[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7852-H7873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1356
Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Norton
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 32 offered by the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia [Ms. Norton] on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Ms. Norton:
In title I, under the heading ``General Provisions--
Department of Justice'', strike section 103.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 264, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 447]
AYES--155
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--264
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
[[Page H7853]]
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bonilla
Collins
Crane
Dellums
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
McInnis
Obey
Radanovich
Rogan
Schiff
Thomas
{time} 1404
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, On rollcall No. 447 I have been notified
that I was improperly recorded as voting ``aye.'' I am opposed to the
Norton amendment and my vote should reflect a strong ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
International Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$41,400,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and
aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for
periods not exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration,
repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary
demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle;
obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and rent tie
lines and teletype equipment; $279,500,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not less than $172,608,000
shall be for the United States and Foreign Commercial
Service: Provided, That the provisions of the first sentence
of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these
activities without regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and
that for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the
provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act shall include payment for assessments for services
provided as part of these activities.
Export Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental
of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and
expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with
special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without
regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law;
$41,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f)
and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.) 2455(f) and
2458(c)), shall apply in carrying out these activities:
Provided further, That payments and contributions collected
and accepted for materials or services provided as part of
such activities may be retained for use in covering the cost
of such activities, and for providing information to the
public with respect to the export administration and national
security activities of the Department of Commerce and other
export control programs of the United States and other
governments.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous consent
agreement entered into last night, I offer an amendment on the Legal
Services Corporation that affects title I.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan:
On page 6, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
On page 6, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
On page 22, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $42,000,000)''.
On page 44, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
On page 47, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
On page 48, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
On page 50, lines 13 and 23, after each dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
On page 51, line 11, after the second dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
On page 51, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
On page 51, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 51, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
On page 54, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
On page 59, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.
On page 65, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
On page 95, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 96, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 96, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
On page 98, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
On page 98, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
Mr. MOLLOHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and 30
minutes and that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, is it proper for this Member to inquire of
the gentleman the reason he might object to such a limitation?
[[Page H7854]]
The CHAIRMAN. Only if a Member reserves the right to object can that
question be asked.
Mr. ROGERS. I would point out to the Chair that we are trying to
expedite this bill and get it over with by 10 o'clock or so tonight. We
are proceeding amicably and I think agreeably and very successfully. If
all of the Members can restrain themselves, we can get through with
this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection has been heard.
The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] in offering an amendment to
increase funding to the Legal Services Corporation. Simply stated, the
Mollohan-Fox amendment increases funding for the Legal Services
Corporation from $141 million to $250 million, the same amount, by the
way, Mr. Chairman, that we came off the floor last year in this bill
with a similar amendment.
What is the Legal Services Corporation? It was created in 1974 as a
private, nonprofit corporation. It was specifically established by the
Congress to provide civil legal assistance to the poorest, most
vulnerable Americans, assuring that they receive equal access to our
judicial system.
What type of cases do Legal Services attorneys handle? The largest
percentage of cases, Mr. Chairman, closed by the LSC attorneys in 1996
was in the area of family law, comprising about 35 percent of the 1.4
million cases closed. About 22 percent closed were housing cases, and
about 15 percent related to income maintenance, cases associated with
the poorest in our society.
As many Members know, in fiscal year 1996, our subcommittee put in
place a number of restrictions to increase accountability by the Legal
Services Corporation. This was in response to the concerns of many
Members about what Legal Services was up to. A competitive bidding
system has been adopted for all grants and contracts. All grantees are
now required to provide audited financial statements.
In addition, we impose a number of prohibitions on LSC grantees. Any
LSC grantee is prohibited from participating in redistricting
litigation, prohibited from participating in class action suits, and
welfare reform advocacy, and prisoner representation, lobbying,
abortion litigation, illegal alien representation, and in collecting
attorney's fees.
Members will be pleased to note that this bill before us adds a new
provision to allow for the recompetition of grants and debarment from
competing for future grants by grantees who violate the restrictions I
have just mentioned. It was this committee under the leadership of the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] that imposed most of these
restrictions.
I would like to point out to Members that the Mollohan-Fox amendment
does not seek to change a single one of these restrictions. This
amendment simply increases the funding for grants to basic field
programs by $109 million, virtually the same vote that we had last
year.
Offsets to the amendments are as follows: Bureau of Prisons, $42
million; court of appeals and district courts, $13 million; Federal
Communications Commission, $10 million; Department of Justice Antitrust
Division, $6 million; Federal Trade Commission, $6 million; National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $15 million; diplomatic and
consular programs, $9 million; Department of Commerce general
administration, $1 million; Patent and Trademark Office, $5 million;
National Institute for Standards and Technology, $6 million; and
economic and statistical analysis, $1 million.
Because clause 2(f) of rule XXI limits amendments which move funding
among multiple accounts in appropriation bills to transfers between
appropriation items only, I was not able to designate precisely in this
Mollohan-Fox amendment our intentions regarding FCC fees or State
Department foreign currency gains. Doing so would have been a violation
of the House rules. But if the Mollohan-Fox amendment passes, we will
work to adjust the final bill to reflect these intentions of using
currency gains at the State Department and increased fee levels for the
FCC.
Mr. Chairman, what happens if we do not pass the Mollohan-Fox
amendment, if funding remains at the current low level of $141 million?
Without additional funding, it is expected that the number of clients,
the number of the poorest of our citizenry served, will fall from 1.4
million in fiscal year 1996 to less than 1 million in 1998. The number
of LSC attorneys serving the poor will fall from about 4,871 in fiscal
year 1995 to less than half of that, about 2,400. Millions of poor
people will be unable to obtain legal assistance. And unfortunately pro
bono services from private attorneys just cannot replace federally-
funded legal services.
Congress created the Legal Services Corporation because it recognized
that Federal funding was needed to ensure that some minimum level of
access to our judicial system would be available to everyone. What
message are we trying to send to the American public today? Do you
really want to tell those in our society who are the most helpless,
vulnerable, least able to obtain resources that we are not going to
give you access to the court system? Do not send that message. Support
the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mollohan-Fox Amendment to H.R. 2267--Specific Explanation of Offsets
The purpose of this document is to clarify the intent of
all of the offsets used in the Mollohan-Fox Amendment to H.R.
2267. The amendment increases funding for the Legal Services
Corporation from $141,000,000 to $250,000,000.
offsets
Department of Justice--the Antitrust Division. -$6,000,000;
The intent is to increase the fee carryover from $10 million
to $16 million, and to decrease the direct appropriation by a
corresponding $6 million.
Federal Prison System. -$42,000,000 from the Salaries and
Expenses Account.
National Oceanic and Atmosphric Administration (NOAA).
-$5,000,000 to be taken from Executive Direction and
Administration, within the Program Support line item of the
Operations, Research, and Facilities Account; and
-$10,000,000 to be taken from the Polar Convergence Account
within the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service.
Department of Commerce--General Administration.
-$1,000,000.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). -$5,000,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
-$6,000,000 from the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services Account.
Economic and Statistical Analysis. -$1,000,000 from the
Salaries and Expenses Account.
The Judiciary. -$13,000,000 from the Court of Appeal,
District Courts, and other Judicial Services Account.
Department of State. -$9,000,000 from Diplomatic and
Consular Programs; It is the intent of the amendment that
$7,000,000 of the $9,000,000 be taken from exchange rate
gains in the International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services (ICASS) account, with the remaining $2,000,000
coming from the regular Diplomatic and Consular Programs
account.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). -$10,000,000; The
intent is to increase the amount the FCC can collect in
offsetting fees by $10,000,000 (per the budget request) and
decrease the direct appropriation by a corresponding
$10,000,000.
On further clarification of the State Department and FCC
offset--Because clause 2(f) of Rule 21 limits amendments
which move funding among multiple accounts in appropriations
bills to transfers between appropriations items only, the
Mollohan-Fox Amendment was not able to designate precisely
our intentions regarding FCC fees or State Department foreign
currency gains. Doing so in the amendment would have been a
violation of the rule.
This statement is made to clarify the intentions of the
amendment. Clearly it is not the intent of the Mollohan-Fox
Amendment to reduce the total resources available to the FCC
or to the State Department's operating funds.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). -$6,000,000; The intent is
to increase the fee carryover from $10 million to $16,000,000
and to decrease the direct appropriation by a corresponding
$6,000,000.
{time} 1415
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what will be said on the floor today, the
Legal Services Corporation continues to ignore congressional
restrictions, and inappropriate activities continue to run rampant at
taxpayers' expense. In fiscal year l996 Congress restricted the
activities of Legal Services that they
[[Page H7855]]
could engage in. These restrictions include the following: prohibition
on redistricting activity; abortion litigation; prison litigation;
welfare litigation; pro-union advocacy and union organizing; fee-
generating cases; representation of housing tenants charged with
possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings had
been begun as a result of their illegal drug activity; and a
prohibition of representing most illegal aliens. Legal Services
Corporations have made an art out of circumventing congressional
restrictions, and yet Congress continues to allocate precious
taxpayers' dollars in large amounts, and today they want to increase
that.
And what do we get in return? A failed Government bureaucracy, more
interested in promoting a radical agenda than assisting the indigent in
solving their problems.
The Legal Services Corporation claims it has reformed and it adheres
to congressional restrictions. Ask them, and they will say that the
abuses are in the past. The Legal Services Corporation will say that
they no longer represent prisoners, drug dealers, illegal immigrants,
and class actions in suits and the like. If this is true, and the Legal
Services has reformed, if Legal Services is in good faith living up to
its end of the bargain by complying with the congressional
restrictions, then how do they explain the Legal Services Corporation's
involvement in the following legal actions, all of which have occurred
in the last 2 years, in which they challenge the congressional
authority and the congressional mandates?
Let me give my colleagues some examples:
In August 1996, last year, Brooklyn Legal Services stopped the
eviction of a woman even though police found 54 vials of crack cocaine
and drug packaging during the raid on her apartment. That was last
year, 54 vials, and they were trying to keep this woman from being
evicted.
In 1996, last year, Neighborhood Legal Services of Buffalo tried to
get a man's supplemental Social Security, SSI, benefits on the grounds
that his history of chronic alcoholism made him too tired and too
nervous to work. That was thrown out about by a judge, but it went to
court.
In February of this year, 1997, the Legal Aid Society of Mercer
County tried to win unemployment benefits for a man who lost his job
because he was in jail.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto be concluded at 3:40, which will
be an hour and a half total debate time, and that the remaining time be
equally divided between these two parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Who objected? I am sorry.
The CHAIRMAN. The objection came from the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman from West Virginia; OK.
In February 1997 the Legal Aid Society of Mercer County tried to win
unemployment benefits for a man who lost his job because he was in
jail. The man in question worked as a housekeeper at the Mercer Medical
Center until he was arrested for aggravated assault and other charges.
He spent 9 months in jail, and after his release the medical center
refused to rehire him; they were afraid of this guy. Legal Services
then filed suit seeking unemployment benefits for the guy. Legal
Services claimed that he was owed unemployment because it was not his
fault he lost the job.
Can my colleagues believe that? That was done with taxpayers'
dollars.
All I can say is I can go into example after example after example of
where the Legal Services Corporation has deliberately circumvented the
will of the people and the will of the Congress of the United States,
and they are doing it with taxpayers' dollars. We need to get a grip on
this organization. We need to rein in the Legal Services Corporation,
not give them more money as the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Mollohan] wants to do or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]
wants to do. We need to put some constraints on them.
Now there are a number of organizations around this country that are
voluntarily helping the indigent and the poor. In Indianapolis, the
Indianapolis Legal Aid Society was founded in 1941 and in 1995 received
all of its $458,000 from private sources, not from the taxpayer. It
handled over 6,079 cases at a cost of, get this, $75 a case, and it was
not funded by the taxpayer, and they helped the people they really
should be helping, the truly needy and the truly indigent, not these
other people, not these social service cases, not these social cases
that are designed to change the policies of our Government, not
redistricting cases, but cases where they were really helping the poor
and they did it at nontaxpayer expense.
