On the recordJune 2, 2015
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We just had an amendment on the floor and the amendment took $25 million from Legal Services. I had several amendments to file, and they went from $5 million for legal services up to $35 million. So what I thought might be the equitable thing to do would be, instead of going with the $35 million, which would have just been half of the cut, take the $25 million that Mr. Pittenger wanted to take away from them, take it away from the amendment that would have been best, the $35 million increase, and go for a $10 million increase, which would, in essence, be Mr. Pittenger's amendment against the amendment which would be a best practices that I would have recommended increasing $35 million. {time} 1930 This amendment would restore $10 million to the devastating cuts to Legal Services. Legal Services in 1995 was funded at $400 million. Just on inflationary dollars, today, that $400 million would be $600 million; yet, in this budget, Legal Services would be funded at $300 million, half of what it would be based on 1995 figures adjusted for inflation. We are proud of our legal system, and we are known for it all around the globe, but it can be complex. With all of the problems we have with the legal language, let alone just languages that we have in this Nation, it is too difficult for people to represent themselves in court.…





