[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.

                          ____________________