All I can say to my colleagues is let us get this Government out of
the business of legal services, let us get it back in the private
sector where it belongs, and let us help the people who truly need the
help, the truly indigent.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today and join my
colleagues in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about equal justice and insuring that
every American citizen has access to civil legal services. The Legal
Services Corporation, LSC, is the Federal Government's contribution to
a national public-private partnership. This partnership is aimed at
fulfilling the first enumerated purpose of our Government in the
preamble to the Constitution: to establish justice. The Mollohan-Fox
amendment would increase funding for LSC's by $109 million, which is
still way below the President's request.
The Legal Services Corporation has been a favorite target of many of
my colleagues in the Congress. It has already received a cut in funding
by one-third, and now they want to cut funding by 50 additional
percent.
By cutting funding we send a strong message that if someone is poor
in this country they do not deserve adequate legal representation in
matters involving just civil suits. More importantly, we undermine the
very basic principles of justice and fairness with the notion that
because of class or station in life, because one happens to be poor,
they do not deserve equal protection or access to legal representation.
This is an issue of conscience. In Illinois alone it is estimated
that each year 300,000 low-income families face approximately 1 million
civil legal problems for which they have no legal representation. This
country, the leader of democracy, the leader of freedom, has an
obligation to insure that each American has access to legal
representation.
It is clear that a vote for this amendment is a vote for equal
justice for all people, and therefore I urge all of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to join with me in supporting the Mollohan-Fox
amendment.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for our colleagues and the
American people to understand at the beginning of this debate exactly
what it is that we are taking about and exactly what it is that we are
not talking about. The constitutional obligation that our Government
has to ensure that people before our courts have court-appointed
attorneys to protect their rights is not what we are talking about.
Our Constitution guarantees and we provide already in this
legislation hundreds of millions of dollars to insure that people, our
citizens who are brought before our court to answer charges against
them, have full and adequate legal representation. Millions of dollars
are spent on that purpose through the public defender services and
other moneys made available under this act. Any suggestion that our
Constitution guarantees that a person seeking redress for civil
problems in a court, any suggestion that we ought to be defensive or
feel guilty by saying that the taxpayers of this country do not have an
obligation to ensure that somebody who wants to go in to change welfare
laws or to ensure that somebody in a federally funded housing project
can deal drugs with impunity,
[[Page H7856]]
to suggest that those type people should have their civil legal bills
paid for by the taxpayers of this country is preposterous.
This is not a constitutional issue. It is a political advocacy issue.
That is what Legal Services Corporation excels at, political advocacy,
advocating political causes.
And let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, about the arrogance with
which Legal Services attorneys approach efforts by those of us in this
body to be good stewards of taxpayer money. The Legal Aid Society of
Santa Clara has a vice president named Elizabeth Shivell, and she said,
in the wake of the restrictions that Congress has and has attempted to
place on the ability of Legal Services Corporation to enforce a
political agenda in the courts at taxpayer expense, this is what she
said:
If Congress can screw people with technicalities, we can
unscrew them with technicalities. That is why we are lawyers
and not social workers. Two can play this game.
That was in the California Lawyer in a story entitled ``Legal Aid
Divides to Conquer'' in February 1996.
The previous speaker on our side, the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight, gave several examples of instances in which the Legal
Services Corporation continues to circumvent congressional intent
embodied in law to push and enforce a political agenda of its own, in
contravention to the wishes of American people and citizens and
communities from Santa Clara to Boston. We do not need to, or actually
maybe we do need to, highlight for the American people and for our
colleagues additional examples of how they continue to circumvent
congressional intent despite the restrictions placed in the previous
Congress and Congresses. They continue to find ways to manipulate, to
circumvent, to find loopholes around the restrictions so that they can
force their political agenda.
The Legal Services Corporation, Mr. Chairman, continues to be a wolf
in sheep's clothing; it must be killed. As the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton] also said, Mr. Chairman, there are dozens upon dozens of
mechanisms administered by State and local bar associations. I
contribute annually to one in my home county to provide voluntary legal
service funding for indigents in civil proceedings. Those are the
mechanisms that were envisaged in our constitutional form of
government. That is the mechanism that works, that is the mechanism
that people across this country are demanding work, and not to have
their taxpayer dollars spent on attorneys with a political agenda and
who are increasing the rates of their representation, the amount of
money, at rates faster than inflation. We are continuing to provide
more money than we ought to provide, and this amendment to increase
funding for LSC's political agenda ought to be defeated.
{time} 1430
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with my
colleagues, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] in support of funding for low-
income legal aid assistance. I commend the chairman, ranking member,
and staff for their hard work on this very difficult appropriations
bill.
Last year we came to the floor and offered a similar amendment to
restore funding to this important program. We spoke of the reforms we
had just recently enacted and urged Members to support a level of $250
million in funding. In that vote, 247 Members supported our effort,
including 56 of our Republican colleagues. This year we ask the same
kind of support.
I am convinced that under the leadership of its new president, John
McKay, a Republican from Washington State, Chairman Douglas Eakley, and
Vice Chairman John Erlenborn, a former Republican Congressman, Legal
Services will be extremely vigilant in the defense of the new standards
this Congress has set for Legal Service agencies.
Among these reforms are prohibitions on class action lawsuits,
redistricting, and political advocacy, as well as additional
prohibitions on abortion and prison litigation and legal assistance to
illegal aliens. There is no social engineering here in the current
Legal Services. This is a public-private partnership. Most agencies get
about 20 percent or less of their funding from our Federal source.
This is a fairness issue, Mr. Chairman. Opponents of Legal Services
try to cite a flood of brazen lawsuits challenging the congressional
restrictions. This is simply not true. The truth is that there have
been two lawsuits actually challenging the reforms Congress enacted
last year. One case was brought in violation of the restrictions. In
fact, the LSC recently prevailed in its case in U.S. District Court in
Hawaii against five Legal Service grantees that had challenged the new
restrictions.
Also, Legal Service was successful in forcing the Texas Rural Legal
Aid Agency to withdraw from its lawsuit in Val Verde, Texas, within 1
month of the filing of the case, and vigorously pursued one remaining
case in New York.
Contrary to what the Legal Service opponents would have us believe,
this is the extent of the litigation surrounding the restrictions.
There is no flood of lawsuits. The stories of the past that are
regularly listed in the publications of LSC opponents occurred before
restrictions were in place.
Incidentally, in reference to the Brooklyn Legal Services and Santa
Clara Legal Services, they are not Legal Services grantees.
Let us be serious. If we are going to discuss whether or not the
provision of legal aid for the poor can be responsibly provided and
partially supported by Federal funding, must opponents of the program
use anecdotal evidence from years past which does not even apply to the
proper legislative time frame?
If we enacted the reforms in 1996, why must opponents reach back to
10 years previous? Do we have so little confidence in ourselves to
grant positive legislation that we give up our own actions before they
take hold?
If there are true abuses continuing, let us take steps to stop them,
but we should not stop the majority of legal aid services for one-on-
one service to the poor.
I appeal to those who have questions and concerns about the program
to take some time to reflect upon the good work that our local legal
aid agencies do.
Opponents of the program never tell us the good work that these
agencies do, so I will. Family law is the single largest category of
cases handled by the 275 grantees. Half of the LSC's family and
juvenile cases involve efforts to obtain relief from domestic violence
for the client or a family member.
In 1996 alone, Legal Service grantees handled a quarter of a million
cases involving domestic violence. If you take a minute to think about
the number of domestic violence cases that do not get reported every
year, it is hard not to imagine the need that exists for these
services.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I say this. I want to repeat that Legal
Services is working hard to work as a partner with Congress in pursuing
cases where grantees are overstepping their bounds. In offering this
amendment, we are simply trying to ensure that low-income individuals
and families have one-on-one access to the courts, no social
engineering, no class action lawsuits. Please support our amendment to
restore funding for Legal Services and ensure equal justice under the
law.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to have
a little dialog. In April 1996, the new rules regarding the Legal
Services went into effect, in April 1996. The gentleman and others
today here on the floor are going to say that they have been adhering
to those.
I have in front of me two examples. In August 1996, 4 months after
the new rules went into effect, passed by this Congress, the Brooklyn
Legal Services Corp stopped the eviction of a woman, even though they
found 54 vials of crack cocaine and drug packaging in her apartment
during a raid. So they were violating the rules 4 months after we
passed them.
Also in 1996, I could give you several examples where after these
rules were
[[Page H7857]]
put into effect the Legal Services Corporation violated the rules
passed by this Congress.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to my good
friend from Indiana, Mr. Burton, let me say this: The fact of the
matter is where the Legal Service Corp. was aware of the violations it
has gone after those grantees and withdrawn the funding.
In the case of Brooklyn Legal Services, I understand they are not a
Legal Service Corp grantee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fox of
Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would say
this: We want to work shoulder to shoulder with the gentleman. I know
the gentleman has an amendment later on today for another restriction,
which, as you know, I am going to support, because I believe one way to
make a system of providing one-on-one legal services to the poor be
improved is by making sure it is crafted in such a way we get to those
people truly in need, not the class action lawsuits, not representing
illegal aliens, not representing prisoners and all the list we have
given before. I will work with the gentleman closely, and I am sure
others who are advocates for Legal Services will.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like to add to that, every law that we pass
here, we pass it because we understand there is a proclivity out there
to violate the laws. That is the same with the restrictions we put on
Legal Services Corporation.
There was a lot of this activity out there before we put these
restrictions on. It is reasonable to assume there are going to be some
people who are zealots, or for whatever reason, who are going to
violate the rules.
The gentleman is going to be pleased to know and he does know
probably, because I know he is a student of the legislation that comes
on the floor, that in this bill we have disbarment as punishment for
those grantees who violate the restrictions that we have put on in the
past.
So we are addressing these concerns, and I know the gentleman would
be pleased that we are addressing them, and I hope the fact we are
addressing them in good faith and in a serious manner will lead the
gentleman to look favorably upon the underlying purposes.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wanted
to make it clear on the Brooklyn case, which obviously is an egregious
situation, they are not a Legal Services grantee. It is a problem we
would like to address, but it is not LSC's problem. They did not cause
it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, if I may make one additional comment, first of all I can give
you many other examples. I think you probably know that. If you want me
to, I will.
Second, while there are still violations, it is inconceivable to me
we would increase the amount of the money going to Legal Services
Corporation by $109 million. We were talking about $141 million. You
wanted to go to 250. I do not understand why we reward them.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reclaim my
time to make a clarification. The fact of the matter is last year on
the floor of the House the bill that went out called for $250 million.
That is all we are doing, is asking for $250 million again.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the body in which we all
are privileged to serve, and I would hope that this is a place where we
can give voice and effect to the highest aspirations of this country
and the kind of civilization and society that we want to help craft.
We walk out the front door of this House Chamber and look across the
street at the Supreme Court building, where emblazoned above the
entrance is the statement ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
Is that something we want to be real and meaningful and effective?
Not just for those that can hire $200-an-hour lawyers, but for the
least of us? Or is it to be a bad joke, an insult to those who do not
have the coin to hire the lawyers to make justice real for them?
The gentleman from West Virginia mentioned that without these
additional funds, millions will go unserved. What he did not say is
that even with it, millions will go unserved, because of the
restrictions that have been imposed as the population of those in need
have grown over the last several years.
We have a stake in each other in this country, Mr. Chairman. We can
live under the illusion that those that are doing well can continue to
do well and not suffer if we let those that are not doing so well live
without access to the courts, without access to health care, without
access to the good things that this country has to offer.
Or we can realize, not in some altruistic way, although I hope there
is some moral obligation here, but in a very practical way, that if we
leave a lot of this country's citizens behind, it will come back to
haunt us.
This is a way that we can do either the right thing and say to the
least among us financially that they still are as good as the best
among us when it comes to an entrance to the courthouse, to have their
rights respected and their obligations enforced; or we can say, Sorry,
you are a different class of American. The courts are not really there
for you. Whether it is for family law, for housing, for Social Security
benefits, you name it, you are out of luck.
