Including outlays from prior years' budget authority enacted to date, total LSC outlays will be $310 million in 1981, $367 million in 1982, and $434 million in 1983, assuming the funding levels authorized in this bill. The costs of this bill fall within budget function 750. 6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that the full amounts authorized each year will be appropriated. Estimated outlays resulting from the authorizations are based on historical spending patterns for the Legal Services Corporation which indicate that 77 percent of each year's appropriation is spent in the first year, and the remaining 23 percent in the second year. 7. Estimate comparison: None. 8. Previous CBO estimate: None. 9. Estimate prepared by: Kathy Weiss. 10. Estimate approved by: James L. Blum, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW Made by the BILL, AS REPORTED In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): SECTION 1010 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ACT FINANCING SEC. 1010. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the Corporation, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 1975, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1976, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1977. There are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the Corporation $205,000,000 for the fiscal year 1978, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. There are authorized to be appropriated for purposes of carrying out the activities of the Corporation $321,300,000 for the fiscal year 1981, $380,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982, and $450,000,000 for the fiscal year 1983. The first appropriation may be made available to the Corporation at any time after six or more members of the Board have been appointed and qualified. Appropriations for that purpose shall be made for not more than two fiscal years, and shall be paid to the Corporation in annual installments at the beginning of each fiscal year in such amounts as may be specified in Acts of Congress making appropriations. 13 SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6386, AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION We are supporters of the goal of providing access to Justice for the nation's poor. However, there is a serious problem with the provisions of H.R. 6386, reauthorizing the Legal Services Corporation for three years. The problem is that there has been an increase in abortion-related litigation by Legal Services attorneys-especially actions challenging restrictions on public funding of abortions. This is contrary to the expressed views of the House of Representatives. In 1977, Congress overwhelmingly approved restricting Legal Services Corporation involvement in abortion-related litigation. That restriction-which was also contained in the original Legal Services Act of 1974-is as follows: 1007 (b) No funds made available by the Corporation, either by grant or contract, may be used (8) To provide legal assistance with respect to any proceeding or litigation which seeks to procure a nontherapeutic abortion, or to compel any individual or institution to perform an abortion, or assist in the performance of an abortion, or provide facilities for the performance of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such individual or institution. Legal Services officials argue that the restriction in the Act barring funds to provide legal assistance which "seeks to procure a nontherapeutic abortion" does not restrict activities where an abortion is deemed "medically necessary." Court decisions now interpret "medically necessary" to cover nearly any abortion. Thus, the Legal Services Corporation has been involved in a wide range of abortion-related litigation, contrary to what we believe was the intent of the Congress in placing the restriction in the 1974 legislation and retaining it in 1977. That intent, we believe, was to restrict Legal Services abortion-related legal activities to instances which involve the "life of the mother." An example of Legal Services' presence in non-therapeutic abortion litigation is the Zbaraz case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, the Legal Services Foundation of Chicago isin concert with other plaintiffs-challenging the constitutionality of Hyde Amendment-type restrictions which are in the state Medicaid laws. The remarks of former Congressman Froehlich-who authored the original restriction in 1974-bear out that he felt his restriction was a "life of the mother" type restriction. Subsequent interpretations of his language have ignored his views and have converted the restriction to a "medically necessary" restriction, which is no restriction in today's practice. These interpretations make it imperative that the abortion restriction in the Legal Services Act be strengthened to remove any ambiguity as to the intent of Congress. We regret that an Amendment offered by Mr. Mazzoli to tighten the abortion restriction was defeated during Committee consideration of H.R. 6386. The defeated language, parapharased, follows: 14 None of the funds authorized to be appropriated (pursuant to H.R. 6386) may be used (A) to provide legal assistance with respect to any proceeding or litigation relating to abortion, unless such abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother; or (B) to support in whole or in part any legal assistance activity of any attorney in connection with any proceeding or litigation relating to abortion, unless such abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the provision of legal advice to an eligible client with respect to such client's legal rights and responsibilities. We believe that the bill should be amended to add the language rejected by the Judiciary Committee. ROMANO L. Mazzoli. DAN LUNGREN. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr. HENRY J. HYDE. 15 DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. HAROLD L. VOLKMER At a time when fiscal restraint is required by the Federal Government, the Legal Services Corporation Authorization levels contained in H.R. 6386 for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, far exceed our ability to fund the program. The Committee, exercising restraint, reduced the authorization for fiscal year 1981 from $383,000,000 to $321,300,000, to bring this authorization level into compliance with the administration's request. This action still represents a 7 percent increase from 1980 levels. However, the committee then adopted an amendment authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 of $380,000,000 and $450,000,000 respectively. This represents a 20 percent increase for each succeeding year based upon the "current" inflation rate. This action does not constitute fiscal restraint but instead is a perpetuation of the inflationary mentality which we have made part of Federal spending policy. I do not believe that the Legal Services Corporation should be exempt from budgetary cuts we are demanding other Federal programs absorb. Accordingly, when H.R. 6389 comes to the floor I intend to offer an amendment to reduce these increases to more realistic figures. My amendment would provide authorization levels of $343,000,000 and $360,000,000 for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 respectively. This will represent a more modest 7 percent increase for 1982 and an additional 5 percent for 1983. If we are serious about reducing government spending there can be no exempt programs. This legislation represents one place we can see how determined we are to restrain spending. О HAROLD L. VOLKMER. 96TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (REPT. No. 962d Session 996, Part 2 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION AUTHORIZATION MAY 28, 1980.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. KASTEN MEIER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT [To accompany H.R. 6386] The material contained in House Report No. 96-996, part 1, commencing on page 10 with "INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT" and the succeeding paragraph should read as follows: "INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT "The bill will have no foreseeable inflationary impact on prices or costs in the operation of the national economy. "COMMITTEE VOTE "On February 7, 1980, H.R. 6386 was reported unanimously and without amendment by the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice. On April 16, 1980, the committee reported favorably H.R. 6386, as amended, by a recorded vote, 19-6, with 17 members being present." о |