Summary:

All articles in House section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4973-H5032] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Just a few minutes ago, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the requests of Gary Graham for clemency and an opportunity for a new hearing. At this time, his execution is set for 6:00 p.m. today. Gary Graham continues to press his case to show his innocence and argues that witnesses that could have presented his case of innocence were not heard. Gary Graham, 17 years old, did not have the counsel that might have generated a trial that might have had the opportunity for fact finders to make a full and open decision. Justice in this Nation should not be determined by one's wealth, and although the Legal Services Corporation does not deal in criminal matters or death penalty cases, I use this day's tragedy to argue for the amendment before us, because it is important for the American people to understand that we are a Nation of laws. I believe the American people accept that. It is a voluntary system where we commit ourselves to be governed by laws. We seek to address our grievances by the legal system, and we go into courts or proceed under administrative proceedings. The Legal Services Corporation that generates dollars into our local community, in my instance, the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in Houston, Texas that I served as a board member on, argues for those who cannot speak for themselves. It argues for those who cannot afford the billable hours, and it provides the bare minimum quality of life issues that many of us take for granted. It works with families who do not have housing. It assists the homeless or those who are in transition, and it is interesting as we look at the history of the funding of Legal Services, it has had a very rocky history over these last couple of years. There has been no denial that it has not done good work, that it has not worked with those in the Indian population here in America, that it has not worked with mothers of children needing services, as I indicated, educational services, special education, housing, food services and mental health services. But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole Nation. [[Page H4974]] Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes them who deserve child support for their children. In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator Paul Wellstone in my district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact that they cannot get mental health services for their children because of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of their frustration, because of the lack of services. The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be determined. I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal. Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want each person in this Nation to have justice. I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It is a good amendment. Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I stood here in the same spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility. Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington should take on that responsibility. This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal role the Legal Service Corporation provides. In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much higher than reality. This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction. Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation. My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the program has not been authorized since the 1980s. We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that representation. But here is a program that the track record has not been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. {time} 1600 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million. Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two- thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence. Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me. Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off? I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get [[Page H4975]] people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the amendment. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens. Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity. The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity. I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines. The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys. So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society. To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities. Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill. Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year. The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate. We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding. So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way. Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented. I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people. Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less. {time} 1615 So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment. As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request. [[Page H4976]] It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system. Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children. The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud. I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important. When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court. A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care. As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together. Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future. But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later. So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world. However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million. What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available. Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests. Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income [[Page H4977]] people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves-- the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended. As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget. Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency. Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack. Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted. Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation. I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least. As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises. Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Counterterrorism Fund For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to stand here with the support of others to support this amendment. It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave women who step forward. In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children across this country, and we must continue this success. We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women. [[Page H4978]] While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong and brave women. help victims of domestic violence Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go. help children living in poverty Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find safe haven against violence in the home. The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take care of our children. senior citizens Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems. Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless. Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 4, after line 14, insert the following: site security reporting (including transfer of funds) For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000. Ms. DeGETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. {time} 1630 The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the surrounding communities. Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living near these facilities can be prepared. In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by the President last year. In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have occurred on American soil. Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use extremely dangerous materials. One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 2002. Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and criminals. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the funds to carry out this requirement. In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the Record. Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and secure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp of [[Page H4979]] my staff for their continued hard work on this important issue. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on this important issue. Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, but we have not had this study funded. This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her amendment. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and thank her for her good work. This amendment would help protect the public by funding a study of security of chemical facilities to help protect the public from releases of dangerous chemicals into the air. The Clean Air Act requires chemical facilities to develop risk management plans, including worst case accident scenarios, for the EPA. These plans were to be made available to the public so that anyone, fathers, mothers, coworkers, teachers, could learn about the potential for a chemical accident in his or her own community. Last year, concerns were raised that terrorists would use the worst case scenario information to attack chemical facilities. In response, this Congress passed and the President signed legislation restricting release of the information. In May, the administration released a proposed rule sharply restricting public access to the data on chemical hazards. Mr. Chairman, I remain skeptical of these severe limits on the public's right to know about chemical hazards in our community. Chemical accidents are a daily reality in this country, sometimes taking the lives of fellow workers, of neighbors, of parents, of children, of travelers, while terrorist attacks are rare, indeed. If these chemical facilities, however, are indeed tempting targets for terrorists, our focus should be on restricting terrorists' access to them, rather than restricting the public's access to information about them. Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry investigated several chemical sites and found it easy to walk in through unguarded gates and unattended entrances. This amendment will reprogram $750,000, as requested by the Attorney General, from the counterterrorism fund to carry out the study authorized last year by this body. If terrorism truly is a threat at chemical sites, this is a small amount of money to spend to investigate that risk. If terrorism is not enough of a threat to justify $750,000, I then question the restrictions that have been placed on community access to chemical accident information. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is funded. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, with the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us on this matter to secure funding for the Department of Justice to conduct the study, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $282,500,000, to remain available until expended. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern: In title I, in the item relating to ``General Administration--telecommunications carrier compliance fund'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $4,479,000)''. In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount insert ``(increased by $4,479,000)''. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment that will have a very positive impact on our country's economy. Quite simply, it will bring the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center Program from $8.89 million currently provided in this bill up to its authorized level of $13 million, and provide the President's budget request of $1 million for the SBA's National Women's Business Council up from the $595,000 currently in this bill. The total amount provided by this amendment to achieve these goals is $4.5 million. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be here today standing with my distinguished and bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender- McDonald), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). This is an issue we feel very passionately about, and urge all our colleagues to join us in providing expanded opportunity for women entrepreneurs that will strengthen our entire economy. According to the results of the 2000 Avon Global Women's Survey that polled 30,000 women from 33 countries, the top three factors that women across the world feel would improve their lives in the new millenium are, one, financial independence; two, equal job opportunities; and three, the ability to start one's own business. Here in the United States, we are living in the largest economic expansion in our Nation's history. Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all Americans benefit from and have the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity. Overall, women can and are succeeding in the business arena. In fact, women-owned businesses are a true American success story, growing twice as fast as all other businesses. As of 1999, there were 9.11 million women-owned businesses in the United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and employing 27.5 million workers. Yet, despite these impressive statistics, women entrepreneurs have lower levels of available credit than their male counterparts, and minority businesswomen are less likely than Caucasians to have bank credit. The Women's Business Centers program and the National Women's Business Council help push the doors open. For example, in my home State of Massachusetts, the Center for Women and Enterprise has served 1,200 women from a very wide spectrum of backgrounds, races, and ethnicities. Seventy percent of the Center's clients are single women, 32 percent are women of color, 44 percent are in the very low- or low- to-moderate income brackets. Sixty percent of these women are seeking to start their first businesses. Across the country, Women's Business Centers provide education, training, consulting, and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are Women's Business Centers in 46 States serving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large percentage of Center clients are women from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their own businesses without the assistance of a Women's Business Center. The Women's Business Centers' mission is empowerment. These centers [[Page H4980]] empower women by providing workshops and one-on-one consulting and mentoring for women business owners. Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have assisted over 100,000 women entrepreneurs start or expand their businesses. Past estimates show the program has created on average one new business and four new jobs for every 10,000 investment. By helping women to help themselves, these centers are strengthening the economy by creating locally-owned businesses and jobs, and by reaching out to new markets and new entrepreneurs, these centers are helping to ensure that our business community reflects our Nation's diversity. Yet, in spite of this progress, there are significant numbers of women entrepreneurs waiting and in need of these services. Mr. Chairman, let me now just say a few words about the National Women's Business Council. The Council is a bipartisan Federal Government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of counsel to the President and to Congress of economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council's goals include increasing access to capital and credit for women, increasing access to the Federal procurement market, strengthening the training and technical assistance networks, and facilitating alliances between policymakers and women business owners. In conclusion, let me just briefly give my colleagues a few facts about the offset for this amendment, which comes from the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, which is a program I support. Our $4.5 million amendment represents only 1.6 percent of this $282.5 million account. According to the committee report, this account is $72.5 million above the administration's request. Additionally, the House has already provided this $282.5 million in H.R. 3908, the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last March, and I am confident that the chairman of the Committee, with his powerful powers of persuasion, will insist that that stays in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of women's business and the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald amendment. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the hard work that he has dedicated to the people of the United States and to this legislation on the floor today. As a believer in fiscal responsibility, I understand that the appropriators have done the best that they could with the strict spending limits they have had to work within. Certain priorities were set within the committee. Funding was appropriated so that all of the pieces fit together. Unfortunately, the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council were significantly underfunded. The amendment we are offering today would do the following. First, it would bring the Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to the authorized level of $13 million. Secondly, it would provide $1 million as requested for the Small Business Administration's National Women's Business Council, an increase from its current level of $595,000. The offset for this increase comes from the Department of Justice's Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The lion's share of this $282.5 million account is new funding to reimburse the telecommunications industry for costs associated with modifying their networks as required under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA. The $282.5 million account is significantly above the administration's budgeted request. As I said earlier, I realize that there are very tight fiscal restraints in place. With that being said, it seems to make an enormous amount of sense to redirect to the Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council approximately $4.5 million, and still give the Department of Justice a considerable amount above their request to pay for additional expenses related to CALEA. {time} 1645 Women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other businesses. In California alone, there are over 1.2 million women-owned businesses accounting for 38 percent of all firms in the State and employing 3.8 million people. However, they are not making comparable progress in respect to government contracts. The National Women's Business Council is a government advisory panel designed to provide counsel to the administration on ways that we can support our women entrepreneurs. By providing advice on ways to promote initiatives to encourage capital and credit access for women-owned businesses, to strengthen training and technical assistance networks, and to increase access to the Federal procurement market, we are helping women work towards economic independence. As we are seeing more and more women-owned enterprises developing across the country, we are also hearing about the difficulties associated with finding capital to strengthen and grow those businesses. The Women's Business Center is the place that women go to find the tools they need to overcome these hurdles. The Women's Business Centers provide education, consulting, and access to capital for our women entrepreneurs. I have heard from businesswomen all over the country how important the program is. Many of the women who are being impacted by these programs are from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds. To their credit, they are doing exactly what has been preached in the halls of this very Congress. These women are taking responsibility for their lives and finding ways to contribute to their communities. The Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council are essential in this progress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for women. It is good for our communities. It is certainly good for our economy. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald, and Napolitano amendment. Now, that is a mouthful, but it is full of a lot of promise. This amendment will help the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States which are currently generating over $3.6 trillion in sales and employing 27.5 million workers throughout this country, most of whom are a lot of the welfare-to-work mothers. This amendment will increase funding for the Women's Business Center program from $8.9 million to levels of $13 million this Congress authorized last year. This amendment will also increase funding for the National Women's Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Empowerment and author of a similar amendment in 1998, I urge my colleagues to join me again in ensuring that women business owners are given the opportunity they need to develop their businesses and continue to nurture the growth of our national economy. The Women's Business Centers, or WBCs, provide education, training, consulting and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are 50 States that have WBCs with tens of thousands of entrepreneurs working each year. A large percentage of these WBC clients are women from low- income disadvantaged backgrounds who would be

