Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation to disclose to the public and the LSC the most basic information about litigation in which LSC grantees are involved. I thought we had agreement on this. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who is one of the proponents of the Legal Services Corporations, and I had some lengthy discussions about this, and I thought the amendment had been agreed to, but the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], I understand, has some opposition, so we will probably have to get into a somewhat lengthy debate. The information that would be disclosed would be the name and the address of each party, the legal action, the cause of action, the name and address of the court in which the case is filed, and the case number assigned to the legal action. In those instances where an address and name are not disclosed for reasons of security, such as in the case of a battered wife or where children are abused, that information would not be disclosed because it is not currently disclosed, even though it is in the records in the courts. This basic information is not privileged, and as I said before, such information is on file currently in court records. Nothing disclosed would be in violation of the attorney-client privilege, and it is important to note that my amendment does not disclose any information that is not already public information. My amendment simply makes accessible what is highly unaccessible right now. Case disclosure will not be burdensome. According to the LSC budget request for fiscal year 1998, only 8 percent of the Legal Services caseload is litigated, requiring public disclosure. Basic information about the case being litigated would not constitute a burden on the resources of local programs. Now, here is why the amendment is needed, and I hope all of my colleagues are paying attention. Public disclosure of Government-funded activities is essential for honest, open Government. Other Government programs are subject to a variety of public disclosure requirements; for example, the Federal Election Commission. While the LSC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and other disclosure requirements, it is approximately 280 grantees that expend 97 percent of the LSC budget are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Given the large number of controversial and abusive cases that have been associated with the LSC over the past several years, in violation of congressional mandates, disclosure of cases would let the sun shine on the everyday work of the LSC. The LSC was funded at $283 million in 1997 over the objections of many of us. What kind of assurances does Congress get that the LSC is following guidelines and restrictions? The answer is clearly none. The American people want to know what their taxpayers' dollars are being spent on. As I said before, we are going to protect those who would be in jeopardy, such as battered children or wives. The LSC has not reformed itself and continues to disregard congressional intent. So I think this is a good amendment. I thought we had bipartisan support for it. Evidently we do have some objections. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, those are already records kept by the local LSC, but not disclosed unless you go through the national LSC.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But it is all kept now by the local LSC. We are not contesting what the gentleman is saying.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The only way we can get the information is to dig through court records or go to the national LSC, and we say we want to go to the local LSC. Now, actually, we are asking for more information than what the gentleman wants us to have, but we think that is part of the policing effort that is necessary to make sure they are accountable.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman from West Virginia; OK. In February 1997 the Legal Aid Society of Mercer County tried to win unemployment benefits for a man who lost his job because he was in jail. The man in question worked as a housekeeper at the Mercer Medical Center until he was arrested for aggravated assault and other charges. He spent 9 months in jail, and after his release the medical center refused to rehire him; they were afraid of this guy. Legal Services then filed suit seeking unemployment benefits for the guy. Legal Services claimed that he was owed unemployment because it was not his fault he lost the job. Can my colleagues believe that? That was done with taxpayers' dollars. All I can say is I can go into example after example after example of where the Legal Services Corporation has deliberately circumvented the will of the people and the will of the Congress of the United States, and they are doing it with taxpayers' dollars. We need to get a grip on this organization. We need to rein in the Legal Services Corporation, not give them more money as the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] wants to do or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] wants to do. We need to put some constraints on them. Now there are a number of organizations around this country that are voluntarily helping the indigent and the poor. In Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society was founded in 1941 and in 1995 received all of its $458,000 from private sources, not from the taxpayer. It handled over 6,079 cases at a cost of, get this, $75 a case, and it was not funded by the taxpayer, and they helped the people they really should be helping, the truly needy and the truly indigent, not these other people, not these social service cases, not these social cases that are designed to change the policies of our Government, not redistricting cases, but cases where they were really helping the poor and they did it at nontaxpayer expense. All I can say to my colleagues is let us get this Government out of the business of legal services, let us get it back in the private sector where it belongs, and let us help the people who truly need the help, the truly indigent.