Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55032154
label
Legal Services Corporation [Folder 2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55032154
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Legal Services Corporation [Folder 2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55032154
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
2068127-20130534S-122-004-2022
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
075390e09ff25b85
ocrText
THE WASHINGTON POST
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
By Sarah Neville
cost of legal representation for America's wealthiest in-
Washington Post Staff Writer
dividuals and that a world away from the glitz and proce-
The future of the Legal Services Corp. is in the bal-
dural maneuvering of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, Le-
ance as the Senate prepares to vote on a bill that could
gal Services Corp. lawyers defend America's poor.
radically reduce funding for the agency that provides
At the Brooklyn neighborhood office of the New York
free legal service to America's poor.
Legal Aid Society's Homeless Family Rights Project,
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), a can-
which is partly funded by the LSC, attorney Jose Perez
didate for the Republican presidential nomination, and
copes with a parade of people seeking resolution of hous-
which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on
ing and welfare problems.
Tuesday, would reduce funding for the Legal Services
On an Indian reservation in the heart of rural Arizona,
Corp. from $400 million to $210 million and channel the
funds through block grants to the state.
Sarah Krakoff practices law from an office in a communi-
If the full Senate approves the measure, an LSC
ty center where scorpions are a regular hazard.
Legal Services Faces Cuts in Funds, Authority
spokesman said, "The corporation would be left with nei-
"Whatever one thinks of a particular trial or lawyer we
Corporation Set Up to Help Fight for Rights of the Indigent Is Target of Christian Conservatives
ther funding nor function."
are the key to the access to the system," said Legal Ser-
The $22 billion appropriations bill, which also funds
vices Corp. President Alex Forger.
the Commerce, State, and Justice departments, also
But two powerful groups are pressuring for the corpo-
would impose a range of restrictions that would bar the
ration's demise: the Christian Coalition and the Ameri-
use of federal funds for divorces and in cases concerning
can Farm Bureau Federation.
discrimination in housing and hiring, consumer fraud and
Coalition executive director Ralph Reed, who has is-
defective products, utility shutoffs, patients' rights and
sued a written appeal to his members to lobby their rep-
adoptions.
resentatives for abolition of the corporation, protests its
Under the bill, Legal Services Corp. lawyers also
involvement in divorces for poor women. He says: "We
would be forbidden to engage in litigation to obtain wel-
would obviously not be in favor of a woman remaining in
fare benefits even where individuals were legally entitled
to it. And no LSC money could be used to fund class ac-
an abusive or violent marriage. What we are complaining
tion suits against state, local or federal governments, a
about is the systematic subsidy for the break-up of fami-
move that the independent Center for Law and Social
lies in the inner cities."
Policy argues "deprives the poor of access to the justice
Reed shares with the Farm Bureau a conviction that
system and creates a second-class system of justice for
LSC attorneys systematically flout the rules under which
them."
the agency was established by engaging in political advo-
Clients also would be forbidden to challenge the con-
cacy.
stitutionality of any statute. A spokesman for the Legal
Bryan Little, the bureau's director for intergovern-
Services Corp. described that as "a fairly startling con-
mental relations, claims rather than just providing legal
cept, that you may not challenge the law.'
services to the indigent, Legal Services Corp. lawyers
Funding for programs that serve migrant workers and
spend much of their time pursuing "frivolous" cases un-
native Americans would be eliminated.
der the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act in
Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee approved a
which only small amounts of unpaid wages or benefits
similar bill sponsored by Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.)
are at stake.
that also would curtail the agency's activities but pro-
Steven Banks, coordinating attorney for the Homeless
vides funding for divorces. Earlier, House appropriators
Family Rights Project, strongly rejects the allegation
voted to fund the agency at $278 million, a higher level
that he and his colleagues indulge in political activism at
than the Senate.
taxpayers' expense. He also rejects the "radical" tag, ar-
Yesterday at an emotional news conference organized
guing, "All of our work is essentially conservative in na-
by the American Bar Association, church leaders and vic-
tims of marital and child abuse called on Congress to
ture because these types of cases only seek to enforce
the law.
save the Legal Services Corp.
ABA President Roberta Cooper Ramo said, "The pro-
While serving as Republican senator from New Hamp-
posals would severely reduce or eliminate the ability of
shire, Warren B. Rudman fought almost single-handedly
lawyers for the poor to address through the legal system
to keep the program alive. He questions the rigor of
problems of domestic violence, homelessness, inade-
some of the restrictions being proposed by members of
quate medical care, consumer fraud and a myriad of oth-
his party and the move to ban funding of class-action
er problems."
suits.
LSC supporters hope the appropriations bill will be
"Poor people also belong to classes occasionally," he
ainended on the Senate floor to eliminate block grant
said.
funding and allow funding for divorces. To its detractors
the Legal Services Corp. represents the worst excesses
of big government, staffed by liberal litigators who cru-
sade to change rather than just enforce the law.
But its supporters argue the LSC embodies the consti-
tutional right to equal justice under the law. They say its
meager funding is dwarfed by tax breaks that offset the
THE WASHINGTON POST
LEGAL SERVICES AT A GLANCE
Family
33%
FOUNDED by Congress in
1974 to ensure poor
Americans receive equal
access to justice.
FUNDS 323 programs
operating more than 1,200
neighborhood law offices
and employing 11,000
SERVES 1.7 million clients
STAFF: Just over 100 at Washington
STARTING SALARY: $25,337 is the average for
TYPES OF LEGAL SERVICES CASES
CLOSED IN 1994
Housing
22%
people.
annually.
administrative office.
entry-level attorneys.
Other
18%
Consumer
Income
maintenance
16%
SOURCE: Legal Services Corp.
THE WASHINGTON POST
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
UNITED
STATES.
will not be without a very difficult,
mean fight."
INSIDE:
AGENCY
Browner apparently failed to re-
assure the crowd.
EPA
"She was very condescending to
PROTECTION
us," Welch said afterward. While
EPA management is making contin-
gency plans for some layoffs, he
Anxious Workers Given
said, they have neglected to pursue
other options, such as cutting some
contract workers. "There's been no
sense of partnership in the way that
No Assurances on Jobs
management is dealing with us," he
added.
In response, Browner said that
According to federal personnel
since the proposed budget cuts are
By Gary Lee
rules, furloughs and other staff re-
tied to specific programs, she has
Washington Post Staff Writer
ductions cannot be imposed until
little control over which, if any, of-
During a chance meeting with
temporary employees are let go.
fices will be reduced or jobs will be
Environmental Protection Agency
"Regulations require us to make
terminated. "We would like to work
Administrator Carol M. Browner
some moves," Browner explained. "I
with Congress," she said, "but that's
earlier this week, an agency staff
was sorry to have to do it."
impossible if they don't share our
member seized the opportunity to
In response, the agency is suffer-
commitment to environmental pro-
ask a burning question: "By the end
ing a bad case of jitters. "Everybody
tection."
of this month, will I still have a job?"
is depressed and anxious," said
With a staff of 18,500, including
Unable to give the reassurances
Dwight Welch, a senior EPA biolo-
several thousand employees in field
the employee sought, Browner
gist and union organizer for profes-
offices across the country, the EPA
paused. "We're fighting," she finally
sional employees. "It's all we're
is less prepared than agencies who
said.
talking about."
have many more employees to ab-
The exchange, which took place
"We've become used to Congress
sorb the reductions. Beyond reduc-
in an EPA elevator, reflects the
using us as a political football," add-
ing staff, the cuts could also drive
somber mood hanging over the
ed Steve Spiegel, an attorney in the
some of the best environmental spe-
agency's Southwest Washington
agency's office of enforcement.
cialists in the agency into the pri-
headquarters.
vate sector.
With Congress moving to slash
The agency may take years to re-
the EPA's budget by a third, thou-
sands of employees are bracing for
We barely able
cover from the cuts, officials say. In
massive cuts in the agency's staff
the early 1980s, when then-EPA
and programs. By year's end, as
to protect the
Administrator Ann Gorsuch re-
many as 5,000 of the EPA's staff
environment with
duced the agency's budget by 25
members may be out of work. Even
percent, the staff fell from 13,000
if such dramatic layoffs are avoided,
the bitter, ongoing congressional
the money and
to 11,000. Since 1983, the staff has
gradually grown to the current lev-
fight over the agency's budget could
staff that we have.
el.
bring a protracted shutdown, which
More than jobs are at stake. The
would mean furloughs and lost pay
It will be
proposed budget includes a 50 per-
for thousands of employees.
cent cut in the agency's budget for
Tensions at the agency began to
impossible under
enforcing federal environmental
rise in August, when the House vot-
laws, a 36 percent reduction in the
ed a 34 percent cut in the EPA's
the situation that
budget for cleanup of toxic waste
budget. The Senate is weighing a
dumps and $600 million decrease in
23 percent budget cut from the
Clinton administration's proposal,
they're proposing."
funding for removing raw sewage
from rivers and lakes.
which would put the budget at
- EPA attorney Steve Spiegel
"We're barely able to protect the
$5.66 billion for fiscal year 1996. A
Senate floor vote is expected before
"But this time they're displaying a
environment with the money and
the end of September, followed by a
total disregard for the welfare of
staff that we have," said Spiegel. "It
conference debate to resolve the
the country and the work we're do-
will be impossible under the situa-
differences.
ing to protect and preserve it.".
tion that they're proposing."
Already, Browner has informed
In an attempt to allay fears,
As the budget ax comes closer,
450 temporary workers that their
Browner and deputy administrator
some EPA staffers are not waiting
jobs will be terminated, including
Fred Hanson held an outdoor town
for it to fall. "The more recent em-
300 who were hired in a work-study
meeting for agency employees on
ployees in particular see the hand-
program designed as an incentive to
Monday. "We will fight any cut that
writing on the wall," explained
keep students from dropping out of
denies us the ability to keep the en-
Welch.
area high schools and colleges. She
vironment safe for the American
"They're already sending out re-
has also imposed across-the-board
people," she said then. "I believe
sumes and looking for other possi-
freezes on hiring and promotions.
that ultimately we will prevail, but it
bilities."
002
NIADA
06/24/96 MON 14:56 FAX 202 872 1031
ALIEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMENDMENT
PERMITTING REPRESENTATION WITH NON-LSC FUNDS
Senator Kennedy will introduce an amendment to permit recipients to use
non-LSC funds to represent (1) aliens who have been battered or subject to extreme
cruelty by a spouse, parent or family member and (2) aliens whose children have
been battered or subject to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse, parent
or other family member.
Section 17 of S. 1221 permits representation of certain aliens but does not
permit representation of all aliens or their children who are subject to battering or
extreme cruelty. Currently, recipients can use non-LSC funds to provide such
representation. This amendment would restore the status quo and permit such
representation with non-LSC funds.
The amendment should be supported for the following reasons:
1.
Aliens or their children residing in the U.S. who have been battered
or subjected to extreme cruelty because of a spouse, parent or other family
member often need immediate legal assistance in order to prevent future harm to
themselves or their children. When they come to a legal services office they are in a
crisis situation and have nowhere else to turn for critical help in prevent further
battering or cruelty. Legal services lawyers should be able to provide such
assistance to all such persons in order to prevent future harm and should not have to
determine and document whether they are eligible under the alien categories of S.
1221.
2.
Alien women should be able to seek assistance from LSC recipients to
file a petition for a permanent resident visa for themselves under the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). This Act provides an exception for women who
can show that they have been subject to extreme cruelty or physical violence. They
can petition for a permanent resident visa. Normally such petitions are filed by the
US citizen or permanent resident spouse and are contingent on the continuation of a
marriage. Without the assistance of legal services, poor alien women who have
been battered or subject to extreme cruelty will not be able to utilize the
protections of the VAWA.
3.
Alien women should also be able to obtain legal assistance to seek
06/24/96 MON 14:57 FAX 202 872 1031
NLADA
003
suspension of deportation under the residency requirements for battered immigrant
women under VAWA. Suspension of deportation is very important in domestic
abuse cases involving immigrant women, because they need to stay in the country
to prosecute their husbands for the abuse, or to obtain custody of their
children. If the woman is deported to another country, the state no longer has
jurisdiction over her and abuse cases are not addressed. In addition, when a women
is out of a state's jurisdiction, any civil protection or child custody orders are not
enforceable. Providing legal assistance to such women to help them obtain
suspension of deportation is a critically important step in helping battered women
and their children.
2002
06/24/96 WIV 14:56 FAX 202 872 1031
NLADA
ALIEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMENDMENT
PERMITTING REPRESENTATION WITH NON-LSC FUNDS
Senator Kennedy will introduce an amendment to permit recipients to use
non-LSC funds to represent (1) aliens who have been battered or subject to extreme
cruelty by a spouse, parent or family member and (2) aliens whose children have
been battered or subject to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse, parent
or other family member.
Section 17 of S. 1221 permits representation of certain aliens but does not
permit representation of all aliens or their children who are subject to battering or
extreme cruelty. Currently, recipients can use non-LSC funds to provide such
representation. This amendment would restore the status quo and permit such
representation with non-LSC funds.
The amendment should be supported for the following reasons:
1.
Aliens or their children residing in the U.S. who have been battered
or subjected to extreme cruelty because of a spouse, parent or other family
member often need immediate legal assistance in order to prevent future harm to
themselves or their children. When they come to a legal services office they are in a
crisis situation and have nowhere else to turn for critical help in prevent further
battering or cruelty. Legal services lawyers should be able to provide such
assistance to all such persons in order to prevent future harın and should not have to
determine and document whether they are eligible under the alien categories of S.
1221.
2.
Alien women should be able to seek assistance from LSC recipients to
file a petition for a permanent resident visa for themselves under the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). This Act provides an exception for women who
can show that they have been subject to extreme cruelty or physical violence. They
can petition for a permanent resident visa. Normally such petitions are filed by the
US citizen or permanent resident spouse and are contingent on the continuation of a
marriage. Without the assistance of legal services, poor alien women who have
been battered or subject to extreme cruelty will not be able to utilize the
protections of the VAWA.
3.
Alien women should also be able to obtain legal assistance to seek
06/24/96 MON 14:57 FAX 202 572 1031
NADA
003
suspension of deportation under the residency requirements for battered immigrant
women under VAWA. Suspension of deportation is very important in domestic
abuse cases involving immigrant women, because they need to stay in the country
to prosecute their husbands for the abuse, or to obtain custody of their
children. If the woman is deported to another country, the state no longer has
jurisdiction over her and abuse cases are not addressed. In addition, when a women
is out of a state's jurisdiction, any civil protection or child custody orders are not
enforceable. Providing legal assistance to such women to help them obtain
suspension of deportation is a critically important step in helping battered women
and their children.
002
03/04/96
17:10
202 224 7042
SUBCOM GEN FED
WILLIAM S. COHEN
MAINE
United States Senate
Copus to
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1901
March 4, 1996
Foley, Len, Kuffer,
The President
Haun Schwarts,
The White House
Melenae Verver
Washington, D.C. 20500
From Bf
Dear Mr. President:
Lian
As the attached letter to Senator Hatfield indicates, there is support among a group
of Republican Senators to reduce the proposed budget cut for the Legal Services
Corporation and relieve the restrictions that the vetoed appropriation bill would have
placed on legal services organizations. I will continue to work toward achieving these
goals during the appropriations process. I hope you will attempt to further these ends as
well in negotiations over the 1996 budget.
With warmest regards, I am
LSC - doesn't
Peed William S. Cohen
Sincerely,
Comply in intent &
asking congrest
Interem regs
United States Senator
comment Can't an ate
Enclosure
intent
WSC:dhs Kennedy CR recede to H CR
*
puloncr if
where's Hatfield
Melanne Verveer
X
from 250-H amerdment?
hegha- go for 300
to
$288
+
fall borh
Hold
expecies: 278
H: 250
unlikely - canf
for cartention
003
SUBCOM GEN FED
03/04/96
17:11
202 224 7042
WILLIAM S. COHEN
MAINE
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1901
March 1, 1996
The Honorable Mark (). Hatfield
Chairman
Senate Appropriations Committee
United States Capitol, Rra. S-128
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mark:
Wc are writing as supporters of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). It is our
understanding that an omnibus continuing resolution may be proposed to provide funding
for the remainder of the year to departments that have not yet received their annual
appropriation. In the event this occurs, we urge you to negotiate with the Administration
and the House for legislation that will enable legal services organizations across the
country to continue providing high quality legal representation to the most needy and
vulnerable of our citizens.
As to funding, we support the original Senate position of a $340 million
appropriation for the LSC. While we understand that compromise is necessary, we hope
that the eventual appropriation will bc much closer to the original Senate position than the
$278 million approved in the conference report to the CJS Appropriations Bill.
Our primary purpose in writing is to express our support for limiting the
restrictions that the resolution will place on recipients of LSC funds. In the past,
Congress has restricted the purposes for which federal funds distributed by LSC could be
used. Legal services organizations that received LSC grants, however, have always bcen
free to use funds obtained from other sources, such as state governments. bar associations,
and private donors, as they saw fit. The original CJS Appropriations Bill, however,
would have placed 19 separate restrictions on the activities of any legal services
organization that received federal funds, effectively precluding them from choosing how
to spend their non-federal funds. In our view, this unwarranted federal mandate nins
entircly counter to the prevailing sentiment that the federal government should be
minimizing the extent to which it interferes with state governments and private
organizations. Moreover, during this period of scarce federal resources, we should be
encouraging, not discouraging the development of alternative funding sources for legal
services.
004
03/04/96 17:11
202 224 7042
SUBCOM GEN FED
The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield
March 1, 1996
Page 2
Wc urge you to negotiate for an LSC appropriation that provides legal services
organizations with discretion 10 spend their own funds in a manner that they believe will
best serve the indigent citizens in their own communities.
Sincerely,
Tillen
Pilm Rect
charges
Jim Jfford
criteria, more caseload reductions,
threaten life or shelter."
a weapon involved?' I'm afraid we're
and more skeletal forms of service.
Often in the past, legal ser-
sending the message that some
"We're doing a kind of triage,"
vices couldn't take on divorce cases
level of violence is acceptable."
laments Phyllis Holmen, executive
unless spousal abuse was involved.
Client populations, whose legal
director of the Georgia Legal Ser-
"Now," says Paula Zimmer,
needs were estimated as being met
vices Program based in Atlanta,
president of Legal Services Associa-
only 20 percent of the time prior to
which so far lost a fourth of its
tion of Michigan, an ad hoc group
the cuts, can expect to receive hast-
staff, going from 185 to 139 in the
representing the state's legal aid of-
ier, more cursory representation, or
past year. "We're only taking emer-
fices, "we have to ask, 'How many
none at all.
gency cases, meaning those that
times were you hit? And was there
Rural Legal Services of Ten-
COMMENTARY
Don't Let Them Kill the LSC
and compassion.
Does it serve a left-wing agenda to
help a farmer in Missouri who is
threatened with losing his farm because
BY JOHN J. CURTIN JR.
Legal Services Corp. is
an illness has led to a fight with an
far from over. The battle
insurance company? There were 250,000
We spend a lot of time
to protect access to
improper farm foreclosures by the
talking about tort reform and
justice is not over.
Federal Housing Administration in the
about improving the civil
last decade.
justice system. Too often,
Ongoing Battles
Is it anti-family to help a young
these discussions are
The effort to kill
woman seek a divorce from and
centered on big cases,
LSC is as old as the act
protective order against an abusive
complex litigation and big
itself. Twenty-one years
husband, to work to ensure that a
money matters. For too many
ago when the original
divorced father meet his obligations to his
Americans, however, the
Legal Services Corp. Act
own children?
legal system is not a matter of
was before Congress, the
Are we really at the point where we
dollars and cents-it is a
very concept was
defeat the will of the American people if
matter of life and death.
attacked.
we demand that reforms of government
Our support for local legal services
Some said that creating local legal
programs meet a simple test-that they
programs funded through the Legal
services programs would allow members
be constitutional?
Services Corp. is, at its core, support for
of the bar to escape their pro bono
Yes, legal services lawyers have
people in these life and death situations.
obligations, that creating a federal
offended many. Because of their success,
It is about providing people a measure of
program would only increase litigation.
the LSC will continue to be under siege.
dignity in dealing with their most difficult
Some even said there really was no need
There are those on Capitol Hill who
problems.
for free legal services.
would strip the Legal Services Corp. of
Last year, lawyers around the
In the 1981 campaign to kill the
any funding in favor of block grants
country rallied to save the LSC. Despite
program, there was a new twist to an old
directly to states. Yet even under ideal
some claims to the contrary, the LSC
argument. Critics said then that local
conditions, block grants would provide far
remains alive. Yes, the LSC now has
legal services programs were the tools of
fewer resources than are necessary to
fewer resources-a cut from $400 million
the ideological left, that programs were
meet even the baseline of legal services
to $278 nationally. Local legal services
being directed by 1960s radicals forcing
to the poor.
lawyers are further restricted in the work
their agenda through class action
they can do. But we still believe that the
lawsuits and politically motivated
Opponents Are Active
LSC even with less money and more
litigation.
The recently imposed restrictions
restrictions-is worth saving.
In the past several months, the
on local programs make clear that
This "saving" in and of itself is no
historic opponents of legal services have
opponents of legal services will try to kill
small feat. Many had predicted and
added new arguments to the old, that
the LSC, using the strategy of "death by a
worked for the demise of the LSC. One
local legal services programs are anti-
thousand cuts."
senator, at least according to a story that
farnily-fostering divorces.
If you still doubt that our battle to
may be apocryphal, was quoted last year
Opponents charge that legal
save the Legal Services Corporation is
as saying that even prayer would not save
services programs are destructive to the
really a battle to preserve legal services
the LSC. But prayer, hard work and the
community, more concerned with
for the poor, consider this. Local legal
collective commitment of thousands of
defending drug dealers than with
services programs are now prohibited
Lawyers from across the country paid off
cleaning up inner-city housing projects.
from using money they raise on their own
-in part
Most recently, it is said that the
in pursuit of any case of activity restricted
However, the battle to save the
programs attempt to thwart the political
by Congress. Does this strike you as
winds of change by opposing welfare
incongruous?
John J. Curtin Jr. of Boston
reform, SO popular among the American
Imagine a Congress committed to
was president of the ABA during
people.
"divesting" power to the states suddenly
1990-91 and is chair of the Ad Hoc
Lawyers know the truth. Lawyers
taking such a contrary position of federal
Committee on State Justice Initia-
know that what local legal services
control. Congress has limited the
tives.
programs really provide is hope, dignity
advisory boards of local programs from
62
ABA
OURNAI
/
I'm supposed to do."
Although legal services have
USTICE
successfully run the gauntlets of pre-
vious government threats, most no-
welfare reform
tably under the Nixon and Reagan
administrations, this time the future
is bleak and the mood funereal.
At an April congressional hear-
ing before an appropriations sub-
committee, LSC President Alexan-
der Forger reported on the impact
of the funding cuts, but committee
members were more interested in
the viability of alternatives than
the severity of damage.
The main difference between
now and the 1980s is fiscal pres-
sure, says Kenneth F. Boehm, the
chairman of the National Legal and
Policy Center in Vienna, Va., and a
former LSC official who is now one
of its critics. "Because [LSC funds)
are discretionary domestic funds,
they're easy to cut."
Dire Straits
The funding cuts have necessi-
tated radical measures of self-pres-
ervation, including office closings,
layoffs, hiring freezes and salary
cuts.
Neighborhood Legal Services in
Washington, D.C., for example, laid
off 23 of 46 staffers, closed three of
four offices, and expects to reduce
services to clients by more than 50
percent.
Employees at Texas Rural Legal
Aid voluntarily took a 12.5 percent
pay cut, which means the lawyers
there now make about $24,000 a
year.
Anishinabe Legal Services in
Minnesota, which serves 15,000
clients, most of them Native Amer-
icans, is now open one day less a
school enrollment
car repossessions
week, and its eight workers are tak-
ing a 20 percent across-the-board
pay cut.
Distressed over seeing col-
not-for-profit on Jan. 1 of this year,
the 1996 federal budget in April, it
leagues laid off and fearing future
the date Congress cut LSC funds by
also restricted the types of cases
layoffs, many legal services staff
one-third, from $400 million to $278
LSC grantees could handle for the
members nationwide have resigned,
million.
poor. In anticipation of the limita-
and many others are actively job-
The LSC transfers federal
tions, along with the possibility that
hunting. Four staff members re-
grant money to 323 legal services
the LSC could be eliminated by
signed from the Georgia Legal Ser-
programs, which in turn operate
1998, the Rochester project, like
vices Program, and in Michigan,
about 1,200 neighborhood law of-
most legal services organizations,
the trend of jumping ship has re-
fices throughout the nation. Be-
had already begun planning for the
sulted in legal aid programs actual-
cause of cuts in LSC funds, 300 to
future.
ly advertising job openings in news-
400 of those offices will be forced to
"I look out at the Genesee Riv.
papers.
close this year, hundreds of the
er and feel nostalgic and de-
Although legal services pro-
4,700 lawyers employed by LSC
pressed," says Brown, who echoes
grams have always had to turn
grantees will be laid off, and the 1.7
the attitude prevailing among legal
away a substantial percentage of
million cases typically handled will
services directors. "But I manage to
potential clients for lack of re-
fall by an estimated one-third.
pull myself out of my nihilism.
sources, the current bout of attri-
When Congress finally adopted
While I'm still here I'll do what
tion has bred even stricter intake
ABA JOURNAL / IIIY 1006 A1
nessee is trying to spread the im-
crty level of $15,455 for a family of
ers in remote, rural locations where
pact of handling 10 percent to 20
four, clients of I.SC grantees are by
they often have no access to a
percent fewer cases across the
definition vulnerable. With a third
phone, let alone a lawyer. Few have
board, while Georgia Legal Services
of all cases involving family issues,
education beyond the eighth grade,
has dropped representation on con-
women and children are likely to
and the average life span is 50 years.
sumer and education matters.
suffer the brunt of the funding cuts.