That is what this is about. It is about justice in this country and
whether we have the guts and the gumption and the allocation of some
modest part of this Nation's treasure to make that symbol of justice on
the Supreme Court building meaningful for all of our people.
Freedom requires justice. Justice requires that we do more.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee funding level and in
opposition to an increased funding for government-funded lawyers in the
Legal Services Corporation.
We have had a debate here about this program, and what it reminded me
of was a movie that I saw recently with my wife Ruthie, ``Jerry
McGuire.'' And one of the characters in that movie is a man named Rod
Tidwell, who says to his agent, ``Show me the money.'' And what we need
to do is show us the money and where it is going, because there has
been in fact an incredible politicalization of this government-funded
program.
We have seen recently, as recently as 1997, after the so-called
restrictions were in place, that the Minnesota Legal Services Agency
has said it will file a lawsuit challenging Minnesota's welfare reform,
specifically their residency requirement.
What more political act could you engage in than suing to prevent a
State from enforcing its welfare reform initiative and requiring that
people be a resident of that State before they receive money from those
taxpayers?
This is an ongoing process. There have been no enforcement mechanisms
for those reforms. They have been widely ignored. The harm goes deep in
our country. Farmers have complained that Legal Services Corporation
has sued them. One Ohio farmer was sued because he had too many migrant
workers and he was violating labor laws. Another farmer was sued
because they did not feel he was following all the environmental laws.
Cities are hassled by this group. The Legal Aid of Marin County sued
the city of San Raphael for violating the rights of the homeless
because they were giving out tickets to people that jaywalked. I can
think of a lot better uses for our taxpayer money than subsidizing this
time of needless, senseless litigation that is furthering only a small
minority's political agenda.
In Chicago, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago served notice
on
[[Page H7858]]
the INS that they were going to sue them because they had failed to
provide detainees with law books in Spanish and they were going to
allege that their civil rights were violated.
Now, these are illegal individuals who are not here in this country
as a legal citizen, been detained by the INS, and now government funds
are encouraging a lawsuit to harass them in doing their job and
protecting our borders.
This policy was misguided from the beginning. We do not need to
subsidize more lawyers in this country. If anything, we need to
encourage the private charitable works that actually help people when
they have got a problem with their landlord, when they have got a
problem receiving their payment that they are due from a local agency.
But we do not need to have a Federal entity that spends a great deal of
its money engaging in politically oriented lawsuits, fighting against
the reforms that this Congress has tried to put into place in welfare,
immigration, and basic ways in which the Federal Government operates.
This does not serve any of us well but, most importantly, it does not
serve the taxpayer well. All too often I have had the taxpayers in my
district, in central Indiana, come up to me and say, David, show me the
money. What are you guys doing with all of the taxes that you collect
from us? When I have to report back to them that on the House floor we
are considering raising the amount of money we give to lawyers who file
political lawsuits, their reaction is going to be, You got to shut down
the place, let us keep the money. You don't know how to best use it for
our services.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. The fact is in a later amendment we are going to find the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be putting a further
restriction on this program, which I think goes to the arguments the
gentleman has been making about making the system better.
{time} 1445
And the money actually is only a small part of what local communities
need to have one-on-one services for the poor.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
sincerity of the gentleman and his efforts and the efforts of our
colleagues on this, but I think if we really want to send a message to
this rogue entity: get out of politics, stop filing these lawsuits to
provide a further agenda of one's liberal agenda; the best way, the
best signal to do that is to reduce the spending, and that is what this
committee did.
If they had come back and they had shown us that they had followed
the restrictions, including the new one that my colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], will offer later, then we could
consider increasing the funds in future years. But nothing will serve
better to get that message across that this Congress is serious about
not wanting to fund politically oriented litigation than going through
with the committee funding level, reducing the amount from previous
years, and letting them know we are very serious.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this attempt in this bill to cut the budget of the
Legal Services Corporation in half to $140 million, when as recently as
1995 it was over $415 million, is really an attempt to eliminate legal
services for the poor for the reasons stated by some of the gentlemen
on the other side of the aisle who say essentially that this is a rogue
agency, that it politicizes justice, and so forth. They simply do not
want poor people to have access to federally funded legal services
because they do not like the result.
However, Mr. Chairman, the real question is, do we or do we not
believe in this country that justice is for everyone. We say equal
justice under law. Equal justice: Is it for everyone? Is access to the
courts for everyone, or are the courts only here to protect the large
corporations and to adjudicate disputes among millionaires and divorces
for celebrities? Are the courts here to protect people when their
rights are being violated, subject to evictions, or being fired
improperly, or being discriminated against, or being cheated out of
money; or are the courts only for rich people or upper middle-class
people who can afford lawyers?
In the New York City housing court, which disposes of hundreds of
thousands of cases every year, 99 percent of them eviction cases, 90
percent of the tenants have no lawyers at all. The landlords have
lawyers, the tenants have no lawyers, and they are subject to very
rough justice, if one can call it justice. They only wish the Legal
Services Corporation had a much bigger budget, because these people
need legal services or they cannot vindicate their rights when they are
evicted, even though they have defenses which they do not understand
because they are not lawyers.
Now, my colleagues say that this agency has politicized the process,
that they bring political lawsuits, and an example was given a few
minutes ago of the agency, the Legal Services in Wisconsin, I think it
was, that sued against that State's welfare reform law, brought a
lawsuit against the welfare reform laws.
Another example was given of Legal Services Corporations that sued
farmers.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, the reference to my home State of
Minnesota, the gentleman who made that statement should know that, in
fact, there are no Legal Service Corporation dollars involved in that
lawsuit. It is Minnesota, not Wisconsin.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, even if there were,
even if there were, and they say that Legal Services sued farmers
because allegedly they used child labor, this is not politicization.
What my colleagues are really saying is that they do not want people's
constitutional or legal rights enforced.
This Congress and most State legislatures have, for the last century,
been enacting laws to protect people against child labor and to protect
workers' safety and workers' health and environment and all kinds of
laws, building code enforcement. What Legal Services does is to enable
people to enforce the rights granted to them by the Constitution of the
United States, or by laws passed by the State or by the Federal
Government. Without lawyers to bring these lawsuits, those rights are
meaningless.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really
objecting to is that the small people, the nonrich people, are causing
problems for local establishments because Legal Services helps them
bring lawsuits that say: you cannot do that, even if you have always
done it, because the law says you cannot or the Constitution says you
cannot; and if they are wrong, the courts rule that way. What my
colleagues are really objecting to is poor people having the ability to
go into court against the State of Minnesota.
I do not know anything about the State of Minnesota's welfare reform
law. Maybe it is a good law, maybe it is a bad law. But if someone in
Minnesota thinks that his or her constitutional legal rights are being
violated by that law, and Legal Services is willing to help them sue to
vindicate their legal rights, if that law is allegedly violating rights
that they have, that is a perfectly proper road, because otherwise what
we are saying is that only middle class and rich people should have the
right to sue against a State law. If the State law is not violating the
Constitution or is not violating what Congress says, the courts will so
rule.
The argument really is that it is too much of a pain and too much of
a bother to have poor people challenging local establishments,
challenging what the State Legislature of Minnesota may have done, but
what is the grounds of the challenge? The grounds of the challenge is
that it is against the Constitution of the United States or against the
laws that Congress passed, and if it is, it ought to be struck down;
and if it is not, it will not be.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, the attempt to eliminate Legal Services is
shameful because it is an attempt to deny access to the courts to poor
people to vindicate their rights, and I urge
[[Page H7859]]
the adoption of this amendment to have a minimum level of legal
services available.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues from Pennsylvania and West
Virginia in sponsoring this amendment to prevent the drastic 50-percent
cut in Legal Services funding.
Unless we pass this amendment today, those words etched atop the
United States Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' are
meaningless. Those words are a mere mockery unless we pass this
amendment today.
Let us talk facts, Mr. Chairman. The antagonists of the Legal
Services Corporation who want to kill Legal Services for the poor know
that the funding level in the bill is a 50-percent cut from last year.
That follows on the heels of a 33-percent cut from the previous year.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, Legal Services programs are serving right
now 300,000 fewer low-income Americans because of decreased resources
represented by those cuts. If this amendment does not pass today, an
additional 400,000 vulnerable low-income Americans will have no
representation under the law.
Let us talk about what type of Americans are served by Legal
Services: children who need child support orders enforced and their
mothers or fathers; private health insurance for children who have no
health insurance, that is hardly a radical notion; victims of domestic
violence; children who are abused; consumer fraud; people who are
victims of consumer fraud and unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, we also have to talk facts. The antagonists, those who
want to kill Legal Services, know full well that in 1995 we made
reforms. With all respect to the gentleman from Georgia, there is no
representation of people evicted from public housing due to drugs. If
that is still going on, then let us go after the abuser, but it is
written into law there are no class action suits, no lobbying, no legal
assistance to illegal aliens, no political activities, no prisoner
litigation, no redistricting representation. We have, Mr. Chairman, a
new Legal Services because of these reforms, which I supported.
Now, let us talk about funding. There is nobody in this body on
either side to whom I take a back seat when it comes to frugality with
the taxpayers' dollars, and if my colleagues do not believe me, check
the Citizens Against Government Waste lifetime ratings, check the
ratings of the National Taxpayers' Union. But, Mr. Chairman, if we are
to give people in this country, every person, regardless of income
status, true justice under the law, we need to pass this amendment and
not gut this program here today.
Volunteer lawyers, and believe me, no State surpasses Minnesota's
contribution for pro bono work, but volunteer lawyers cannot meet the
critical legal needs of poor people alone any more than doctors could
treat all of the medical needs of the poor or grocers can feed all of
the hungry without paying. We cannot effectively provide legal services
to the poor without this public-private partnership.
Even in a State like Minnesota, last year 3,000 attorneys donating
30,000 hours of free pro bono legal services valued at over $3.5
million, even in a State like Minnesota, we closed last year 4,000
fewer cases, and tens of thousands of people, poor people, were turned
away, could not have representation, could not have, Mr. Chairman,
equal justice under the law.
I do not have any argument with those who stick to the facts, but let
us talk about the new Legal Services, not the old, and let us not try
to confuse people with those old arguments. I was as critical of the
old Legal Services as many in this body who are against this amendment
today.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we have passed tight restrictions
on Legal Services Corporation. We do have a solid public-private
partnership here. Poor people, most of them, are getting their day in
court as far as civil justice is concerned. If our justice system is
going to continue to have meaning, respect, legitimacy, we cannot just
provide legal services to the wealthy, to those with means. Then
justice cannot truly be just.
I urge my colleagues to support basic fairness and equality under the
law by restoring Legal Services funding.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Ramstad was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is very
sincere, and he is one of my dearest and respected colleagues, but I
would say to the gentleman that in April 1996, as I said previously, we
implemented, and the President signed into law, restrictions on the
Legal Services Corporation. I have here in my hand probably 6 to 10
examples in various States where the legal services Corporations have
deliberately violated the laws passed by the Congress and signed into
law by the President in April 1996.
Now, the reason I wanted to just have this brief colloquy with the
gentleman is that we need to put some kind of a mechanism in place that
will penalize those legal services Corporations that are using
taxpayers' dollars and then violating not just the intent of Congress,
but the law passed by Congress.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, for 6 or 10 violations
about which my distinguished colleague from Indiana speaks, we do not
gut equal justice under the law, we do not eliminate legal services for
the poor, we go after those who violated our restrictions that were
imposed, properly so in my judgment, back in 1995, which took effect in
1996, but we do not void the fifth amendment, we do not void equal
justice under the law, the equal protection clause of the U.S.