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I can give many more.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is very sincere, and he is one of my dearest and respected colleagues, but I would say to the gentleman that in April 1996, as I said previously, we implemented, and the President signed into law, restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation. I have here in my hand probably 6 to 10 examples in various States where the legal services Corporations have deliberately violated the laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President in April 1996. Now, the reason I wanted to just have this brief colloquy with the gentleman is that we need to put some kind of a mechanism in place that will penalize those legal services Corporations that are using taxpayers' dollars and then violating not just the intent of Congress, but the law passed by Congress.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if I may make one additional comment, first of all I can give you many other examples. I think you probably know that. If you want me to, I will. Second, while there are still violations, it is inconceivable to me we would increase the amount of the money going to Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. We were talking about $141 million. You wanted to go to 250. I do not understand why we reward them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to have a little dialog. In April 1996, the new rules regarding the Legal Services went into effect, in April 1996. The gentleman and others today here on the floor are going to say that they have been adhering to those. I have in front of me two examples. In August 1996, 4 months after the new rules went into effect, passed by this Congress, the Brooklyn Legal Services Corp stopped the eviction of a woman, even though they found 54 vials of crack cocaine and drug packaging in her apartment during a raid. So they were violating the rules 4 months after we passed them. Also in 1996, I could give you several examples where after these rules were put into effect the Legal Services Corporation violated the rules passed by this Congress.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what will be said on the floor today, the Legal Services Corporation continues to ignore congressional restrictions, and inappropriate activities continue to run rampant at taxpayers' expense. In fiscal year l996 Congress restricted the activities of Legal Services that they could engage in. These restrictions include the following: prohibition on redistricting activity; abortion litigation; prison litigation; welfare litigation; pro-union advocacy and union organizing; fee- generating cases; representation of housing tenants charged with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings had been begun as a result of their illegal drug activity; and a prohibition of representing most illegal aliens. Legal Services Corporations have made an art out of circumventing congressional restrictions, and yet Congress continues to allocate precious taxpayers' dollars in large amounts, and today they want to increase that. And what do we get in return? A failed Government bureaucracy, more interested in promoting a radical agenda than assisting the indigent in solving their problems. The Legal Services Corporation claims it has reformed and it adheres to congressional restrictions. Ask them, and they will say that the abuses are in the past. The Legal Services Corporation will say that they no longer represent prisoners, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and class actions in suits and the like. If this is true, and the Legal Services has reformed, if Legal Services is in good faith living up to its end of the bargain by complying with the congressional restrictions, then how do they explain the Legal Services Corporation's involvement in the following legal actions, all of which have occurred in the last 2 years, in which they challenge the congressional authority and the congressional mandates? Let me give my colleagues some examples: In August 1996, last year, Brooklyn Legal Services stopped the eviction of a woman even though police found 54 vials of crack cocaine and drug packaging during the raid on her apartment. That was last year, 54 vials, and they were trying to keep this woman from being evicted. In 1996, last year, Neighborhood Legal Services of Buffalo tried to get a man's supplemental Social Security, SSI, benefits on the grounds that his history of chronic alcoholism made him too tired and too nervous to work. That was thrown out about by a judge, but it went to court. In February of this year, 1997, the Legal Aid Society of Mercer County tried to win unemployment benefits for a man who lost his job because he was in jail.