As a result of all these barri-
"These are excruciating choic-
The most vulnerable popula-
ers, one of the only means for legal
es," Holmen says.
tions, however, are the geographi-
services to contact these people,
With incomes of no more than
cally, culturally or linguistically iso-
and represent their interests, is
25 percent above the national pov-
lated. The rural poor, for instance,
through outreach efforts.
may lack alternatives as well as
"When we go out and talk to a
transportation.
family, we find that they're likely
"If they can't get help from us,"
sitting on significant legal prob-
says Neil McBride, the director of
lems," says Phil Reilly, managing
Rural Legal Services of Tennessee,
attorney of the Michigan Migrant
setting their own priorities.
based in Oak Ridge, which serves
Legal Assistance Project headquar-
All this sends the clear and
19 Appalachian coal-field counties,
tered in Berrien Springs.
unmistakable signal that continued
"they won't get help at all."
But like the large programs for
vigilance and advocacy on behalf of the
In addition, the closing of a
migrant farm workers in Califor-
LSC is necessary. If you are still
nearby rural office often encour-
nia, Texas and Florida, the Michi-
unconvinced, consider this: House
ages the exploitation of those who
gan effort has suffered from serious
Speaker Newt Gingrich, Majority Leader
now have no recourse. Almost as a
layoffs as a result of funding cuts.
Dick Armey and House Rules Committee
guardian against the opportunistic,
"We're like the British in World
Chair Gerald Solomon have signed on to
"The mere presence of an office
War II," Reilly says of staff morale.
a plan to kill the LSC at the end of this
sometimes helps a lot," notes Linda
"We're trying to keep a stiff upper
fiscal year.
Clingan, executive director of Ore-
lip."
Lawyers must meet political
gon's Campaign for Equal Justice.
While Michigan migrant-work-
pressure with political pressure Every
For some populations, culture
er legal aid lawyers are struggling
lawyer must redouble efforts to involve
and language can be as great a bar-
to meet their clients' most dire
business, the media and the public to
rier as geography. In 1995, 30 per-
needs related to substandard hous-
support access to justice, and to make
cent of the clients of the MFY Legal
ing, wages and field sanitation, as
them allies in the fight to preserve the
Services office in Man-
LSC.
hattan's Chinatown were
This is not a battle about lawyers
Chinese immigrants.
and bar associations demonstrating raw
With that office closed
political power. This fight is not to avoid
by funding cuts, many
fulfilling our individual and collective
Chinatown residents,
responsibility to provide pro bono legal
unable to speak Eng-
services in our communities.
lish, are at risk of being
The essence of our effort can be
cut off from legal help
captured simply: Will we give people at or
because they are unlike-
below the poverty level the dignity of
ly to cross the cultural
justice? Will the poor men, women and
and linguistic divides to
children in each of our communities be
other offices.
deprived of even access to justice?
As for programs
Without access to justice, there can
serving migrant farm
be no justice. Without justice, there can
workers, a population
be no respect for the law. Without respect
widely conceded to be
for the law. the rights protected by the
vulnerable to exploita-
rule of law are just an illusion. Without
tion, Congress decided
these protections, what kind of nation are
to allow only basic field
we leaving for our children and our
funding on a per capita
grandchildren?
basis (according to the
Our goal-the traditional goal of
census) because of lobby-
lawyers is to save and preserve the
ing by farming interests
fundamental rights of our neighbors, so
In contrast, a special-
that the motto "Justice for All" is not an
funding designation allows separate
Michigan migrant
empty phrase.
offices serving these workers.
In Michigan, for example, 90
workers, mainly
percent of the 160,000 seasonal
workers are Hispanic and predomi-
Hispanic, face sub-
Involved
nantly Spanish-speaking.
An average migrant family of
standard housing,
Turn to page 8 for a special message
four makes about $8,000 a year.
to each member of the American Bar
They are transient, moving through-
wages and field
Association from ABA President Roberta
out the year according to crop sea-
Cooper Ramo.
sons. and housed by their employ-
sanitation conditions.
well as exposure to toxic chemicals.
of migrant farm workers; social
place, none of the following law.
the migrant workers themselves
conservatives dislike class actions
suits could have been brought:
are just beginning to express con-
challenging welfare reform; funda-
Rural Legal Services of Ten-
cern.
mentalist religious groups dislike
nessee would not have successfully
"They have only an inchoate
divorce; and members of Congress
sued for a 3-year-old child to re-
sense that something is going
dislike litigation that challenges the
ceive a life-saving liver and bowel
wrong," says Reilly. "But there is a
districting that got them there.
transplant that a federally subsi-
real stirring."
"As a result of the latter," ob-
dized state health-care program
serves Boehm, who was LSC direc-
had refused to authorize.
Impact of Restrictions
tor of policy development and com-
Oregon Legal Services would
Although legal aid providers
munications from 1989 to 1994, "the
not have won a consent judgment
have had to react to the impact of
LSC never made strong allies on the
that recovered car titles and award-
funding cuts, by thinning their
Hill."
ed damages in a class action on be-
troops and resorting to rationing of
Political motivations aside, how-
half of 68 individuals who had lost
services, they also have had to ad-
ever, if the restrictions had been in
titles to their cars under a fraudu-
dress an identity crisis
lent loan scheme.
created by new restric-
Alameda County
tions.
Legal Services would
Regardless of where
not have secured a fed-
the money it actually
eral court order requir-
spends comes from, no
ing California to comply
legal services agency
with the Family Support
that takes federal funds
Act of 1988 and provide
can pursue cases involv-
child-care funds to wel-
ing legislative redistrict-
fare recipients enrolled
ing, abortion, prisoners'
in state-approved job
rights, welfare reform,
training.
public housing evictions
Michigan Legal
for alleged drug crimes,
Services would not have
alien representation, or
conducted trial-skills
class actions. The only
seminars for legal ser-
way around the restric-
vices staff, worked to
tions is to'create a sepa-
convert a condemned
rate agency that re-
public-housing facility
ceives no federal money.
into housing for home-
Federally funded
less people with AIDS,
legal-services attorneys
and collaborated with
also are prohibited from
the city of Detroit to
seeking attorney fees,
draft ordinances regu-
except in cases begun
lating conditions in emer-
prior to adoption of the
gency shelters for the
restrictions, and may
homeless.
not lobby or give advice
on poverty law except
Split Personality
with LSC funds and in
To cope with the ef-
response to written re-
fects of restrictions in
quests from legislators
Washington state, the
and public officials.
Access to Justice Board,
In Oregon, where
created by the state su-
statutes grant attorney
preme court, recom-
fees to the prevailing
mended in 1995 what
party in a variety of
has been called a com-
claims, legal services
panion-delivery system.
lawyers are particular-
That has meant the
ly handicapped. Settle-
state's three legal ser-
ments will be harder to
vices organizations were
negotiate, and ethical questions
Many Chinese
merged into one, Columbia Legal
may prompt them to refer cases to
Services, which receives no federal
private lawyers who can collect at-
Immigrants In
funds and can take cases proscribed
torney fees.
under congressional restrictions. A
The justification for most of
Manhattan are poor
federally funded LSC grantee, the
the restrictions has been that tax-
Northwest Justice Project, was also
payer money should not be used for
and culturally
created, along with a central intake
legal representation that many op.
and referral system that directs
ponents interpret as political advo-
isolated, and thus
clients to either the state or LSC
cacy. After all, agribusiness inter.
ests dislike class actions on behalf
vulnerable.
program where appropriate.
Consequently, when the fund-
64 ABA JOURNAL / JULY 1990
An LSC grantee,
center and Florida Rural Legal Ser-
efforts of private firms. Willie Cook
vices, which no longer receive LSC
Jr., the executive director of Wash-
before restrictions,
funds.
ington's hard-hit Neighborhood Le-
What is the reaction of LSC
gal Services that lost $876,000 in
got court-ordered
critics to this two-tier system? "The-
LSC funds, has to be realistic.
oretically, if the split is total and
"Our top priority, at this mo-
child-care funds for
the groups act separately, then that
ment of major devastation, is to re-
would really take the wind out of
place the money we lost," Cook says.
California welfare
the sails of their opponents," says
"We can't absorb pro bono help be-
Boehm. "The attitude would proba-
cause we don't have the staff neces-
moms in job training.
bly be live and let live."
sary to give expert advice and sup-
To replace some of the lost
port. 'Give us $1,000.' That's my
funding, the non-LSC
first request of each member of the
programs are looking to
D.C. bar. After that, then, of course
sources that in the past
give whatever hours you can."
have contributed rela-
tively small amounts,
Tightening Up
compared to the LSC
While efforts continue to raise
grants, which for many
money, and save money, legal ser-
programs have com-
vices are focusing heavily on strate-
prised more than 60 per-
gies for using money efficiently.
cent of total funding.
Guided by the State Planning
Minor, but not neg-
Assistance Network, which is a
ligible, sources include
joint American Bar Association/
taxes, fee-generating
National Legal Aid and Defender
cases, private dona-
Association project providing tran-
tions, foundation grants
sition support, legal services are
and fundraising.
pursuing state-wide coordination
The largest sec-
and technological upgrades.
ondary sources, most
To avoid the doubling of ad-
significant perhaps be-
ministration that would occur in a
cause of their mandato-
companion-delivery system, Wash-
ry nature, are IOLTA
ington state's program involves a
funds and court filing
central intake and referral system.
fees. The non-LSC-fund-
Its phone and voice-mail service is
ed programs in Wash-
accessible in Spanish as well as
ington and New York
English. During an in-person or
rely primarily on IOLTA
telephone interview, client infor-
funds, while Tennes-
mation is entered into a computer
see's filing-fee increase
data base to identify conflicts of in-
replaced half of the
terest and appropriate services,
$225,000 the state's
which include brief advice, educa-
legal services lost in
tional clinics, self-help options, re-
LSC funds.
ferral and representation.
To save money, le-
E-mail in Washington's legal
gal service agencies are
services offices enables lawyers to
hoping for increased
maximize the central intake data
pro bono involvement.
base as well as pool legal research
Of the approximate-
and plug into brief banks.
ly 700,000 lawyers in
"It will take several months to
the country, more than
get the software going well," admits
ing cuts went into effect in Janu-
130,000 private lawyers are cur-
Pat McIntyre, executive director of
ary, the state of Washington was
rently volunteering through pro
Washington's Northwest Justice
able to shift into action delivering
bono programs. But with 50 million
Project in Seattle. "But it's very ex-
services, while most other states
people eligible for legal services,
citing." Like other legal services
were stuck in reaction.
the ratio is daunting. Pro bono can
directors, McIntyre acknowledges
Some of those other states are
help, according to general wisdom,
mixed feelings about the present
taking cues from Washington's
but it cannot fill the void.
situation. He is frustrated about the
strategy. The ISC grantee in New
Nevertheless, 54 of the largest
funding cuts, the restrictions, and
York state, for example, withdrew
Washington, D.C., law firms re-
the possibility that present success-
its bid for IOLTA (Interest on Law.
sponded to the crisis there by pledg-
es may be undone if the LSC is
yers' Trust Accounts) funds so that
ing more pro bono work, rotating
killed in 1998. But he is excited
the law project in Rochester. which
lawyers through legal-clinic staff
about new beginnings and improved
is not receiving LSC funds, could
positions, pursuing impact litiga-
efficiency.
get them Sumi rly. the Florida Bar
tion and advocacy for the elderly,
"However," he says soberly,
Foundation making grants to
and donating money.
"the excitement is not yet shared by
programs like the state support
Although he appreciates the
our clients
09/16/96 MON 14:44 FAX
003
IV EXECUTIVE VITICE-
202 872 1031 2
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
750 1st St, NE, 11th FL, Washington, D.C. 20002-4250
(202) 336-8800
Fax (202) 336-8959
Alexander a Forge
President
Writer's Direct Telephone
(202)
336-8800
September 10, 1996
The Honorable Judd Gregg
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Chairman
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Scnate
U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Emest F. Hollings
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Gentlemen:
On August 22, 1996, we sent you a letter reporting on certain newly proposed regulations.
Unfortunately, that letter was incomplete and a copy of the proposed regulations was not
attached. What follows is the corrected version of this letter and я copy of the proposed
regulations for your review and comment.
In our June 4, 1996, reprogramming notice. I reported to you that the Board of Directors
had begun the process of promulgating regulations to implement the new restrictions included in
the appropriation, Pub.L. 104-134. I am writing now to provide you with more information about
that process and to alert you to the Board's interpretation of the restrictions should you wish to
offer comments before final regulations are adopted.
At its July 20, 1996, meeting, the Board adopted fourteen interim rules either revising
existing regulations or promulgating new regulations to implement the new restrictions. Four of
these were published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1996. The remaining ten interim rules
and proposed revisions to an additional existing regulation were published on August 29, 1996.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Dougless Charact, Rolderd NJ
Hulen H. Adce
LaVeria M. Barde
John T. Jr.
John G. Brooks
Maria L. Mercado
Allerta GA
Birmingham. AL
Manchester. NH
Bodm, MA
Galveston, TX
09/16/96 MON 14:45 FAX
4004
VENT Leyal 001 vises our
.
0-10-00 1 J.JJPM .LSU Executive UTTICE-
202 872 1031:# 3
4 2 -
The interim rules are effective upon publication in order to provide prompt and necessary
guidance to LSC recipients on legislation that is already effective and carries severe penalties for
noncompliance. Through publication, the Board also solicits comments on the fourteen interim
rules and the revised regulation for review and consideration prior to adoption of final rules which
will supersede the interim rules.
I have enclosed copies of the fourteen interim rules and the revised regulation for your
consideration. These rules are listed below in order to call your attention to several issues of
interpretation on which you may wish to comment. Since the Board's operations and regulations
committee will consider comments on the four interim rules already published (45 CFR Parts
1610, 1617, 1632 and 1633) at its September 29 meeting, we would very much appreciate
receiving any comments you may have on these rules by September 12. The committee will meet
in early December to consider comments on the remaining rules, so comments on these rules need
not be given to us until November.
45 CFR Part 1609 Fec-Generating Cases: This proposed regulation is the one rule
that is not being published as an interim rule to take immediate effect. The major revision is the
removal of the current rule's provisions on attorneys' fees, which have been dealt with as an
interim rule in Part 1642, below. Publication of Part 1642 will supersede the attorneys' fees
provisions of the current Part 1609.
45 CFR Part 1610 Use of Non-LSC Funds: This interim rule completely revises the
Corporation's current rule governing restrictions on recipient's non-LSC funds. The rule now
includes the broader restrictions contained in Pub.L. 104-134 on a recipient's non-LSC funds as
well as the exception for tribal funds. In addition, the rule updates the provisions implementing
the LSC Act's restrictions on a recipient's non-LSC funds to conform with current law. Finally,
{
the rule implements the requirement in Pub.L. 104-134 that recipients notify their non-LSC
MSBA
funders of the application of the restrictions to their funds, with a de minimis exception in the case
of donors of sums under $250.
45 CFR Part 1612 - Restrictions on lobbying and certain other activities: This
interim rule completely revises the current rule. It is intended to implement the provisions of
Pub.L. 104-134 which prohibit recipients from engaging in any agency rulemaking, lobbying
activity or in advocacy training. It also implements statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on
rulemaking and lobbying, which permit recipients to use non-LSC funds to comment in public
rulemaking, respond to requests from legislative and administrative bodies, and engage in state
and local fundraising activities. It continues the pre-existing prohibitions on participation in public
demonstrations and organizing activities.
45 CFR Part 1617 Class actions: This interim rule constitutes a complete revision of
the current rule and is intended to implement the restriction of Pub. L. 104-134 which prohibits
LSC recipients from initiating or participating in class action suits.; No exceptions to the general
prohibition and no waiver provisions have been included in the rule. The definition of
09/16/96 MON 14:45 FAX
5
005
SENI DT-Legal Services Corp.
3:40PM iLSU Executive Office-
202 872 1031:# 4
- 3
"class action" defers to widely accepted Federal and local court rules and statutory definitions.
"Initiating or participating in any class action" is defined broadly as including any
involvement at any stage of a class action prior to an order granting relief, including acting as
amicus curiae, co-counsel or providing legal assistance to an individual client who seeks to
withdraw from, intervene in, opt out of, modify, or challenge the adequacy of the representation
of a class. The rule clarifies that certain situations are not within this definition and are therefore
not prohibited by the rule. For example, recipients may advise clients about the pendency of a
class action or its effect on the client and what the client would need to do to benefit from the
case.
Certain other actions related to a class action are not included because they involve
actions taken after liability has been determined and an order of relief has been entered.
Accordingly, under the definition in the interim rule, recipients may be involved in non-adversarial
monitoring of an order granting relief or representation of an individual client seeking the benefit
of the order.
45 CFR Part 1620 - Priorities in use of resources: This interim rule completely revises
the current rule. The revisions are intended to implement the restriction of Pub.L. 104-134 that
LSC recipients are prohibited from expending resources on activities outside their specific
priorities. The rule requires recipient governing bodies to adopt procedures for establishing
priorities for the use of its LSC and non-LSC resources and to adopt a statement of priorities. It
also requires recipient governing bodies to adopt procedures to cover the emergency situations in
which handling a case or matter outside the priorities would be permitted. The rule also contains
the requirement that case handlers sign an agreement not to undertake any case or matter that is
not a priority or an emergency.
45 CFR Part 1626 - Restrictions on legal assistance to aliens: This interim rule revises
the current rule in order to implement the restriction of Pub.L. 104-134 that prohibits LSC
recipients from using LSC or non-LSC funds to provide legal assistance to ineligible aliens. The
prior rule had expressly allowed recipients to use their non-LSC funds to provide such assistance.
45 CFR Part 1627 - Subgrants and dues: This interim rule amends the fees and dues
provisions of the current regulation concerning subgrants, fees and dues to implement the
restriction of Pub. L. 104-134 which prohibits the use of LSC funds to pay membership dues to
any private or nonprofit organization. The prior rule had permitted recipients to pay such dues
from LSC funds subject to certain limitations. The interim rule defines dues as payments for
membership or to acquire voting or participatory rights in an organization. The prohibition does
not extend to the payment of dues mandated as a requirement of practice by a governmental
organization or to the payment of dues from non-LSC funds. The commentary to the rule notes
the intention of the Board that payment of dues to a State supreme court or to a bar association
acting in a governmental capacity as a requirement for an attorney to practice in that state be
deemed to be payment of dues to a governmental body and is not prohibited by this rule.
09/16/96 MON 14:46 FAX
0006
VITAVE
202 016 1031.0 5
- 4
45 CFR Part 1632- Redistricting: This interim rule revises the current rule on
redistricting to implement the restriction of Pub.L. 104-134 that LSC recipients are prohibited
from involvement in redistricting activities, regardless of the source of funds used to finance the
activities. The prior rule had applied only to activities financed with LSC and private funds.
45 CFR Part 1633 - Restriction on representation in certain eviction proceedings:
This interim rule revises the current rule to implement the restriction of Pub.L. 104-134 by
extending its application to activities financed with non-LSC funds.
45 CFR Part 1636 Client identity and statement of facts: This new interim rule is
intended to implement the provision of Pub.L. 104-134 requiring LSC recipients to identify each
plaintiff they represent in litigation and to require plaintiffs to sign statements of fact underlying
their claims. The rule incorporates the statutory provisions concerning non-disclosure of client
identity in certain circumstances and concerning access to statements of fact.
45 CFR Part 1637 - Representation of prisoners: This interim rule implements the
provision of Pub. L. 104-134 prohibiting LSC recipients from participating in any civil litigation
on behalf of persons incarcerated in a Federal, State or local prison, whether as a plaintiff or
defendant. The rule extends the statutory prohibition by prohibiting participation in administrative
proceedings challenging the conditions of incarceration.
The rule addresses the difficulties which will be presented by changes in circumstances
occurring after litigation has been undertaken, as for example, a proceeding for divorce or child
support, on behalf of someone who thereafter becomes incarcerated. It provides that if, to the
knowledge of the recipient, a client becomes incarcerated after litigation has commenced, the
recipient must use its best efforts to withdraw promptly from the litigation, unless the period of
incarceration is likely to be brief and the litigation is likely to continue beyond the period of
incarceration. This exception to the general prohibition is intended to address the situation in
which incarceration may be of such short duration that, by the time the recipient has succeeded in
withdrawing from the matter consistent with its ethical duty to the client, the incarceration may
have ended and with it the basis for the prohibition. The commentary to the rule suggests that an
expected incarceration of less than three months could be considered brief. The commentary also
addresses the circumstance in which a program is prevented by court decree from withdrawing
from representation.
45 CFR Part 1638 Restriction on solicitation: This interim rule is intended to
implement the restriction of Pub.L. 104-134 prohibiting LSC recipients from soliciting clients by
prohibiting recipients and their employees from representing a client as a result of in-person
unsolicited advice and from referring to other recipients individuals to whom they have given in-
person unsolicited advice.
09/16/96 MON 14:46 FAX
0
007
SENI
BY:Legal
Services CoΓp. i 3-10-96 ; 3:41PM :LSC Executive Office-
202 872 1031:# 6
-
The rule does not prohibit recipients or their employees from providing information regarding
legal rights and responsibilities or providing information regarding the recipient's services and
intake procedures or from representing eligible individuals who seek legal assistance as a result of
such information.
45 CFR Part 1639 - Welfare reform: This interim rule is intended to implement the
restriction of Pub. L. 104-134 prohibiting LSC recipients from initiating legal representation or
challenging or participating in an effort to reform a Federal or State welfare system. The rule
incorporates the statutory prohibition as well as the statutory exception that permits recipients to
use non-LSC funds to comment on public rulemaking or respond to requests from legislative or
administrative officials. In addition, the rule clarifies when recipients can engage in representation
on behalf of a client seeking specific relief from a welfare agency.
The rule's definitions of a "Federal or State welfare system" are based on the Corporation's
understanding of Congressional intent set out in the legislative history of the statutory restriction.
45 CFR Part 1640 - Application of federal law to LSC recipients: This interim rule
implements a provision of Pub.L. 104-134 which subjects LSC recipients to Federal law relating
to the waste, fraud and abuse of Federal funds. This rule requires LSC recipients to agree to be
subject to "Federal laws relating to the proper use of Federal funds" in their use of LSC funds.
This rule puts recipients and their employees on notice that LSC funds are Federal funds for the
purposes of the applicable Federal laws cited in the rule and that a violation of such laws would
subject the recipient or individual employee to serious statutory and regulatory sanctions.
45 CFR Part 1642 Attorneys' fees: This interim rule implements a provision of Pub.L.
104-134 that prohibits LSC recipients from claiming, or collecting and retaining attorneys' fees in
cases filed after the date of enactment of the appropriation. This rule is, in part, based on and
supersedes the attorney's fees provisions of the current Part 1609. (See Part 1609 above.) This
rule prohibits recipients and their employees from claiming, or collecting and retaining attorneys'
fees in any case undertaken on behalf of a client of the recipient.
The rule defines "attorneys' fees" as an award to compensate an attorney of the prevailing
party made pursuant to common law or Federal or State law permitting or requiring the awarding
of such fees. It defines an "award" as an order by a court or administrative agency that the
unsuccessful party pay the attorneys' fees of the prevailing party or an order by a court or
administrative agency approving a settlement agreement of the parties which provides for
payment of attorneys' fees by an adversarial party. Under these definitions, the regulation
permits the acceptance of fees in certain circumstances. For example, the prohibition of the
rule does not apply to receipt of attorney's fees from a recipient's clients directly or indirectly, as
in the case of attorney's fees withheld from a client's back benefits in a Social Security Disability
09/16/96 MON 14:47 FAX
1
008
Logal 001 VIVED very. - 1 5-42PM ,LSU Executive Office-
202 872 1031:# 7
- 6- -
or Supplemental Security Income case.
In addition, the prohibition on the collection of attorneys' fees does not apply in four
specified circumstances: (1) cases filed prior to April 26, 1996, the date of enactment of Pub.L.
104-134, except that the prohibition does apply to any additional claim made in a case pending on
April 26, 1996; (2) court appointments made pursuant to a generally applicable court rule or
practice: (3) sanctions imposed by a court for violations of court rules; and (4) reimbursement of
costs and expenses from an opposing party.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the issues highlighted in this letter, as well as to
review the enclosed rules in full, and to provide us with whatever comments you think our
committee and board should consider in their deliberations. If you have any questions or need
further information, please contact me.
Sincerely, Alexander D. Forger
President
Enclosures
file legal services
Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc.
151 Spring Street NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2097
(404) 524-5811
FAX: (404) 525-5710
Steven Gottlieb
Honorable Patsy Y. Porter
Director
President
Marian Burge
Judith O'Brien
Deputy Director
1st Vice President
William J. Brennan, Jr.