Constitution because of 6 to 10 violations.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I can give many more.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I might just say in response to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], that in these cases where we have
seen abuses, I would be delighted, and I am a supporter of this
amendment and will speak a little bit later, but I would be delighted
to work with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and others, particularly those on the
Committee on the Judiciary, to work on, whether it be legislation or a
directive to the Justice Department, to make sure that they stick to
the law.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and my time is very
short, I will be the first to go after and to join my colleagues in
going after any of those violators, but let us not kill Legal Services
because of 6 to 10 violations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Ramstad was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are at odds on
this particular point we are talking about. What I am saying is where
there is a violation of Legal Services and we know about it, I have
some examples here, there ought to be a penalty imposed upon those
agencies that are violating the law.
Now, if we did that, we would find a lot of people that might take a
little different approach to Legal Services, because these legal
service organizations that have involved themselves in defending drug
dealers and people who are deliberately breaking the law, if we did
that, I think we could work together.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not dispute what
the gentleman just said. I do not think the majority of this body would
dispute that, including those of us who defend Legal Services for the
poor.
{time} 1500
Of course there should be sanctions to those who violate the reforms
that
[[Page H7860]]
we enacted in 1997 which took effect in 1996. I will join my colleague
in such legislation. But this, Mr. Chairman, is not the vehicle to
attach that, to go after those violators.
We have already, from last year, and again, let us speak to the
facts, last year's funding level was $283 million. Even this amendment
only restores funding to $250 million, so it is not level funding. Let
us deal with the violators appropriately, but not here.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable to me that we would juxtapose the
numbers, 1 million underserved poor people across the Nation, and
juxtapose a mere 6 to 8 examples of violations, of which we know, both
in our hearts and our minds, that there is a remedy.
In fact, as I support the Mollohan-Fox amendment, in this legislation
now before us those grantees that violate the law will be debarred.
They will face debarment from any future opportunity. It is incredulous
to me that those who would oppose Legal Services would raise such
misdirected arguments, 6 versus 1 million citizens who need services
regarding housing and family needs, such as abuse and domestic
violence, those who have been kicked off unfairly from SSI, children
who are suffering from mental illness, who for some reason or other
have not been able to either get those services, or people who are ill
who need those services.
It is certainly in contrast to most of America, for recent polling
will tell us that 70 percent of Americans are in favor of using Federal
tax dollars to fund civil legal aid for the needy. That is what we are
talking about.
Might I say something that is somewhat unpopular: I take great
umbrage and exception to the fact that we would lump and put in one pot
all of the dedicated Legal Services lawyers across the Nation. I say
that in honor of my brother-in-law, Phillip Lee, who spent 20 years of
his life, until he passed, working for the New York Legal Services. I
say that in tribute to those who are on the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation
in Houston, TX, the board of which I served on, and have watched those
lawyers toiling for individual cases which no one in the general public
bar could or would take. I listened to the organized bar in the State
of Texas beg me to preserve the Gulf Coast Legal Services Corporation,
even though they were very active in doing pro bono work.
So this is a travesty and a farce, arguing about insignificant cases
dealing with how much drugs in an apartment. I do not know the facts,
but I would argue and say that all of us will support eliminating those
abuses. But without having all the facts, for example, that person
could have been an elderly citizen, and I am not suggesting these are
the facts, intimidated and held hostage by younger people living in her
apartment, and therefore, there might have been a reason.
If it is not the facts of the Brooklyn case, think of it as being the
fact that she is held hostage by young people taking over her
apartment, and we would penalize this elderly victim if that would have
been the case. At the same time, the ridiculous case about someone with
alcoholism; alcoholism has been designated as a sickness. Maybe that
was the reason why the case was taken.
In any event, it is ludicrous, again, as I have said, to move and to
require, if we do not have this particular funding, and increased by
the Mollohan-Fox amendment, that we would lose 550 of these
neighborhood offices, 50 percent, and the number of Legal Services
attorneys would decrease from 4,000 to 2,000. That is one LSC attorney
for every 23,600 impoverished Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that if the shoe was on the other
foot, if the Member had no other way to access the courts and to
address his legal grievances, if he had gone to every attorney and
said, I have no money, but will you take my case, you are in the
private bar, albeit the good works that the private bar does, would he,
a United States Congressperson who does not have the privilege which
many of us have, have a better understanding that poor people need
justice, too; that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to
poor people as well?
Might I say that I take a slightly different perspective, as I close,
from my good friends, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. Although I adhere to
them, I believe the cases that deal with Indian rights, welfare,
redistricting, all of those cases preserve the dignity of those in this
Nation, but I concede that point. For those of us who have conceded it,
it is absolutely ridiculous to deny to the poorest of poor their rights
in the courts. We are our brother's keeper.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment
which would restore a majority of the funding recently stripped from
the sorely needed Legal Services Corporation. This amendment will set
the appropriation amount for the Legal Services Corporation at $250
million, down only 12 percent from last year's $283 million budget
allotment.
This amendment and the issues it evokes hit directly at the core of
widespread concerns about the reality of equal protection under the
law. Is there or can there ever be equal protection under the law when
the access to quality legal services is based entirely upon
socioeconomic factors? I would think not. This is the very reason that
organizations like the Legal Services Corporation exist. Without it,
and organizations like it, our Constitution will become a document
empowered by the dollar, and not the sovereign will of the people.
Without effective legal services for the impoverished and indigent, our
laws and their unconditional protections have no force, no honor.
The Nation, since the cornerstone of Gideon versus Wainwright was
laid now over a generation ago, has readily acknowledged the importance
of legal representation, and the existence of the Legal Services
Corporation is concrete evidence of that fact. In Gideon, the right of
the indigent and socioeconomic disadvantaged to legal representation in
criminal proceedings was upheld; however, many Americans also
recognized the need for the legal defense of the indigent in civil
matters, as well. Are we going to be the generation of Americans that
robs its citizens of this vital protection?
The Legal Services Corporation helps millions of Americans
effectively access the justice system in cases of domestic violence,
housing evictions, consumer fraud, child support, among a host of other
critical matters. The bottom line is that without this critical
program, many indigent children, battered and abused spouses, elderly
and physically challenged citizens and those in the lower levels of the
socioeconomic strata would not have access to competent legal
representation in civil matters.
A recent Louis Harris & Associates poll showed that 70 percent of
Americans are in favor of using Federal tax dollars to fund civil legal
aid for the needy. The poll highlighted legal services like child
custody, adoption, and divorce which should not be accessible only to
those at a certain level of financial security. I sincerely hope that
this Congress will not retreat from its unmistakable social
responsibilities. I implore this House to vote in favor of the
Mollohan-Fox amendment, and restore the funding of the Legal Services
Corporation so that the justice system in this country can serve the
needs of all of its citizens and not just those who can afford it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I submit what is ridiculous is that this Congress would
continue to fund such as a disastrous program as Legal Services at all,
let alone pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what is ridiculous is that we continue to fund a
program that is so irresponsible that the Congress would actually have
to take the kind of action we took in fiscal year 1996 and spell out
what ought to be clear ahead of time for responsible people in an
organization funded with Federal funds, and actually make explicit that
they may not get involved in redistricting, they may not get involved
in abortion litigation, or prison litigation, or welfare litigation, or
pro-union advocacy, for heaven's sake, and union organizing, or fee-
generating cases, or representation of public housing tenants charged
with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings
have begun as a result of illegal drug activity, and a prohibition on
representing illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, that is an indictment right
there on the inclinations of the individuals in this irresponsible
agency.
Mr. Chairman, I believe as much as anyone in protecting the rights of
poor people, but unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
and apparently some of my Republican colleagues, I do not believe we
have to build a bigger and bigger welfare state, of which this is a
part, in order to accomplish those objectives.
[[Page H7861]]
If legal representation of the poor at public expense is so
important, let the attorneys donate their time, let the States handle
the matter, where they are a little closer to the people, where these
kinds of abuses cannot continue to occur. And yes, they do continue to
occur. When we are going to talk about protecting children, listen to
this case. Here, how well are they following the law here?
In 1997 Northwest Louisiana Legal Services argued for preserving a
woman's parental rights for her children, despite clear evidence she
had physically abused them. The case began in 1991. The State
investigated it. They assumed temporary custody. Legal Services still
got involved, claiming that terminating parental rights was improper.
These children had been severely beaten and burned, and yet our
taxpayer dollars went through Legal Services to defend this type of
individual.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Minnesota
earlier said, we must stick to the facts. Then he said there were
simply no cases where Legal Services Corporation funds continued to be
used to evict people for drug-related evictions. The facts of the
matter, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota, are that that continues
to happen. In New Jersey, in the case of Hoboken v. Alicea, A-5639-
95T3, New Jersey Court of Appeals, 1997, it continues to happen.
I would ask the distinguished gentleman, is he aware of any provision
in the Constitution of the United States of America in which there is a
constitutional guarantee, as found by the courts or explicit in the
Constitution, where people have a constitutional right for legal
services to be provided for them in civil cases?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and say
I know of nothing in the Constitution that requires that, and I know of
no court, no Supreme Court ruling that has so interpreted the
Constitution.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the authority for
the Legal Services Corporation is statutory in nature, passed by the
Congress, which Congress has authority constitutionally to do.
I would just like to again reassure Members who are concerned about
the various Legal Services grantees across the Nation violating, to the
extent it happens, restrictions have been put in the bill. We are
putting in sanctions. We are reaffirming the limitation on spending, so
Legal Services Corporations cannot participate in the offensive
activities. Then we are also adding sanctions, debarment sanctions, and
sanctions against grantees competing for future grants where there have
been violations.
I simply say that because I sense that perhaps the gentleman is not
aware of that, and I want to assure the gentleman that the chairman and
the committee have been vigilant about trying to do that.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the ranking member is correct. It may not be of great
notice yet, but we are putting a new provision in the Legal Services
statute that I think is of interest to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], the gentleman who
yielded, and others, that gives the Legal Services Corporation a new
way to discipline grantees who violate the restrictions that the
Congress put on those grantees.
In effect, LSC, under this new provision, has the automatic right to
terminate the grant or contract of any grantee, and also, under section
504(a) and subsequent sections, can debar that recipient from any
further grants under the act. This is new ammunition, new powers that
they have never had before.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Doolittle] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Rogers, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is new law. This is a new procedure.
We are trying to respond to the criticisms that LSC has had in the past
that they did not have the authority nor the interest in debarring and
taking away the contract of a grantee that violates the House-passed
laws. So this is new. It does have teeth. It can be enforced and should
be enforced, and we are going to insist that it be enforced.
So I think that is of interest to everybody, particularly those who
have been critical of LSC for not disciplining their own grantees, and
debarring from further LSC activities a grantee who violates the House-
passed rules. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me say I do not think those go far
enough, but I am happy to hear they are in the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind
for yielding to me.
Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr] made a distinction constitutionally between criminal
and civil laws. Let me argue that the Congress is empowered to delegate
authority and has obviously designated the Legal Services Corporations
to help poor people have legal services.
The real issue is the moral high ground, judging 1 million poor
people who cannot get legal services against the rich of America who
can. I would simply ask the gentleman, in all of his conviction, to
please, if he will, have mercy on those individuals who cannot achieve
justice any other way.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just say with what time I have left, Mr.
Chairman, that this is perfectly appropriate for local and State
entities to carry out. I think we will not end the abuses as long as
the remote Federal Government continues to fund and increase funding
for a program of this sort.
Obviously these organizations have no interest in respecting the
intent of Congress, when we have cited repeatedly violations of the
very restrictions that were already in the law that continue to happen.
This is not the job, in my opinion, of the United States government. It
is the job of the State governments or of local bar societies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Doolittle] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
from California yielding to me. The fact is, I want to make sure I get
to him all of the cases where Legal Services is now going after the
grantees who are not living up to the 17 restrictions, and the new one
that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and myself and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] also is supporting, which
will further make this program where we only want to give services to
those who are truly poor and truly in need; no social engineering, no
class action lawsuits. These are new Legal Services guidelines which
everybody in Congress can support.