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Who objected? I am sorry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are at odds on this particular point we are talking about. What I am saying is where there is a violation of Legal Services and we know about it, I have some examples here, there ought to be a penalty imposed upon those agencies that are violating the law. Now, if we did that, we would find a lot of people that might take a little different approach to Legal Services, because these legal service organizations that have involved themselves in defending drug dealers and people who are deliberately breaking the law, if we did that, I think we could work together.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Ellis Island, NY, May 4.--Standing on the hallowed grounds of Ellis Island--the portal through which 17 million immigrants entered the United States--a cast of ethnic Americans who have made significant contributions to the life of this nation, among them President William Jefferson Clinton, NYS Attorney General Dennis Vacco, National Football League Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Little Caeser Enterprises Chairman Michael Illitch, today were presented with the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor at an emotionally uplifting ceremony. NECO's annual medal ceremony and reception on Ellis Island in New York Harbor is the Nation's largest celebration of ethnic pride. This year's event was dedicated to the memory of Albert Shanker, a 1995 Ellis Island Medal recipient and former President of the American Federation of Teachers and a Vice President of the AFL-CIO. Representing a rainbow of ethnic origins, this year's recipients received their awards in the shadow of the historic Great Hall, where the first footsteps were taken by the millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. in the latter part of the nineteenth century. ``Today we honor great ethnic Americans who, through their achievements and contributions, and in the spirit of their ethnic origins, have enriched this country and have become role models for future generations,'' said NECO Chairman William Denis Fugazy. ``In addition, we honor the immigrant experience--those who passed through this Great Hall decades ago, and the new immigrants who arrive on American soil seeking opportunity.'' Mr. Fugazy added, ``It doesn't matter how you got here or if you already were here. Ellis Island is a symbol of the freedom, diversity and opportunity--ingredients inherent in the fabric of this nation. Although many recipients have no familial ties to Ellis Island, their ancestors share similar histories of struggle and hope for a better life here. Established in 1986 by NECO, the Ellis Island Medals of Honor pay tribute to the ancestry groups that comprise America's unique cultural mosaic. To date, some 700 ethnic American citizens and native Americans have received medals. NECO is the largest organization of its kind in the U.S. serving as an umbrella group for 75 ethnic organizations and whose mandate is to preserve ethnic diversity, promote ethnic and religious equality, tolerance and harmony, and to combat injustice, hatred, and bigotry. Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients are selected each year through a national nomination process. Screening committees from NECO's member organizations select the final nominees, who are then considered by the Board of Directors. Past Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients have included several U.S. Presidents, entertainers, athletes, entrepreneurs, religious leaders and business executives, such as Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Bush, Richard Nixon, George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, Gloria Estefan, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Elie Wiesel, Muhammad Ali, Mickey Mantle, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Barbara Walters, Terry Anderson and Dr. Michael DeBakey. Congratulations to the 1997 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients. Beny Alagem, Israeli, business leader; Manfred Alstadt, German, business leader; Denis Andreuzzi, Italian, business leader; Stuart Appelbaum, Lithuanian/Russian, labor leader; Edward F. Arrigoni, Italian, business leader; Ralph A. Balzano, Italian, government official; Raphael Baron, Russian, business leader; Herbert F. Boeckmann, II, German, entrepreneur; William Bolster, English/Irish, media executive; J. Frank Brown, Irish, business leader; Young In Chung, Korean, community leader; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; Hon. Nicholas Coffinas, Hellenic, community leader; Joseph M. Cohen, Polish/Russian, business leader; Geneos Pete Cokinos, Hellenic, oil producer. Jerry Colangelo, Italian, business leader; Hon. Martin E. Connor, Irish, NYS senate minority leader; Daniel F. Cremins, Irish, business leader; Sr. Catherine Crumlish, RSM, Irish, community leader; Richard E. Dauch, German, manufacturing leader; J. Morton Davis, Hungarian/Polish, business leader/ author; Hon. Vincent A. Delorio, Italian, attorney; Ralph Destino, Italian, business leader; George Douris, Hellenic, business/community leader posthumous; Irma B. Elder, Syrian/ Mexican, business/community leader; Dr. Saul J. Farber, Lithuanian, physician/educator; Ralph D. Farkas, Israeli/ Czech, business leader; George Filios, Hellenic, business leader; Michael C. Finnegan, Esq., Irish, business/government leader; Edward Fredkin, Russian, scientist. Peter C. Gazes, MD, Hellenic, physician/educator; Peter A. Georgescu, Romanian, business leader; Kenneth J. Gorman, Irish, business leader; Salvatore, ``Sonny'' Grosso, Italian, television & movie producer; Rajat Gupta, Asian Indian, business leader; Marife Hernandez, Hispanic, civic