June 21, 1999
S. Wade Malone
Dennis Goldstein
2nd Vice President
Donald M. Coleman
Jacqueline L. Payne
The First Lady
Elizabeth M. Leonard
Bernard S. Dempsey, Jr.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary. Treasurer
Margaret Hayman
Kathleen A Dumitrescu
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Richard A. Horder
Susan C. Jamieson
Washington DC 20500
Immediate Past President
Stephen Krumm
Catherine C. Vandenberg
Karen E. Brown
Attention: Melanne Verveer
Roshonda Davis-Baugh
Anne E. Bunton
Deborah A. Johnson
Dear Ms. Clinton:
Paul Owens
Holly B. Lanford
John R. Warchol
M. Conner Ball
Thank you for sending us the videotaped greetings on our 75th
Gina S. Mangham
Anniversary and to congratulate Randolph Thrower on his 60 years of
Berryl A. Anderson
Elliott Schwalb
association with the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Your videotape was
Monoka L. Venters
certainly a high point of our celebration.
Jennifer A Beardsley
Ronald S. Boyter
Anna P. Kennedy
I am very proud of our long history of high quality advocacy for poor
Beth E. Shaw
Eleanor M.Crosby
people; to have you recognize it was special. We could not have done better
Dina M. Franch
than to have the attendance and support of the First Lady, the Governor,
Sheila D. Boyce
Cheri Tipton
the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court (a former Legal Aid lawyer,
Chris Alibrandi O'Connor
by the way) and, of course, of Randolph Thrower. It was a special affair.
Laura J. Lester
Chiaka O. Adele (NY only)
I'm sorry you could not be there is person, but your presence was felt.
Susan Walker
Lynn Goldman
Nirupa Narayan
Thank you again for your support.
Linda T.F. Day
Lita S. Menkin
MyTa N. Moran
Sincerel
Janet E. Grayson
LaTanya S. Mapp
Laurie A. Scott
Steve HJ Gottlieb
Legal Consultants:
David Webster
Executive Director
Kay Young
David Bender NC only)
Anne Marie Couch
1.
002
07/21/95 FRI 14:37 FAX
SUMMARY OF BLOCK GRANT CONCEPT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION REAUTHORIZATION
Funding Level
The funding level for FY96 would be $278 million.
General Concepts
The legislation would replace the current Legal Services Corporation, with a block
grant competitive bid process through which qualified providers can be awarded
funding for the provision of qualified services.
Qualified providers would be generally defined as individuals licensed to practice law
for 5 years or more, who have not been convicted of a crime, suspended or disbarred
from practice for misconduct etc.
Qualified actions would be set out in the legislation. They would include among
others, eviction (except for reasons associated with criminal conduct), foreclosures,
bankruptcies, debt collections, applications for a statutory benefit, divorces, child
custody, spousal abuse, insurance claims, competency hearings and probate. The
legislation would specifically state that funding could not be used to file class actions
or to challenge the constitutionality of any statute.
Qualified clients would be defined as U.S. Citizens or permanent alien residents who
reside in a household whose income is equal to or less than the poverty line
established in the Community development Block Grant (CDBG) Act.
*
The Attorney General of the U.S. would be given the authority to make grants to the
states. The formula allocation would be proportional based on the number of residents
in each state living in poverty based on the CDBG formula.
The Governors of the states would be responsible for designating an entity to
administer the grants. Designated service areas would be established and contracts
would be awarded for the provision of services within the designated area. Contracts
would be awarded to the prospective provider whose bid offers to provide the greatest
number of hours of service in the area. The contract will provide for the submission
of monthly billing statements and time records. Payments would be made in arrears
for services rendered.
Contract terms will be 2 years. Daily time records of work would be required by
providers. GAO would be given the authority to audit any provider. Breach of
contract by the provider would allow the Governor's office to terminate the contract
and recover any funds improperly paid out.
ATP accelerates the development of enabling technologies
with commercial potential and broad-based economic benefits
through a rigorous, merit-based competition. The program
provides an effective mechanism for augmenting U.S. economic
growth through highly-leveraged, industry-led research and
development. Analysis of ATP awards to date shows that they
foster important technology development, enable research to be
performed more quickly and aggressively, promote industrial
alliances, and create jobs. The Administration strongly urges
the Congress to restore funding for this valuable program.
Other Commerce Programs
The Committee mark would make substantial reductions to the
President's requests for the Economics and Statistics
Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). These cuts would reduce our investment in
the Nation's statistical system, which provides policymakers
critical economic and demographic indicators about our Nation.
The reductions to NOAA would undermine efforts to manage the
Nation's marine fisheries and coastal areas and reduce our
efforts to monitor global environmental changes. The
Administration finds particularly objectionable the Committee's
elimination of the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit
the Environment (GLOBE) program.
The Committee's funding reductions to Commerce programs
would require substantial staffing reductions across virtually
the entire Department. In certain areas of Commerce, these
staffing reductions could approach 20 to 40 percent and require
significant reductions-in-force.
The Administration's concerns about the impact of these
funding and staffing reductions are discussed further in the
attachment.
Legal Services Corporation (LSC)
The Committee mark of $278 million -- a one-third reduction
in funding below the FY 1995 level -- would result in more than a
one-third reduction in civil legal services to the poor,
particularly in rural areas and in areas with programs that
receive a large portion of their total funding from the LSC.
This reduction, coupled with severe new restrictions on how the
Corporation and its grantees may utilize their funding --
regardless of the source -- may drive away a significant portion
of non-Federal funding and pro bono involvement. Nationwide, 40
percent of the funding for the LSC's programs comes from private
sources. State and local governments, as well as private groups,
charities, and individuals do not want the Federal government
restricting the use of funds they provide to address the
particular legal needs of the poor in their communities.
3
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
WHY LSC REQUIRES A MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
OF $8 MILLION; WHY A $5 MILLION BUDGET WOULD GUT LSC AND
JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR
The consequence of the House Appropriations bill as it relates to the management and
administration budget of LSC would be to cut our staff to approximately fifteen people -- in
effect, virtually eliminating the Corporation.
LSC management has made every effort to be responsive to the will of Congress and to
anticipate a significant cut in our management and administration budget for FY 1996. All our
actions have been taken in consultation with House and Senate Appropriations staff.
Through Phase I of our Reduction-in-Force we have already cut our staff from
approximately 95 in FY 1995 to approximately 70 as of October 31, 1996. The effect has been
to reduce our management and administration budget from the post-rescission FY 1995 level of
approximately $10 million (exclusive of the Office of the Inspector General) to $8.3 million. We
have held our spending to this lower rate even though the Continuing Resolution permitted us to
continue spending at the rate of $10 million.
Because of the 30-day notice period required by the Reduction-in-Force provisions of our
Personnel Manual, it is not possible for us to implement further staff reductions before the end of
December. This means that we will have been operating for a full quarter of FY 1996 at an $8.3
million annualized rate, resulting in expenditures of roughly $2.1 million. This does not include
the obligation of $580,000 we incurred for severance payments and other costs associated with
Phase I of the RIF.
Our current lease obligation for January-September 1996 is $900,000. Although
obviously we will need less space with a reduced staff, it will take time to sublet the unused space,
and we cannot depend on any reduction of this obligation. Our insurance obligation for the rest
of the year is $20,000. The total of our fixed costs for the year is thus $3.6 million ($2.1 million
plus $580,000 plus $900,000 plus $20,000).
Consequently, if our management and administration budget is reduced to $5 million,
as provided by the House bill, we will be left with only $1.4 million to meet all our expenses
for the rest of the year, including severance for the additional employees we must lay off. We
estimate that at this level of funding we will be forced to lay off at least an additional 50
employees immediately. Severance payments would total approximately $500,000, leaving
only $900,000 remaining for operating expenses for the rest of FY 1996 and permitting a staff
of approximately 15.
A cut of this magnitude would present an extraordinary challenge, leaving in doubt our
ability to carry out the responsibilities imposed upon us by Congress, in particular the
implementation of competition. We have already received a large volume of paperwork in
response to our Request for Proposals. If we are forced to slash our staff so drastically, the new
grantmaking process will lack the thoroughness it deserves, particularly with regard to the
technical assistance to new applicants to enable them to compete effectively.
Thus if the House provisions are enacted without change, next spring LSC will face an
Appropriations process with a staff that has been slashed by more than four-fifths but is
nevertheless expected to implement a competitive system for grants, investigate complaints,
enforce sanctions, respond to Congressional requests for information, develop and promulgate
regulations on a variety of new restrictions, and generally operate the Corporation in an efficient
and responsible manner. Although we are determined to carry on whatever the circumstances, it
is clear that such a situation would not enable us to perform to the standard which we and the
Congress would expect, leaving us extremely vulnerable to criticism by our opponents. For this
reason, we believe that the ultimate survival of legal services to the poor could depend on this
issue.
We have previously provided House and Senate staff with information that we believe
amply justifies our position that an $8 million budget for LSC's management and administration is
the minimum necessary to enable us to carry out our responsibilities, including the implementation
of competition. This level of funding would still allow $5 million of the $13 million allocated for
overall management and administration to go to the Inspector General, a fivefold increase over his
FY 1995 budget and a figure which in our view is sufficient to provide for program and financial
audits of grantees. Any reduction below the $8 million level will impair our ability to fulfill our
functions. Note that any level below $8 million will require additional lay-offs and consequent
severance payments, so that as the cut becomes larger, the percentage of the remaining funds that
must be devoted to severance payments increases and the percentage available for operating
expenses decreases even further. 1
The following chart shows the effect of an LSC management and administration budget
(exclusive of the Office of the Inspector General at the following levels: $9 million; $8 million;
$6.5 million; $5 million.
1
The $8 million figure does not include the costs of any compliance monitoring on the
part of LSC management and administration. The House bill would turn this function in its
entirety over to LSC's Office of the Inspector General, which would contract with independent
auditors to conduct financial and program audits of grantees. It is our belief that at this point in
the fiscal year it will not be possible to contract with auditors to provide ongoing monitoring of
grantees regarding the new FY 1996 restrictions. Rather, any monitoring on these issues may be
deferred until the end of fiscal 1996. For this reason, we continue to believe that even if the basic
responsibility for this function is transferred, some limited ongoing compliance monitoring of the
new restrictions by LSC management and administration on an interim basis is essential. We have
estimated that if Congress were to ask us to perform this function it would cost an additional S1
million, for a total budget of $9 million.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
OPERATING COSTS AT VARIOUS APPROPRIATION LEVELS
FIXED OBLIGATIONS AND COSTS TO DATE
REMAINING COST OF PHASE I SEVERANCE
$580,000
OPERATING COST FOR 1ST QUARTER
2,100,000
RENT OBLIGATION FOR JAN THRU SEPTEMBER
900,000
INSURANCE OBLIGATION
20,000
TOTAL
$3,600,000
TOTAL
SEVERANCE
REMAINING AMOUNT
FIXED OBLIGATIONS
NUMBER
M&A
COSTS FOR ADD'L
FOR OPERATING
AS SHOWN ABOVE
M&A STAFF
APPROPRIATION
STAFF REDUCTION
COSTS JAN - SEPT 96
PROJECTED
9,000,000 =
0
+
5,400,000
+
3,600,000
77
8,000,000 =
0
+
4,400,000
+
3,600,000
70
6,500,000 =
350,000
+
2,550,000
+
3,600,000
37
5,000,000 =
500,000
+
900,000
+
3,600,000
15
P.2
WHY CONFEREES SHOULD SUPPORT THE SENATE PROVISION FOR
COMPLIANCE MONITORING OF LSC GRANTEES
One of the principal oversight responsibilities of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC)
is monitoring and auditing grantees for compliance with restrictions imposed by Congress and
LSC regulations. The House and Senate Appropriations bills differ in their treatment of and
budgeting for this important function. This memo describes the current system and the
different approaches of the bills. It also explains both LSC's preference for the Senate
approach and our response to the House language.
LSC'S Current Compliance Monitoring System
The current compliance monitoring system was developed in 1994 after a thorough
planning process to respond to an independent report conducted at the request of LSC's Office
of Inspector General (OIG). The report concluded that the system then in place was
ineffective and inefficient. Currently, LSC's Office of Program Evaluation, Analysis and
Review (OPEAR) monitors compliance through 1) annual desk reviews of grantee documents,
policies and procedures, and 2) on-site compliance visits by LSC staff. The current monitoring
system is consistent with the practices of other federal agencies.
In May 1995, the LSC Board of Directors (LSC Board) transferred to the OIG the
responsibility for a third aspect of compliance monitoring, namely the review of grantees'
annual financial audits, which are conducted by independent auditors and paid for by grantees.
Beginning with audits of FY 1995 funds, audits will be conducted pursuant to the more
stringent standards of OMB Circular A-133, and will include monitoring of compliance with
selected aspects of LSC regulations. These independent audits are now reviewed by the OIG
rather than by LSC management.
Current Management and Administration Budget
LSC's post-rescission FY 1995 budget for Management and Administration (M&A) is
$11 million. Of this amount the LSC Board has allocated about $1 million for OIG operations
and $10 million for the remainder of M&A. LSC currently expends about $3.3 million for the
functions performed by OPEAR, of which just over $1 million is for compliance monitoring
and the remainder is for complaint investigation, enforcement and performance evaluation.
Local program audits are paid for out of recipient grant funds. We estimate that about $3
million is expended by recipients for that purpose.
House Provision
The House bill provides for a total of $13 million for M&A. Of that amount, $5 million
is allocated for management and $8 million for the OIG, of which $5.75 million is to be used
by the IG to contract with independent auditing agencies to conduct financial and program
1
P.3
audits in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
Under this plan, LSC's management budget would be cut by half from $10 million to $5
million; the cost of contracting for annual financial and program audits, estimated at $5.75
million would be borne by the OIG rather than by grantees; and the OIG's budget would be
increased from $1 million to $8 million.
Senate Provision
The Senate bill provides for $13 million for M&A, including the OIG, to be allocated
by LSC's Board of Directors. The Board would continue to place responsibility for
compliance monitoring with management and responsibility for financial audits conducted by
independent audit agencies, as described above, with the OIG.
Why the Senate plan is better
The Senate plan takes advantage of a compliance monitoring system that is already in
place and functioning, designed after a careful planning and development process. It ensures
that monitoring and enforcement will remain closely linked, and avoids potential problems
likely to result from incomplete information and lack of continuity in LSC's contacts with
grantees. The House plan would lessen the frequency of contact between LSC and its
programs and eliminate a major source of information that will be increasingly important in the
context of our new system of competition.
The Senate plan ensures that monitoring will continue without interruption through
1996. Under the House plan there would be no monitoring during 1996 of the new
restrictions imposed by the FY 1996 Appropriation, because the independent auditors
would not begin to review compliance with FY 1996 restrictions until they conduct their audit
of 1996 funds in the spring of 1997. Thus LSC would face a 1997 Appropriations process
with no monitoring of the new restrictions having been conducted, a situation that would
constitute an erosion of the accountability required by Congress.
Moreover, even when the system provided by the House plan is fully in place, it will
rely entirely upon auditors to monitor compliance. We believe that certain programmatic, non-
financial requirements are best monitored by LSC staff with expertise in the issues rather than
by auditors (for example, whether or not the program has provided a plaintiffs statement of
facts in all cases required by LSC appropriations legislation).
Finally, the House plan would increase the cost of compliance monitoring,
without assurance that the system will be any more comprehensive or productive, while
cutting LSC's Management and Administration budget by 50 percent, leaving us unable
to perform our statutory responsibilities effectively.
2
P. 4
Response to House Concerns
We recognize that for some critics of LSC, the Corporation's monitoring efforts have
lacked credibility, leading them to believe that this function or its oversight should be
performed by an independent entity. We believe that LSC's new audit guide requiring local
programs to be audited pursuant to OMB Circular A-133 and its shift of responsibility for
these audits to the OIG meets this concern. and that allocation of Management and
Administration costs between LSC and OIG should be made by the LSC Board, as provided in
the Senate bill.
While we believe the Senate provision is the best choice, we have provided House
Appropriations staff with alternative statutory language (attached) that would specify that
grantees must be audited according to OMB Circular A-133; allocate $9 million to LSC for
Management and Administration (exclusive of OIG) , a sum which we believe is the minimum
necessary to permit us to perform our oversight functions effectively; and provide OIG with its
own specified allocation. We believe that the remaining $4 million of the $13 million now
earmarked for Management and Administration in the House bill would be more than sufficient
to provide for the cost to OIG of overseeing and reviewing A-133 audits, contracting for any
additional audits which may be required to monitor specific problems, and meeting OIG's other
responsibilities.
This compromise would thus accomplish the purpose of the House plan at a lower cost,
maintain a more effective monitoring program, ensure that monitoring continues without
interruption through 1996, and provide LSC with a Management and Administration budget
that enables it to meet its responsibilities effectively.
Summary
M&A
OIG
TOTAL
Post-Rescission FY 95 Budget
$10m.
$1m.
$11m.
House Bill
$5m.
$8m.
$13m.
Senate Bill
LSC Board to allocate
$13m.
Possible Alternative
$9m.
*
$13m.
*Remaining $4 million to be apportioned between the OIG and grantee programs to meet
additional cost of A-133 audits.
3
P.5
Alternative Provision on LSC Compliance Monitoring
Amendment on Page 78, Line 10, delete everything before the "." on Line 16 and replace
it with:
"$* ** is for basic field programs; $* $*** #.# is for the Office of the Inspector
General, which shall be responsible for annual financial and program audits of all grantees
by independent auditing agencies in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-133; and $9,000,000 is for management and administration"
Amendment on Page 91, Line 7, delete the word "or", and on Line 17 add the following
before the
or
(21) unless such person or entity agrees that it will conduct annual audits in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133."
How this language would be implemented:
Grantees would be required to conduct their annual audits pursuant to OMB
Circular A-133. The grantees would pay for the audits themselves. This has the advantage of
being consistent with the standards and procedures of A-133 audits, which provide that
grantees will pay for audits themselves, and would eliminate procurement costs for OIG.
OIG would promulgate a Compliance Supplement to the LSC Audit Guide setting
forth the requirements of the LSC regulations and provide technical assistance to the
independent local auditors. An Audit Guide requiring A-133 audits has already been
finalized and a proposed Compliance Supplement has been drafted. A new Compliance
Supplement could be developed to cover aspects of LSC regulations not currently addressed.
OIG would assure that the independent local auditors properly carry out their
responsibilities through increased use of Quality Assessment Reviews (QAR), i.e., review of
the work papers of local auditors to assure that the audits are carried out in accordance with
auditing standards.
OIG could contract for special additional audits to monitor particular issues or
programs in which problems appear to exist.
LSC would continue 10 inform and educate grantees about compliance
requirements; conduct desk reviews of grantee documents, policies and procedures to identify
problems or potential problems; and conduct on-site compliance visits. During 1996, LSC's
continuing involvement in monitoring will be of particular importance because there will be
no other monitoring of compliance issues created by the FY 1996 Appropriation until FY
1996 is over.
4
11/22/95
12:03
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
002/019
WHY CONFER EES SHOULD SUPPORT THE SENATE PROVISION FOR
COMPLIANCE MONITORING OF LSC GRANTEES
One of the princ ipal oversight responsibilities of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC)
is monitoring and auditing grantees for compliance with restrictions imposed by Congress and
LSC regulations. The Iouse and Senate Appropriations bills differ in their treatment of and
budgeting for this impo tant function. This memo describes the current system and the
different approaches of the bills. It also explains both LSC's preference for the Senate
approach and our response to the House language.
LSC'S Current Compliance Monitoring System
The current compliance monitoring system was developed in 1994 after a thorough
planning process to respond to an independent report conducted at the request of LSC's Office
of Inspector General (CIG). The report concluded that the system then in place was
ineffective and inefficie it. Currently, LSC's Office of Program Evaluation, Analysis and
Review (OPEAR) mon tors compliance through 1) annual desk reviews of grantee documents,
policies and procedures, and 2) on-site compliance visits by LSC staff. The current monitoring
system is consistent with the practices of other federal agencies.
In May 1995, th e LSC Board of Directors (LSC Board) transferred to the OIG the
responsibility for a third. aspect of compliance monitoring, namely the review of grantees'
annual financial audits, which are conducted by independent auditors and paid for by grantees.
Beginning with audits fFY 1995 funds, audits will be conducted pursuant to the more
stringent standards of OMB Circular A-133, and will include monitoring of compliance with
selected aspects of LSC regulations. These independent audits are now reviewed by the OIG
rather than by LSC management.
Current Management and Administration Budget
LSC's post-rescissi FY 1995 budget for Management and Administration (M&A) is
$11 million. Of this an ount the LSC Board has allocated about $1 million for OIG operations
and $10 million for the remainder of M&A. LSC currently expends about $3.3 million for the
functions performed by OPEAR, of which just over $1 million is for compliance monitoring
and the remainder is fo complaint investigation, enforcement and performance evaluation.
Local program audits are paid for out of recipient grant funds. We estimate that about $3
million is expended by recipients for that purpose.
House Provision
The House bill provides for a total of $13 million for M&A. Of that amount, $5 million
is allocated for management and $8 million for the OIG, of which $5.75 million is to be used
by the IG to contract V ith independent auditing agencies to conduct financial and program
I
11/22/95
12:04
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
003/019
audits in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
Under this plan, LSC's management budget would be cut by half from $10 million to $5
million; the cost of com racting for annual financial and program audits, estimated at $5.75
million would be borne by the OIG rather than by grantees; and the OIG's budget would be
increased from $1 million to $8 million.
Senate Provision
The Senate bill provides for $13 million for M&A, including the OIG, to be allocated
by LSC's Board of Dire ctors. The Board would continue to place responsibility for
compliance monitoring with management and responsibility for financial audits conducted by
independent audit agencies, as described above, with the OIG.
Why the Senate plan is better
The Senate plan takes advantage of a compliance monitoring system that is already in
place and functioning, esigned after a careful planning and development process. It ensures
that monitoring and enf orcement will remain closely linked, and avoids potential problems
likely to result from omplete information and lack of continuity in LSC's contacts with
grantees. The House plan would lessen the frequency of contact between LSC and its
programs and eliminate a major source of information that will be increasingly important in the
context of our new syst of competition.
The Senate plan ensures that monitoring will continue without interruption through
1996. Under the House plan there would be no monitoring during 1996 of the new
restrictions imposed by the FY 1996 Appropriation, because the independent auditors
would not begin to review compliance with FY 1996 restrictions until they conduct their audit
of 1996 funds in the spr ng of 1997. Thus LSC would face a 1997 Appropriations process
with no monitoring of the new restrictions having been conducted, a situation that would
constitute an erosion of the accountability required by Congress.
Moreover, even when the system provided by the House plan is fully in place, it will
rely entirely upon audito rs to monitor compliance. We believe that certain programmatic. non-
financial requirements are best monitored by LSC staff with expertise in the issues rather than
by auditors (for example, whether or not the program has provided a plaintiff's statement of
facts in all cases required by LSC appropriations legislation).
Finally, the Ho use plan would increase the cost of compliance monitoring,
without assurance that the system will be any more comprehensive or productive, while
cutting LSC's Management and Administration budget by 50 percent, leaving us unable
to perform our statuto y responsibilities effectively.
2
11/22/95
12:04
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
004/019
Response to House Concerns
We recognize th at for some critics of LSC, the Corporation's monitoring efforts have
lacked credibility, leading them to believe that this function or its oversight should be
performed by an indepe ident entity. We believe that LSC's new audit guide requiring local
programs to be audited pursuant to OMB Circular A-133 and its shift of responsibility for
these audits to the OIG meets this concern, and that allocation of Management and
Administration costs bei ween LSC and OIG should be made by the LSC Board, as provided in
the Senate bill.
While we believ e the Senate provision is the best choice, we have provided House
Appropriations staff wit 1 alternative statutory language (attached) that would specify that
grantees must be audited according to OMB Circular A-133; allocate $9 million to LSC for
Management and Admir istration (exclusive of OIG) a sum which we believe is the minimum
necessary to permit us to perform our oversight functions effectively; and provide OIG with its
own specified allocation We believe that the remaining $4 million of the $13 million now
earmarked for Managen ent and Administration in the House bill would be more than sufficient
to provide for the cost to OIG of overseeing and reviewing A-133 audits, contracting for any
additional audits which nay be required to monitor specific problems, and meeting OIG's other
responsibilities.
This compromise would thus accomplish the purpose of the House plan at a lower cost,
maintain a more effectiv: monitoring program, ensure that monitoring continues without
interruption through 199 6, and provide LSC with a Management and Administration budget
that enables it to meet it ; responsibilities effectively.
Summary
M&A
OIG
TOTAL
Post-Rescission FY 95 Hudget
$10m.
$1m.
$11m.
House Bill
$5m.
$8m.
$13m.
Senate Bill
LSC Board to allocate
$13m.
Possible Alternative
$9m.
*
$13m
*Remaining $4 million to be apportioned between the OIG and grantee programs to meet
additional cost of A-133 audits.
3
11/22/95
12:05
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
005/019
Alte rnative Provision on LSC Compliance Monitoring
Amendment on Page 78, Line 10, delete everything before the "." on Line 16 and replace
it with:
"$* ** is for basic field programs; $*** is for the Office of the Inspector
General, which sha I be responsible for annual financial and program audits of all grantees
by independent auditing agencies in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-133; and $9,000,000 is for management and administration"
Amendment on Pag e 91, Line 7, delete the word "or", and on Line 17 add the following
before the ".":
or
(21) unless such person or entity agrees that it will conduct annual audits in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133."