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4973-H5032] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Just a few minutes ago, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the requests of Gary Graham for clemency and an opportunity for a new hearing. At this time, his execution is set for 6:00 p.m. today. Gary Graham continues to press his case to show his innocence and argues that witnesses that could have presented his case of innocence were not heard. Gary Graham, 17 years old, did not have the counsel that might have generated a trial that might have had the opportunity for fact finders to make a full and open decision. Justice in this Nation should not be determined by one's wealth, and although the Legal Services Corporation does not deal in criminal matters or death penalty cases, I use this day's tragedy to argue for the amendment before us, because it is important for the American people to understand that we are a Nation of laws. I believe the American people accept that. It is a voluntary system where we commit ourselves to be governed by laws. We seek to address our grievances by the legal system, and we go into courts or proceed under administrative proceedings. The Legal Services Corporation that generates dollars into our local community, in my instance, the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in Houston, Texas that I served as a board member on, argues for those who cannot speak for themselves. It argues for those who cannot afford the billable hours, and it provides the bare minimum quality of life issues that many of us take for granted. It works with families who do not have housing. It assists the homeless or those who are in transition, and it is interesting as we look at the history of the funding of Legal Services, it has had a very rocky history over these last couple of years. There has been no denial that it has not done good work, that it has not worked with those in the Indian population here in America, that it has not worked with mothers of children needing services, as I indicated, educational services, special education, housing, food services and mental health services. But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole Nation. [[Page H4974]] Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes them who deserve child support for their children. In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator Paul Wellstone in my district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact that they cannot get mental health services for their children because of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of their frustration, because of the lack of services. The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be determined. I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal. Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want each person in this Nation to have justice. I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It is a good amendment. Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I stood here in the same spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility. Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington should take on that responsibility. This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal role the Legal Service Corporation provides. In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much higher than reality. This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction. Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation. My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the program has not been authorized since the 1980s. We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that representation. But here is a program that the track record has not been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. {time} 1600 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million. Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two- thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence. Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me. Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off? I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get [[Page H4975]] people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the amendment. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens. Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity. The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity. I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines. The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys. So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society. To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities. Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill. Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year. The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate. We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding. So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way. Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented. I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people. Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less. {time} 1615 So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment. As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request. [[Page H4976]] It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system. Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children. The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud. I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important. When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court. A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care. As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together. Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future. But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later. So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world. However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million. What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available. Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests. Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income [[Page H4977]] people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves-- the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended. As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget. Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency. Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack. Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted. Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation. I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least. As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises. Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Counterterrorism Fund For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to stand here with the support of others to support this amendment. It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave women who step forward. In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children across this country, and we must continue this success. We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women. [[Page H4978]] While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong and brave women. help victims of domestic violence Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go. help children living in poverty Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find safe haven against violence in the home. The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take care of our children. senior citizens Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems. Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless. Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 4, after line 14, insert the following: site security reporting (including transfer of funds) For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000. Ms. DeGETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. {time} 1630 The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the surrounding communities. Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living near these facilities can be prepared. In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by the President last year. In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have occurred on American soil. Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use extremely dangerous materials. One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 2002. Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and criminals. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the funds to carry out this requirement. In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the Record. Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and secure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp of [[Page H4979]] my staff for their continued hard work on this important issue. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on this important issue. Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, but we have not had this study funded. This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her amendment. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and thank her for her good work. This amendment would help protect the public by funding a study of security of chemical facilities to help protect the public from releases of dangerous chemicals into the air. The Clean Air Act requires chemical facilities to develop risk management plans, including worst case accident scenarios, for the EPA. These plans were to be made available to the public so that anyone, fathers, mothers, coworkers, teachers, could learn about the potential for a chemical accident in his or her own community. Last year, concerns were raised that terrorists would use the worst case scenario information to attack chemical facilities. In response, this Congress passed and the President signed legislation restricting release of the information. In May, the administration released a proposed rule sharply restricting public access to the data on chemical hazards. Mr. Chairman, I remain skeptical of these severe limits on the public's right to know about chemical hazards in our community. Chemical accidents are a daily reality in this country, sometimes taking the lives of fellow workers, of neighbors, of parents, of children, of travelers, while terrorist attacks are rare, indeed. If these chemical facilities, however, are indeed tempting targets for terrorists, our focus should be on restricting terrorists' access to them, rather than restricting the public's access to information about them. Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry investigated several chemical sites and found it easy to walk in through unguarded gates and unattended entrances. This amendment will reprogram $750,000, as requested by the Attorney General, from the counterterrorism fund to carry out the study authorized last year by this body. If terrorism truly is a threat at chemical sites, this is a small amount of money to spend to investigate that risk. If terrorism is not enough of a threat to justify $750,000, I then question the restrictions that have been placed on community access to chemical accident information. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is funded. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, with the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us on this matter to secure funding for the Department of Justice to conduct the study, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $282,500,000, to remain available until expended. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern: In title I, in the item relating to ``General Administration--telecommunications carrier compliance fund'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $4,479,000)''. In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount insert ``(increased by $4,479,000)''. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment that will have a very positive impact on our country's economy. Quite simply, it will bring the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center Program from $8.89 million currently provided in this bill up to its authorized level of $13 million, and provide the President's budget request of $1 million for the SBA's National Women's Business Council up from the $595,000 currently in this bill. The total amount provided by this amendment to achieve these goals is $4.5 million. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be here today standing with my distinguished and bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender- McDonald), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). This is an issue we feel very passionately about, and urge all our colleagues to join us in providing expanded opportunity for women entrepreneurs that will strengthen our entire economy. According to the results of the 2000 Avon Global Women's Survey that polled 30,000 women from 33 countries, the top three factors that women across the world feel would improve their lives in the new millenium are, one, financial independence; two, equal job opportunities; and three, the ability to start one's own business. Here in the United States, we are living in the largest economic expansion in our Nation's history. Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all Americans benefit from and have the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity. Overall, women can and are succeeding in the business arena. In fact, women-owned businesses are a true American success story, growing twice as fast as all other businesses. As of 1999, there were 9.11 million women-owned businesses in the United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and employing 27.5 million workers. Yet, despite these impressive statistics, women entrepreneurs have lower levels of available credit than their male counterparts, and minority businesswomen are less likely than Caucasians to have bank credit. The Women's Business Centers program and the National Women's Business Council help push the doors open. For example, in my home State of Massachusetts, the Center for Women and Enterprise has served 1,200 women from a very wide spectrum of backgrounds, races, and ethnicities. Seventy percent of the Center's clients are single women, 32 percent are women of color, 44 percent are in the very low- or low- to-moderate income brackets. Sixty percent of these women are seeking to start their first businesses. Across the country, Women's Business Centers provide education, training, consulting, and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are Women's Business Centers in 46 States serving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large percentage of Center clients are women from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their own businesses without the assistance of a Women's Business Center. The Women's Business Centers' mission is empowerment. These centers [[Page H4980]] empower women by providing workshops and one-on-one consulting and mentoring for women business owners. Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have assisted over 100,000 women entrepreneurs start or expand their businesses. Past estimates show the program has created on average one new business and four new jobs for every 10,000 investment. By helping women to help themselves, these centers are strengthening the economy by creating locally-owned businesses and jobs, and by reaching out to new markets and new entrepreneurs, these centers are helping to ensure that our business community reflects our Nation's diversity. Yet, in spite of this progress, there are significant numbers of women entrepreneurs waiting and in need of these services. Mr. Chairman, let me now just say a few words about the National Women's Business Council. The Council is a bipartisan Federal Government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of counsel to the President and to Congress of economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council's goals include increasing access to capital and credit for women, increasing access to the Federal procurement market, strengthening the training and technical assistance networks, and facilitating alliances between policymakers and women business owners. In conclusion, let me just briefly give my colleagues a few facts about the offset for this amendment, which comes from the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, which is a program I support. Our $4.5 million amendment represents only 1.6 percent of this $282.5 million account. According to the committee report, this account is $72.5 million above the administration's request. Additionally, the House has already provided this $282.5 million in H.R. 3908, the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last March, and I am confident that the chairman of the Committee, with his powerful powers of persuasion, will insist that that stays in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of women's business and the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald amendment. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the hard work that he has dedicated to the people of the United States and to this legislation on the floor today. As a believer in fiscal responsibility, I understand that the appropriators have done the best that they could with the strict spending limits they have had to work within. Certain priorities were set within the committee. Funding was appropriated so that all of the pieces fit together. Unfortunately, the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council were significantly underfunded. The amendment we are offering today would do the following. First, it would bring the Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to the authorized level of $13 million. Secondly, it would provide $1 million as requested for the Small Business Administration's National Women's Business Council, an increase from its current level of $595,000. The offset for this increase comes from the Department of Justice's Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The lion's share of this $282.5 million account is new funding to reimburse the telecommunications industry for costs associated with modifying their networks as required under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA. The $282.5 million account is significantly above the administration's budgeted request. As I said earlier, I realize that there are very tight fiscal restraints in place. With that being said, it seems to make an enormous amount of sense to redirect to the Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council approximately $4.5 million, and still give the Department of Justice a considerable amount above their request to pay for additional expenses related to CALEA. {time} 1645 Women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other businesses. In California alone, there are over 1.2 million women-owned businesses accounting for 38 percent of all firms in the State and employing 3.8 million people. However, they are not making comparable progress in respect to government contracts. The National Women's Business Council is a government advisory panel designed to provide counsel to the administration on ways that we can support our women entrepreneurs. By providing advice on ways to promote initiatives to encourage capital and credit access for women-owned businesses, to strengthen training and technical assistance networks, and to increase access to the Federal procurement market, we are helping women work towards economic independence. As we are seeing more and more women-owned enterprises developing across the country, we are also hearing about the difficulties associated with finding capital to strengthen and grow those businesses. The Women's Business Center is the place that women go to find the tools they need to overcome these hurdles. The Women's Business Centers provide education, consulting, and access to capital for our women entrepreneurs. I have heard from businesswomen all over the country how important the program is. Many of the women who are being impacted by these programs are from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds. To their credit, they are doing exactly what has been preached in the halls of this very Congress. These women are taking responsibility for their lives and finding ways to contribute to their communities. The Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council are essential in this progress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for women. It is good for our communities. It is certainly good for our economy. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald, and Napolitano amendment. Now, that is a mouthful, but it is full of a lot of promise. This amendment will help the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States which are currently generating over $3.6 trillion in sales and employing 27.5 million workers throughout this country, most of whom are a lot of the welfare-to-work mothers. This amendment will increase funding for the Women's Business Center program from $8.9 million to levels of $13 million this Congress authorized last year. This amendment will also increase funding for the National Women's Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Empowerment and author of a similar amendment in 1998, I urge my colleagues to join me again in ensuring that women business owners are given the opportunity they need to develop their businesses and continue to nurture the growth of our national economy. The Women's Business Centers, or WBCs, provide education, training, consulting and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are 50 States that have WBCs with tens of thousands of entrepreneurs working each year. A large percentage of these WBC clients are women from low- income disadvantaged backgrounds wh

Summary:

All articles in House section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4973-H5032] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Just a few minutes ago, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the requests of Gary Graham for clemency and an opportunity for a new hearing. At this time, his execution is set for 6:00 p.m. today. Gary Graham continues to press his case to show his innocence and argues that witnesses that could have presented his case of innocence were not heard. Gary Graham, 17 years old, did not have the counsel that might have generated a trial that might have had the opportunity for fact finders to make a full and open decision. Justice in this Nation should not be determined by one's wealth, and although the Legal Services Corporation does not deal in criminal matters or death penalty cases, I use this day's tragedy to argue for the amendment before us, because it is important for the American people to understand that we are a Nation of laws. I believe the American people accept that. It is a voluntary system where we commit ourselves to be governed by laws. We seek to address our grievances by the legal system, and we go into courts or proceed under administrative proceedings. The Legal Services Corporation that generates dollars into our local community, in my instance, the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in Houston, Texas that I served as a board member on, argues for those who cannot speak for themselves. It argues for those who cannot afford the billable hours, and it provides the bare minimum quality of life issues that many of us take for granted. It works with families who do not have housing. It assists the homeless or those who are in transition, and it is interesting as we look at the history of the funding of Legal Services, it has had a very rocky history over these last couple of years. There has been no denial that it has not done good work, that it has not worked with those in the Indian population here in America, that it has not worked with mothers of children needing services, as I indicated, educational services, special education, housing, food services and mental health services. But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole Nation. [[Page H4974]] Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes them who deserve child support for their children. In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator Paul Wellstone in my district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact that they cannot get mental health services for their children because of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of their frustration, because of the lack of services. The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be determined. I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal. Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want each person in this Nation to have justice. I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It is a good amendment. Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I stood here in the same spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility. Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington should take on that responsibility. This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal role the Legal Service Corporation provides. In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much higher than reality. This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction. Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation. My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the program has not been authorized since the 1980s. We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that representation. But here is a program that the track record has not been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. {time} 1600 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million. Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two- thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence. Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me. Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off? I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get [[Page H4975]] people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the amendment. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens. Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity. The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity. I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines. The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys. So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society. To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities. Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill. Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year. The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate. We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding. So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way. Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented. I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people. Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less. {time} 1615 So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment. As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request. [[Page H4976]] It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system. Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children. The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud. I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important. When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court. A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care. As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together. Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future. But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later. So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world. However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million. What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available. Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests. Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income [[Page H4977]] people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves-- the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended. As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget. Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency. Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack. Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted. Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation. I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least. As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises. Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Counterterrorism Fund For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to stand here with the support of others to support this amendment. It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave women who step forward. In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children across this country, and we must continue this success. We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women. [[Page H4978]] While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong and brave women. help victims of domestic violence Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go. help children living in poverty Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find safe haven against violence in the home. The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take care of our children. senior citizens Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems. Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless. Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 4, after line 14, insert the following: site security reporting (including transfer of funds) For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000. Ms. DeGETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. {time} 1630 The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the surrounding communities. Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living near these facilities can be prepared. In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by the President last year. In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have occurred on American soil. Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use extremely dangerous materials. One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 2002. Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and criminals. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the funds to carry out this requirement. In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the Record. Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and secure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp of [[Page H4979]] my staff for their continued hard work on this important issue. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on this important issue. Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, but we have not had this study funded. This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her amendment. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and thank her for her good work. This amendment would help protect the public by funding a study of security of chemical facilities to help protect the public from releases of dangerous chemicals into the air. The Clean Air Act requires chemical facilities to develop risk management plans, including worst case accident scenarios, for the EPA. These plans were to be made available to the public so that anyone, fathers, mothers, coworkers, teachers, could learn about the potential for a chemical accident in his or her own community. Last year, concerns were raised that terrorists would use the worst case scenario information to attack chemical facilities. In response, this Congress passed and the President signed legislation restricting release of the information. In May, the administration released a proposed rule sharply restricting public access to the data on chemical hazards. Mr. Chairman, I remain skeptical of these severe limits on the public's right to know about chemical hazards in our community. Chemical accidents are a daily reality in this country, sometimes taking the lives of fellow workers, of neighbors, of parents, of children, of travelers, while terrorist attacks are rare, indeed. If these chemical facilities, however, are indeed tempting targets for terrorists, our focus should be on restricting terrorists' access to them, rather than restricting the public's access to information about them. Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry investigated several chemical sites and found it easy to walk in through unguarded gates and unattended entrances. This amendment will reprogram $750,000, as requested by the Attorney General, from the counterterrorism fund to carry out the study authorized last year by this body. If terrorism truly is a threat at chemical sites, this is a small amount of money to spend to investigate that risk. If terrorism is not enough of a threat to justify $750,000, I then question the restrictions that have been placed on community access to chemical accident information. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is funded. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, with the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us on this matter to secure funding for the Department of Justice to conduct the study, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $282,500,000, to remain available until expended. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern: In title I, in the item relating to ``General Administration--telecommunications carrier compliance fund'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $4,479,000)''. In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount insert ``(increased by $4,479,000)''. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment that will have a very positive impact on our country's economy. Quite simply, it will bring the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center Program from $8.89 million currently provided in this bill up to its authorized level of $13 million, and provide the President's budget request of $1 million for the SBA's National Women's Business Council up from the $595,000 currently in this bill. The total amount provided by this amendment to achieve these goals is $4.5 million. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be here today standing with my distinguished and bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender- McDonald), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). This is an issue we feel very passionately about, and urge all our colleagues to join us in providing expanded opportunity for women entrepreneurs that will strengthen our entire economy. According to the results of the 2000 Avon Global Women's Survey that polled 30,000 women from 33 countries, the top three factors that women across the world feel would improve their lives in the new millenium are, one, financial independence; two, equal job opportunities; and three, the ability to start one's own business. Here in the United States, we are living in the largest economic expansion in our Nation's history. Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all Americans benefit from and have the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity. Overall, women can and are succeeding in the business arena. In fact, women-owned businesses are a true American success story, growing twice as fast as all other businesses. As of 1999, there were 9.11 million women-owned businesses in the United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and employing 27.5 million workers. Yet, despite these impressive statistics, women entrepreneurs have lower levels of available credit than their male counterparts, and minority businesswomen are less likely than Caucasians to have bank credit. The Women's Business Centers program and the National Women's Business Council help push the doors open. For example, in my home State of Massachusetts, the Center for Women and Enterprise has served 1,200 women from a very wide spectrum of backgrounds, races, and ethnicities. Seventy percent of the Center's clients are single women, 32 percent are women of color, 44 percent are in the very low- or low- to-moderate income brackets. Sixty percent of these women are seeking to start their first businesses. Across the country, Women's Business Centers provide education, training, consulting, and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are Women's Business Centers in 46 States serving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large percentage of Center clients are women from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their own businesses without the assistance of a Women's Business Center. The Women's Business Centers' mission is empowerment. These centers [[Page H4980]] empower women by providing workshops and one-on-one consulting and mentoring for women business owners. Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have assisted over 100,000 women entrepreneurs start or expand their businesses. Past estimates show the program has created on average one new business and four new jobs for every 10,000 investment. By helping women to help themselves, these centers are strengthening the economy by creating locally-owned businesses and jobs, and by reaching out to new markets and new entrepreneurs, these centers are helping to ensure that our business community reflects our Nation's diversity. Yet, in spite of this progress, there are significant numbers of women entrepreneurs waiting and in need of these services. Mr. Chairman, let me now just say a few words about the National Women's Business Council. The Council is a bipartisan Federal Government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of counsel to the President and to Congress of economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council's goals include increasing access to capital and credit for women, increasing access to the Federal procurement market, strengthening the training and technical assistance networks, and facilitating alliances between policymakers and women business owners. In conclusion, let me just briefly give my colleagues a few facts about the offset for this amendment, which comes from the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, which is a program I support. Our $4.5 million amendment represents only 1.6 percent of this $282.5 million account. According to the committee report, this account is $72.5 million above the administration's request. Additionally, the House has already provided this $282.5 million in H.R. 3908, the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last March, and I am confident that the chairman of the Committee, with his powerful powers of persuasion, will insist that that stays in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of women's business and the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald amendment. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the hard work that he has dedicated to the people of the United States and to this legislation on the floor today. As a believer in fiscal responsibility, I understand that the appropriators have done the best that they could with the strict spending limits they have had to work within. Certain priorities were set within the committee. Funding was appropriated so that all of the pieces fit together. Unfortunately, the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council were significantly underfunded. The amendment we are offering today would do the following. First, it would bring the Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to the authorized level of $13 million. Secondly, it would provide $1 million as requested for the Small Business Administration's National Women's Business Council, an increase from its current level of $595,000. The offset for this increase comes from the Department of Justice's Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The lion's share of this $282.5 million account is new funding to reimburse the telecommunications industry for costs associated with modifying their networks as required under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA. The $282.5 million account is significantly above the administration's budgeted request. As I said earlier, I realize that there are very tight fiscal restraints in place. With that being said, it seems to make an enormous amount of sense to redirect to the Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council approximately $4.5 million, and still give the Department of Justice a considerable amount above their request to pay for additional expenses related to CALEA. {time} 1645 Women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other businesses. In California alone, there are over 1.2 million women-owned businesses accounting for 38 percent of all firms in the State and employing 3.8 million people. However, they are not making comparable progress in respect to government contracts. The National Women's Business Council is a government advisory panel designed to provide counsel to the administration on ways that we can support our women entrepreneurs. By providing advice on ways to promote initiatives to encourage capital and credit access for women-owned businesses, to strengthen training and technical assistance networks, and to increase access to the Federal procurement market, we are helping women work towards economic independence. As we are seeing more and more women-owned enterprises developing across the country, we are also hearing about the difficulties associated with finding capital to strengthen and grow those businesses. The Women's Business Center is the place that women go to find the tools they need to overcome these hurdles. The Women's Business Centers provide education, consulting, and access to capital for our women entrepreneurs. I have heard from businesswomen all over the country how important the program is. Many of the women who are being impacted by these programs are from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds. To their credit, they are doing exactly what has been preached in the halls of this very Congress. These women are taking responsibility for their lives and finding ways to contribute to their communities. The Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council are essential in this progress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for women. It is good for our communities. It is certainly good for our economy. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald, and Napolitano amendment. Now, that is a mouthful, but it is full of a lot of promise. This amendment will help the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States which are currently generating over $3.6 trillion in sales and employing 27.5 million workers throughout this country, most of whom are a lot of the welfare-to-work mothers. This amendment will increase funding for the Women's Business Center program from $8.9 million to levels of $13 million this Congress authorized last year. This amendment will also increase funding for the National Women's Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Empowerment and author of a similar amendment in 1998, I urge my colleagues to join me again in ensuring that women business owners are given the opportunity they need to develop their businesses and continue to nurture the growth of our national economy. The Women's Business Centers, or WBCs, provide education, training, consulting and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are 50 States that have WBCs with tens of thousands of entrepreneurs working each year. A large percentage of these WBC clients are women from low- income disadvantaged backgrounds who would be