{time} 1515
Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
I just want to put this in perspective.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] cited six cases?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I cited, I believe,
a couple cases. Others have cited other cases.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman would continue to yield, there were
1.4 million cases closed in 1996, 1.4 million cases.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say,
this
[[Page H7862]]
is just the tip of the iceberg. We can cite numerous cases. I dread to
think how many things are going on that we do not really know about yet
and will continue to go on despite these attempts of cosmetic
restrictions until we simply end this program, let it go back to the
States where it belongs, not the Federal Government.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Tierney
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Tierney moves that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102,
noes 315, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 448]
AYES--102
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berry
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Salmon
Serrano
Skelton
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
NOES--315
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Bonilla
Buyer
Chenoweth
Collins
Cummings
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Lazio
Leach
McInnis
Miller (CA)
Rogan
Schiff
Young (AK)
{time} 1533
Messrs. BOUCHER, KIM, DICKS, and TALENT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, earlier I was unavoidably detained and
missed rollcall vote 448. Had I been here, I would have voted: ``no.''
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment
to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I particularly
want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for bringing forward this very valuable effort.
The Legal Services Corporation was established by Congress in 1974 to
ensure that all Americans, Americans of every stripe, have equal access
to the justice system. We should not go back on that commitment now,
and we cannot expect that solely voluntary donations will provide poor
people with equal access to the justice system. But the bill before us
would cut Legal Services funding by 50 percent from last year, and that
would have an immediate effect on Legal Services clients. Thousands of
low-income people would be denied their chance of equal justice in my
district alone, and that can be multiplied all over this country.
The Legal Services Corporation helps people who cannot afford legal
representation. Legal Services attorneys in my district have helped
clients contest housing evictions, avoid termination of government
benefits, secure restraining orders in domestic and family abuse cases,
and they have helped collect child support payments for families.
I could cite dozens of legitimate cases of legal services being
provided in my district compared with those that have been suggested as
illegitimate cases, as abusive cases of the program. But here is just
one story that shows the vital role that Legal Services plays in the
lives of ordinary people. A woman from my district separated from her
husband because of physical abuse, and she had custody of their
children. While she was hospitalized for the abuse, her husband
obtained a custody order and placed the children with his parents. With
Legal Services assistance, this mother was able to regain custody of
her children. She was able to end the abusive marriage, to obtain
housing, and then to go on to obtain a bachelor's degree, so she can
now support herself and her children in a legitimate way.
We need to ensure that every citizen has access to equal justice in a
similar kind of a manner. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-
Fox amendment as a good amendment to assure
[[Page H7863]]
Americans equal access to equal justice.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] to restore funding for the Legal Services
Corporation.
Many of us come to this House having had one or more careers. One of
my prior career experiences was as chief counsel and staff director to
a Senate Judiciary subcommittee concerned with access to justice. I was
there when the Legal Services Corporation was created during the Nixon
administration, and I was fortunate to play some role in helping to
select its board, protect its funding and its functions over the years.
I care very much that it survives.
Residents of California's 36th Congressional District are served
primarily by the Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach. For over four
decades, the foundation has provided no-cost legal services to more
than 114,000 eligible low-income residents of the Long Beach-South Bay
area. Annually the foundation serves over 3,200 clients at a cost of
approximately $400 per client, thus demonstrating that its services are
efficient and cost-effective.
While the Legal Aid Foundation assists in a variety of cases, actions
to prevent or curb domestic violence have long been a major focus.
Recent studies show that domestic violence calls in at least one city
in the South Bay occur at a rate of one each 1\1/2\ hours. The
foundation's domestic violence clinic helps thousands of women and
children each year obtain the protection of a restraining order and as
such is highly praised and serves as a national model. It also offers
training to battered women's shelter workers to make them aware of the
legal avenues available to victims. Utilizing a grant, the foundation
delivers the antiviolence message to the public schools in my district.
{time} 1545
This is just one example of what this foundation does; there are many
others.
It encourages the private bar to take pro bono cases and also offers
a ``Wills on Wheels'' program assisting the elderly and disabled in
preparing simple wills.
But, Mr. Chairman, my view is that unless we save funding for this
very, very important corporation and save the dream of those many years
ago, including President Nixon, who knew that everyone deserved access
to justice, we will be doing a serious injustice. In the absence of
adequate funding, we may spend more money trying murder cases and
dealing with the tragic effects of domestic battery on a generation of
children.
I urge the restoration of funding. I urge support for the Fox-
Mollohan amendment and support for equal access to justice.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is important not only because it is a matter
of decency, common sense and compassion, but it is one that we need to
pass this afternoon. Let me remind my colleagues again that this
amendment keeps Legal Services at a funding level that is still $30
million less than in 1997, and in fact, it is about $150 million less
than it was just a couple of years ago.
Mr. Chairman, we are a country founded on the basic principle of
liberty and equality before the law, but when people are unable to even
access our legal system because they lack representation in the funds
to secure a lawyer, we are asking a portion of our society to forgo a
fundamental right.
The Legal Services Corporation is an avenue for low income Americans
to receive legal representation for civil matters. The lawyers who are
part of Legal Services provide the guidance and the expertise needed to
successfully navigate our complex and often intimidating judicial
system. Very few of us could manage the intricacies of our legal system
without counsel. Should we expect citizens who do not have the means to
hire a lawyer to simply fare on their own? One person's legal problems
are no less important than another's, and everyone deserves a fair
chance regardless of their income level.
What are the civil matters we are talking about? Well, about 70
percent of the national caseload falls into categories in which
children are impacted. In Michigan we had more than 80,000 cases last
year; 40 percent of those fell in the category of family civil cases.
But that means cases involving divorce, spousal abuse, adoption, child
support. Other civil matters include housing, income maintenance
issues, and consumer finance issues.
I think it is particularly interesting to note the role that Legal
Services plays in helping single parents, who may or may not be also
collecting welfare, secure child support payments; two-thirds of Legal
Service clients are women, and many of those, of course, are single
moms. I am aware, in fact, of a mom in my district who relocated to
Michigan with four children after being granted a personal protection
order from another State. However, the husband refused to pay child
support and continued to threaten her. She had no place to turn other
than the Legal Aid Bureau of southwestern Michigan, who helped her
obtain a Michigan personal protection order, start divorce proceedings
and obtain custody and support so that she and her children could stay
together. Without assistance we can only guess what might have
happened.
This Congress needs to have a heart. We are not talking about the
greedy; it is the needy. And I would agree that there were abuses in
the past, and I will ask unanimous consent to file all of these
restrictions that this body passed. And I would respond to the
gentleman from Indiana who talked earlier, that, in fact, when abuses
are there we can go after folks and debar them; and, in fact, I would
urge the Committee on the Judiciary on which I do not serve that they
ought to have some hearings and look into those, and if the cases can
be made, they ought to take some action. That is what the Committee on
the Judiciary is for. But in my mind it is unconscionable for us to
restrict access to Legal Services for any Americans who need
representation.
Last year, we passed a welfare reform bill that enjoyed strong
bipartisan support. One of the major provisions in this bill was to go
after deadbeat dads, and moms, too. Mr. Chairman, in a good number of
cases families that experience divorce are in fact represented by Legal
Service attorneys who help in determining what their child support
ought to be. Those are civil cases, not criminal ones.
Support the Mollohan-Fox amendment, and stand for the principles and
ideals that make our Nation great.
Restrictions on LSC Grantees
The restrictions on the use of funds by the LSC and its
grantees as enacted by Congress in 1996 are as follows:
1. No advocating policies relating to redistricting;
2. No class action lawsuits;
3. No influencing action on any legislation, Constitutional
Amendment, referendum or similar procedure of Congress, State
or local legislative body;
4. No legal assistance to illegal aliens;
5. No supporting/conducting training programs relating to
political activity;
6. No abortion litigation;
7. No prisoner litigation;
8. No welfare reform litigation, except to represent
individuals on particular matter that does not involve
changing existing law;
9. No representing individuals evicted from public housing
due to the sale of drugs;
10. No accepting employment as a result of giving
unsolicited advice to non-attorneys; and
11. All non-LSC funds used to provide legal services by
grantees may not be used for the purposes prohibited by the
Act.
Furthermore, provisions included in the Fiscal year 1998
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill
will allow the LSC to terminate contracts of grantees which
fail to comply with these restrictions and debar grantees
from receiving future financial assistance.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a student, as a teacher, and as a professional I
have participated in programs to assure equal access to the court
system, the justice system in this country, for over 30 years. This is
a system that all of us are proud of as a part of our American
heritage, the fact that we, in this country, can look to a legal system
that is capable of resolving disputes instead of resorting to weapons,
fisticuffs, or other forms of violence. If we expect this form of
dispute resolution to survive, we have to make sure that it is
[[Page H7864]]
accessible to all Americans who need to have problems addressed. I can
think actually of no more conservative cause than to say to people,
``No, you cannot resort to the streets; no, you cannot take the law
into your own hands, because we have established a process to resolve
these disputes and we not only expect but we require that you
participate in that process.''
This indeed is the law of the land, and as a consequence we have an
obligation to make sure that all Americans have access to this legal
system, and that is what this debate is all about.
The Federal Government has made it possible for Legal Services
programs to be developed in all parts of the country. These programs
unfortunately are vastly understaffed and, in fact, in many parts of
the country, including the part I come from, rural Minnesota, it has
been necessary to call on attorneys to volunteer to take cases because
the Legal Services attorneys simply are not numerous enough to handle
the caseload and, in fact, they have had to lay off Legal Services
attorneys. We have thousands of attorneys in our State that voluntarily
take these cases.
Now I would certainly agree when I have been on the other side I
resented the fact that someone was criticizing my client. But I do not
think it is a reason to say that we have to end the Legal Services
Program or cripple it because we happen to disagree with someone on the
other side of a dispute. Similarly, I think it is unseemly to hold up a
list and say that this represents cases that are being improperly
pursued under the Federal Legal Services Corporation Program.
The one case that I am personally familiar with on the short list
that was held up is not, in fact, being pursued by a grantee of this
program; it is being pursued by another legal advocacy program. So, it
is not only misleading to the Members of the Chamber, it is misleading
to the American public to criticize the program inaccurately in this
fashion.
I would also like to emphasize that none of us claim that this
program or any program is a thousand percent successful. It would be
nice to say that we all somehow are deities and that we perfectly
comply with the intent and the letter of all laws that exist in this
Nation. That is not the case, and we know it. If we can find a tenth of
a percent of flawed cases for violations of a program, that simply
means that we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that the rules,
the guidelines, are complied with, not that we need to terminate the
program.
So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with
me and many others in supporting this program, No. 1; and, No. 2,
making sure that we adequately police the restrictions and regulations
so that the Federal money is used consistent with the Federal
requirements.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is
important to understand, first of all, that it is this Republican
Congress which made the necessary changes to the Legal Services Program
that will allow it to move forward in the future, and this is not a
debate about funding. This is really a debate about the future
existence of this total program, and frankly those who would advocate
slashing the moneys for this program are truly on a mission to end this
kind of legal assistance. As some of my colleagues have already pointed
out, this is an important program that provides many single parent
families with the kind of support that they otherwise would not get.
And to those who would shut down the Legal Services Program, I would
ask, what is the alternative? Where is their alternative to make sure
that the people who are low income, who would not otherwise have legal
representation, where are they to go?
So, I think it is important again to stress that not only did this
Congress going back to 1996 make the necessary changes to clean up this
program, which admittedly had serious flaws, but in the current funding
bill it is important to note that the Legal Services Program would
terminate contracts of grantees which fail to comply with these
restrictions and to bar grantees from receiving future financial
assistance.
It is important to enumerate that this program no longer will
tolerate nor allow for any kind of advocating policies relating to
redistricting, to class action lawsuits, to influencing action on
legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum or similar procedures
of the Congress, State, or local legislative bodies. No legal
assistance to illegal aliens, no supporting conducting of training
programs related to political activity, no abortion litigation, no
prisoner litigation, no welfare reform litigation except to represent
individuals on particular matters that do not involve changing existing
laws, no representing individuals evicted from public housing due to
the sale of drugs, no accepting employment as a result of giving
unsolicited advice to nonattorneys, and non-LSC funds used to provide
legal services by grantees may not be used for the purposes prohibited
by the act, as was outlined in the changes made in 1976.