How this language wor Id be implemented:
Grantees wor Id be required to conduct their annual audits pursuant to OMB
Circular A-133. The gr intees would pay for the audits themselves. This has the advantage of
being consistent with the standards and procedures of A-133 audits, which provide that
grantees will pay for au tits themselves, and would eliminate procurement costs for OIG.
OIG would pl omulgate a Compliance Supplement to the LSC Audit Guide setting
forth the requirements of the LSC regulations and provide technical assistance to the
independent local auditors. An Audit Guide requiring A-133 audits has already been
finalized and a proposed Compliance Supplement has been drafted. A new Compliance
Supplement could be de eloped to cover aspects of LSC regulations not currently addressed.
OIG would as sure that the independent local auditors properly carry out their
responsibilities through increased use of Quality Assessment Reviews (QAR), i.e., review of
the work papers of local auditors to assure that the audits are carried out in accordance with
auditing standards.
OIG could CO ntract for special additional audits to monitor particular issues or
programs in which prob. ems appear to exist.
LSC would CO ntimue to inform and educate grantees about compliance
requirements; conduct a sk reviews of grantee documents, policies and procedures to identify
problems or potential pr oblems; and conduct on-site compliance visits. During 1996, LSC's
continuing involvement in monitoring will be of particular importance because there will be
no other monitoring of c ompliance issues created by the FY 1996 Appropriation until FY
1996 is over.
4
11/22/95
12:06
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
006/019
LSC FISCAL YEAR 1996 APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
H.R. 2076
HOUSE
SENATE
(DOMENICI AMD)
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES
PAYMENT TO THE LE GAL SERVICES
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
For payment to the Legal Services
For payment to the Legal Services
Corporation to carry out the Legal Services
Corporation to carry out the purposes of the Legal
Services Corporation Act of 1974, as amended,
Corporation Act, $340,000,000, of which
$327,000, is for direct delivery of legal assistance,
$278,000,000 of which $265,000,000 is for basic
including basic field programs; and $13,000,000
field programs; $8,000,000 is or the Office of the
(to be allocated by the Board of Directors of the
Inspector General, of which $1,750,000 shall be
Corporation) is for management, administration,
used to contract with independent auditing
and the Office of Inspector General: Provided,
agencies for annual financial and program audits
That $115,000,000 of the total amount provided
of all grantees in accordance with Office of
under this heading shall not be available until the
Management and budget Circular A-133; and
$5,000,000 is for management and administration.
date on which the Corporation commences
implementation of the system of competitive
awards of grants and contracts under section 13.
ADMINISTRATION I ROVISIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
LEGAL SERVICES
LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORAT ON
CORPORATION
SEC. 501. Funds appropriated under this
SEC. 11. Funds appropriated under this
Act to the Legal Services Corporation shall be
Act to the Legal Services Corporation for basic
distributed as follows:
field programs shall be distributed as follows:
(1) The Corporation shall define
(1) The Corporation shall define
geographic areas and funds available for
geographic areas and make the funds available for
each geographic area shall be on a per
each geographic area on a per capita basis relative
capita basis pursuant tc the number of poor
to the number of individuals in poverty
people determined by the Bureau of the
determined by the Bureau of the Census to be
Census to be within that geographic area:
within the geographic area, except as provided in
Provided, That funds for a geographic area
paragraph (2)(B). Funds for such a geographic
may be distributed by the Corporation to
area may be distributed by the Corporation to 1 or
one or more persons or entities eligible for
more persons or entities eligible for funding under
funding under section : 006(a)(1)(A) of the
section 1006(a)(1)(A) of the Legal Services
Legal Services Corporation Act, subject to
Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1)(A)),
sections 502 and 504 of this Act;
subject to sections 12 and 14.
11/22/95
12:06
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
007/019
(2) The amount of the grants from
(2) Funds for grants from the Corporation,
the Corporation and of he contracts
and contracts entered into by the Corporation, for
entered into by the Corporation in
basic field programs shall be allocated so as to
accordance with paragraph (1) shall be an
provide-
equal figure per poor persons for all
geographic areas, based on the most recent
(A) except as provided in subparagraph
decennial census of pop ulation conducted
(B). an equal figure per individual in poverty for
pursuant to section 141 of title 13, United
all geographic areas, as determined on the basis of
States Code.
the most recent decennial census of population
conducted pursuant to section 141 of title 13,
United States Code (or, in the case of the
Republic of Palau, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
Alaska, Hawaii, and the United States Virgin
Islands, on the basis of the adjusted population
counts historically used as the basis for such
determinations); and
(B) an additional amount for Native
American communities that received assistance
under the Legal Services Corporation Act for
fiscal year 1995, so that the proportion of the
funds appropriated to the Legal Services
Corporation for basic field programs for fiscal
year 1996 that is received by the Native American
communities shall be not less than the proportion
of such funds appropriated for fiscal year 1995
that was received by the Native American
communities.
SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated
SEC.12. None of the funds appropriated
in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation shall
under this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
be used by the Corporation in making grants or
shall be used by the Corporation to make a grant
entering into contracts for the provision of legal
or enter into a contract for the provision of legal
assistance unless the Corporation ensures that the
assistance unless the Corporation ensures that the
person or entity receiving funding to provide such
person or entity receiving funding to provide such
legal assistance is-
legal assistance is-
(1) a private attorney or attorneys
(1) a private attorney admitted to practice
admitted to practice n one of the States or
in a State or the District of Columbia.
the District of Columbia;
(2) a qualified nonprofit organization,
(2) a qualifie 1 nonprofit
chartered under the laws of a State or the District
organization chartered under the laws of
of Columbia, that--
2
11/22/95
12:07
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
008/019
one of the States or the District of Columbia, a
(A) furnishes legal assistance to eligible
purpose of which is furnishing le gal assistance to
clients; and
eligible clients, the majority of the board of
directors or other governing bod of which is
(B) is governed by a board of directors or
comprised of attorneys who are admitted to
other governing body, the majority of which is
practice in one of the States or the District of
comprised of attorneys who-
Columbia and who are appointed to terms of
office on such board or body by the governing
(i) are admitted to practice in a State or the
bodies of State, county, or municipal bar
District of Columbia; and
associations the membership of which represents a
majority of the attorneys practic ng law in the
(ii) are appointed to terms of office on
locality in which the organization is to provide
such board or body by the governing body of a
legal assistance;
State, county, or municipal bar association, the
membership of which represents a majority of the
attorneys practicing law in the locality in which
the organization is to provide legal assistance;
(3) a State or local government
(3) a State or local government (without
(without regard to section 1006(a)(1)(A)(ii)
regard to section 1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Legal
of the Legal Services Corporation Act); or
Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
2996e(a)(1)(A)(ii)); or
(4) a substate regional planning or
(4) a substate regional planning or
coordination agency wh ch is composed of
coordination agency that serves a substate area and
a substate area whose governing board is
whose governing board is controlled by locally
controlled by locally-elec officials.
elected officials.
SEC. 503. None of the funds appropriated
SEC. 13. (a) Not later than September 1,
in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation for
1996, the Corporation shall implement a system of
grants or contracts to basic field programs may be
competitive awards of grants and contracts that
obligated unless such grants or contracts are
will apply to all grants and contracts for the
awarded on a competitive basis: Provided, That
delivery of legal assistance awarded by the
not later than sixty days after enactment of this
Corporation after the date of implementation of
Act, the Legal Services Corporation shall
the system.
promulgate regulations to implement a competitive
selection process: Provided fur ther, That such
(b) Not later than 60 days after the date of
regulations shall include, but r ot be limited to, the
enactment of this Act, the Legal Services
following selection criteria:
Corporation shall promulgate regulations to
implement a competitive selection process for the
recipients of such grants and contracts.
(c) Such regulations shall specify selection
criteria for the recipients, which shall include-
3
11/22/95
12:07
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
009/019
(1) The demonsiration of a full
(1) a demonstration of a full understanding
understanding of the basic legal needs of
of the basic legal needs of the eligible clients to
the eligible clients to be served and a
be served and a demonstration of the capability of
demonstration of the cabability of serving
serving the needs;
those needs.
(2) The quality, feasibility, and cost
(2) the quality, feasibility. and cost
effectiveness of plans submitted by the
effectiveness of a plan submitted by an applicant
applicant for the delivery of legal
for the delivery of legal assistance to the eligible
assistance to the eligible clients to be
clients to be served; and
served.
(3) The experiences of the
(3) the experience of the Corporation with
Corporation with the applicant, if the
the applicant, if the applicant has previously
applicant has previously received financial
received financial assistance from the Corporation,
assistance from the poration, including
including the record of the applicant of past
the applicant's record of past compliance
compliance with Corporation policies, practices,
with Corporation policies, practices, and
and restrictions.
restrictions:
(d) Such regulations shall ensure that
Provided further, That, such regulations shall
timely notice regarding an opportunity to submit
ensure that timely notice for the submission of
an application for such an award is published in
applications for awards is published in periodicals
periodicals of local and State bar associations and
of local and State bar associations and in at least
in at least I daily newspaper of general circulation
one daily newspaper of general circulation in the
in the area to be served by the person or entity
area to be served by the person or entity receiving
receiving the award.
the award: Providing further, No person or entity
that was previously awarded a grant or contract by
(e) No person or entity that was previously
the Legal Services Corporation for the provision
awarded a grant or contract by the Legal Services
of legal assistance may be given any preference in
Corporation for the provision of legal assistance
the competitive selection process: Provided
may be given any preference in the competitive
further, That for the purposes of the funding
selection process.
provided in this Act, rights under sections
1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the Lega Services
(f) Sections 1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the
Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42
Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 2996j) shall not apply.
2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j) shall not apply
to grants and contracts awarded under the system
of competitive awards for grants and contracts for
the delivery of legal assistance.
SEC. 504. None of the funds appropriated
SEC. 14. (a) None of the funds
in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation may
appropriated under this Act to the Legal Services
be used to provide financial assistance to any
Corporation may be used to provide financial
person or entity-------
assistance to any person or entity (which may be
referred to in this section as a "recipient")
4
11/22/95
12:08
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
010/019
(1) that makes available any funds,
(1) that makes available any funds,
personnel, or equipment for use in advocating or
personnel, or equipment for use in advocating or
opposing any plan or proposal, or represents any
opposing any plan or proposal, or represents any
party or participates in any other way in litigation,
party or participates in any other way in litigation,
that is intended to or has the effect of altering,
that is intended to or has the effect of altering.
revising, or reapportioning a legislative, judicial,
revising, or reapportioning a legislative, judicial,
or elective district at any level of government,
or elective district at any level of government,
including influencing the timing: or manner of the
including influencing the timing or manner of the
taking of a census;
taking of a census;
(2) that attempts to inflt ence the issuance,
(2) that attempts to influence the issuance,
amendment, or revocation of at y executive order,
amendment, or revocation of any executive order,
regulation, or similar promulga ion by any
regulation, or similar promulgation by any
Federal, State, or local agency;
Federal, State, or local agency, except as permitted
in paragraph (3);
(3) that attempts to influ ence any decisions
(3) that attempts to influence any decision
by a Federal, State, or local agency. except when
by a Federal, State, or local agency, except when
legal assistance is provided by in employee of a
legal assistance is provided by an employee of a
grantee to an eligible client on a particular
recipient to an eligible client on a particular
application, claim, or case, whi ch directly involves
application, claim, or case-
the client's legal rights or responsibilities, and
which does not involve the ance, amendment,
(A) that directly involves a legal right or
or revocation of any agency promulgation
responsibility of the client; and
described in paragraph (2);
(B) that does not involve the issuance,
amendment, or revocation of any agency
promulgation described in paragraph (2);
(4) that attempts to ence the passage
(4) that attempts to influence the passage
or defeat of any legislation, constitutional
or defeat of any legislation, constitutional
amendment, referendum, initiat ve, or any similar
amendment, referendum, initiative, or any similar
procedure of the Congress of the United States, or
procedure of Congress or a State or local
by any State or local legislative body;
legislative body;
(5) that attempts to influence the conduct
(5) that attempts to influence the conduct
of oversight proceedings of the Corporation or any
of oversight proceedings of the Corporation or any
person or entity receiving financial assistance
person or entity receiving financial assistance
provided by the Corporation;
provided by the Corporation;
(6) that pays for any pe sonal service,
(6) that pays for any personal service,
advertisement, telegram, teleph one communication,
advertisement, telegram, telephone communication,
letter, printed or written matter administrative
letter, printed or written matter, administrative
expenses, or related expenses, i ssociated with an
expense, or related expense, associated with an
activity prohibited in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4),
activity prohibited in this section;
or (5);
U)
11/22/95
12:09
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
011/019
(7) that brings a class action suit
(7) that initiates or participates in a class
against the Federal Government or any State or
action suit;
local government;
(8) that files a complaint or otherwise
(8) that files a complaint or otherwise
pursues litigation against a defendant, or engaged
initiates litigation against a defendant, or engages
in precomplaint settlement negoiations with a
in a precomplaint settlement negotiation with a
prospective defendant, unless—
prospective defendant, unless—
(A) all plaintiffs have been specifically
(A) each plaintiff has been specifically
identified, by name, in any complaint filed for
identified, by name, in any complaint filed for
purposes of litigation; and
purposes of such litigation or prior to the
precomplaint settlement negotiation; and
(B) a statement or statements of Facts
(B) a statement of facts written in English
written in English and, if necessary, in a language
and, if necessary, in a language that the plaintiff
which the plaintiffs understand, which enumerate
understands, that enumerates the particular facts
the particular facts known to the plaintiffs on
known to the plaintiff on which the complaint is
which the complaint is based, t ave been signed by
based, has been signed by the plaintiff, is kept on
the plaintiffs (including named plaintiffs in a class
file by the recipient, and is made available to any
action), are kept on file by the person or entity
Federal department or agency that is auditing or
provided financial assistance by the Corporation,
monitoring the activities of the Corporation or of
and are made available to any Federal department
the recipient, and to any auditor or monitor
or agency that is auditing the a ctivities of the
receiving Federal funds to conduct such auditing
Corporation or of any recipient, and to any auditor
or monitoring, including any auditor or monitor of
receiving Federal funds to conduct such auditing,
the Corporation, except that—
including any auditor or monitor of the
Corporation:
(i) on establishment of reasonable cause
that an injunction is necessary to prevent probable,
Provided, That upon establishment of reasonable
serious harm to a potential plaintiff, a court of
cause that an injunction is necessary to prevent
competent jurisdiction may enjoin the disclosure
probable, serious harm to such potential plaintiff,
of the identity of the potential plaintiff pending
a court of competent jurisdiction may enjoin the
the outcome of such litigation or negotiation after
disclosure of the identity of any potential plaintiff
notice and an opportunity for a hearing is
pending the outcome of such 1 tigation or
provided to potential parties to the litigation or the
negotiations after notice and an opportunity for a
negotiation; and
hearing is provided to potential parties to the
litigation or the negotiations: Provided further,
(ii) other parties to the litigation or
That other parties shall be access to the statement
negotiation shall have access to the statement of
of facts referred to in subparag;raph (B) only
facts only through the discovery process after
through the discovery process after litigation has
litigation has begun;
begun;
11/22/95
12:09
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
012/019
(9) unless, after January 1, 1996, and prior
(9) unless-
to the provision of financial sistance-
(A) the governing board. of a person or
(A) prior to the provision of financial
entity receiving financial assistance provided by
assistance-
the Legal Services Corporation has set specific
priorities in writing, pursuant to section
(i) if the person or entity is a nonprofit
1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal Services Corporation
organization, the governing board of the person or
Act, of the types of matters and cases to which the
entity has set specific priorities in writing,
staff of the nonprofit organization shall devote its
pursuant to section 1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal
time and resources; and
Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
2996f(a)(2)(C)(i)), of the types of matters and
(B) the staff of such person or entity
cases to which the staff of the nonprofit
receiving financial assistance provided by the
organization shall devote time and resources; and
Legal Services Corporation has signed a written
agreement not to undertake cases or matters other
(ii) the staff of such person or entity has
than in accordance with the specific priorities set
signed a written agreement not to undertake cases
by such governing board, except in emergency
or matters other than in accordance with the
situations defined by such board and in accordance
specific priorities set by such governing board,
with such board's written procedures for such
except in emergency situations defined by such
situations:
board and in accordance with the written
procedures of such board for such situations; and
Provided, That the staff of su ch person or entity
receiving financial assistance provided by the
(B) the staff of such person or entity
Legal Services Corporation shall provide to their
provides to the governing board on a quarterly
respective governing board on a quarterly basis,
basis, and to the Corporation on an annual basis,
and to the Corporation on an annual basis, all
information on all cases or matters undertaken
cases undertaken other than those in accordance
other than cases or matters undertaken in
with such priorities: Provide further, That not
accordance with such priorities;
later than 30 days after enac ment of this Act, the
Corporation shall promulgate: a suggested list of
priorities which boards of directors may use in
setting priorities under this paragraph;
7
11/22/95
12:10
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
013/019
(10) unless, prior to receiving financial
(10) unless—
assistance provided by the Legal Services
Corporation, such person or entity agrees to
(A) prior to receiving the financial
maintain records of time spent 01 each case or
assistance, such person or entity agrees to maintain
matter with respect to which tha: person or entity
records of time spent on each case or matter with
is engaged in activities: Provided, That any non-
respect to which the person or entity is engaged;
Federal funds received by any person or entity
provided financial assistance by the Corporation
(B) any funds, including Interest on
shall be accounted for and reported as receipts and
Lawyers Trust Account funds, received from a
disbursements separate and disti ICE from
source other than the Corporation by the person or
Corporation funds: Provided fur ther, That such
entity, and disbursements of such funds, are
person or entity receiving financial assistance
accounted for and reported as receipts and
provided by the Corporation agrees
disbursements, respectively, separate and distinct
(notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the Legal
from Corporation funds; and
Services Corporation Act) to make such records
described in this paragraph avail able to any
(C) the person or entity agrees
Federal department, or agency or independent
(notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the Legal
auditor receiving Federal funds to conduct an
Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996h(d)) to
audit of the activities of the Co poration or
make the records described in subparagraph (A)
recipient receiving funding und er this Act;
available to any Federal department or agency that
is auditing or monitoring the activities of the
Corporation or of the recipient, and to any auditor
or monitor receiving Federal funds to conduct
such auditing or monitoring, including any auditor
or monitor of the Corporation;
(11) that provides legal assistance for or on
(11) that provides legal assistance for or on
behalf of any alien. unless the alien in present in
behalf of any alien, unless the alien is present in
the United States and is--
the United States and is-
(A) an alien lawfully admitted for
(A) an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence as defined in section
permanent residence as defined in section
101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20);
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
(B) an alien who is either married to a
(B) an alien who-
United States citizen or is a parent or an
unmarried child under the age of 21 years of such
(i) is married to a United States citizen or
a citizen and who has filed an application for
is a parent or an unmarried child under the age of
adjustment of status to permar ent resident under
21 years of such a citizen; and
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and such.
application has not been rejected;
8
11/22/95
12:10
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
014/019
(ii) has filed an application to adjust the
status of the alien to the status of a lawful
permanent resident under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), which
application has not been rejected;
(C) an alien who is lawfi lly present in the
(C) an alien who is lawfully present in the
United States pursuant to an admission under
United States pursuant to an admission under
section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee admission)
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) (relating to refugee
or who has been granted asylum by the Attorney
admission) or who has been granted asylum by the
General under such Act;
Attorney General under such Act;
(D) an alien who is lawf illy present in the
(D) an alien who is lawfully present in the
United States as a result of the Attorney General's
United States as a result of withholding of
withholding of deportation pursuant to section
deportation by the Attorney General pursuant to
243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality
U.S.C. 1253(h)); or
Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h));
(E) an alien to whom section 305 of the
(E) an alien to whom section 305 of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8
applies but only to the extent that the legal
U.S.C. 1101 note) applies, but only to the extent
assistance provided is that described in such
that the legal assistance provided is the legal
section:
assistance described in such section; or
Provided, That an alien who is lawfully present in
(F) an alien who is lawfully present in the
the United States as a result of being granted
United States as a result of being granted
conditional entry pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of
conditional entry to the United States before April
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1,1980, pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of the
1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980, because of
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
persecution or fear of persecution on account of
1153(a)(7)), as in effect on such date, because of
race, religion, or political calamity shall be
persecution on account of race, religion, or
deemed, for purposes of this section, to be an
political calamity;
alien described in subparagraph. (C);
(12) that supports or conducts training
(12) that supports or conducts a training
programs for the purpose of ac vocating particular
program for the purpose of advocating a particular
public policies or encouraging political activities,
public policy or encouraging a political activity, a
labor or antilabor activities, bcycotts, picketing,
labor or antilabor activity, a boycott, picketing, a
strikes, and demonstrations, including the
strike, or a demonstration, including the
dissemination of information about such policies
dissemination of information about such a policy
or activities, except that this P aragraph shall not
or activity, except that this paragraph shall not be
be construed to prohibit the training of attorneys
construed to prohibit the provision of training to
or paralegal personnel to prepare them to provide
an attorney or a paralegal to prepare the attorney
adequate legal assistance to eligible clients or to
or paralegal to provide-
advise any eligible client as tc the nature of the
$
11/22/95
12:11
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
015/019
(2) the Corporation from responding to a
request for comments regarding a Federal funding
proposal.
(c) Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall
promulgate a suggested list of priorities that
boards of directors may use in setting priorities
under subsection (a)(9).
(20) unless such person or entity enters
(d)(1) The Corporation shall not accept any
into a contractual agreement to be subject to all
non-Federal funds, and no recipient shall accept
provisions of Federal law relating to the proper
funds from any source other than the Corporation,
use of Federal funds, the violation of which shall
unless the Corporation or the recipient, as the case
render any grant or contractual agreement or
may be, notifies in writing the source of the funds
provide funding null and void: Provided, That for
that the funds may not be expended for any
such purposes the Corporation shall be considered
purpose prohibited by the Legal Services
to be a Federal agency and all funds provided by
Corporation Act or this title.
the Corporation shall be consio ered to be Federal
funds provided by grant or cor tract.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not prevent a
recipient from-
(A) receiving Indian tribal funds (including
funds from private nonprofit organizations for the
benefit of Indians or Indian tribes) and expending
the tribal funds in accordance with the specific
purposes for which the tribal funds are provided;
or
(B) using funds received from a source
other than the Corporation to provide legal
assistance to a client who is not an eligible client
if such funds are used for the specific purposes for
which such funds were received, except that such
funds may not be expended by recipients for any
purpose prohibited by the Legal Services
Corporation Act or this title (other than any
requirement regarding the eligibility of clients).
(e) As used in this section:
(1) The term "controlled substance" has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
12
11/22/95
12:11
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
016/019
(2) The term "fee-generating case" means a
case that, if undertaken on behalf of an eligible
client by a private attorney would reasonably be
expected to result in a fee for legal services from
an award to an eligible client from public funds,
from the opposing party, or from any other source.
(3) The term "individual in poverty" means
an individual who is a member of a family (of I
or more members) with an income at or below the
poverty line.
(4) The term "poverty line" means the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget, and revised annually in
accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))
applicable to a family of the size involved.
(5) The term "public housing project" has
the meaning as used within section 3, and the term
"public housing agency" has the meaning given
the term in section 3, of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a).
SEC. 505. None of the funds appropriated
SEC. 15. None of the funds appropriated
under this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation or
provided by the Corporation to any entity or
or provided by the Corporation to any entity or
person may be used to pay membership dues to
person may be used to pay membership dues to
any private or nonprofit organization.
any private or nonprofit organization.
SEC. 506. None of the funds appropriated
in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation may
be used by any person or entity receiving financial
assistance from the Corporation to file or pursue a
lawsuit against the Corporation.
13
11/22/95 12:12
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
$
017/019
SEC. 16. The requirements of sections 14
and 15 shall apply to the activities of a recipient
described in section 14, or an employee of such a
recipient, during the provision of legal assistance
for a case or matter, if the recipient or employee
begins to provide the legal assistance on or after
the date of enactment of this Act. If the recipient
or employee began to provide legal assistance for
the case or matter prior to such date, and begins to
SEC. 507. None of the funds appropriated
provide legal assistance for an additional related
in this Act to the Legal Service; Corporation may
claim on or after such date, the requirements shall
be used for any purpose prohibi ted or contrary to
apply to the activities of the recipient or employee
any of the provisions of authorization legislation
during the provision of legal assistance for the
for fiscal year 1996 for the Leg al Services
claim.
Corporation that is enacted into law: Provided,
That, upon enactment of Legal Services
Corporation reauthorization legislation, funding
provided in this Act shall from that date be subject
to the provisions of that legislation and any
provisions in this Act that are nconsistent with
that legislation shall no longer have effect.
