cap, go over the 
total amount allowed, is it subject to the budget resolution, which is 
seeking not specificity but overall control.
  So, indeed, if one were to talk about legal services being somewhat 
higher than the assumption, one could also say that almost all of the 
Justice Department and the anticrime measures in the bill are higher 
than the budget resolution. In that context, technically, they are 
doing much the same thing, letting the appropriators seek what they 
think is the appropriate level. So I think everybody should know on the 
up side and the down side of funding, that goes on in every 
appropriations bill. It does not violate the budget, so long as you do 
not breach the overall budget target.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from New Mexico. I do so after having had 
considerable experience as a lawyer. I think I understand the need for 
representation of the poor in America on many of the complex legal 
issues and problems which they face.
  My first exposure to representation of the poor came as a volunteer 
defender when I was a year and a half out of law school. That was 
before the Gideon versus Wainwright case, which established a 
constitutional right for defendants to have lawyers in criminal 
proceedings. It is unthinkable in 1995 that there was ever a time when 
someone would be ``haled into court,'' as Justice Black put it, and not 
have an attorney represent him when his liberty was at stake. But there 
was a day, and I was a year and a half out of law school and at a big 
Philadelphia law firm. There was an enormous backlog of criminal cases, 
and people were held at detention at the Montgomery County prison. I 
went over for a month to represent indigent criminals in the courts of 
Philadelphia.
  It was a real eye-opener for me in many, many ways. The first way was 
to learn that these people had nobody to represent them in a courtroom. 
They were faced with two counts of rape, four burglaries, and I was a 
year and a half out of law school, and I was better than nothing, but 
barely, under those circumstances; and I saw at that time how people 
had to volunteer, how the community had to come forward to provide 
legal assistance to people who needed to have their rights represented 
in a courtroom. It also did something very profound for me, and that 
was it opened my eyes to public service and to the criminal courts. I 
had been there for only a month. Notwithstanding that, I was in a very 
prominent law firm. It was wall-to-wall life. I soon became an 
assistant district attorney because I wanted to learn to be a trial 
lawyer, and I wanted to participate in the public process. And it has 
all been downhill since then, to district attorney and U.S. Senator. 
But that was a real experience for me to see the importance of legal 
representation.
  Now we have legal services. The first year I was here in 1981, there 
was an effort to reduce the funding to $100,000, which would have been 
grossly inadequate. Senators Rudman, Domenici, and a few of us stood 
up, and my recollection is that we had $261,000 for community legal 
services in that year. Last year, we had a battle on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate when there was an effort to limit community legal services 
from representing people in welfare reform cases, because the community 
legal services had gotten into a New Jersey case over welfare reform. 
It seemed to me unthinkable to limit community legal services from 
participating in representing poor people in challenging Federal or 
State laws. Now we have just gone through welfare reform in this body, 
dealing with matters which are tremendously complicated and have raised 
very many important legal issues. And you have to have representation 
for the poor in America. It is something we ought to be doing. The 
amount of money involved, in comparison to the scope of the problem, is 
minimal.
  Senator Domenici is the leading expert on the budget. I cite him all 
the time, and I have great confidence in our glidepath for a balanced 
budget, because Senator Domenici is a man I have seen operate for over 
6 years as chairman of the Budget Committee, from 1981 through 1986 and 
again this year. These dollars for legal services are very, very well 
spent.
  I, frankly, have some concerns about the limitations which are 
present in this bill. I talked to Senator Domenici about them, 
especially the limitations on the use of non-Federal funds, and I know 
that this is a compromise to try to get the extra funding, to have some 
limitations. I have grave reservations about these limitations. But I 
do know this--even with the money which is left, this is not enough to 
handle individual cases where individuals need representation on 
complex legal matters.
  I have tried to hold my comments to a few moments in the hope that we 
may act on this amendment. I do not think any souls are going to be 
saved or any votes are going to be changed on this amendment on my 
speech, the speeches before mine, or the speeches going back to about 
11 o'clock this morning. We have a lot of other amendments which I hope 
we can take up. I hope we will move to conclude this amendment. I hope 
my colleagues will support this amendment because it is important for 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I see my friend from Hawaii on the 
floor. Did he want to say something?
  Mr. INOUYE. No.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Since there is no business coming before the Senate, I 

[[Page S 14609]]
  ask for 6, 7, minutes as in morning business at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________