leader; Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, CSC, German/Irish, president emeritus U. of Notre Dame; Thomas Y. Hobart, Jr., English/ German/Italian, labor leader; Harry G. Hohn, German/Irish, business leader; Hirair Hovnanian, Armenian, business/ community leader; Thomas M. Hricik, Slovak, fraternalist; Denis M. Hughes, Irish/Italian, labor leader; Michael Ilitch, Macedonian, business/community leader; Elham Jabiru-Shayota, Chaldean, business leader; Caroline R. Jones, African, business leader. Myong Y. Juch, Korean, business/community leader; Charles Kanakis, Jr., MD, Hellenic, physician/community leader; Constantine N. Kangles, Esq., Hellenic, attorney/publisher/ community leader; Adib Kassis, Lebanese, business/community leader; Henry Kaufman, German, business leader; John H. Klein, German/Irish, business leader; Herbert V. Kohler, Jr., Austrian, business leader; Kamil Kubik, Czech, artist; Andreas C. Kyprianides, Cypriot, community leader; John Lam, Chinese, business leader; Hon. John J. Leskovyansky, Slovak, community leader; Pamela Anagnos Liapakis, Hellenic, business leader; David W. Longaberger, German/Scottish, business leader; Earle I. Mack, Russian/ German, government official; Tony J. Mafoud, Lebanese, business leader. Leonard A. Mancusi, Italian, public official; Ronald Joseph Mannino, Italian, business leader; William J. Marino, Italian/Eng/Ire/Scot, business leader; William T. McCaffrey, Irish, business leader; Jim McCann, Irish, business leader; Hon. William A. McClain, African, religious/legal/community leader; Norman P. McClelland, Irish, business leader; Edward J. McElroy, Irish/Italian, labor leader; Michael A. McManus, Jr., Irish, business leader; Jerry D. McMorris, Italian/ Irish, business leader; Dennis Mehiel, Hellenic, business leader; Robert Meister, Russian, business leader; Frank Mercede, Italian, real estate developer; Ernest S. Micek, Polish, business leader; Nicholas G. Moore, Irish, business leader; Nikos Mouyiaris, Cypriot, business leader; Paul H. Mullan, Irish, business leader; Thomas V. Murphy, Irish, educator/ labor leader; Andrew Patrick O'Rourke, Irish, community leader; Frank A. Olson, Swedish, business leader; Hon. Louis J. Papan, Hellenic, member, California State Assembly; Panayiotis Papanicolaou, Cypriot, community leader; Philip E. Parker, Esq., Irish, business leader; Hon. Jeanine F. Pirro, Lebanese, chief law enforcement official; Carlos P. Portes, Cuban, community leader; Patrick J. Purcell, Irish, publisher; Nido R. Qubein, Lebanese, international consultant/author; James H. Quello, Italian, business leader; Stewart Rahr, Russian, business leader; Daniel Rappaport, German/Greek/Russian/Turkish, business leader; James A. Regas, Hellenic, business/community leader. Walter G. Rich, Scottish/Irish/English, business leader; Dennis Rivera, Puerto Rican/Irish, labor leader; Valerie B. Salembier, Russian, business leader; Naseeb M. Saliba, Lebanese, business leader; Marvin Samson, Russian, business leader; Dr. Joseph V. Scelsa, Italian, educator. Richard Dale Schultz, German/Irish, business leader/educator; Karen Silberman Scott, Russian, media executive; Hon. Peter Secchia, Italian, business leader; John J. Shalam, Middle Eastern, business leader; Michael J. Sherman, Eastern European, business leader; Stephen B. Siegel, Russian, business leader; Albert J. Simmons, African, business leader/ community activist; Anwar Soliman, Egyptian, business leader. Hon. John D. Spencer, Irish, mayor; Nicholas Anthony Spilotro, Italian, labor leader; H.E. Archbishop Spyridon, Hellenic, religious leader; Jose Suquet, Cuban, business leader; Dennis D. Swanson, Swedish/German/Irish/English, business leader; Paul Tagliabue, Italian, business leader; Martin James Tandler, Czech, business leader; George Tenet, Hellenic, CIA Director; Michael E. Tennenbaum, German/Russian, business/community leader; Albert N. Thompson, African, business leader; Hon. Vito Titone, Italian, judge; Thomas Ralph Tizzio, Italian, business leader. Robert J. Tomsich, Sloven, business leader; Louis R. Tomson, Eastern European, State executive; Richard Torrenzano, Italian, business leader; Savas C. Tsivicos, Cypriot, business/community leader; James G. Tsunis, Hellenic, business leader; Charles Uribe, Chilean, business leader; Hon. Dennis C. Vacco, Italian, NYS attorney general; Peter L. Venetis, Hellenic, business leader; Herbert N. Wallace, Esq., Latvian/Russian, attorney/business leader; Iris Walshin, Austrian/Russian/German, business leader; Scott R. Watterson, Danish/Eng/Welsh, business leader; Sam Hanna Zakhem, Lebanese, Ambassador.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago this Wednesday, a young teacher at a secondary school for girls in Calcutta, India, made a decision that was to later influence the lives of millions of people around the world. Close to the school is one of the great slums of Calcutta. She could not close her eyes any longer. Who cares for this poor living in the streets, she asked? It was upon this revelation that Mother Teresa, then Sister Teresa, really heard God's voice calling and His message was clear. She had to leave the convent to help the poorest of the poor, not just to work with the poor but to live among them, to live on rice and salt like the poor had to live. Sister Teresa said, ``It was an order, a duty, an absolute certainty.'' On September 10, 1937, Sister Teresa decided to leave the convent in Calcutta and make what she later said to be the most important journey of her life, to a distant city at the feet of the Himalayan Mountains. The thirst for her heart by so many of the world's unfortunate called her to form the Missionaries of Charity, a religious order based in Calcutta, India. She created an international network of shelters for the poor, the sick, and the dying that now stretch from Calcutta to New York. Of her Sisters of Charity, she said this: We are not social workers. There are a lot of institutions caring for the sick. We do not want to be among them. We are not another organization of social service. We have to be more, to give more, we have to give ourselves. We have to bring God's love to the people by our service. And the poor have taught us what it really means to love and serve God. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in mourning Mother Teresa's passing. We have lost a great woman, perhaps nearest to sainthood that we know, but heaven has gained a pure soul. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, why she so often takes a back seat to other notables in today's media, not only in her passing but in her work throughout her blessed life. Was it because she did not keep the company of aristocrats or run in the posh circles of the glamorous while she selflessly cared for the needy? And I do not raise the issue because the Sisters of Charity are looking for media exposure. They do not ask for it. They do not wish it. But what does it say about our society today when someone who cared for so many is overshadowed because she does not draw enough ratings to command a week's worth of coverage on television? It tells me she represents that which we find difficult to face, ourselves, our own failures, selfishness and cowardice, our own imperfections. We fail where she succeeded because we refuse to make the time to reach out and help our neighbors. For her service and sacrifice, Mother Teresa was awarded most notably the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. If we accept her as its recipient, then we should accept what she said when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize: Abortion is the worst evil in the world. The life of a child that still has to be born or the life of the poor whom we meet in the streets of Calcutta, Rome or anywhere else in the world, the life of children or adults is the same life. It is our life, it is a gift of God. Countries that allow abortion are poor because they do not have the courage to accept one more life. That is why it is altogether fitting and proper that we honor her for who she was. Let us not forget what she stood for. To hide or mask this only does Mother Teresa, her years of selfless giving and the millions she comforted a tremendous disservice. Mr. Speaker, while she would never accept it, she deserves to be honored by this body and this Nation in this way. It is truly the least we could do on her death. Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will not see the rich, the famous or the glamorous walking in the processional behind Mother Teresa's casket this weekend. Instead I imagine we will witness the poor, the unwanted, the unloved, the uncared for and the untouchables marching behind a woman whom some say was the pencil of God. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. (Mr. Hyde asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his participation, and all of my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment, I believe. My cosponsor is the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette]. This regards the We The People program, and the goal of the We The People Program is the most fundamental of American purposes, the perpetuation of American democracy. The We The People Program is conducted across our Nation in elementary, middle, and high schools, preparing students to take their civic obligations very seriously. The program's material grounds students in the basic text of American democracy, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, and follow the development of American constitutional principles throughout our Nation's history. Since its inception 9 years ago, more than 22.6 million students have studied and benefited from the We The People Program, and at least 70,000 teachers have utilized their materials. The $5.5 million funding level provided for in this amendment was originally proposed in the President's budget and was supported by 62 Members from 32 States that signed a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, supporting the $5.5 million level. Members other than myself who have testified on behalf of this program include the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. Every Federal dollar for this worthy program secures at least $10 in matching support from the private sector. There is a 10 to 1 ratio from the private sector for this program. The CBO has scored this amendment as revenue neutral or negative. This is offset by a transfer of funds from another area on page 44, line 24, where we are decreasing the amount by $1 million and adding $1 million after the first dollar amount on page 73, line 15. Mr. Chairman, we believe this is a worthwhile project. It is one that everybody in the country I think would support, almost without exception. Young people today really need to know about the Constitution. They really need to understand what the Federalist Papers were all about. They need to understand the Bill of Rights. This program shows by its history that it is very worthwhile and benefits everybody in this country, but particularly our young people.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.