14
11/22/95
12:12
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
5
018/019
(A) the person has been charged with the
the eviction proceeding is brought by a public
housing agency because the illegal drug activity of
illegal sale or distribution of a controlled
that person threatens the health 01 safety of other
substance; and
tenants residing in the public hou sing project or
(B) the eviction proceeding is brought by a
employees of the public housing agency:
public housing agency because the illegal drug
Provided. That for the purposes of this paragraph,
activity of the person threatens the health or safety
of another tenant residing in the public housing
the term "controlled substance" h IS the meaning
given that term in section 102 of the Controlled
project or employee of the public housing agency;
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802): Provided further,
or
That for the purposes of this para graph, the terms
"public housing project" and "public housing
agency" have the meanings giver those terms in
section 3 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a);
(19) unless such person or entity agrees
(19) unless such person or entity agrees
that the person or entity, and the employees of the
that it and its employees will no accept
employment resulting from in-person unsolicited
person or entity, will not accept employment
resulting from in-person unsolicited advice to a
advice to a nonattorney that such. nonattorney
should obtain counsel or take legal action:
nonattorney that such nonattorney should obtain
counsel or take legal action, and will not refer
Provided, That such person or entity or its
employees receiving financial assistance provided
such nonattorney to a second person or entity or
by the Corporation shall also ag that such
an employee of the person or entity, that is
person or entity will not refer SL ch nonattorney to
receiving financial assistance provided by the
another person or entity or its employees that are
Legal Services Corporation, except that this
receiving financial assistance provided by the
paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit such
Legal Services Corporation; or
first person or entity or an employee of the person
or entity from referring such nonattorney to the
appropriate Federal, State, or local agency with
jurisdiction over the matter involved.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to prohibit-
(1) a recipient from using funds from a
source other than the Corporation for the purpose
of contacting, communicating with, or responding
to a request from, a State or local government
agency, a State or local legislative body or
committee. or a member thereof, regarding
funding for the recipient, including a pending or
proposed legislative or agency proposal to fund
such recipient; or
I
11/22/95
12:13
202 336 8959
LEGAL SVCS CORP
1
019/019
legislative process or inform any eligible client of
(A) adequate legal assistance to eligible
his or her rights under statute, order, or regulation;
clients; or
(B) advice to any eligible client as to the
legal rights of the client;
(13) that provides lega. assistance with
(13) that provides legal assistance with
respect to any fee-generating :ase: Provided. That
respect to any fee-generating case, if a private
for the purposes of this parag aph the term "fee-
attorney is available and willing to take the case;
generating case" means any case which, if
undertaken on behalf of an eligible client by an
attorney in private practice may reasonably be
expected to result in a fee for legal services from
an award to a client from public funds, from the
opposing party, or from any other source:
(14) that claims, or wł ose employees or
(14) that claims, or whose employee or
clients claim, or collect attorneys' fees from
eligible client claims. or collects, attorneys' fees
nongovernmental parties to litigation initiated by
from a nongovernmental party to litigation,
such client with the assistance of such recipient or
initiated after January 1, 1996, by such client with
its employees;
the assistance of such recipient or an employee of
the recipient;
(15) that participates in any litigation with
(15) that participates in any litigation with
respect to abortion;
respect to abortion;
(16) that participates in any litigation on
(16) that participates in any litigation on
behalf of a local, State, or Federal prisoner:
behalf of a person incarcerated in a Federal. State,
or local prison;
(17) that provides legal representation for
(17) that initiates legal representation or
any person, or participates in any other way, in
participates in any other way, in litigation,
litigation, lobbying, or rulemaking involving
lobbying, or rulemaking, involving an effort to
efforts to reform a State or Federal welfare
reform a Federal or State welfare system, except
system, except that this parag aph shall not
that this paragraph shall not be construed to
preclude a recipient from representing an
preclude a recipient from representing an
individual client who is seeking specific relief
individual eligible client who is seeking specific
from a welfare agency where such relief does not
relief from a welfare agency, if such relief does
involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge
not involve an effort to amend or otherwise
existing law;
challenge existing law (as of the date of the
effort);
(18) that defends a person in a proceeding
(18) that defends a person in a proceeding
to evict that person from a public housing project
to evict the person from a public housing project
if that person has been charged with the illegal
if
sale or distribution of a controlled substance and if
10
To: Melanne
From: Chris CERF
FY)
Office of the Attorney General
Old
Washington, D. C. 20530
November 29, 1995
The Honorable Judd Gregg
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State and The Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
By this letter, we want to convey the Administration's strong support for the
reauthorization and appropriate funding of the Legal Services Corporation as you
consider the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 96
Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076).
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") delivers a broad array of needed legal
services to poor and low-income citizens nationwide at levels of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness rarely realized in either public or private management. Legal Services
Corporation providers nationwide handle more than 1.7 million cases each year,
improving the lives of families and the quality of life in their communities. Program
providers help families secure safe housing, prevent illegal evictions,-an protect clients'
health, educational, and employment rights. The Corporation's management devotes only
three percent of its budget to its administrative functions.
In the strongest terms, therefore, we wish to convey the Administration's view that
the Corporation's funding should be sufficient for it to continue to provide these vital
services to poor and low-income citizens and their families throughout the country.
Most important, we support the Senate bill's recognition that the Corporation's
Board must retain discretion to allocate $13 million in funds as needed among
administration and*management and the Office of the Inspector General. This provision
in the Senate bill is crucial to the Corporation's continued operation. The House bill's
mandatory division of those funds -- $8 million to the Office of Inspector General,
leaving only $5 million for LSC administration and management - would prevent the
Corporation from fulfilling its statutory duties. The House provision would cripple the
Corporation, without saving any money. It must not be adopted.
7002
DAG
2687 S14
12:04
96/08/11
We wish to make several additional points about practical implications of the two
bills. First, we support the Senate bill's allocation of funds at the national level for
grantees directly to deliver legal assistance to Native Americans, and the Senate bill's
permission for the Corporation to continue its current practice of funding programs in
Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in a way that accounts for the high costs of
delivering services there.
Second, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal
services programs to complete existing cases begun before the Appropriations Act
becomes law, but which could no longer be brought under the restrictions in that Act.
This Senate provision is necessary, if for no other reason than to permit legal services
attorneys to fulfill their ethical obligations to their clients under state law.
Third, we support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1, 1996 for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants.
The House bill's requirement of January 1, 1996, imposes an unworkably abbreviated
implementation period.
Fourth, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would clearly permit legal
services programs to accept otherwise eligible cases if private attorneys are not available
or willing to take them, even if the cases are potentially "fee-generating." The possibility
of payment is so remote or so minimal in many important cases that no private attorney
will take them. Poor or low-income citizens in such circumstances should be permitted
to continue to turn to the legal services system to protect them. To mention but one
example, under the House provision, Black Lung victims and their families may be
unable to secure legal representation in many cases.
Finally, we support the provisions of the Senate bill that allow recipients to use
non-LSC funds to seek or maintain state and local funding to expand the availability of
legal services to the poor, and to communicate with and respond to such bodies when
they are considering issues affecting the recipient's funding.
We urge you to permit the Legal Services Corporation to continue to serve as an
important source of protection and hope for so many of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Junethew
Jan John M. Quinn Qui
Attorney General
Counsel to the President
003
9V0
2689 514 2022
12:05
96/08/11
INTENT
OF
Office of the Attorney General
SECUITURE
Washington, D. C 20530
JUSTITU
November 29, 1995
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Chairman
Subcommittee on commerce Justice,
State, and Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
By this letter, we want to convey the Administration's strong support for the
reauthorization and appropriate funding of the Legal Services Corporation as you
consider the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 96
Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076).
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") delivers a broad array of needed legal
services to poor and low-income citizens nationwide at levels of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness rarely realized in either public or private management. Legal Services
Corporation providers nationwide handle more than 1.7 million cases each year,
improving the lives of families and the quality of life in their communities. Program
providers help families secure safe housing, prevent illegal evictions, and protect clients'
health, educational, and employment rights. The Corporation's management devotes only
three percent of its budget to its administrative functions.
In the strongest terms, therefore, we wish to convey the Administration's view that
the Corporation's funding should be sufficient for it to continue to provide these vital
services to poor and low-income citizens and their families throughout the country.
Most important, we support the Senate bill's recognition that the Corporation's
Board must retain discretion to allocate $13 million in funds as needed among
administration and management and the Office of the Inspector General. This provision
in the Senate bill is crucial to the Corporation's continued operation. The House bill's
mandatory division of those funds - $8 million to the Office of Inspector General,
leaving only $5 million for LSC administration and management - would prevent the
Corporation from fulfilling its statutory duties. The House provision would cripple the
Corporation, without saving any money. It must not be adopted.
004
DVG
2687 S14 2022
12:06
96/08/11
We wish to make several additional points about practical implications of the two
bills. First, we support the Senate bill's allocation of funds at the national level for
grantees directly to deliver legal assistance to Native Americans, and the Senate bill's
permission for the Corporation to continue its current practice of funding programs in
Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in a way that accounts for the high costs of
delivering services there.
Second, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal
services programs to complete existing cases begun before the Appropriations Act
becomes law, but which could no longer be brought under the restrictions in that Act.
This Senate provision is necessary, if for no other reason than to permit legal services
attorneys to fulfill their ethical obligations to their clients under state law.
Third, we support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1, 1996 for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants.
The House bill's requirement of January 1, 1996, imposes an unworkably abbreviated
implementation period.
Fourth, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would clearly permit legal
services programs to accept otherwise eligible cases if private attorneys are not available
or willing to take them, even if the cases are potentially "fee-generating." The possibility
of payment is so remote or so minimal in many important cases that no private attorney
will take them. Poor or low-income citizens in such circumstances should be permitted
to continue to turn to the legal services system to protect them. To mention but one
example, under the House provision, Black Lung victims and their families may be
unable to secure legal representation in many cases.
Finally, we support the provisions of the Senate bill that allow recipients to use
non-LSC funds to seek or maintain state and local funding to expand the availability of
legal services to the poor, and to communicate with and respond to such bodies when
they are considering issues affecting the recipient's funding.
We urge you to permit the Legal Services Corporation to continue to serve as an
important source of protection and hope for so many of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Junet Bus
Jane ohn M. Quinn Qui
Attorney General
Counsel to the President
900
DVG
2689 114 2022
12:06
96/08/11
THE
Office of the Attorney General
Mashington, D. C. 20530
AMOUNT
JUSTITIA
November 29, 1995
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, and Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Mollohan:
By this letter, we want to convey the Administration's strong support for the
reauthorization and appropriate funding of the Legal Services Corporation as you
consider the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 96
Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076).
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") delivers a broad array of needed legal
services to poor and low-income citizens nationwide at levels of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness rarely realized in either public or private management. Legal Services
Corporation providers nationwide handle more than 1.7 million cases each year,
improving the lives of families and the quality of life in their communities. Program
providers help families secure safe housing, prevent illegal evictions, and protect clients'
health, educational, and employment rights. The Corporation's management devotes only
three percent of its budget to its administrative functions.
In the strongest terms, therefore, we wish to convey the Administration's view that
the Corporation's funding should be sufficient for it to continue to provide these vital
services to poor and low-income citizens and their families throughout the country.
Most important, we support the Senate bill's recognition that the Corporation's
Board must retain discretion to allocate $13 million in funds as needed among
administration and management and the Office of the Inspector General. This provision
in the Senate bill is crucial to the Corporation's continued operation. The House bill's
mandatory division of those funds - - $8 million to the Office of Inspector General,
leaving only $5 million for LSC administration and management -- would prevent the
Corporation from fulfilling its statutory duties. The House provision would cripple the
Corporation, without saving any money. It must not be adopted.
900
9Vd
2687 S14 2020
12:07
11/30/95
We wish to make several additional points about practical implications of the two
bills. First, we support the Senate bill's allocation of funds at the national level for
grantees directly to deliver legal assistance to Native Americans, and the Senate bill's
permission for the Corporation to continue its current practice of funding programs in
Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in a way that accounts for the high costs of
delivering services there.
Second, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal
services programs to complete existing cases begun before the Appropriations Act
becomes law, but which could no longer be brought under the restrictions in that Act.
This Senate provision is necessary, if for no other reason than to permit legal services
attorneys to fulfill their ethical obligations to their clients under state law.
Third, we support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1, 1996 for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants.
The House bill's requirement of January 1, 1996, imposes an unworkably abbreviated
implementation period.
Fourth, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would clearly permit legal
services programs to accept otherwise eligible cases if private attorneys are not available
or willing to take them, even if the cases are potentially "fee-generating." The possibility
of payment is so remote or so minimal in many important cases that no private attorney
will take them. Poor or low-income citizens in such circumstances should be permitted
to continue to turn to the legal services system to protect them. To mention but one
example, under the House provision, Black Lung victims and their families may be
unable to secure legal representation in many cases.
Finally, we support the provisions of the Senate bill that allow recipients to use
non-LSC funds to seek or maintain state and local funding to expand the availability of
legal services to the poor, and to communicate with and respond to such bodies when
they are considering issues affecting the recipient's funding.
We urge you to permit the Legal Services Corporation to continue to serve as an
important source of protection and hope for so many of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Junet Buo
Jan Quinn Quin
Attorney General
to
the
President
207
DVC
2687 S14 202
12:08
96/08/11
OF
Office of the Attorney General
PRO
SEQUITUR
Washington, D. C. 20530
November 29, 1995
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, and The Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hollings:
By this letter, we want to convey the Administration's strong support for the
reauthorization and appropriate funding of the Legal Services Corporation as you
consider the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 96
Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076).
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") delivers a broad array of needed legal
services to poor and low-income citizens nationwide at levels of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness rarely realized in either public or private management. Legal Services
Corporation providers nationwide handle more than 1.7 million cases each year,
improving the lives of families and the quality of life in their communities. Program
providers help families secure safe housing, prevent illegal evictions, and protect clients'
health, educational, and employment rights. The Corporation's management devotes only
three percent of its budget to its administrative functions.
In the strongest terms, therefore, we wish to convey the Administration's view that
the Corporation's funding should be sufficient for it to continue to provide these vital
services to poor and low-income citizens and their families throughout the country.
Most important, we support the Senate bill's recognition that the Corporation's
Board must retain discretion to allocate $13 million in funds as needed among
administration and management and the Office of the Inspector General. This provision
in the Senate bill is crucial to the Corporation's continued operation. The House bill's
mandatory division of those funds -- $8 million to the Office of Inspector General,
leaving only $5 million for LSC administration and management -- would prevent the
Corporation from fulfilling its statutory duties. The House provision would cripple the
Corporation, without saving any money. It must not be adopted.
800
DAG
2687 T14 2022
12:09
11/30/95
We wish to make several additional points about practical implications of the two
bills. First, we support the Senate bill's allocation of funds at the national level for
grantees directly to deliver legal assistance to Native Americans, and the Senate bill's
permission for the Corporation to continue its current practice of funding programs in
Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in a way that accounts for the high costs of
delivering services there.
Second, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal
services programs to complete existing cases begun before the Appropriations Act
becomes law, but which could no longer be brought under the restrictions in that Act.
This Scnate provision is necessary, if for no other reason than to permit legal services
attorneys to fulfill their ethical obligations to their clients under state law.
Third, we support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1, 1996 for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants.
The House bill's requirement of January 1, 1996, imposes an unworkably abbreviated
implementation period.
Fourth, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would clearly permit legal
services programs to accept otherwise eligible cases if private attorneys are not available
or willing to take them, even if the cases are potentially "fee-generating." The possibility
of payment is so remote or so minimal in many important cases that no private attorney
will take them. Poor or low-income citizens in such circumstances should be permitted
to continue to turn to the legal services system to protect them. To mention but one
example, under the House provision, Black Lung victims and their families may be
unable to secure legal representation in many cases.
Finally, we support the provisions of the Senate bill that allow recipients to use
non-LSC funds to seek or maintain state and local funding to expand the availability of
legal services to the poor, and to communicate with and respond to such bodies when
they are considering issues affecting the recipient's funding.
We urge you to permit the Legal Services Corporation to continue to serve as an
important source of protection and hope for so many of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Junethew
June John M. Quinn Qui President
Attorney General
Counsel
to
the
600
D
DVG
2687 514 2022
12:09
96/08/11
Office of the Attorney General
03d
DESUITUR
Washington. D. C. 20530
JUSTITIA
November 29, 1995
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Domenici:
Thank you for your continued strong support for the Legal Services Corporation.
By this letter, we want to convey the Administration's strong support for the
reauthorization and appropriate funding of the Legal Services Corporation as you
consider the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 96
Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076).
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") delivers a broad array of needed legal
services to poor and low-income citizens nationwide at levels of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness rarely realized in either public or private management. Legal Services
Corporation providers nationwide handle more than 1.7 million cases each year,
improving the lives of families and the quality of life in their communities. Program
providers help families secure safe housing, prevent illegal evictions, and protect clients'
health, educational, and employment rights. The Corporation's management devotes only
three percent of its budget to its administrative functions.
In the strongest terms, therefore, we wish to convey the Administration's view that
the Corporation's funding should be sufficient for it to continue to provide these vital
services to poor and low-income citizens and their families throughout the country.
Most important, WC support the Senate bill's recognition that the Corporation's
Board must retain discretion to allocate $13 million in funds as needed among
administration and management and the Office of the Inspector General. This provision
in the Senate bill is crucial to the Corporation's continued operation. The House bill's
mandatory division of those funds -- $8 million to the Office of Inspector General,
leaving only $5 million for LSC administration and management would prevent the
Corporation from fulfilling its statutory duties. The House provision would cripple the
Corporation, without saving any money. It must not be adopted.
010
DVG
2689 514 202
12:10
96/08/15
We wish to make several additional points about practical implications of the two
bills. First, we support the Senate bill's allocation of funds at the national level for
grantees directly to deliver legal assistance to Native Americans, and the Senate bill's
permission for the Corporation to continue its current practice of funding programs in
Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands in a way that accounts for the high costs of
delivering services there.
Second, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal
services programs to complete existing cases begun before the Appropriations Act
becomes law, but which could no longer be brought under the restrictions in that Act.
This Senate provision is necessary, if for no other reason than to permit legal services
attorneys to fulfill their cthical obligations to their clients under state law.
Third, we support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1, 1996 for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants.
The House bill's requirement of January 1, 1996, imposes an unworkably abbreviated
implementation period.
Fourth, we support the provision in the Senate bill that would clearly permit legal
services programs to accept otherwise eligible cases if private attorneys are not available
or willing to take them, even if the cases are potentially "fee-generating." The possibility
of payment is so remote or so minimal in many important cases that no private attorney
will take them. Poor or low-income citizens in such circumstances should bc permitted
to continue to turn to the legal services system to protect them. To mention but one
example, under the House provision, Black Lung victims and their families may be
unable to secure legal representation in many cases.
Finally, we support the provisions of the Senate bill that allow recipients to use
non-LSC funds to seek or maintain state and local funding to expand the availability of
legal services to the poor, and to communicate with and respond to such bodies when
they are considering issues affecting the recipient's funding.
We urge you to permit the Legal Services Corporation to continue to serve as an
important source of protection and hope for so many of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Junethew
Ju John M. Quinn Qmi President
Attorney General
Counsel
to
the
110
DVC
2687 S14 202
12:11
11/30/95
03/04/96 17:13
202 224 7042
SUBCOM GEN FED
WILLIAM S. COHEN
MAINE
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1901
March 4, 1996
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As the attached letter to Senator Hatfield indicates, there is support among a group
of Republican Senators to reduce the proposed budget cut for the Legal Services
Corporation and relieve the restrictions that the vetoed appropriation bill would have
placed on legal services organizations. I will continue to work toward achieving these
goals during the appropriations process. I hope you will attempt to further these ends as
well in negotiations over the 1996 budget.
With warmest regards, I am
Peed William S. Cohen
Sincerely,
United States Senator
Enclosure
WSC:dhs
SUBCOM GEN FED
03/04/96
17:13
202 224 7042
WILLIAM S. COHEN
MAINE
Anited States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1901
March 1, 1996
The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield
Chairman
Senate Appropriations Committee
United States Capitol, Rm. S-128
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mark:
We are writing as supporters of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). It is our
understanding that an omnibus continuing resolution may be proposed to provide funding
for the remainder of the year to departments that have not yet received their annual
appropriation. In the event this occurs, we urge you to negotiate with the Administration
and the House for legislation that will enable legal services organizations across the
country to continue providing high quality legal representation to the most needy and
vulnerable of our citizens.
As to funding, we support the original Senate position of a $340 million
appropriation for the LSC. While we understand that compromise is necessary, we hope
that the eventual appropriation will be much closer to the original Senate position than the
$278 million approved in the conference report to the CJS Appropriations Bill.
Our primary purpose in writing is to express our support for limiting the
restrictions that the resolution will place on recipients of LSC funds. In the past,
Congress has restricted the purposes for which federal funds distributed by LSC could be
used. Legal services organizations that received LSC grants, however, have always been
free to use funds obtained from other sources, such as state governments, bar associations,
and private donors, as they saw fit. The original CJS Appropriations Bill, however,
would have placed 19 separate restrictions on the activities of any legal services
organization that received federal funds, effectively precluding them from choosing how
to spend their non-federal funds. In our view, this unwarranted federal mandate runs
entirely counter to the prevailing sentiment that the federal government should be
minimizing the extent to which it interferes with state governments and private
organizations. Moreover, during this period of scarce federal resourcès, we should be
encouraging, not discouraging, the development of alternative funding sources for legal
services.
004
SUBCOM GEN FED
03/04/96 17:14
202 224 7042
The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield
March 1, 1996
Page 2
We urge you to negotiate for an LSC appropriation that provides legal services
organizations with discretion to spend their own funds in a manner that they believe will
best serve the indigent citizens in their own communities.
Sincerely,
Till ellen
SmH. Chase
ailm Rect
Anom
Jana Jofford
COMMENTARY
The Washington Times
FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1995 / PAGE A21
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
he Legal Services Corp. is
felons. LSC's class action suit
T
the acid test to demonstrate
whether the new Republi-
Outgoing tide for Legal Services Corp.?
against the North Carolina prison
system resulted in a requirement
can majority really intends
that each of 13 prisons provide soft-
to reform and reduce big govern-
ball and basketball equipment for
ment. If the Republicans merely
destructive as spending the money
tating "training,"
two teams, a piano, a set of drums,
play around with smoke and mir-
the way they did.
they are using
three guitars and five Frisbees.
rors, pretending to correct abuses,
In fact, they spent the money to
euphemisms for
Another LSC victory was to estab-
but leave the money faucet turned
litigate and lobby to increase enti-
political organizing
lish Chicago prisoners' rights to
on, they will have betrayed their
tlements (for welfare, aliens, crim-
and lobbying for
cable television and expensive
mandate from the 1994 election and
inals, etc.) that are the chief cause
pro-abortion, pro-
weight rooms.
left their enemies with a gun point-
of federal deficits. Howard Phillips,
gay rights, pro-wel-
Other exotic LSC lawsuits includ-
ed at their head.
who has been monitoring LSC since
fare entitlement,
ed representing transsexuals in an
Budget leader Rep. John Kasich,
1970 when President Nixon
pro-criminal, pro-
effort to overturn Georgia's prohi-
Ohio Republican, has scheduled
appointed him to a position that
drug and pro-illegal
bition on Medicaid reimbursement
LSC for termination, except for
included that responsibility, asserts
alien causes.
for sex change operations, forcing
some shutdown expenses. Sen. Phil
that LSC activism has added $2 tril-
LSC's litigation
public housing officials to rent
Gramm, Texas Republican, is try-
lion to the national debt.
deserves a large
apartments to unemancipated
ing to get the Senate to agree.
The LSC lawyers have con-
share of the blame
minors, and trying to define opium
Unfortunately, Rep. Bill McCollum,
structed for themselves such a
for the out-of-con-
and alcohol addiction as disabilities
Florida Republican, is working with
Byzantine, self-perpetuating infra-
trol, failed welfare
under the Americans with Disabil-
the Democrats to reauthorize (i.e.,
structure and grant-making mech-
crisis we have
ities Act.
to save) LSC under the euphemism
anism that they are accountable to
today. LSC initiated
LSC's current president, Alexan-
of "reform."
no one: not to Congress, or to the
the case, King vs.
der Forger (best known as Jacque-
The ideological incompatibility
administration, or to the people
Smith, in which the
line Kennedy Onassis' lawyer), was
of the LSC with the new Republican
they serve, or to the taxpayers who
Supreme Court
questioned in April by a congres-
regime is indicated by the fact that
foot the bills.
ruled in 1968 that
sional committee about the imposi-
Hillary Rodham Clinton used to be
When most people think of legal
the behavior of wel-
tion of certain limitations on the way
its chairman of the board. LSC has
aid services for the poor, they think
fare mothers,
LSC funds are spent. He impudent-
continued to be peopled with leftist
of helping victims, especially
including cohabit-
ly replied: "There is a legal case, if
activists who share her class-war-
women and children. Instead, LSC
ing with wage-earn-
we choose to assert it, that the House
fare ideology and socialist goals.
works for such causes as prevent-
ing males, could not
Committee does not have the author-
The record of LSC shows that it
ing the eviction of drug dealers
be considered when
ity to make that decision."
functions not to provide services to
from public housing, shielding vio-
determining eligibility for benefits.
benefits can be cut off for any rea-
property right in our houses or
Radical left-wing activism is part
the needy, but to serve as a pot of
lent offenders' criminal records
In Shapiro vs. Thompson, in
son. As a result, hardly anyone is
automobiles. This off-the-wall ratio-
and parcel of LSC. It is a fraud on
gold for left-wing activists to litigate
from the public, getting perks for
1969, LSC got the Supreme Court to
ever cut off.
nale has become the cornerstone of
the public to pretend it can be
and lobby for radical causes.
prison inmates, and releasing men-
ban the one-year residency require-
The theory behind these cases,
the welfare rights movement,
reformed. It must be abolished.