I think it is critically important to understand that we need this
safety net, we need to provide for the poor among us so that they have
the same legal rights as many other Americans, and these people do not
have the funds available to protect themselves. They do not fall within
certain categories that would allow them the kind of representation
that others could expect, and I think it is important that with these
important changes, with cleaning up the program, that we allow this
program to go forward.
So, I proudly rise in support of the amendment, and I thank its
sponsors.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak in support of the Mollohan-Fox
amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this
amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer a
devastating blow. As currently written, this bill provides only $141
million for the Legal Services Corporation. This amount is 50 percent
less than the $283 million appropriated last year and $199 million less
than the request of the administration.
I want to stop for a moment and thank the Representatives from the
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Upton], and others for joining in this bipartisan effort to do the
right thing for poor people and working people.
As my colleagues know, we could use our power any way that we would
like in this House. We could be good public policymakers, concerned
about all of our constituents, not just the rich, not just the well
off, or we can be bullies. We can be bullies who use our power and put
our foot on the backs and the necks of working people and poor people;
we could do that any time, and that is what we are doing on this Legal
Services Corporation funding. We are literally getting rid of them by
taking away 50 percent of the funding.
Who are these people? First of all, we should take all of these Legal
Services attorneys and give them some awards. We should award them for
working in the dinky offices across America for less money than
attorneys normally make, for going into neighborhoods and representing
people when their own lives sometimes are at risk.
{time} 1600
We should award them for going into the public housing projects, to
the barrios, and into the rural areas where no one else will go, to
represent working people and poor people.
I want to tell you about a case that I encountered in 1978 as a
member of the California Legislature. I will never forget Ms. Willa T.
Moore. She was a homeowner. It was just a little house in South Central
Los Angeles, but she received a bill. She knew she had paid her taxes.
She was not familiar with the 1911 Assessment Act. This is the
assessment for new street lighting that is done by the city. They kept
sending her the bill, she disregarded it, she thought the people
downtown made a mistake. She paid her taxes.
Well, let me tell you, they started to foreclose on her house because
she failed to pay the 1911 assessment tax bill that was sent to her
because of the lighting district that had been put in.
[[Page H7865]]
I worked with Legal Services Corporation to get Ms. Moore's house
back. I did not stop until we made sure that that house was not taken.
Without Legal Services, I would not have been able to assist Ms. Moore.
But let me tell you something else that was going on at that time. We
had contractors who went out and knocked on doors. They said, ``Let me
put a new roof on your house. Let me put a burglar alarm system in. Let
me expand and put a new room or porch on your house.'' They carried the
paper from a well-known S&L, and the people signed up. They had to put
their deeds up in order to get the credit from the S&L working with the
contractor.
The contractor signed up senior citizens, working people, poor
people. They oftentimes would come and put the scaffolding up to start
the job, but they would go on to the next person. They had blocks of
people who they had signed up to do work for, putting on new roofs, new
porches, burglar alarms, you name it. They would start, but somehow
they would not get around to finishing the job. But the payment book
came from the S&L, because the contractor had the relationship to the
S&L, and the people's payment book came, they had to make the payment,
but no contractor.
The S&L said to the people, ``That is your business, to go after the
contractor. You signed on the dotted line. We have the deed to your
house. If you do not pay us, your house now belongs to us.''
I worked for 2 years with the Legal Services Corporation to do all
kinds of new disclosure, to get rid of some of the practices of the
S&L. I went to contractors who had collected those deeds and I made
them give me the deeds back of senior citizens who had nobody to
advocate for them. I walked the streets with the Legal Services
Corporation representatives and attorneys, one by one, collecting those
deeds back of senior citizens, of working people who had no other legal
representation.
Do not do this to poor people. We are bigger than that. We are better
than that. We could put our feet on the back of these people and take
away the ability to have just a little representation, or we can be
kind public policymakers who look out for people who have nobody else
to look out for them.
I beg Members to support the amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. For
over a decade now, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and I have
worked to reform the Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of this committee, has offered
considerable help in this effort as well, and we have made some
progress, but we have a ways to go.
But we are not debating today whether or not to reform the Legal
Services Corporation or change the delivery system for Legal Services
altogether. We are simply setting a funding level where the Legal
Services Corporation can continue to function and provide civil legal
care for those in our country who cannot afford it.
I fully understand the arguments for taking a hard look at changing
our current delivery system for providing legal services to the poor. I
intend to continue a careful examination of how we provide daily legal
support for low-income individuals, and I hope at some time in the near
future to work with the authorizing committee to see if we can address
some of the things that are wrong, and there are some things that are
very wrong.
But until that happens, I support continuing to fund the Legal
Services Corporation at $250 million for fiscal year 1998. This is
exactly the funding level which my colleague the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum] and I proposed in our Legal Services Corporation
reorganization bill of the 104th Congress.
All of the arguments we have heard today come down to one fundamental
question, whether we believe that the Federal Government has a role to
play in ensuring that the poor have access to the courts. I believe
that we do.
Now, I will be the first one to tell my colleagues that the Legal
Services Corporation has had its share of problems over the years, and
we have heard many of them today. While I am not convinced that the
current structure is the best way to deliver these services, I am not
willing to demolish the Legal Services Corporation absent any other
well-developed approach to caring for the people that depend on legal
assistance in their daily lives. But that is precisely what we will do
if we cut the funding today.
As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget
realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want,
and that is why I commend the sponsors of this amendment who have
worked extremely hard in finding the offsets to pay for this amendment
in a fair and reasonable manner.
Finally, it is important to remember that we continue all of the
restrictions agreed to on the Legal Services Corporation in the effort
to make sure that this program works for its original purpose. While
the Legal Services Corporation has certainly not been perfect over the
past year, I do believe they have made sincere efforts to abide by
these restrictions.
Again, I commend the chairman of this committee for his efforts along
that line, because it makes my support of this Corporation possible
today. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4:30, and that the
time be equally divided.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield for the purpose
of a unanimous-consent request?
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4:30, and that the
time be equally divided.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan] will control 11 minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers] will control 11 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan-
Fox amendment. Many Members may not think of Legal Services as a
women's issue, but it is, because more than two-thirds of the clients
served by the Legal Services Corporation are women. The funding cuts in
this bill will force the LSC to abandon many of the critical legal
services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of
domestic violence.
Last year, Legal Services programs handled over 50,000 cases in which
clients sought legal protection from abusive spouses and over 6,000
cases involving neglected, abused, and dependent juveniles. In fact,
family law, which includes domestic violence cases, makes up over one-
third of the cases handled by Legal Services programs each year.
In addition to helping victims of domestic violence, the lawyers at
the Legal Services Corporation help poor women to enforce child support
orders against deadbeat dads. They also help women with employment
discrimination cases.
The funding level in this bill will only allow for one Legal Services
lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans. If we slash funding to Legal
Services, we will be abandoning tens of thousands of women who
desperately need legal help. These women have nowhere else to turn in
order to escape domestic violence or to bring a deadbeat dad to
justice. We must not abandon tens of thousands of women to violence,
abuse and greater poverty.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague to please vote for the Mollohan-Fox
amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, every morning we come to this House floor,
turn to the American flag, and with hand over heart finish our Nation's
[[Page H7866]]
Pledge of Allegiance to our flag with these words, ``with liberty and
justice for all.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, is the time for us to decide
whether we mean those words.
I revere our Nation's great documents, the Declaration of
Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and to that I would
add the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. But what has made our Nation
great is not pieces of parchment and hollow words, but the principles
thus enunciated.
Today we should ask ourselves in this House, do we mean our Pledge of
Allegiance, or do we simply recite it? Is the principle justice for all
simply a concept to be taught in our schools, or is it a goal worth
fighting for?
Just a few weeks ago in this House we passed a budget bill that will
give tax breaks to some of America's wealthiest families. What would it
say today about our values if while doing that we turned and cut
funding for Legal Services for our poorest families?
Mr. Chairman, tomorrow morning when we turn to this flag once again
with hand over heart and finish with those eloquent words, ``with
liberty and justice for all,'' I hope we can do so with pride, knowing
that we stand up for the meaning of those words.
Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, most things that need to be said about
this issue have probably now been said, but I want to say a couple of
things specifically about the State of Washington.
The Legal Services Foundation in the State of Washington turns away
four out of every five people who come seeking legal counsel. Now, if
liberty and justice is for all, then it ought to be for all five. Four
people out of five go away because there are no funds.
If that does not state the case, in 1980, the Legal Services
Corporation in Washington State had 140 Legal Services attorneys
dealing with roughly half a million poor or low-income folks in our
State. That is 1 attorney for every 4,000 people. In 1996, the ratio
had fallen to 1 attorney for every 15,000. That is 78 attorneys dealing
with 1.2 million people.
There are several facts in that. That means more people, in a State
like ours that is doing very well economically, more and more people
qualify for legal aid, and yet we have half the lawyers that we did in
1980.
I strongly support the Mollohan amendment, and urge my colleagues to
do the same, if you believe that there should be justice and liberty
for all.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair will administer the time
limitation to allow each side to consume all of the 11 minutes
allocated to either side, notwithstanding the fact that the clock will
pass 4:30 p.m. by 1 minute or 2.
There was no objection.
{time} 1615
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment
to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation to $250 million.
My colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services' clients are poor
women. Most of them are women with children who are seeking to receive
child support, protect themselves or their children from abuse, or
obtain decent housing, food or medical care.
Please do not take my word for it. According to John Erlenborn, a
Republican Member of this House for 20 years, Legal Services funds
benefited approximately 4 million people last year, most of them
children living in poverty.
Three-quarters of Legal Services' cases involve or benefit children.
Access to Legal Services can make the difference in which a child gets
support from an absent parent, can live in a safe home, receives food,
medical care, or access to education.
In 1996, Legal Services programs closed 50,000 cases representing
women who needed protection from abuse. Another 200,000 were family and
juvenile cases involving domestic violence. Who can forget that 2 years
ago, even as this Congress debated cutting Legal Services funding, a
woman was tragically murdered by her estranged husband just hours after
she had been turned down for assistance in obtaining a restraining
order, because of budget cuts at the Legal Services agency she phoned
for help.
As a former Republican colleague, Mr. John Erlenborn, writes, ``I
believe that access to justice should not be limited to those who have
sufficient wealth to pay for it.''
I share Congressman Erlenborn's belief, and I hope that my colleagues
do as well. Help mothers get the child support their children deserve;
help children get the medical care that they need; help protect women
and children from the family members who abuse them. Vote ``yes'' on
the Mollohan amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership in bringing this important amendment to the
floor. With apologies to the distinguished chairman for objecting to
his unanimous consent, and certainly in support of it now, I rise to
encourage our colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
In defense of the Legal Services Corporation, our colleagues have
quoted the Constitution, and, of course, most recently the pledge to
the flag which we make here every day, and in that pledge to the flag
it has been said, and is said here every day, the pledge for liberty
and justice for all. That is exactly what the Legal Services
Corporation is about.
We brag and boast about American values and the rights that we have
as Americans, but we truly do not have those rights unless we have
access to legal services to protect those rights and the right to sue
to protect them.
Other colleagues have quoted and referenced their own experience with
Legal Services, and I just want to talk about the fact that two-thirds
of those eligible for Legal Services are women and children, most of
them families. They receive services in areas such as juvenile law,
family law, housing, health and education, and clinics perform critical
services for victims of domestic violence. Some of our colleagues have
said what is not included here, and I will not go into that. I will
submit it for the record. There have been staff cuts in Legal Services.
It is a dollar well spent by the Federal Government.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for liberty and justice for all
and to vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I happen to have been one of those ``nasty'' attorneys
that on the other side we have heard mentioned so many times. When I
had the privilege of graduating from Stanford Law School back in 1984,
I took a job working for Legal Services in Worcester, MA, working for
$18,000 a year, which is not even what I would have had to have paid
for another year of Stanford Law School had I needed a fourth year.