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4973-H5032] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Just a few minutes ago, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the requests of Gary Graham for clemency and an opportunity for a new hearing. At this time, his execution is set for 6:00 p.m. today. Gary Graham continues to press his case to show his innocence and argues that witnesses that could have presented his case of innocence were not heard. Gary Graham, 17 years old, did not have the counsel that might have generated a trial that might have had the opportunity for fact finders to make a full and open decision. Justice in this Nation should not be determined by one's wealth, and although the Legal Services Corporation does not deal in criminal matters or death penalty cases, I use this day's tragedy to argue for the amendment before us, because it is important for the American people to understand that we are a Nation of laws. I believe the American people accept that. It is a voluntary system where we commit ourselves to be governed by laws. We seek to address our grievances by the legal system, and we go into courts or proceed under administrative proceedings. The Legal Services Corporation that generates dollars into our local community, in my instance, the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in Houston, Texas that I served as a board member on, argues for those who cannot speak for themselves. It argues for those who cannot afford the billable hours, and it provides the bare minimum quality of life issues that many of us take for granted. It works with families who do not have housing. It assists the homeless or those who are in transition, and it is interesting as we look at the history of the funding of Legal Services, it has had a very rocky history over these last couple of years. There has been no denial that it has not done good work, that it has not worked with those in the Indian population here in America, that it has not worked with mothers of children needing services, as I indicated, educational services, special education, housing, food services and mental health services. But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole Nation. [[Page H4974]] Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes them who deserve child support for their children. In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator Paul Wellstone in my district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact that they cannot get mental health services for their children because of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of their frustration, because of the lack of services. The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be determined. I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal. Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want each person in this Nation to have justice. I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It is a good amendment. Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I stood here in the same spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility. Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington should take on that responsibility. This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal role the Legal Service Corporation provides. In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much higher than reality. This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction. Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation. My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the program has not been authorized since the 1980s. We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that representation. But here is a program that the track record has not been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. {time} 1600 Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million. Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two- thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence. Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me. Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off? I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get [[Page H4975]] people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the amendment. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens. Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity. The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity. I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines. The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys. So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society. To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities. Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill. Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year. The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate. We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding. So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way. Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented. I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people. Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less. {time} 1615 So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment. As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request. [[Page H4976]] It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system. Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children. The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud. I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important. When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court. A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care. As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together. Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future. But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later. So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world. However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million. What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available. Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests. Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income [[Page H4977]] people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves-- the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended. As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget. Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency. Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack. Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted. Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation. I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least. As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises. Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Counterterrorism Fund For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to stand here with the support of others to support this amendment. It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave women who step forward. In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children across this country, and we must continue this success. We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women. [[Page H4978]] While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong and brave women. help victims of domestic violence Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male partners. The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go. help children living in poverty Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find safe haven against violence in the home. The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take care of our children. senior citizens Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems. Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless. Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 4, after line 14, insert the following: site security reporting (including transfer of funds) For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000. Ms. DeGETTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. {time} 1630 The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the surrounding communities. Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living near these facilities can be prepared. In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by the President last year. In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have occurred on American soil. Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use extremely dangerous materials. One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 2002. Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and criminals. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the funds to carry out this requirement. In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the Record. Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and secure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp of [[Page H4979]] my staff for their continued hard work on this important issue. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on this important issue. Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, but we have not had this study funded. This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her amendment. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and thank her for her good work. This amendment would help protect the public by funding a study of security of chemical facilities to help protect the public from releases of dangerous chemicals into the air. The Clean Air Act requires chemical facilities to develop risk management plans, including worst case accident scenarios, for the EPA. These plans were to be made available to the public so that anyone, fathers, mothers, coworkers, teachers, could learn about the potential for a chemical accident in his or her own community. Last year, concerns were raised that terrorists would use the worst case scenario information to attack chemical facilities. In response, this Congress passed and the President signed legislation restricting release of the information. In May, the administration released a proposed rule sharply restricting public access to the data on chemical hazards. Mr. Chairman, I remain skeptical of these severe limits on the public's right to know about chemical hazards in our community. Chemical accidents are a daily reality in this country, sometimes taking the lives of fellow workers, of neighbors, of parents, of children, of travelers, while terrorist attacks are rare, indeed. If these chemical facilities, however, are indeed tempting targets for terrorists, our focus should be on restricting terrorists' access to them, rather than restricting the public's access to information about them. Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry investigated several chemical sites and found it easy to walk in through unguarded gates and unattended entrances. This amendment will reprogram $750,000, as requested by the Attorney General, from the counterterrorism fund to carry out the study authorized last year by this body. If terrorism truly is a threat at chemical sites, this is a small amount of money to spend to investigate that risk. If terrorism is not enough of a threat to justify $750,000, I then question the restrictions that have been placed on community access to chemical accident information. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is funded. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, with the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us on this matter to secure funding for the Department of Justice to conduct the study, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? There was no objection. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $282,500,000, to remain available until expended. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern: In title I, in the item relating to ``General Administration--telecommunications carrier compliance fund'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $4,479,000)''. In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount insert ``(increased by $4,479,000)''. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment that will have a very positive impact on our country's economy. Quite simply, it will bring the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center Program from $8.89 million currently provided in this bill up to its authorized level of $13 million, and provide the President's budget request of $1 million for the SBA's National Women's Business Council up from the $595,000 currently in this bill. The total amount provided by this amendment to achieve these goals is $4.5 million. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be here today standing with my distinguished and bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender- McDonald), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). This is an issue we feel very passionately about, and urge all our colleagues to join us in providing expanded opportunity for women entrepreneurs that will strengthen our entire economy. According to the results of the 2000 Avon Global Women's Survey that polled 30,000 women from 33 countries, the top three factors that women across the world feel would improve their lives in the new millenium are, one, financial independence; two, equal job opportunities; and three, the ability to start one's own business. Here in the United States, we are living in the largest economic expansion in our Nation's history. Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all Americans benefit from and have the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity. Overall, women can and are succeeding in the business arena. In fact, women-owned businesses are a true American success story, growing twice as fast as all other businesses. As of 1999, there were 9.11 million women-owned businesses in the United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and employing 27.5 million workers. Yet, despite these impressive statistics, women entrepreneurs have lower levels of available credit than their male counterparts, and minority businesswomen are less likely than Caucasians to have bank credit. The Women's Business Centers program and the National Women's Business Council help push the doors open. For example, in my home State of Massachusetts, the Center for Women and Enterprise has served 1,200 women from a very wide spectrum of backgrounds, races, and ethnicities. Seventy percent of the Center's clients are single women, 32 percent are women of color, 44 percent are in the very low- or low- to-moderate income brackets. Sixty percent of these women are seeking to start their first businesses. Across the country, Women's Business Centers provide education, training, consulting, and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are Women's Business Centers in 46 States serving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large percentage of Center clients are women from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their own businesses without the assistance of a Women's Business Center. The Women's Business Centers' mission is empowerment. These centers [[Page H4980]] empower women by providing workshops and one-on-one consulting and mentoring for women business owners. Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have assisted over 100,000 women entrepreneurs start or expand their businesses. Past estimates show the program has created on average one new business and four new jobs for every 10,000 investment. By helping women to help themselves, these centers are strengthening the economy by creating locally-owned businesses and jobs, and by reaching out to new markets and new entrepreneurs, these centers are helping to ensure that our business community reflects our Nation's diversity. Yet, in spite of this progress, there are significant numbers of women entrepreneurs waiting and in need of these services. Mr. Chairman, let me now just say a few words about the National Women's Business Council. The Council is a bipartisan Federal Government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of counsel to the President and to Congress of economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council's goals include increasing access to capital and credit for women, increasing access to the Federal procurement market, strengthening the training and technical assistance networks, and facilitating alliances between policymakers and women business owners. In conclusion, let me just briefly give my colleagues a few facts about the offset for this amendment, which comes from the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, which is a program I support. Our $4.5 million amendment represents only 1.6 percent of this $282.5 million account. According to the committee report, this account is $72.5 million above the administration's request. Additionally, the House has already provided this $282.5 million in H.R. 3908, the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last March, and I am confident that the chairman of the Committee, with his powerful powers of persuasion, will insist that that stays in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of women's business and the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald amendment. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the hard work that he has dedicated to the people of the United States and to this legislation on the floor today. As a believer in fiscal responsibility, I understand that the appropriators have done the best that they could with the strict spending limits they have had to work within. Certain priorities were set within the committee. Funding was appropriated so that all of the pieces fit together. Unfortunately, the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council were significantly underfunded. The amendment we are offering today would do the following. First, it would bring the Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to the authorized level of $13 million. Secondly, it would provide $1 million as requested for the Small Business Administration's National Women's Business Council, an increase from its current level of $595,000. The offset for this increase comes from the Department of Justice's Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The lion's share of this $282.5 million account is new funding to reimburse the telecommunications industry for costs associated with modifying their networks as required under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA. The $282.5 million account is significantly above the administration's budgeted request. As I said earlier, I realize that there are very tight fiscal restraints in place. With that being said, it seems to make an enormous amount of sense to redirect to the Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council approximately $4.5 million, and still give the Department of Justice a considerable amount above their request to pay for additional expenses related to CALEA. {time} 1645 Women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other businesses. In California alone, there are over 1.2 million women-owned businesses accounting for 38 percent of all firms in the State and employing 3.8 million people. However, they are not making comparable progress in respect to government contracts. The National Women's Business Council is a government advisory panel designed to provide counsel to the administration on ways that we can support our women entrepreneurs. By providing advice on ways to promote initiatives to encourage capital and credit access for women-owned businesses, to strengthen training and technical assistance networks, and to increase access to the Federal procurement market, we are helping women work towards economic independence. As we are seeing more and more women-owned enterprises developing across the country, we are also hearing about the difficulties associated with finding capital to strengthen and grow those businesses. The Women's Business Center is the place that women go to find the tools they need to overcome these hurdles. The Women's Business Centers provide education, consulting, and access to capital for our women entrepreneurs. I have heard from businesswomen all over the country how important the program is. Many of the women who are being impacted by these programs are from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds. To their credit, they are doing exactly what has been preached in the halls of this very Congress. These women are taking responsibility for their lives and finding ways to contribute to their communities. The Women's Business Center and National Women's Business Council are essential in this progress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for women. It is good for our communities. It is certainly good for our economy. Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald, and Napolitano amendment. Now, that is a mouthful, but it is full of a lot of promise. This amendment will help the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States which are currently generating over $3.6 trillion in sales and employing 27.5 million workers throughout this country, most of whom are a lot of the welfare-to-work mothers. This amendment will increase funding for the Women's Business Center program from $8.9 million to levels of $13 million this Congress authorized last year. This amendment will also increase funding for the National Women's Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Empowerment and author of a similar amendment in 1998, I urge my colleagues to join me again in ensuring that women business owners are given the opportunity they need to develop their businesses and continue to nurture the growth of our national economy. The Women's Business Centers, or WBCs, provide education, training, consulting and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are 50 States that have WBCs with tens of thousands of entrepreneurs working each year. A large percentage of these WBC clients are women from low- income disadvantaged backgrounds wh