LSC has spent $5 billion since
tal patients (who often then join the
ment for welfare eligibility. In 1970,
invented by LSC tax-funded
which has changed our laws and
1974. If the left-wing lawyers had
ranks of the homeless).
in Goldberg vs. Kelly, LSC per-
lawyers, is that welfare recipients
picked the pockets of taxpayers.
mercly torched the money, that
When LSC lawyers talk about
suaded the Supreme Court to
have a property right in their ben-
Another favorite LSC con-
Phyllis Schlafly is a nationally
wouldn't have been nearly as
conducting "research" and facili-
require a hearing process before
efits, just like the rest of us have a
stituency is incarcerated convicted
syndicated columnist.
The Washington Times
FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1995
He came, he saw, he lost everything
they followed through on their threat.
The political damage to Mr. Yeltsin from the
crisis in Budennovsk, on top of the fallout
from the bungled operation in Chechnya,
By David J. Kramer
for his role. He secured release of the hostages
Instead, he chose to stay at the G-7 meeting,
leaves the Russian leader at the most vulner-
in negotiations seen live on nationwide tele-
with Russian television showing him shaking
able point in his political career. Mr. Yeltsin
I
magine the following scenario: On the eve
vision, but in granting the rebels free passage
hands with the local population and attending
has tried to exploit the hostage crisis, citing
of last week's Group of Seven meetíng, 70
back to Chechnya, he also yielded to the
a circus performance, seemingly without a
it as justification for his policy in Chechnya,
heavily armed paramilitary radicals storm
rebels' demands. "The hostage crisis finished
care in the world.
which he characterized as "the center of
a small city in America's heartland, killing
with the worst scenario," wrote Pavel Fel-
In stark contrast with the image of Mr.
world terrorism, of bribery and corruption
dozens of civilians and taking more than 1,000
gengauer, a respected columnist for the lib-
Yeltsin in Halifax, Russian television also
and Mafia."
hostages. Should Bill Clinton go to Halifax,
eral newspaper Segodnya. "The terrorists
showed pictures from Budennovsk, where
Yet most Russians are uninterested in such
Nova Scotia, for the G-7 meeting or stay in
reached their goal and returned to the moun-
dozens of dead were being brought to an over-
arguments. As much as they will blame the
Washington to oversee the situation and pro-
tains with a victory."
flowing morgue and hundreds of hostages
Chechens for Budennovsk, Russians will also
vide a sense of leadership as he did after the
The lower house of the Russian parliament,
were at the mercy of the Chechen rebels. Tele-
hold Mr. Yeltsin responsbile for what hap-
Oklahoma bombing? The choice is obvious:
had scheduled a vote of no confidence in the
vision coverage also showed the results of two
pened there. They will also want to know how
Crises at home take precedence over any
Chernomyrdin government before the Buden-
abortive rescue missions by Russian forces
the military and security forces could have let
international summit; the G-7 would have to
novsk crisis. In voting several days after the
surrounding the hospital, leading to even
the situation in Budennovsk happen and why
wait until next year.
crisis ended, the Duma passed the non-bind-
more deaths.
those forces responded so ineptly to the
The answer was not so obvious to Boris
ing motion last Wednesday, the first time it had
While hundreds of Russians were being
hostage crisis.
Yeltsin, who faced a real-life crisis similar to
done so since being elected in December
killed and injured in Budennovsk, Mr. Yeltsin
Even Mr. Yeltsin has raised such concerns.
the one described above. Chechen rebels,
1993. A second no-confidence vote, which
was thousands of miles away, completely
"We will have to learn why those who are
protesting the brutal six-month Russian mil-
under the constitution would force Mr. Yeltsin
removed from the situation. The Russian
responsible for maintaining law and order
itary operation against their homeland,
to either dissolve the parliament or dismiss
leader did not help his image on his second
allowed the situation to get out of control," he
stormed the southern city of Budennovsk,
the Chernomyrdin government, is set for
day in Halifax, as he gesticulated frantically
said before leaving for Halifax. While looking
'killing more than 100 civilians and seizing
tomorrow. Yet negotiations over the past few
with President Clinton looking on and angri-
for scapegoats, however, Mr. Yeltsin needs to
over 1,000 hostages in a local hospital. Two
days between the parliament and govern-
ly denounced the hostage-takers.
keep in mind that the forces he is now criti-
days after the rebel attack and with the crisis
ment appear to have headed off such a show-
Before the latest crisis in Budennovsk, polls
cizing are the same ones responsible for keep-
still unresolved, Russian President Boris
down. They have not, however, ended Mr.
showed Mr. Yeltsin's popularity among Rus-
ing him in power.
Yeltsin boarded a plane for Canada to meet
Yeltsin's problems.
sians at an all-time low. His decision last
Some observers cite Mr. Yeltsin's recent
with leaders of the G-7.
Indeed, the political fallout from the crisis
December to send troops into the rebellious
actions as further reason to believe that the
In an effort to fill the huge leadership void
for the government, and in particular for Mr.
republic of Chechnya certainly did not help
Russian leader will not be re-elected in pres-
left by Mr. Yeltsin's absence, Russian Prime
Yeltsin, will be felt for a long time. While he
his cause. That decision, which has led to a
idential elections next June, assuming he runs
Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin broke off his
has been counted out many times before, only
brutal six-month occupation of Chechnya,
again. Others suspect that he will use the cri-
vacation and returned to Moscow to deal with
to bounce back, Mr. Yeltsin's inept handling of
drove a wedge between Mr. Yeltsin and
sis in Buddennovsk to justify declaring a
the crisis, winning both praise and criticism
the crisis in Budennovsk may prove to be the
reformist politicians such as Yegor Gaidar
nationwide state of emergency and postpon-
challenge from which he is unable to recov-
who had supported the Russian president,
ing parliamentary elections scheduled for
er.
albeit reluctantly. It also led to the terrorist
December and the presidential election,
David J. Kramer is executive coordinator of
Mr. Yeltsin's biggest mistake was going to
action last week in Budennovsk. After
though this seems increasingly unlikely.
Russian and Eurasian programs at the
Canada. After landing in Halifax, he should
Moscow sent troops into Chechnya, rebels
Either way, Mr. Yeltsin will not have to worry
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
have turned around and returned immedi-
threatened to carry out terrorist acts against
about leaving Moscow to attend next year's G-
in Washington.
ately to Moscow to deal with the crisis.
Russian targets in retaliation. In Budennovsk,
7 summit meeting in Lyons, France.
file LSC
New Jersey Law Intrnal
NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, DECEMBER 26, 1994
OP-ED
Preserve the Legal Services Corporation
By Douglas S. Eakeley*
assistance in noncriminal proceedings
to adequate legal counsel will serve
or matters to persons financially un-
best the ends of justice and assist in
able to afford legal assistance. A
improving opportunities for low-
Once again. the Legal Services
corporation insulated from political
income persons consistent with the
Corporation is under attack - and
pressures and directed by a bipartisan
purposes of this Act.
with it. this country's commitment to
board of directors appointed by the
"liberty and justice for all.
president and confirmed by the Sen-
But controversy and adversity are
ate, the LSC was designed to be "a
OPINION AND COMMENTARY
no strangers to the Legal Services
permanent and vital part of the
program. As former U.S. Senator
American system of justice," in the
Warren Rudman aptly observed:
words of President Nixon.
With the new Congress
"When migrant workers and other
poor individuals assert their legal
Equal Access to Justice
preparing to take
rights. they can offend powerful in-
office, it is appropriate
terests in society. That does not mean
The federal funding provided to the
there is something wrong with the
corporation by Congress was intended
to consider why the
program: it means that it is doing its
not merely as a charity, but rather to
LSC deserves
job.
serve the ends of justice, as its au-
With the new Congress preparing
thorizing legislation makes clear:
continuing bipartisan
to take office. it is appropriate to
consider why the LSC deserves con-
The Congress finds and declares
support for its national
that -
tinuing bipartisan support for its na-
mission.
tional mission.
(1) there is a need to provide equal
The Legal Services Corporation Act
access to the system of justice in
our Nation for individuals who
was signed into law by President
Nixon in 1974. Its purpose was to
seek redress of grievances;
In creating LSC, Congress also
"provide financial support for legal
(2) there is a need to provide high
endorsed a model of federalism: LSC
quality legal assistance to those
was not to provide legal assistance
who would be otherwise unable to
directly, but rather through local
afford adequate legal counsel and
The author is chairman of the
programs responsible for identifying
to continue the present vital legal
Legal Services Corporation and a
and prioritizing the needs of their
services program;
partner with Roseland's Lowenstein,
communities. Each local program is
(3) providing legal assistance to
Sandler. Kohl. Fisher & Boylan.
governed by a board of directors, a
those who face an economic barrier
majority of whom are attorneys ap-
pointed by local bar associations, with
and the provision of technical assist-
Nevertheless. the class action re-
At current funding levels, and
the balance reflecting the local client
ance. It performs these functions on a
mains the most efficient and cost-
supplemented by all other funding
communities.
budget that represents only 3 percent
effective vehicle to address wide-
sources, Legal Services programs are
These diverse and complementary
of its total annual appropriation,
spread abuses affecting large numbers
able to address only about 20 percent
programs comprise a coherent na-
making LSC one of the more cost
of individuals. A case in point is
of the estimated need for legal ser-
tional delivery system that combines
effective - if not the most cost
Sullivan V. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521.541
vices. As former Congressman and
local decision-making and service
effective - federally-funded programs
(1990), in which the Supreme Court
LSC director Guy Molinari testified
provision with essential support,
in the country.
determined that the Secretary of
on behalf of LSC's request for an
coordination, and oversight at the
Also noteworthy is the partnership
Health and Human Services was sys-
appropriation of $525 million two
state and national levels. The benefits
with the private sector that the pro-
tematically denying benefits under the
years ago, "[W]e can argue about the
that it secures extend far beyond those
gram has forged over the years. The
Supplemental Security Income Pro.
amount of unmet need; but I don't
received directly by its clients because
private bar has always been sup-
gram to large numbers of severely
think there is any dispute about the
its successes provide protection and
portive of LSC, and each Legal Ser-
disabled children, in a fashion that
fact that there is a very substantial
afford access to many other similarly
vices program is required to involve
was 'manifestly contrary to the
amount of people out there who are,
situated individuals.
private attorneys in the provision of
statute.
in fact, in need of civil legal services
Judged by any measure, LSC has
legal services to needy clients. Today.
There are also those who question
been a resounding success. Twenty
Whatever figure you come up
more than 130,000 private attorneys
the federal interest in continuing the
years after its creation, it supports and
with in your own generosity will not
volunteer their time for this purpose.
oversees 323 programs operating 919
Legal Services program. and suggest
be anywhere near enough to fully
A large number of clients and client
that state and local governments and/
neighborhood law offices located
meet the need.'
representatives are engaged in lay
or private charities can replace I.SC
throughout the United States and its
Now more than ever, America
advocacy and in training nonlawyers
and the federa! funding it receives.
territories. Legal Services programs
needs a vibrant Legal Services pro-
how to work within the legal and
But I.SC serves a historic federal role
have provided legal assistance and
gram. Despite a solid economic re-
administrative systems. Legal Services
that cannot be effectively or effi-
advice to millions of Americans.
covery. there are more people living
programs have also utilized their
ciently replicated at the state or local
In the process, the program has
in poverty in America today than at
federal grants and support from LSC
level.
helped poor people to help themselves
any time since 1961; over the last
to leverage contributions from a
escape the bonds of poverty; enabled
The federal interest in maintaining
four years. the poverty rate has in-
number of other funding sources.
at-risk children to remain in school;
LSC as "a permanent and vital part
creased by almost 18 percent.
Critics of LSC have erroneously
prevented families from becoming
of the American system of justice"
Forty percent of our poor are chil-
asserted that it engenders unnecessary
homeless through wrongful eviction;
should be as manifest today as it was
litigation, and that Legal Services at-
dren - more than at any other time in
provided low-income entrepreneurs
in 1974. As former U.S. Supreme
torneys are engaged in "social engi-
our history: Through no fault of their
Court Justice Lewis Powell Jr. put it
neering" and "lobbying for 'politi-
own, 22 percent of all children in
with the counseling necessary to start
at the time. when he was president of
America live in poverty. They suffer
their own businesses: helped the el-
cally correct causes. Such concerns
the American Bar Association,
prompted Congress and LSC boards
from homelessness, malnutrition,
derly and disabled to maintain in-
"|E)qual justice under law is not
dependent. dignified ways of life: en-
appointed by Presidents Reagan and
sensory deprivation, inadequate
sured essential health care and income
Bush to restrict - if not eliminate
merely a caption on the facade of the
schooling. and diseases that are emi-
Supreme Court building It is perhaps
support for needy children. the el-
through appropriations riders and
nently preventable. And they die at
the most inspiring ideal of our SOCI-
derly. and the disabled; protected
regulations any tendency in local
rates that make many third-world
ety. It is one of the ends for which
programs to devote scarce I.SC funds
countries look respectable.
low-income consumers from fraud-
our entire legal system exists
It
to activities other than those address-
Once again we are at a crossroads.
ulent or coercive practices: safe-
is fundamental that justice should be
ing the immediate and pressing legal
Under the Constitution, the govern-
guarded abused women and neglected
the same. in substance and avail-
needs of their clients
ment is charged with establishing jus-
children: and assisted residents of
ability. without regard to economic
The cases that Legal Services at-
lice and securing the blessings of
low-income communities to develop
status."
stable economic institutions that bring
torneys handle today mainly involve
liberty - not for just a few. but for
family matters (33 percent of all
Funding Cuts Limit Services
everyone America's founders under-
jobs. dignity. and hope
cases). housing (22 percent). income
stood that democracy is only possible
Cost Effectiveness
maintenance (17 percent). and con-
Nor can alternative funding sources
when all people have access to a
sumer finance (11 percent). And only
be expected to replace federal fund-
system of justice that protects their
LSC is directly accountable to
15 percent of Legal Services cases
ing. LSC's current fiscal-year appro-
rights. resolves their disputes. and
Congress for the federal funds it re.
require representation in court or be-
priation of $415 million is less than
provides them with an opportunity for
ceives. to 'insure that grants and
fore administrative agencies - a re-
half of its 1980 appropriation. ad-
helping themselves to improve their
contracts are made so as to provide
markably low percentage in a society
lives
justed for inflation and the demo-
the most economical and effective
where litigation is commonly used to
graphics of poverty. Because of the
By providing access to justice for
resolve disputes and protect basic in-
delivery of legal assistance to persons
reductions in funding during the early
millions of Americans. the Legal
terests.
1980s. the number of Legal Services
Services program has given them a
in both urban and rural areas I.SC
There are also significant restric-
offices has been reduced by 36 per-
stake in our system. a sense that
meets this responsibility through a
tions on recourse to class actions.
combination of means: regular. formal
cent. while the number of Legal Ser-
government is meant to be a servant
another source of complaints in the
monitoring of its grantees for com-
vices attorneys and paralegals serving
of the people rather than their master.
past Local programs must have
pliance with statutory and regulatory
the Door has fallen by 32 percent
and a hope that the American pledge
procedures in place for review and
of "liberry and justice for all'' can
requirements: evaluation of the quality
approval before any class action is
become a reality
and effectiveness of program delivery
initiated. these include consultation
through performance reviews. annual
with the potential defendant to exhaust
review of mandatory program finan-
the possibilities of amicable resolution
cial audits. as supplemented by quality
before commencing litigation As a
Reprinted with permission by The New Jersey Law Journal
assurance reviews performed by
result. class actions are only a small
LSC's independent Inspector General.
©American Lawyer Media I.P. 1994
fraction of the overall Legal Services
caseload (less than one-half of one
percent).
PROPOSED VETO LANGUAGE FOR THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
APPROPRIATION CONTAINED IN THE COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, THE
JUDICIARY AND RELATED AGENCIES FY 96 APPROPRIATION BILL AND
CONFERENCE REPORT
Funding for the Legal Services Corporation should be increased to $340 million - -- the
level contained in the Senate-passed version of the bill for basic field and special population
programs. The allocation of $9 million for management and administration is essential to permit
Corporation management to meet its statutory responsibilities, which includes for the first time the
awarding of grants on a competitive basis and to ensure the continuity of monitoring for
compliance with Congressional restrictions. The restrictions imposed on the representation of
clients unduly limit their access to the justice system and restrictions on non-LSC funds raise
serious constitutional questions and inappropriately impinge on the rights of states to determine
how their own funds are to be used.
inn
Z #:
SENT BY:Legal Services Corp. :12- 5-95 ; 5:20PM ;LSC Executive Office-
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
750 1st St., NE, 11th Fl., Washington, D.C. 20002-4250
(202) 336-8800
Fax (202) 336-8959
Alexander D. Forger
President
Writer's Direct Telephone
(202)
336-8800
February 22, 1996
Ms. Melanne Verveer
Deputy Assistant to the President and
Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Old Executive Office Bldg.
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 100
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Ms. Verveer:
Enclosed are materials to aid the Administration's efforts to amend provisions concerning
the Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") contained in the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary
and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference Report (H.R. 2076) which was vetoed by the
President on December 19, 1995. These materials include:
-A revised one page statement of LSC major issues in H.R. 2076;
-Suggested amendments to the text of H.R. 2076 (these amendments are identical to those
distributed at an earlier date); and
-Background memo and attachments in support of proposed amendments.
Please contact me at 336-8815 if there are any questions or if you require further
information. Thank you again for all your efforts.
Hail Laster, Director W Laster
Government Relations
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - Douglas S. Eakeley, Chairman, Roseland, NJ
Hulett H. Askew
LaVeeda M. Battle
John T. Broderick, Jr.
John G. Brooks
Maria L. Mercado
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Manchester, NH
Boston, MA
Galveston, TX
F. Wm. McCalpin
Nancy H. Rogers
Thomas F. Smegal, Jr.
Ernestine P. Watlington
Edna Fairbanks-Williams
St. Louis, MO
Columbus, OH
San Francisco, CA
Harrisburg, PA
Fairhaven, VT
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON LEGAL SERVICES
IN HR 2076
Support increased funding for LSC and increased allocation for LSC's Management
and Administration. Conference provided only $278 million for FY 1996 which represents a one-
third cut in funding from FY 1995. Senate provided $340 million (15% cut). At Conference level,
150,000 fewer clients and their families would be served and 100 more legal aid offices would be
closed than at the Senate level of $340 million. The Conference Bill allocates only $6 million for
management and administration which would permit LSC management to make grants under a
competitive bidding system, but would not provide sufficient funds to fulfill its other statutory
responsibilities including the need to continue monitoring for compliance and evaluating program
quality. The financial auditing and compliance monitoring to be carried out by the Office of Inspector
General will not provide the information LSC will need to responsibly oversee the legal services
program.
Support a change in the language of the restrictions provision to permit recipients to
use non-LSC funds in accordance with the purposes for which those funds are provided. While
Congress should have the authority to determine how the funds it appropriates should be used, it
should not be permitted to impose those determinations on choices private funders, states and other
sovereign governmental entities wish to make with respect to the use of their funds. The Conference
Bill, with very few exceptions, would apply the restrictions to all of a recipient's funds, regardless of
their source.
Support adjustments in funding to ensure access to migrant farmworkers. The
Conference Bill does not make the necessary adjustment in funding allocation to preserve access for
1.6 million migrant farmworkers to legal services. The Census does not count migrant farmworkers
in areas where they work or live, and a funding adjustment should be made, like the Conference Bill
does for Native Americans and as has been done in the past, to account for unique access problems
and to ensure that legal services are available where migrants are most likely to need and use those
services.
Support a provision to permit recipients to use non-LSC funds to respond to requests
for information or testimony from legislators or agency officials. Legislators and agency officials
rely on legal services advocates to provide reliable and often critical information and analysis
regarding the ways that proposed legislation and policies would affect poor people. The Conference
Bill would preclude government officials from availing themselves of this critical resource.
Support a provision to permit legal services recipients to request and collect attorneys'
fees for work in pending cases. The Conference Bill prohibits legal services programs from
collecting attorneys' fees in pending cases even where programs have earned the fees over a period
of many years, or where they have outstanding orders and judgments awarding fees that have not yet
been paid. Even though the Conference Bill permits recipients to continue some categories of
prohibited pending cases until July 1, recipients are not permitted to seek or collect attorneys' fees
in those cases or in cases that are not otherwise prohibited. Programs should be permitted to seek
and collect attorneys' fees in all cases pending on the date of enactment.
CONFERENCE LANGUAGE
AND
CONFERENCE REPORT
HR 2076
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, JUDICIARY
AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out the purposes of the Legal
Services Corporation Act of 1974, as amended, $278,000,000-$309,000,000 of which
$265,000,000 $296,000,000 is for basic field programs; $10,300,000 is for migrant programs
and $7,200,000 is for native American programs; $7,000,000 $4,000,000 is for the Office of
the Inspector General, of which $5,500,000 $2,500,000 shall remain available until expended and
be used to contract with independent public accountants for financial audits of all recipients in
accordance with the requirements of section 509 of this Act; and $6,000,000 $9,000,000 is for
management and administration: Provided, That $198,750,000 of the total amount provided under
this heading for basic field programs shall not be available except for the competitive award of
grants and contracts under section 503 of this Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS - LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
SEC. 501. (a) Funds appropriated under this Act to the Legal Services Corporation for
basic field programs shall be distributed as follows:
(1) The Corporation shall define geographic areas and make the funds available for
each geographic area on a per capita basis relative to the number of individuals in poverty
determined by the Bureau of the Census to be within the geographic area, except as
provided in paragraph (2)(B). Funds for such a geographic area may be distributed by the
Corporation to I or more persons or entities eligible for funding under section
1006(a)(1)(A) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(I)(A)), subject
to sections 502 and 504.
(2) Funds for grants from the Corporation, and contracts entered into by the
Corporation for basic field programs, shall be allocated so as to provide-
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), an equal figure per individual
in poverty for all geographic areas, as determined on the basis of the most recent
decennial census of population conducted pursuant to section 141 of title 13,
United States Code (or, in the case of the Republic of Palou, the Federated States
of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, and the
United States Virgin Islands, on the basis of the adjusted population counts
historically used as the basis for such determinations); and
(B) an additional amount for Native American communities that received
assistance under the Legal Services Corporation Act for fiscal year 1995, so that
the proportion of the funds appropriated to the Legal Services Corporation for
basic field programs for fiscal year 1996 that is received by the Native American
communities shall be not less than the proportion of such funds appropriated for
fiscal year 1995 that was received by the Native American communities.
(C) an additional amount for geographic areas that received
assistance under the Legal Service Corporation Act for fiscal year 1995 for
the direct delivery of legal services to migrant farmworkers, so that the
proportion of the funds appropriated to the Legal Services Corporation for
basic field programs for fiscal year 1996 that is received for direct service to
migrant farmworkers shall not be less than the proportion of such funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1995 that was received by programs directly
serving migrant farmworkers.
(b) As used in this section:
(1) The term "individual in poverty" means an individual who is a member of a
family (of 1 or more members) with an income at or below the poverty line.
(2) The term "poverty line" means the poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of the
size involved.
2
SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
shall be used by the Corporation to make a grant, or enter into a contract, for the provision of
legal assistance unless the Corporation ensures that the person or entity receiving funding to
provide such legal assistance is-
(1) a private attorney admitted to practice in a State or the District of Columbia;
(2) a qualified nonprofit organization, chartered under the laws of a State or the
District of Columbia, that-
(A) furnishes legal assistance to eligible clients; and
(B) is governed by a board of directors or other governing body, the
majority of which is comprised of attorneys who-
(i) are admitted to practice in a State or the District of Columbia;
and
(ii) are appointed to terms of office on such board or body of a
State, county, or municipal bar association, the membership of which
represents a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the locality in which
the organization is to provide legal assistance;
(3) a State or local government (without regard to section 1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1)(A)(ii); or
(4) a substate regional planning or coordination agency that serves a substate area
and whose governing board is controlled by locally elected officials.
SEC. 503. (a)(1) Not later than April 1, 1996, the Legal Services Corporation shall
implement a system of competitive awards of grants and contracts for all basic field programs,
which shall apply to all such grants and contracts awarded by the Corporation after March 31,
1996, from funds appropriated in this Act.
(2) Any grant or contract awarded before April 1, 1996, by the Legal Services
Corporation to a basic field program for 1996-
(A) shall not be for an amount greater than the amount required for the
period ending March 31, 1996;
(B) shall terminate at the end of such period; and
(C) shall not be renewable except in accordance with the system
implemented under paragraph (1).
(3) The amount of grants and contracts awarded before April 1, 1996, by the Legal
Services Corporation for basic field programs for 1996 in any geographic area described in
section 501 shall not exceed an amount equal to 3/12 of the total amount to be distributed
for such programs for 1996 in such areas.
(b) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Legal
Services Corporation shall promulgate regulations to implement a competitive selection
process for the recipients of such grants and contracts.