At the same time, most of my peers at Stanford Law School were being
hired for something around $70,000 a year to start their legal career,
and certainly that is not the pay that the partner or the mid-level
attorney in those firms is making. And what certainly those individuals
were charging was well beyond $100 an hour.
Yet here I was, representing mostly people who were mentally ill. I
had several clients; one, for example, was a minor who was locked up in
a facility for adults. It was because Legal Services was there that we
were able to remove that youth from that facility that was meant for
adults who were mentally ill.
[[Page H7867]]
I had the opportunity to help adults who were being overmedicated
because the wards and the staff at the institution were tired of having
to put up with mentally ill patients. So they would overmedicate them
so they would be drugged out of their minds and would not budge from
their beds. Had Legal Services not have been there, we would not have
been there to help these patients avoid overmedication.
I happened to work for Legal Services in Los Angeles when I was a law
student where we were able to help people who were not being paid the
minimum wage because unscrupulous employers were denying folks their
pay. All of these things have happened.
We have heard of a few instances where there may have been some abuse
in legal services office, but I have not heard a single soul here say
that when the Department of Defense paid $500 for a toilet seat, or
when they paid some $200 for a screwdriver, or when the CIA spent 300
and some-odd million dollars for a secret building, or when the
Department of Energy failed to safely oversee the storage of nuclear
waste, that we should kill those programs. Certainly we know we need
the Department of Defense, and we need to be protective of this
Nation's security, but no one has said tube those particular agencies
simply because there has been some abuse.
When we think of the more than 1 million cases last year that were
handled by a Legal Services attorney, for a pittance, it is well worth
the while. When we think that these are people who would be
unrepresented, those poor individuals who go to Legal Services--it is
worth its weight in gold, because the folks that I worked with, the
folks that I had the privilege to serve under working for $18,000 a
year certainly did the job and did it well.
I now look at my salary of $133,000, and I hear people arguing that
we should do away with a program where attorneys are paid $18,000,
$20,000, $30,000, and I think to myself, here we are making $133,000,
and saying that we should do away with Legal Services; perhaps we
should think about something else to do away with, and that should not
be Legal Services.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my extreme
disappointment in those who chose to continue their assault on legal
services for the working poor in our country. One of the more troubling
portions the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1998 is the severe cut in funding for the Legal Services
Corporation, a private nonprofit corporation established by Congress in
1974 to guarantee all Americans equal access to justice under the law.
Instead of providing equal access to justice for millions of
citizens, the majority in this Congress, in my view, has chosen to turn
its back. By slashing funding for this program in half from $283 to
$141 million--the majority in this House has signaled their
indifference for those who cannot afford necessary legal advice on
their own.
In my State, as well as many others throughout this country, this cut
will be the death knell for the legal representation for the working
poor. If these cuts are passed by this House and sustained by the other
Chamber, countless hard-working and vulnerable citizens in our
districts will be without adequate legal representation.
One of the persons in my State of Rhode Island who will be adversely
impacted by these cuts is Mabel. She is a 70-year-old homebound woman
whose only source of income is SSI. Because of her low income, Medicaid
was supposed to pay her Medicare premiums but she was unaware that she
was eligible for this program. A computer glitch erroneously denied her
the coverage for which she was eligible--and she struggled to dutifully
pay her premiums. Out of the blue, the State informed her that she was
now eligible for full coverage and would no longer have to pay her
premiums. She questioned the State as to the reason for the change, and
learned her earlier payments had been a mistake. She tried
unsuccessfully for 9 months to convince the State to reimburse her
premium payments.
She then contacted Rhode Island Legal Services and they negotiated
the case with the State and local agencies. As a result, Mabel received
the $7,000 she had mistakenly paid over the years. Without Rhode Island
Legal Services, Mabel would be out in the cold--with no where to turn.
Mabel is one of the real people affected by the actions we take in
Washington, DC.
Opponents of this program argue that the Constitution does require
legal protection in civil cases. Well, then, I ask the following. I ask
the opponents of this program to tell a family of four earning $18,000
a year, who have trouble affording food on the table, let alone an
attorney--that they do not deserve legal representation after being
unjustly evicted from their apartment. I ask the opponents to tell a
woman, who has been the victim of domestic violence, that she doesn't
deserve legal protection from her abusive husband. I ask the opponents
of this program to tell a child, who has been denied the necessities of
life because an absent parent has been inconsistent with court mandated
child support, that they should not have any legal recourse. I ask the
opponents of this program to tell Mabel, that she has no right to the
money she paid in error.
I believe that one of the Founders of our country, Thomas Jefferson,
in his first inaugural address said it best. When espousing the ideals
in which he believed deeply to his new constituents, he mentioned his
belief in ``equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or
persuasion * * *.''
I could not agree more with his words spoken nearly 200 years ago. I
urge my colleagues to reconsider this ill-conceived notion that each
and every citizen does not deserve legal representation. In conference,
I hope we will work together to restore adequate funding to this vital
program.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, which
would partially restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation to a
level of $250 million.
For over 20 years, Legal Services has been a lifeline for millions of
poor Americans with no other means of access to the legal system.
During the past year alone, the Corporation funded programs that
helped over 4 million people resolve some 1.4 million cases.
Who are the people behind these statistics?
Women seeking child support or protection against abusive spouses.
Elderly citizens lost in the maze of Government red tape.
Homeless veterans seeking access to benefits.
Abandoned children in need of shelter and care.
Slum tenants facing eviction and small farmers fighting foreclosure.
Those are the people we are talking about. If this amendment fails,
thousands of them will have no place to turn.
We know this because that is what happened 2 years ago, when Congress
slashed the Corporation's budget by over 30 percent. Because of those
cuts, Legal Services handled 300,000 fewer cases in 1996 than in the
previous year. In my district in southeastern Massachusetts, this meant
that hundreds of families were denied assistance.
Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not become a nation in which
only people with financial means can afford an attorney.
I urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Fox-Mollohan amendment that would restore the Legal Services
Corporation funding level to $250 million.
In my congressional district, Legal Aid of the Central Coast is the
only source of legal advice for some 2,000 residents if they want to
pursue legal recourse for cases of domestic violence, housing
evictions, consumer fraud, and child support--the same kinds of legal
problems that could confront any one of us.
The LACC conducts weekly clinics on housing issues--a critical issue
for low-income tenants in an area of the country with some of the
Nation's highest housing costs. Low-income victims of natural
disasters--two of which have occurred in my district--the Loma Prieta
earthquake in 1989 and severe flooding in 1995--are disenfranchised
from legal recourse without access to legal services provided by the
LACC. Its work in protecting children from being forced to live in
housing with lead-based paint has been cited in local newspapers.
A recent California State Bar report estimated that the legal needs
of three out of four low-income Californians were not met. If the Fox-
Mollohan amendment is not approved, LACC could be forced to close 1
week out of every month. It is simply unconscionable to deny legal
services to anyone based on their economic resources or lack thereof.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vigorous
support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment, and in support of legal services
organizations everywhere that provide a desperately needed legal safety
net for low-income Americans. This amendment would restore funding for
the Legal Services Corporation to $250 million, an amount that is still
12 percent below last year's level.
The Legal Services Corporation is the embodiment of a founding
principle of this country--``Equal Justice Under Law''--through its
efforts to provide legal representation to those who could not
otherwise afford it. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled House has
long had the Legal Services Corporation in its sights. This year it has
recommended a crippling 50 percent cut in a punitive attempt to
[[Page H7868]]
curtail the services of this agency. This reduction would virtually
eliminate most LSC programs around the country. In reality, this attack
is just another way for the Republican majority to systematically
disinvest the poor, an action which is both shortsighted and
irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in my support of this desperately needed
program. A recent poll conducted by Louis Harris & Associates found
that 70 percent of Americans believe Federal funding should be provided
for poor Americans who need basic civil legal assistance. The poll also
found that 61 percent of Americans believe funding levels should be
higher than have been recommended. Clearly, this amendment is not
asking for any more than what the American people have decided is fair
and just.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to restore funding to the Legal
Services Corporation by voting in favor of the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
If we don't make ``Equal Justice'' under the law a reality for all
Americans, who will?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 176, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 449]
AYES--246
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--176
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Foley
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bonilla
Clement
Collins
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Lazio
Rogan
Schiff
{time} 1641
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Schiff for, with Mr. Herger against.
Messrs. PEASE, KNOLLENBERG, DAVIS of Virginia, and SHIMKUS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 449, I was
unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye.''
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Gephardt
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gephardt moves that the Committee rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 293, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 450]
AYES--119
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Harman
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skelton
[[Page H7869]]
Snyder
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
NOES--293
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Bonilla
Clayton
Collins
Foglietta
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hill
Hoyer
Johnson, Sam
LaTourette
Lazio
Martinez
Matsui
Radanovich
Rogan
Scarborough
Schiff
Yates
{time} 1702
Mr. Maloney of Connecticut changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)
Expressing Appreciation to Managers of H.R. 2267, Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to predicate my comments by
first appreciating the bill managers on the floor on this bill, the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], for their good work and their willingness last
night to stay and to work late, and, in fact, later than they had
intended, to help move this bill along and to do so in such a way as to
relieve the Members of the need to come back here for votes last night.
They worked until 10. I think we had our last votes around 6 last
night.
I would like to on behalf of all the Members appreciate the two bill
managers for their generosity of spirit and their consideration. I
realize and I am sure you all do, I know I did especially last night, a
special evening with me and my wife, we had a chance to be together, at
least on the phone, that it is for all of us always a special
appreciation when we have had time with our families because of the
consideration of our colleagues. In that regard obviously we are moving
as fast as we can to complete the appropriations business before the
end of the year and, hopefully, as soon as possible to wrap up the
year's business so that we may be able to spend time, with the year's
work completed, with our families in our own districts where we can
relate to our own constituents sooner instead of later.
This is a very important piece of legislation toward that end, and
even though we have had four procedural votes during consideration of
this bill that unfortunately have, by and large, undone the time
advantage we may have had as a body through the sacrifices made last
night by our colleagues, I think that we all understand the need in the
larger scheme of things to stay as long as we can to resolve the
completion of this bill tonight. We intend to do everything we can to
achieve that on behalf of all of us and our respective workloads.
I am sure that the bill managers would find their generosity of last
evening rewarded and appreciated and the Members of the House would
feel appreciative if we could proceed toward completion of this work
this evening without further procedural delays. I am sure everybody
would like to encourage everybody to take that way of showing
appreciation to these two fine gentlemen who have managed this bill
with such patience and appreciation for their colleagues.
Request to Speak Out of Order
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
like to ask the gentleman a question. The majority leader just spoke of
our schedule for the coming days and tonight. Last night in the
Committee on House Oversight, House Resolution 244 was voted out of
committee. We have major concerns on this side about the resolution. We
would like to know, is it scheduled for the rules? When will it be
taken up? The resolution as passed by the Committee on House Oversight
concerning California's 46th Congressional District with Congresswoman
Sanchez, we would like to know when it is going to the Committee on
Rules and when it will be scheduled so we can prepare ourselves.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of a request to expedite
the legislation. I believe I understand the legislation the gentlewoman
is referring to, but I will certainly check into it and be glad to get
back to the House and let them know.
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman from New York.
I see the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] on the floor. We are
told over here that it is scheduled for Monday afternoon. It is H. Res.
244. Perhaps the gentleman from California might want to comment. We
are trying to understand so we can know what the schedule is.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the committee met yesterday and passed the
resolution. I have submitted a letter to the chairman of the Committee
on Rules, and Rules, I assume, under normal order of business will
examine the resolution and will act on it as the Committee on Rules
does.
I do not know where the gentlewoman gets her information, but the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he will check with his staff,
has found out that it is being handled in the normal procedure. I thank
the gentlewoman for yielding.
[[Page H7870]]
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentlewoman will yield further under her
reservation, I have just been informed by the gentleman that there is a
letter of request in my office. If that is the case, I would intend to
include that on an agenda after I have had the opportunity to speak
with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and we would more
than likely include that.