(c) Such regulations shall specify selection criteria for the recipients, which shall
include-
(1) a demonstration of a full understanding of the basic legal needs of the
eligible clients to be served and a demonstration of the capability of serving the
needs;
3
(2) the quality, feasibility, and cost effectiveness of a plan submitted by an
applicant for the delivery of legal assistance to the eligible clients to be served; and
(3) the experience of the Legal Services Corporation with the applicant, if
the applicant has previously received financial assistance from the Corporation,
including the record of the applicant of past compliance with Corporation policies,
practices, and restrictions.
(d) Such regulations shall ensure that timely notice regarding an opportunity to submit an
application for such an award is published in periodicals of local and State bar associations and in
at least 1 daily newspaper of general circulation in the area to be served by the person or entity
receiving the award.
(e) No person or entity that was previously awarded a grant or contract by the Legal
Services Corporation for the provision of legal assistance may be given any preference in the
competitive selection process.
(f) For the purposes of the funding provided in this Act, rights under sections 1007(a)(9)
and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j)
shall not apply.
SEC. 504. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal Services
Corporation may be used to provide financial assistance to any person or entity (which may be
referred to in this section as a "recipient")-
(1) that makes available any funds, personnel, or equipment for use in advocating
or opposing any plan or proposal, or represents any party or participates in any other way
in litigation, that is intended to or has the effect of altering, revising, or reapportioning a
legislative, judicial, or elective district at any level of government, including influencing the
timing or manner of the taking of a census;
(2) that attempts to influence the issuance, amendment, or revocation of any
executive order, regulation, or other statement of general applicability and future effect by
any Federal, State, or local agency;
(3) that attempts to influence any part of any adjudicatory proceeding of any
Federal, State, or local agency if such part of the proceeding is designed for the
formulation or modification of any agency policy of general applicability and future effect;
(4) that attempts to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation,
constitutional amendment, referendum, initiative, or any similar procedure of the Congress
of a State or local legislative body;
(5) that attempts to influence the conduct of oversight proceedings of the
Corporation or any person or entity receiving financial assistance provided by the
Corporation;
(6) that pays for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone
communication, letter, printed or written matter, administrative expense, or related
expense, associated with an activity prohibited in this section;
(7) that initiates or participates in a class action suit;
(8) that files a complaint or otherwise initiates or participates in litigation against a
defendant, or engages in a precomplaint settlement negotiation with a prospective
defendant, unless-
4
(A) each plaintiff has been specifically identified, by name, in any complaint
filed for purposes of such litigation or prior to the precomplaint settlement
negotiation; and
(B) a statement or statements of facts written in English and, if necessary,
in a language that the plaintiffs understand, that enumerate the particular facts
known to the plaintiffs on which the complaint is based, have been signed by the
plaintiffs, are kept on file by the recipient, and are made available to any Federal
department or agency that is auditing or monitoring the activities of the
Corporation or of the recipient, and to any auditor or monitor receiving Federal
funds to conduct such auditing or monitoring, including any auditor or monitor of
the Corporation:
Provided, That upon establishment of reasonable cause that an injunction is necessary to
prevent probable, serious harm to such potential plaintiff, a court of competent jurisdiction
may enjoin the disclosure of the identity of any potential plaintiff pending the outcome of
such litigation or negotiations after notice and an opportunity for a hearing is provided to
potential parties to the litigation or the negotiations: Provided further, That other parties
to the litigation or negotiation shall be access to the statement of facts referred to in
subparagraph (B) only through the discovery process after litigation has begun;
(9) unless-
(A) prior to the provision of financial assistance-
(i) if the person or entity is a nonprofit organization, the governing
board of the person or entity has set specific priorities in writing, pursuant
to section 1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42
U.S.C. 2996f(a)(2)(C)(i)), of the types of matters and cases which the staff
of the nonprofit organization shall devote time and resources; and
(ii) the staff of such person or entity has signed a written agreement
not to undertake cases or matters other than in accordance with the specific
priorities set by such governing board, except in emergency situations
defined by such board and in accordance with the written procedures of
such board for such situations; and
(B) the staff of such person or entity provides to the governing board, on a
quarterly basis, and to the Corporation on an annual basis, information on all cases
or matters undertaken other than cases or matters undertaken in accordance with
such priorities;
(10) unless-
(A) prior to receiving the financial assistance, such person or entity agrees
to maintain records of time spent on each case or matter with respect to which the
person or entity is engaged;
(B) any funds, including Interest on Lawyers Trust Account funds,
received from a source other than the Corporation by the person or entity, and
disbursements of such funds, are accounted for and reported as receipts and
disbursements, respectively, separate and distinct from Corporation funds; and
(C) the person or entity agrees (notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the
Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996h(d)) to make the records
5
described in this paragraph available to any Federal department or agency that is
auditing or monitoring the activities of the Corporation or of the recipient, and to
any independent auditor or monitor receiving Federal funds to conduct such
auditing or monitoring, including any auditor or monitor of the Corporation;
(11) that provides legal assistance for or on behalf of any alien, unless the alien is
present in the United States and is-
(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as defined in section
1101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
(B) an alien who-
(i) is married to a United States citizen or is a parent or an
unmarried child under the age of 21 years of such a citizen; and
(ii) has filed an application to adjust the status of the alien to the
status of a lawful permanent resident under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), which application has not been
rejected;
(C) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to an
admission under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1157) (relating to refugee admission) or who has been granted asylum by the
Attorney General under such Act;
(D) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as a result of
withholding of deportation by the Attorney General pursuant to section 243(h) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h));
(E) an alien to whom section 305 of the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) applies, but only to the extent that the legal
assistance provided is the legal assistance described in such section; or
(F) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as a result of being
granted conditional entry to the United States before April 1, 1980, pursuant to
section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)), as
in effect on March 31, 1980, because of persecution or fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, or political calamity;
(12) that supports or conducts a training program for the purpose of advocating a
particular public policy or encouraging a political activity, a labor or antilabor activity, a
boycott, picketing, a strike, or a demonstration, including the dissemination of information
about such a policy or activity, except that this paragraph shall not be construed to
prohibit the provision of training to an attorney or a paralegal to prepare the attorney or
paralegal to provide-
(A) adequate legal assistance to eligible clients; or
(B) advice to any eligible client as to the legal rights of the client;
(13) that claims (or whose employee claims), or collects and retains, attorneys' fees
pursuant to any Federal or State law permitting or requiring the awarding of such fees in
cases initiated by such recipient after the date of enactment;
(14) that participates in any litigation with respect to abortion;
(15) that participates in any litigation on behalf of a person incarcerated in a
Federal, State, or local prison;
6
(16) that initiates legal representation or participates in any other way, in litigation,
lobbying, or rulemaking, involving an effort to reform a Federal or State welfare system,
except that this paragraph shall not be construed to preclude a recipient from representing
an individual eligible client who is seeking specific relief from a welfare agency if such
relief does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law in effect on
the date of the initiation of the representation;
(17) that defends a person in a proceeding to evict the person from a public
housing project if-
(A) the person has been charged with the illegal sale or distribution of a
controlled substance; and
(B) the eviction proceeding is brought by a public housing agency because
the illegal drug activity of the person threatens the health or safety of another
tenant residing in the public housing project or employee of the public housing
agency;
(18) unless such person or entity agrees that the person or entity, and the
employees of the person or entity, will not accept employment resulting from in-person
unsolicited advice to a nonattorney that such nonattorney should obtain counsel or take
legal action, and will not refer such nonattorney to another person or entity or an
employee of the person or entity, that is receiving financial assistance provided by the
Corporation; or
(19) unless such person or entity enters into a contractual agreement to be subject
to all provisions of Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds, the violation of
which shall render any grant or contractual agreement to provide funding null and void,
and, for such purposes, the Corporation shall be considered to be a Federal agency and all
funds provided by the Corporation shall be considered to be Federal funds provided by
grant or contracts,
but nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from receiving funds
from a source other than the Corporation and expending them in accordance with the
purposes for which those funds were provided.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from using funds from
a source other than the Legal Services Corporation for the purpose of -
(1) contacting, communicating with, or responding to a request from, a State or
local government agency, a State or local legislative body or committee, or & member
thereof, regarding funding for the recipient, including a pending or proposed legislative or
agency proposal to fund such recipient;
(2) responding to a request for public comment in a rulemaking process; or
(3) responding to a written request for information or testimony from a
government agency, legislative body or committee, or a member of such an agency,
body or committee.
(c) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Legal Services
Corporation shall promulgate a suggested list of priorities that boards of directors may use in
setting priorities under subsection (a)(9).
7
(d)(1) The Legal Services Corporation shall not accept any non Federal funds, and no
recipient shall accept funds from any source other than the Corporation, unless the Corporation or
the recipient; as the case may be, notifies in writing the source of the funds that the funds may not
be expended for any purpose prohibited by the Legal Services Corporation Act or this title
(d) Nothing in this section (2) Paragraph (1) shall not prevent a recipient from receiving
funds from a source other than the Corporation and expending them in accordance with
the purposes for which those funds were provided, including, but not limited to-
(1) (A) receiving Indian tribal funds (including funds from private nonprofit
organizations for the benefit of Indians or Indian tribes) and expending the tribal funds in
accordance with the specific purposes for which the tribal funds are provided; or
(2)(B) using funds received from a source other than the Legal Services
Corporation to provide legal assistance to a covered individual if such funds are used for
the specific purposes for which such funds were received, except that such funds may not
be expended by recipients for any purpose prohibited by this Act or by the Legal Services
Corporation Act.
(e) As used in this section:
(1) The term "controlled substance" has the meaning given the term in section 102
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
(2) The term "covered individual" means any person who-
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), meets the requirements of this
Act and the Legal Services Corporation Act relating to eligibility for legal
assistance; and
(B) may or may not be financially unable to afford legal assistance.
(3) The term "public housing project" has the meaning as used within, and the term
"public housing agency" has the meaning given the term, in section 3 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a).
SEC. 505. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
or provided by the Corporation to any entity or person may be used to pay membership to any
private or nonprofit organization.
SEC. 506. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
may be used by any person or entity receiving financial assistance from the Corporation to file or
pursue a lawsuit against the Corporation.
SEC. 507. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation
may be used for any purpose prohibited or contrary to any of the provisions of authorization
legislation for fiscal year 1996 for the Legal Services Corporation that is enacted into law. Upon
the enactment of such Legal Services Corporation reauthorization legislation, funding provided in
this Act shall from that date be subject to the provisions of that legislation and any provisions in
this Act that are inconsistent with that legislation shall no longer have effect.
8
the enactment of such Legal Services Corporation reauthorization legislation, funding provided in
this Act shall from that date be subject to the provisions of that legislation and any provisions in
this Act that are inconsistent with that legislation shall no longer have effect.
SEC. 508. (a) The requirements of section 504 shall apply to the activities of a recipient
described in section 504, or an employee of such a recipient, during the provision of legal
assistance for a case or matter, if the recipient or employee begins to provide the legal assistance
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) If the recipient or employee began to provide legal assistance for the case or matter
prior to the date of enactment of this Act-
(1) each of the requirements of section 504 (other than paragraphs (7), (11), and
(15) of subsection (a) of such section), shall, beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, apply to the activities of the recipient or employee during the provision of legal
assistance for the case or matter; and
(2) the requirements of paragraphs (7), (11), and (15) of section 504(a) shall
apply-
(A) beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, to the activities of the
recipient or employee during the provision of legal assistance for any additional
related claim for which the recipient or employee begins to provide legal assistance
on or after such date, and
(B) beginning July 1, 1996, to all other activities of the recipient or
employee during the provision of legal assistance for the case or matter.
(c) The Legal Services Corporation shall, every 60 days, submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a report setting forth the status of
cases and matters referred to in subsection (b)(2).
SEC 509. (a) An audit of each person or entity receiving financial assistance from the
Legal Services Corporation under this Act (referred to in this section as a "recipient") shall be
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and shall report
whether-
(1) the financial statements of the reciplent present fairly its financial position and
the results of its financial operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
(2) the recipient has internal control systems to provide reasonable assurance that
it is managing funds, regardless of source, in compliance with Federal laws and
regulations; and
(3) the recipient has complied with Federal laws and regulations applicable to
funds received, regardless of source.
(b) In carrying out the requirements of subsection (a)(3), the auditor shall select and test a
representative number of transactions. Any noncompliance found by the auditor during the audit
under this section shall be reported within 30 days to the Office of the Inspector General.
(c) Audits conducted in accordance with this section shall be in lieu of the financial audits
otherwise required by section 1009(c) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
2996h(c)).
9
(d) Notwithstanding section 1006(b)(3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
2996e(b)(3), the Legal Services Corporation shall have access to financial records, time records,
retainer agreements, client trust fund and eligibility records, and client names, for each recipient,
except for reports or records subject to the attorney-client privilege.
(e) The Legal Services Corporation shall not disclose any name or document referred to in
subsection (d), except to-
(1) a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official; or
(2) an official of an appropriate bar association for the purpose of enabling the
official to conduct an investigation of a rule of professional conduct.
(f) The requirements of this section shall apply to a recipient for its first fiscal year
beginning on or after January 1, 1996.
10
LSC BACKGROUND MEMO FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO
H.R. 2076 CONFERENCE REPORT
This memo is to be read in conjunction with LSC's proposed changes to the Commerce,
State, Justice, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference Report for FY 96.
What follows is a brief explanation for each proposed change to the bill. Talking points on key
issues and relevant congressional correspondence are also attached.
Page 1, Paragraph Line 2 [Overall appropriation]
Overall appropriation figure is increased from $278 million in the Conference Report to
$309 million. The Senate bill funded LSC at $340 million and the House at $278. LSC's funding
for FY 95 was originally $415 million and $400 million post rescission.
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 3 [Basic Field Prog. ams Appropriation]
Funding for basic field programs is increased from $265 million in the Conference Report
to $296 million.
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 3 [Migrant Programs Appropriation]
Adds funding line for migrant programs of $10.3 million. This amount is in proportion to
the bill's decrease in basic field program funding from FY 95. The Senate and House bills do not
include this funding line. In addition, the Conference Report is unclear as to whether migrant
farmworker legal services can be directly funded as part of LSC's basic field program. LSC's post
rescission FY 95 funding of migrant legal services was $12.7 million.
*See Attachment 1 for talking points on this issue.
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 4 [Native American Programs Appropriation]
Adds funding line for Native American programs of $7.2 million. This amount is in
proportion to the bill's decrease in basic field program funding from FY 95. The Senate and
House bills do not include this funding line. However, the Conference Report makes it clear that
LSC is to allocate a portion of its basic field appropriation to fund Native American communities.
LSC's post rescission FY 95 funding line for Native American legal services was $8.8 million.
1
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Lines 4 &5 [Office of Inspector General Appropriations]
Reduces funding for OIG from $7 million in the Conference Report to $4 million, and the
amount for contracts with independent auditors from $5.5 million to $2.5 million. The House bill
provides $8 million to the OIG and earmarks $5.7 million of the $8 million for contracts with
auditors. The Senate bill provides $13 million to the LSC Board of Directors for management,
administration, and the OIG. The Senate's approach is consistent with current law which gives
the Board the discretion to allocate funds and functions between management and administration
and the OIG. LSC's post rescission FY 95 appropriation provided $11 million to the Board for
M&A and the OIG. In FY 95 the Board approved a budget of $1 million for the OIG.
*In a letter dated December 20, 1995, LSC's Inspector General wrote to Congress to
inform it that the OIG would be unlikely to expend at least $2 million of the $5.5 million provided
for contract audits prior to the end of FY 96. (Attachment 2). The Inspector General also
recommended that Congress consider shifting to LSC's M&A $2 million of the funds provided to
the OIG.
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Lines 8 and 9 [Management and Administration Appropriation]
Increases funding for management and administration from $6 million to $9 million. The
House bill specifies $5 million for M&A. As stated above, the Senate bill provides $13 million to
the LSC Board of Directors for management, administration, and the OIG. The Senate's
approach is consistent with current law which gives the Board the discretion to allocate funds and
functions between management and administration and the OIG. LSC's post rescission FY 95
appropriation provided $11 million to the Board of Directors for M&A and the OIG. In FY 95,
the Board approved a budget of $10 million for M&A.
*In a letter dated December 21, 1995, LSC's bipartisan Board of Directors wrote to
Congress in support of the President's veto of H.R. 2076 and a higher allocation for management
and administration. (Attachment 3). Also attached to this memo are talking points to support a
higher M&A allocation and a chart comparing M&A budget levels and functions. (Attachment
4).
Page 2, SEC. 501. (a) (2) (C) [Pro-Rata funding of Migrant Programs]
Adds language that the proportion of LSC funds for migrant farmworker legal services in
FY 96 be equal to the proportion of funds allocated for such purposes in FY 95. This language is
not contained in either the Senate or House bills.
*See Attachment 1 in support of funding migrant farmworker programs.
In the event that the amendment that provides for a funding line for migrant programs of
$10.3 million is accepted, this pro-rata funding language for migrant legal services is not required.
2
Page 6, SEC.(a) (13) [Attorneys' Fees]
Adds language to allow programs to collect attorneys' fees in cases initiated before the
date of enactment of the bill. The Senate bill prohibited programs from collecting attorneys' fees
from private parties in cases initiated after enactment of the bill. The House bill prohibited
collecting attorneys' fees from private parties as of the date of the enactment of the bill.
*See Attachment 5 for talking points on this issue.
Page 7, SEC. 504 (a) (19); Page 8 SEC. 504 (a)(19)(d) [Non-LSC Funds]
Adds language that restrictions in this bill on the use of funds only apply to LSC funds.
Pursuant to this language, non-LSC funds, which includes private, public and IOLTA funds would
not be subject to the restrictions placed on LSC funds by this bill. Both the Senate and House
bills restrict the use of all non-LSC funds with lin ited exceptions (i.e. financial eligibility
requirements). Under current law (the LSC Act and Regulations), non-LSC private funds cannot
be used for activities the LSC Act prohibits. Non-LSC public and IOLTA funds are not restricted
in this manner. The proposed amendment to the Conference Report would preserve the current
law with respect to existing prohibitions on the use of private funds.
* See Attachment 6 for talking points on this issue.
Page 7, SEC. 504 (a)(19)(b)(2) and (3) [Use of Non-LSC funds to Respond to Requests for
Information or Testimony from Legislators or Agency Officials]
Adds language to allow use of non-LSC funds to respond to requests for information or
testimony from legislators or agency officials. Neither the Senate nor House bills allow this use of
non-LSC funds. Current law permits responding to such requests with LSC funds.
*See Attachment 7 for talking points on this issue.
*See Attachment 8 for letter from Senator Cohen to Senator Domenici in support of this
amendment.
In the event that the proposed amendment on non-LSC funds is accepted, this language to
allow the use of non-LSC funds to respond to requests for information or testimony from
legislators or agency officials, is not required.
###
3
ATTACHMENT 1
WHY CONGRESS SHOULD PRESERVE
THE SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES DELIVERY SYSTEM
FOR INDIVIDUAL MIGRANT FARM WORKERS
The present migrant legal services delivery system provides direct delivery of
legal assistance to individual migrant farm workers and their families. The clients
of migrant legal services programs are men, women, and children, often laboring together in family
units. They are the quintessential example of the working poor, with a median income of only
$5,000.00 a year. Congress has characterized them as "the most abused of all workers in the
United States." Migrant legal services programs provide direct legal assistance to these migrant
farm workers on their individual needs such as wage claims against farm labor contractors and
other agricultural employment questions.
The migrant delivery system fills a large gap in the regular basic field
delivery system. Studies by both the LSC and the ABA have found that migrant farm workers
have very specialized legal needs and face unique barriers which severely limit their ability to get
access to legal assistance through the regular basic field programs. In order to address the legal
needs of migrants, LSC has therefore created a migrant legal services delivery system which fills
this gap in the regular basic field delivery system.
Migrant farm workers are generally not able to get access to legal assistance
through the regular basic field programs: (a) Migrants are extremely mobile, staying in
one location for only short periods, as they move around the nation pursuing work opportunities;
(b) They are most often isolated in temporary residences in remote rural locations (such as migrant
labor camps). without access to any transportation or telephone, and without any familiarity with
the locale. The local populace and basic field program are typically unaware where these transitory
migrants are or that they are even present; (c) Barriers based on language, race, and ethnicity often
make it difficult for local basic field programs to serve or even communicate with migrant workers;
(d) Migrants are normally unavailable during regular business hours; (e) Migrants are often
dependent on farm labor contractors who literally control almost every aspect of their lives (e.g.
employment, housing, transportation) and who intimidate or retaliate against the migrant worker
who seeks legal help.
Migrant farm workers also face unique legal problems which are outside the
normal practice and expertise of basic field programs. Examples include: (a) protec-
tions under special wage and employment laws unique to agriculture; (b) employment practices
peculiar to agriculture; (c) abuses by farm labor contractors and other interstate recruiting agents
(e.g. holding migrant workers in debt bondage); (d) substandard labor camp housing which is not
governed by regular landlord-tenant laws; (e) interstate jurisdiction and venue issues; (f) problems
involving deductions and credits for employment taxes; (g) unique regulations and interstate factual
issues related to public benefits and unemployment insurance; (h) unique health and safety
problems, such as pesticide exposures, dangerous labor transportation, and work injuries; (i) denial
of access to migrant education programs for the workers' children; (j) irregular or fraudulent
practices in payroll record-keeping and wage deductions; (k) complex legal and factual disputes
over who is the employer, a joint employer, an independent contractor or an employee.
1
Migrant legal services programs provide the special delivery structure and
specialized legal expertise which best meet the needs of individual migrant farm
workers in the most cost-effective manner. LSC's migrant delivery system funds one
migrant program for each state which is structured to overcome the legal access barriers excluding
migrants by using a specialized combination of office locations, bi-lingual staff, outreach services,
interstate coordination of services during workers' migrantion, evening/weekend business hours,
etc. In addition by specializing in the unique legal problems which face migrants, migrant legal
services staff are able to address the problems of the individual migrant client efficiently and
effectively, leaving basic field programs free to concentrate on those issues which more typically
confront basic field clients. The LSC and ABA studies* as well as eighteen years of migrant legal
services experience confirm that this approach maximizes direct delivery of services to migrant and
non-migrant clients.
The Census does not purport to identify which individuals are migrant farm
workers, where they are located, or where legal assistance for migrants should
be made available. The Census does not provide a basis for allocating migrant legal services
money, because the Census does not have a category identifying who is a migrant farm worker.
Moreover. the Census records a person's location and work status at the time the Census is taken
but does not purport to plot their residence, movements or location during the rest of the year.
This is not a problem involving a Census undercount; the Census just doesn't seek to obtain
information about the number and distribution of migrant farm workers. LSC has historically
distributed migrant legal services funding according to a study which estimates where migrants live
and work throughout the course of the year. This targets the services based on where migrants are
most likely to need and use those services.
The vast majority of migrant farm workers are tax-paying citizens and legal
residents of the U.S. Contrary to popular misconception, only a small fraction of migrant farm
workers in the U.S. are undocumented aliens. Moreover, LSC programs have long been prohibited
from representing undocumented aliens with LSC funds and under either the Rogers and Domenici
bills no undocumented aliens may be represented by any legal services programs with any funds.
Allegations leveled against migrant legal services programs have been proven
unfounded and, even if they were true, would be prohibited by restrictions in
both appropriations bills. Thorough investigations" by the GAO, the ABA, Congressional
committees and the LSC have repeatedly shown that such allegations against migrant legal services
programs have been unsupported by the actual facts. In addition, even if the alleged activities had
occurred in the past, they would now be prohibited by restrictions in both appropriations bills.
Elimination of the migrant legal services programs would harm both migrant
farm workers and conscientious agricultural employers. Without the migrant programs
migrant farm workers would largely be cut off from the legal system completely. In addition the
large majority of agricultural employers who treat their migrant workers honestly and fairly would
be placed at a competitive disadvantage as against unscrupulous labor contractors and employers
who seek to gain a competitive edge by violating legal protections for migrant farm workers.
2
Cited References
Legal Services Corporation (1980), Special Legal Problems and Problems of Access To
Legal Services of Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers (A Report to Congress As
Required by Section 1007(h) of the LSC Act). Vol. 2.
American Bar Association Standing Committee On Legal Aid And Indigent Defendants
(1993), Study of Federally Funded Legal Aid For Migrant Farmworkers.
United States General Accounting Office (1990), Legal Services Corporation: Grantee
Attorney's Handling of Migrant Farmworker Disputes With Growers.
Statement Of Senator Warren Rudman On Reauthorization Of Legal Services. before the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, June 23, 1995, at p. 4
Legal Services Reauthorization Act of 1991, Report No. 102-476, 102nd Cong.; 2d Sess.
(March 31, 1992), at pp. 52, 54, 64.
3
ATTACHMENT 2
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
750 1st Street, NE, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20002-4250
(202) 336-8830
Fax (202) 336-8955
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 20, 1995
The Honorable Harold Rogers
The Honorable Judd Gregg
Chairman
Chairman
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,
The Judiciary, and Related Agencies
The Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Appropriations
United States House of Representatives
United States Senate
H-309 Capitol Building
S-146A Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Conference Version of the LSC Appropriation Bill: H.R. 2076
Dear Senators and Congressmen:
Under the Inspector General Act, it is my responsibility to comment on the impact of
proposed legislation on the efficiency and effectiveness of LSC operations, and I write today in regard
to the conference version of the LSC Appropriation Bill: H.R. 2076 (the bill).