The gentleman from Massachusetts considers himself notified, and
there will be a rules meeting Monday night at 6 o'clock on that issue
along with others.
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. If I may direct a question to the distinguished chairman
from the Committee on Rules, the chairman may know or others may know,
there is a grave amount of concern brewing on the part of a number of
Members of Congress with regard to the course that this investigation,
now 11 months old, has taken with regard to the investigation in the
46th Congressional District and the alleged improprieties in voting.
This resolution and, as quickly as I was able to glance at it, House
Resolution 244 evidently calls upon the Department of Justice to
initiate criminal proceedings against an organization which it deems
noncompliant to a subpoena that was issued against it or to it by this
Committee on House Oversight in regards to the Sanchez case.
My understanding is that this organization is appealing the issuance
of that subpoena on constitutional grounds. My further understanding is
that there is some grave concern as to the reach of some of these
subpoenas. My further understanding is there is grave concern that this
committee, the Committee on House Oversight, has sent out more than
500,000 names with additional private information gathered from the
Department of Justice, INS, and is now requesting assistance from the
Secretary of State of California for further investigation of some
500,000 names.
Mr. SOLOMON. Would the gentleman propound the question because we
have regular order to follow.
Mr. BECERRA. I will propound the question. I had to give some
background so the gentleman would be able to answer the question. My
question is this: If the Committee on Rules is thinking of taking up
this House Resolution which would call upon the Department of Justice
to initiate criminal proceedings on an organization that believes its
constitutional rights may be violated if it were to have to respond to
this subpoena, then I believe a number of us would have a great amount
of concern allowing the House to take that course of action given a
number of things that the House has done in regard to the Sanchez
investigation.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say that under regular order, when the
Committee on Rules receives a letter from the chairman of a committee,
we would follow regular order. We would hold the meeting. The gentleman
is certainly welcome to come up and testify and make his case.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, in
the gentleman from California's background, as an information to the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, he stated a number of factual
errors, and I do think the record should be accurate rather than the
representations that were made. The committee did not issue a subpoena
to the organization that he referred to. It was issued under the
statute of the Contested Elections Act. It was disputed as to its
constitutionality. House counsel indicated it was constitutional. The
judge who issued the subpoena in a recent opinion indicated that it was
constitutional.
The gentleman indicated that we have transmitted 500,000 names to
somebody. That is absolutely factually untrue, and I understand it was
mentioned at a press conference. It is repeated here on the floor of
the House. I would tell the gentleman he had better get his facts
straight before he continues to repeat them.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield briefly
under her reservation, I will note for purposes of this particular
request for expedition of time and the conduct of this House's duties
that if, in fact, the Committee on House Oversight intends to take this
action, a number of us intend to do whatever we can in the minority
party to exert whatever rights we have to ensure that there is some
justice in this matter for the investigation in the Sanchez case. If we
are hoping to have clean and smooth conduct of business, I think it is
going to quickly wind down and not happen if we have this type of
activity continue to occur.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have been told
and it has been reaffirmed by the gentleman from New York that this
resolution will be scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
{time} 1715
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to
object, and I do so to----
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I did not have the opportunity to speak to
my wife last night for several hours as the majority leader did, so I
am still trying to communicate with her. But as we race on to
adjournment--
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] controls the
time under his reservation.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the reason I reserve the
right to object hopefully is to respond to not only the scheduling
change here but also the comments by the majority leader.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I object to my unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his unanimous-consent request.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 38, line 22, after ``$21,700,000'' insert ``(increased
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 11, after ``$28,490,000'' insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering this amendment at
this stage?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the gentleman explain his
amendment but would reserve the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] shall have an
opportunity to state his case on the amendment. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, am I recognized for 5 minutes on my
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved. The gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment,
recognizing that there is a point of order pending against his
amendment.
The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment of enormous
consequence which is supported by people with very different political
philosophies. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Stearns], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], and by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], by Republicans, Democrats
and Independent, by conservatives and progressives, and what this
amendment says is that we believe in democracy and we believe that
legislation passed at the local level, at the State level, and here in
the U.S. Congress should not be overridden by the World Trade
Organization.
[[Page H7871]]
And while we may disagree about this piece of legislation or that
piece of legislation, we think that there is something very wrong about
our trade policy whereby this Government has abdicated enormous
responsibility and whereby major environmental legislation, legislation
dealing with human rights and other important issues, is now threatened
and has been threatened by the World Trade Organization. We believe
that there is something very wrong when important environmental
legislation passed by this Congress is overridden by people in Geneva
who meet behind closed doors. We think there is something wrong when
legislation passed in the State of Vermont, State of Massachusetts
designed to bring back democracy in Burma is threatened by the World
Trade Organization.
Mr. Chairman, let me take a moment now to yield to my friend, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] who has been very active in this
issue.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Vermont,
and I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for his kindness in
letting us at least just talk about it briefly here. Basically, what we
are trying to do is give the U.S. Trade Representative more money so he
can investigate, look at the U.S. laws, both local and State, that are
impacted by the World Trade Organization when it makes decisions, and
do they override actually in effect some of these laws at the local and
State level.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton, since he has
taken office they have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements, and
of these 200 trade agreements only 2 of them have had fast track. This,
certainly, deflates the administration's claim that our Nation is in
dire need of fast track.
So I think the important point here is that this amendment that the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is offering, and others including
myself, will allow the U.S. Trade Representative to have additional
resources to study the impact of the World Trade Organization on the
laws, the sovereign laws at the State and the local level, and to get
back to Congress to see what impact these trade negotiations are
having.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Sanders-Stearns
and friends amendment to this appropriations bill.
Since President Clinton has taken office, the administration has
negotiated more than 200 trade agreements. By the way only two of these
200 agreements have had fast-track authority, NAFTA and the Uruguay
round of GATT. This fact certainly deflates the administration's claims
that out Nation is in dire need for fast-track.
We have to be honest with the American people. These trade agreements
have a profound affect on them and they have a profound affect on
local, State, and Federal laws.
That is why Mr. Sanders originated this amendment.
There is great concern that U.S. laws, which lawmakers in Congress,
State legislatures, and localities have worked hard to establish,
continue to be overturned by faceless bureaucrats during trade
negotiations.
And what can we do as the elected representatives of this great
Nation that will stand up for the laws already in the books? Many of us
would obviously like to stop this constant disregard for U.S. laws, but
we are limited in our ability to make such a stand during consideration
of an appropriation bill.
This amendment will allow the U.S. Trade Representative to have
additional resources needed to research and study the American laws
that will be affected by trade negotiations.
Even in the President's fast-track legislation, section 5(a)(1)(B)
states that, ``within 60 calendar days after entering into (an)
agreement, the President (must) submit to the Congress a description of
those changes to existing laws that the President considers would be
required in order to bring the United States into compliance with the
(proposed) agreement.''
It seems obvious to me that the administration through fast-track,
which I personally oppose, is preparing to overturn countless laws.
This amendment will give the USTR greater ability in determining which
laws are to be attacked.
I would like to make one specific point about fast-track and the harm
it has caused constituents throughout Florida, not just in my district.
Last week, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave a speech before
the Institute for International Economics.
In her speech she said,
We are preparing to negotiate a further opening in
agricultural markets. Our farmers are by far the world's most
productive. They help feed the world. But they do so despite
tariffs on U.S. products that in some cases are as high as
100 percent. They also confront many nontariff barriers. In
gaining access to this $500 billion a year market we want a
level playing field for American agriculture. But to get it,
we need fast-track.
Well, if I am not mistaken, were these promises of agriculture access
and reduced tariffs not made during consideration of NAFTA and the
previous granting of fast-track?
So what has been the track-record of the fast-track?
Since NAFTA has begun, Florida agriculture has lost in excess of $1
billion--Florida tomato farmers have alone lost $750 million. So much
for level playing fields and reduced tariffs. According the O'Conner &
Hannan law firm of Washington, DC,
For tomatoes, the losses are clearly due to the dumping of
Mexican tomatoes in the U.S. market as determined by the
Commerce Department. The primary cause of the injuries to
Florida agriculture is NAFTA and its ineffectual safeguard
provisions.
The Florida Department of Citrus has further informed me, that after
3 years of NAFTA, Florida citrus is still not even allowed into Mexico.
How is this possibly free or fair trade?
Congress needs to stand up to this destruction of American industries
such as agriculture. The Sanders amendment is a first step to informing
ourselves of the legal consequences of pervasive ``free'' trade
agreements.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we need to understand what is at risk
here:
The Buy American Act is at risk; the Helms-Burton Act supported so
strongly by some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle is at risk
here; all local State laws which go to local preference and purchasing
are at risk here; the sovereignty not only of our Nation but of our
States and our local communities is at risk. We need this amendment to
get additional money to the U.S. Trade Representative so that they can
defend our interests and unearth these ticking time bombs in some of
these trade agreements and prevent the overturning of these laws by
secret tribunals in Geneva.
This amendment should be heard and should be voted on on the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that
the State that I represent passed legislation which said that the State
did not wish to do business with people who supported the terribly
repressive regime in Burma, and we have since that time had
international efforts to stop the State of Massachusetts from deciding
how to spend its own dollars in purchases, and that is why I support
the effort of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. If we are going
to have people use these international bodies to object because we
object to oppression, then the time has come to fight back.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I do object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
point of order
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was ready to and I did
allow this brief discussion of this, but I do feel compelled to rise to
make the point of order against the gentleman's amendment because it
seeks to amend the paragraph in this bill that has already been read
under the 5-minute rule, and the House Manual states very clearly in
section 872 that when a paragraph or section has been passed it is not
in order to return thereto.
While I am tempted to debate the issues here, I regret that to say
the gentleman's amendment does come too late, and I would ask for a
ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Vermont like to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
[[Page H7872]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain what happened.
As I understand it, last night a unanimous consent was agreed to by
which the Legal Services amendment would be called up first after the
five rollcall votes which we voted upon earlier today, and that was
confirmed to me by everybody. I was here on the floor of the House
ready to go, and I was told, no, Legal Services is coming up. I went up
to my office.
For some reason which I do not understand, and I expect it was
inadvertent, the Clerk read the first 2 or 3 pages of title 2 of the
Justice--Commerce--State appropriation bill before the Legal Services
debate began, and the place in the text in which I had an amendment
cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike was therefore passed.
Given that reality and my belief that this error was inadvertent,
that everyone here believed that Legal Services was going to be debated
first, I have asked for and am asking now for unanimous consent so that
we can debate this very, very important issue which concerns millions
of Americans who are deeply concerned about our trade policy.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, is the unanimous consent in order at the
time that we are considering a point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not entertain a unanimous consent, but
the gentleman from Vermont certainly has an opportunity to be heard on
the gentleman from Arizona's point of order.
The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, on the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, on the point of order, since the point
of order seems intent upon cutting off the rights of the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], I use a reservation of objection to rise in
strong support of the gentleman's amendment and I ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California may not revise and extend
his remarks on a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will now rule.
Upon his timely reservation of the point of order, the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] makes the point of order that the amendment
proposes to change a portion of the bill already passed in the reading.
As indicated on page 680 of the manual, the point of order is well
taken and is, therefore, sustained.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, shall the judgment of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 188, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 451]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--188
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
Bonilla
Boucher
Collins
Flake
Foglietta
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Lazio
Rogan
Schiff
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1749
Messrs. YATES, KANJORSKI, EWING, BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, SMITH of
Michigan, SHIMKUS, FATTAH, BERMAN, and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the ruling of the Chair was sustained.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the glue that holds this body together is
comity and fairness on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], in my opinion, has a legitimate complaint
procedurally, about not being able to offer his amendment.
In the spirit of fairness and comity, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], be allowed to offer his
amendment and that debate on the amendment be limited to 20 minutes, 10
per side.
[[Page H7873]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the time limitation would
include any amendments thereto.
Without objection, that is the order.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Baker] assumed the chair.
____________________