Insufficiency of Funds for Corporation Management and Administration
The bill provides $6 million for corporate management and administration (M&A), and $7
million for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), of which $5.5 million is to be used to contract for
financial and compliance audits of LSC grantees. The $6 million for M&A is less than would appear.
LSC's fixed costs for the remainder of fiscal year 1996 are approximately $1.5 million, including
insurance, real estate lease, and severance payments to employees separated in an earlier downsizing.
Taken with first quarter expenditures estimated at $2 million, there would remain only $2.5 million
available for the remaining three quarters of FY96. Measures being contemplated by the Corporation
to further reduce costs would entail up-front costs. Additional staff reductions would result in
increased severance costs, and a reduction in office space would mean moving expenses and/or
construction costs to reconfigure existing space. These up-front costs would likely be greater than
any savings realized during the remaining three quarters. Management estimates that such costs could
reach $1 million in FY96, leaving only $1.5 million for the remaining three quarters -- a rate less than
a fourth of the previous fiscal year.
Management also estimates that only 28 personnel could be retained at the bill's funding level,
as opposed to the 99 on staff after the FY95 rescission and the current staff of 68. At the same time,
the bill requires management to convert its grant system from presumptive refunding of a static
provider network to one of competitive awards. This change to competition, which was
recommended by the OIG in testimony earlier this year, represents a substantial increase in grant
evaluation and administration workload. In the view of the OIG, a staff of 28 could not award and
administer several hundred grants nationwide in an effective manner.
On the other hand, the OIG is unlikely to expend at least $2 million of the $5.5 million
provided for contract audits prior to the end of FY96. This situation results from the late start, and
from the bill's requirement that the funds be used for financial statement audits of Fiscal Year 1996
grants. Such audits, generally, can occur only after the end of the fiscal year being audited, and
therefore most of the audit work would be performed and paid for in FY97. Although the OIG
would eventually need the full $5.5 million for this purpose, at most $3.5 million would be spent
during Fiscal Year 1996, and the remaining $2 million could be used to fund corporate M&A. We,
therefore, recommend that Congress consider shifting to corporate M&A $2 million of the funds
provided to the OIG.
Recommendations for Technical Amendments to the Bill:
Were the bill to become law, the OIG recommends two technical amendments that we believe
would not be controversial. In our view, these changes would be very important to the successful
implementation of the bill, were it to become law. A detailed supporting analysis is attached.
1. Audit Authority.
Section 509(a) of the bill appears not to allow specific compliance auditing beyond that
related to a financial statement audit. We recommend that subsections (d), (e) and (f) be renumbered
as subsections (e), (f) and (g), respectively, and that a new subsection which would allow the OIG
to contract for compliance audits as follows:
"(d) Any compliance audits will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards."
2. Access Provisions.
A technical inconsistency exists between section 504(a)(10)(c) and section 509(d). We,
therefore, recommend deleting the parenthetical "(notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the Legal
Services Corporation Act)" from section 504(a)(10)(c) or deleting section 504(a)(10)(c) in its entirety
from the bill.
2
Interpretation of "Enforcement":
Finally, we note that the report states that the conference agreement reflects a transfer to the
Inspector General of the function of, and resources for, "enforcement". For your information, we
wish to provide an explanation of manner in which we would interpret this language were the bill to
become law.
The statutory mission of an Office of Inspector General requires it to develop expertise in
fact-finding through audits and investigation, while enforcement through sanctions, such as denial of
questioned costs or defunding, is a program operating responsibility assigned to management
throughout the Federal government. This division of responsibility is in keeping with the important
tradition in our jurisprudence of lodging the power to find the facts and the power to sanction in
separate authorities to insure fairness and objectivity. Moreover, despite the language in the report,
H.R. 2076 does not transfer to the IG any of the sanctioning authority, or power over the grant, by
which LSC may bring pressure to bear on its recipients in enforcing the requirements of the LSC Act
and regulations.
Consistent with the above, we would interpret both "monitoring" and "enforcement" as used
in the report to relate to the audit of LSC grantees which, under the bill, would be performed by
independent public accountants hired by the OIG. The conference bill would transfer to the OIG both
the authority and resources to contract for such audits. Thus, the OIG would perform the
"monitoring" function referred to in the report almost completely through these audits. Similarly, it
would perform the "enforcement" function by seeking to ensure, through audit follow-up and
resolution, such as that mandated by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, that non-
compliance identified through the audits was corrected. Any uncorrected instances of non-
compliance at the end of the follow-up process would be referred to Corporation management for
consideration of possible additional actions and sanctions, and the ultimate resolution would be
tracked and reported on by the OIG.
Sincerely,
John Quat
Edouard Quatrevaux
Inspector General
3
Attachment
LSC OIG Recommendations for Technical Amendments to Conference Appropriations Bill
1. Audit Authority
Section 509(a) requires each recipient to have "an audit." The first paragraph of the bill
requires that audits under section 509 be conducted by independent public accountants (IPAs) under
contract to the OIG. The audit described in section 509(a) through 509(c) is the recipient's annual
financial statement audit which will include tests to determine compliance with financially related laws
and regulations under government auditing standards. The requirements of this section "apply to a
recipient for its first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 1996," and, therefore, the audit work
would be undertaken largely in 1997, after the end of the fiscal year to which the section applies.
It is arguable that the statutory language does not permit the OIG to contract with IPAs for
any additional audits. This would mean that the OIG could not choose to contract with IPAs for
compliance audits independent of the financial statement audit of FY96 funds. We believe that it
would be more efficient and effective to audit compliance with non-financially related laws and
regulations in compliance audits, not tied to the cycle of the annual financial statement audit. The
OIG would also desire, if it had the authority and funds, to contract for some compliance audits of
the use of FY96 funds to be performed during FY96, which would not be possible if it had authority
only to contract for the financial statement audit, which must occur after the fiscal year ends.
Recommendation: Therefore, the OIG recommends adding an additional subsection to
section 509, as a new subsection (d), and renumbering current subsections (d) and (e) as (e) and (f),
respectively. We suggest the following language for the new subsection:
"(d) Any compliance audits will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards."
2. Access Provision
Two separate sections of the LSC appropriation bill authorize corporate access to
timekeeping and other recipient records. The sections, 504(a)(10)(C) and 509(d), are redundant, and
inconsistent, in part. We recommend deleting 504(a)(10)(C) from the bill.
Section 504(a)(10)(C) grants access to records described in section 504, which consist largely
of timekeeping records.¹ Access under 504(a)(10)(C) is available to :
any Federal department or agency that is auditing or monitoring the activities of the
Corporation or of the recipient, and to any independent auditor or monitor receiving
¹Section 504(a)(8)(B) contains its own access provision which covers the pre-complaint statement of
facts which it requires.
Federal funds to conduct such auditing or monitoring, including any auditor or
monitor of the Corporation.
Access under 504(a)(10)(C) is granted "notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the Legal Services
Corporation Act," which prohibits access to materials protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Section 509(d) grants access to "financial records, time records, retainer agreements, client
trust fund and eligibility records, and client names." Access under 509(d) is available only to LSC.
It is granted "notwithstanding 1006(b)(3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act," which has been
interpreted by the legal services community to prohibit access to non-privileged materials protected
under local rules of professional conduct for attorneys. Under 509(d), however, contrary to
504(a)(1)(C), materials which are attorney-client privileged explicitly retain the protection from
disclosure they enjoy under section 1009(d) of the LSC Act. Thus, 509(d) grants access "except for
reports or records subject to the attorney-client privilege."
Section 509(d) appears for the first time in the conference version of the bill, and we believe
it to be based on language recommended by the OIG. In our view, the section provides the access
necessary for the proper performance of oversight functions, without unnecessary intrusion into areas
of confidential communications. The addition of section 504(d), which adequately treats the access
issue, renders section 504(a)(10)(C) unnecessary. The inconsistencies between the sections will
undoubtedly cause problems in implementation, and the fact that 504(a)(10)(C) makes otherwise
privileged documents accessible, may discourage attorneys from bidding for LSC grants. If Congress
wishes to broaden the entities receiving access under 509(d), it can easily do so by moving the
relevant language from 504(a)(10)(C), which is quoted above, to 509(d).
Recommendation: Therefore, the LSC OIG recommends deleting section 504(a)(1)(C) from
the bill in its entirety or, in the alternative, deleting the inconsistent language "(notwithstanding
section 1009(d) of the Legal Services Corporation Act)" from that section.
2
ATTACHMENT 3
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
750 1st St., NE, 11th FL, Washington, D.C. 20002-4250
(202) 336-8800
Fax (202) 336-8959
Alexander D. Forger
President
Writer's Direct Telephone
(202)
336-8820
December 21, 1995
Hon. Harcid Rogers, Chairman
Hon. Judd Gregg, Chairman
Hon. Alan B. Mollohan,
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice
State and the Judiciary
State and the Judiciary
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Sirs:
I am writing on behalf of the bipartisan Board of Directors of the Legal Services
Corporation to let you know of our position on issues raised by two recent communications, the
President's veto message on H.R. 2076 and the letter to you of December 20, 1995, from LSC's
Inspector General.
The Board agrees with the position concerning the Corporation expressed by the
President in the veto message. Specifically, we believe that the cut of 30 percent in funding for
LSC will cripple our capacity to fulfill our mission of serving people in need by providing access
to justice. We urge you to support the Senate's mark of $340 million, which represents a 15
percent cut, itself a drastic measure in light of the enormous need of the poor for legal services.
We estimate that this would result in the provision of legal assistance to an additional 150,000
potential clients and their families, totalling upwards of a half a million people, and would permit
as many as 100 additional legal aid offices, a large proportion of them in rural areas, to remain
open.' Compounding the adverse consequence of the cut in funding is the restriction on the use
of non-LSC funds. This gives every indication of driving away outside money which
traditionally has been the source of approximately 40 percent of the program's funding. The
imposition of this restriction will eliminate the leverage factor that LSC funds have provided.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Douglas S. Eakeley, Chairman. Roseland, NJ
Hulen H. Askew
LaVeeda M. Battle
John T. Broderick, Jr.
John G. Brooks
Maria L. Mercado
Atlanta. GA
Birmingham, AL
Manchester, NH
Boston, MA
Galveston, TX
F Wm. McCalpin
Nancy H. Rogers
Thomas F. Smegal. Jr.
Emestine P. Watlington
Edna Fairbanks-Williams
St. Louis, MO
Columbus. OH
San Francisco. CA
Harrisburg, PA
Fairhaven. VT
Page 2
December 21, 1995
We share the President's concern about the bill's failure to ensure adequate access to
legal services for migrant farmworkers. The provisions allocating funding fail to take into
consideration the fact that the Census does not count migrants in areas where they live or work.
The funding provision should be amended to provide a specific allocation, as in the case of
Native Americans, to ensure that legal services are available where migrants are most likely to
need and use them.
In addition, we urge you to support two provisions to correct unintended consequences
of H.R. 2076. The current language would prohibit recipients from responding to requests for
information or testimony from legislators or agency offices, even with non-LSC funds. During a
period in which states will be assuming major new responsibilities for programs affecting the
poor, legislators and agency officials should not be prevented from benefitting from the expertise
of legal services attorneys if they should choose to seek it. We believe that grantees should be
permitted to use non-LSC funds for this purpose.
Secondly, the ban on collection of attorneys' fees should not apply to pending cases. In
many instances programs have outstanding judgements and orders awarding fees which have
been earned over a period of years and which have not yet been paid. Some programs have
relied on such payments in their FY 1996 budgets. We believe that programs should be
permitted to seek and collect attorneys' fees in pending cases.
H.R. 2076 implements two major changes in LSC's functions: implementation of a
system of awarding grants based on competition and a shift of the compliance monitoring
function. As you know, we have already begun to implement the system of competition.
Although we continue to believe that compliance monitoring would be more effectively
performed by the system currently in place, designed by LSC management at the behest of the
Board, we recognize that it is the will of Congress that this system be replaced by one based
upon financial and program audits conducted by independent auditors contracted through LSC's
Office of the Inspector General. We remain committed to the goal of ensuring strict compliance
with all restrictions, and will make every effort to make the new system a success, just as we are
doing with regard to competition.
However, as the entity charged by Congress with responsibility for implementing and
enforcing the Legal Services Corporation Act, we are deeply concerned about the inadequate
funding for the Corporation's management and administration. Because of the delay in
enactment of the Appropriation, the costs associated with downsizing, and a lease expense
which will take time to mitigate, the $6 million allocation would require the Corporation to
reduce its payroll expenses to a level sufficient to provide for only 28 employees, down from the
post-rescission staffing level of 99 and the current level of 68. This would leave the Corporation
unable to perform its statutory responsibilities.
Page 3
December 21, 1995
We believe that an allocation of at least $8 million for management and administration is
necessary to enable the Corporation to implement the new systems, through such functions as
promoting competition for grants, evaluating the quality of services, educating applicants and
grantees about restrictions, and imposing sanctions for violations. Consequently, we endorse
the proposal made by the Inspector General in his letter that $2 million be shifted from the OIG's
allocation to management and administration. These funds cannot be expended by OIG during
FY 1996. They are, however, essential to the functioning of the Corporation. Shifting the funds
will thus ensure the implementation of Congressional intent without increasing the overall cost
for management and administration.
We thank you for your continuing support for legal services for the poor.
Sincerely,
Douglar S. Eakeley
Douglas S. Eakeley
Chairman
ATTACHMENT 4
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Proposed Staff Allocation and Functions
Total Staff: 70
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
Executive Office
Primary responsibilities are to provide information, analysis, and policy recommendations
to the Board of Directors; to interpret and implement policy as set by the Board; and to
coordinate and supervise all aspects of LSC management and administration.
The President serves as spokesman for LSC and liaison to the judiciary, the organized bar,
and other elements of the judicial system. The Corporation Secretary is charged with
coordinating and providing support for Board meetings; preparation of required notices, statutory
reports, minutes, and other records; and coordination of the Board nomination process.
The executive office is also responsible for government relations (including development
of budget proposals; liaison with authorizing and appropriating committees; liaison with the
executive branch and other government agencies; response to inquiries from Congress and public
officials); production of the Annual Report and other publications; response to inquiries from
press and public; and cooperation with Office of the Inspector General.
Positions necessary: President; Executive Vice-President; Corporation Secretary;
Assistant to President; 2 professionals for government relations; 1 professional for media,
public inquiries, annual report and other publications; 2 administrative support. Total: 9.
General Counsel
Responsibilities include drafting regulations, including those implementing competition
and other new requirements; internal legal advice; legal advice to grantees and applicants;
litigation; response to FOIA requests; Sunshine Act compliance; reprogramming and other reports
to Congress.
Positions necessary: General Counsel; 3 attorneys; 1 FOIA officer; 1 administrative
support. Total: 6.
1
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Office of Competitive Grants
Grants Management responsibilities include developing Request for Proposals;
providing notice in all service areas; responding to requests for applications; receiving, tracking
and filing completed applications; providing technical assistance to applicants, including response
to general inquiries, early review of proposals to check for compliance with technical
requirements, and assistance in correcting errors and completing incomplete proposals; evaluating
proposals and making staff recommendations for funding; coordinating evaluation by outside
evaluators, including recruitment, selection, and training of evaluators; negotiating transition
agreements with new grantees; providing technical assistance to new grantees.
Program Review responsibilities include making on-site visits to new applicants as part of
the application process; conducting ongoing evaluation of grantees for use in future grant
decisions; and designing and maintaining databases for collecting and analyzing information
concerning grantees, cases, client statistics, in conjunction with the Office of Information
Technology.
Positions needed: Director; 14 professional; 5 administrative support. Initially all
OCG staff will work on processing and evaluating 1996 grants. Subsequently, staff will be
allocated as follows: Grants Management (responsible for managing the competition
process): 8 professionals; Program Review (responsible for on-site evaluation of grantees and
new applicants): 6 professionals; Administraive support: 5. Total: 20.
Office of Complaints and Enforcement
Responsibilities related to investigation of complaints include receiving and logging
complaints; maintaining records; corresponding with complainants, grantees and interested
parties; conducting on-site visits, if required; making findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
notifying complainants, grantees, and interested parties.
In response to complaints, referrals from the Inspector General, or matters identified by
LSC staff, enforcement-related responsibilities incude notifying grantees of corrective action
required; documenting compliance; when appropriate, enforcing sanctions or terminating grants
outside of the competitive cycle.
Other related responsibilities established by LSC regulations include approving capital
expenditures, consultant contracts, subgrants, and mergers, when required; and responding to
requests for waiver of Private Attorney Involvement expenditure requirements and waiver of fund
balance requirements. All of these require investigation, factual and legal determinations, and
record-keeping.
Positions needed: Director; 7 professionals assigned to complaint investigation,
waivers and approvals; 4 professionals assigned to enforcement; 3 administrative support.
Total: 15.
2
Note: Under the House Appropriations bill, which transfers basic responsibility for
compliance monitoring to the Office of the Inspector General, LSC would no longer perform the
following functions: annual desk reviews of each grantee's written policies, board minutes and
performance reports to ensure that the grantee's policies and procedures comply with federal
restrictions; and on-site compliance monitoring to conduct interviews and examine the grantee's
books, records and files and determine whether the grantee is carrying out the required policies
and practices. If the above functions are retained at LSC, an additional 6-7 positions will be
required.
ADMINISTRATION
Comptroller
The Comptroller serves as the Corporation Treasurer and is responsible for the
development of the ann' al budget submission to OMB and Congress; the development of the
fiscal budget; preparation of budget reports to Board and executive staff; maintaining audit
preparedness; maintaining accounting systems and cash management; payroll; payroll tax
payments and filings; preparation of monthly grant checks, with verification of grantee audit
confirmation; assistance to LSC's independent auditor; and preparation of LSC's corporate tax
returns and registration.
Positions necessary: Comptroller/Treasurer; 3 accountants; 1 administrative
assistant. Total: 5.
Human Resources and Administrative Services
Responsibilities include personnel and administrative policies; recruitment and staffing;
compensation and benefit administration; review of employee grievances; compliance with Equal
Employment Opportunity requirements; reprographics and mailing; maintenance of archives and
library; management of telephones and other property; travel arrangements for the LSC Board,
staff and review panels; and general administrative support.
Positions necessary: Director; personnel assistant; benefits administrator; travel
coordinator; property coordinator; librarian/archivist; reprographics assistant; building
assistant; 2 administrative assistants. Total: 10.
Information Technology
Responsibilities include maintenance of information system and databases, including help
desk, internal E-mail, and on-line legal search systems; staff support and training; support for
grantee technology needs; entry of data from grantees; production of statistical reports to
Congress and others, including case statistics and analyses of grantee timekeeping records.
Positions necessary: Director; 3 professionals, 1 administrative assistant. Total: 5.
3
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
BOARD
ADMIN SERV
OFFICE OF
COMPETITION
OF
EXECUTIVE
GENERAL
HUMAN
OFFICE OF
INFORMATION
AND
TOTAL
BUDGET CATEGORY
DIRECTORS
OFFICES
COUNSEL
RESOURCES
COMPTROLLER
TECHNOLOGY
ENFORCEMENT
BUDGET
PERSONNEL COMPENSATION
$0
$499,789
$285,700
$419,103
$278,051
194,808
$1,845,066
$3,522,517
TEMP. EMPLOYEE PAY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PERSONNEL BENEFITS
0
120,311
65,625
139,663
73,949
57,167
489,909
946,624
CONSULTING
86,440
0
100,000
50,000
2,500
130,000
400,000
768,940
TRAVEL & TRANSPORTATION
86,275
40,000
5,000
4,500
3,500
3,000
450,000
592,275
COMMUNICATIONS
12,000
2,000
1,000
95,100
1,000
100
10,000
121,200
OCCUPANCY COSTS
2,250
0
0
1,644,200
0
0
8,400
1,654,850
PRINTING & REPRODUCTION
5,000
150
100
95,100
0
0
2,200
102,550
OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES
10,000
15,000
12,800
210,000
27,500
2,000
287,500
564,800
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
0
0
0
25,000
0
0
0
25,000
OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
201,965
677,250
470,225
2,682,666
386,500
387,075
3,493,075
8,298,756
LSC MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION: COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS AND BUDGET LEVELS
1. Appropriation
2. Principal Functions
3. Ability to Perform Functions
4. Annualized
5. Staff Size
6. One-time Costs
(column 4 plus
column 6)
Budget Level
supportable by annualized
associated with downsizing
(after downsizing)
budget level
$6 million
Support LSC board
Inadequate
$4.45 million
29
Phase I severance
as enacted in vetoed
$530,000
Promulgate regulations
Excess rent
Appropriation
610,000
Comply with FOIA and other
Phase II costs
550,000
laws
1st qtr excess*
275,000
*Award grants through
Carryover and Recovery
(410,000)
competition
Net
1,555,000
Manage grants
*Approvals and waivers
Complaints
-Collect data and develop statistics
*Internal LSC administration
*Respond to Congressional
inquiries
*Respond to public inquiries
*Enforcement of OIG findings
5
$7.2 million
As above
Minimal capacity to award grants
$6 million
51
Phase I severance
$530,000
competitively:
Excess rent
610,000
Adequate to process applications
Phase II costs
200,000
Inadequate to promote competition
1st qtr excess*
275,000
Inadequate to assess quality of grantee
Carryover and Recovery
(410,000)
services
Net
1,205,000
Minimal capacity to perform other functions
$8 million
As above
Adequate for listed functions
$7.45 million
70
Phase I severance
$530,000
Excess rent
430,000
Phase II costs
0
1st qtr excess*
0
Carryover and Recovery
(410,000)
Net
550,000
$9 million
As above, with the addition of
Adequate for listed functions
$8.45 million
77
Phase I severance
$530,000
Compliance monitoring (shared
Excess rent
430,000
with OIG)
Phase II costs
0
1st qtr excess*
0
Note:
Carryover and Recovery
(410,000)
staffing for FY 95 was 99
Net
550,000
*
During the first quarter, pursuant to the C.R., LSC spent at a level consistent with an $8 million M&A Appropriation. If the Appropriation eventually enacted is less than $8 million, then first quarter spending will have
been over budget. Continued spending at this level during January 1996 and after will increase the level of one-time costs, thereby reducing the annualized budget level after downsizing.
Prepared: January 3, 1996
ATTACHMENT 5
TALKING POINTS
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT RECIPIENTS
TO SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES
FOR WORK IN PENDING CASES
The Conference Bill prohibits legal services programs from collecting attorneys' fees in
pending cases even where programs have earned the fees over a period of many years, or where
they have outstanding orders and judgments awarding fees that have not yet been paid. Even
thought the Conference Bill permits recipients to continue some categories of prohibited pending
cases until July 1, recipients are not permitted to seek or collect attorneys' fees in those cases or in
case that are not otherwise prohibited. Programs should be permitted to seek and collect
attorneys' fees in all cases pending on the date of enactment.
In general, Legal Services Programs should be allowed to seek attorneys' fees for the
following reasons:
There are several purposes for enactment of fee-shifting statutes that permit courts to
award attorneys' fees to successful litigants. In addition to encouraging enforcement of
important legal and constitutional rights that are at stake, those purposes include
punishment and deterrence of illegal conduct, and compensating litigants and their
attorneys for their efforts. All of these important purposes are undercut by the prohibition
contained in the Bill.
Legal services programs have limited resources and use the attorneys' fees that they
receive for successfully litigating cases to provide additional services to other eligible
clients who could not be other wise served. By denying legal services programs the right
to seek and collect attorneys' fees, the Bill limits further the resources available to support
desperately needed legal services for the poor.
Congress and state legislatures have enacted fee-shifting statutes in order to ensure that
important statutory and constitutional rights are enforced. For example, the Civil Rights
Attorneys' Fees Act is a key part of the Civil Rights enforcement structure in this country.
If legal services attorneys are not permitted to recover attorneys' fees in civil rights cases
brought by poor minorities whose civil rights have been violated, far fewer of those cases
will be able to be brought, and more poor people will continue to be victims of
discrimination.
Attorneys' fees statutes are intended to deter illegal conduct and punish wrongdoers who
have violated the rights of those protected under the law. Without the threat of attorneys'
fee awards, private interests may feel they are free to violate the rights of poor people with
impunity, since the risk of large damage awards is minimal in most cases involving poor
people, even though the wrongs committed by the defendants may have had a devastating
effect on the poor plaintiff.
1
Critics complain that taxpayers support legal services programs, which then turn around
and sue those same taxpayers, who then have to pay to hire an attorney to defend the. If
they lose the case, taxpayers then also have to pay attorneys' fees to the legal services
programs, and that somehow does not seem fair. The answer is simple and twofold. First,
taxpayer support for legal services is minimal, with less than $1.50 of each taxpayer's
annual federal taxes going to support legal services. Second, if the taxpayer did not
violate the rights of poor people, then he would not have to pay any attorneys' fees. He
can avoid paying attorneys' fees by obeying the law. Our legal system is designed so that
in cases where important statutory and constitutional rights are at stake, violators are
required to pay their victim's attorneys' fees as well as their own, regardless of the
economic status of victim or who supported the representation in the first instance. Poor
people should not be treated differently under that system.
Not only does the Bill treat legal services clients differently from other litigants, but it also
permits private parties to escape punishment for behavior that is not tolerated from
government defendants. It ensures that private parties remain largely unaccountable for
violations of the rights of poor people, even though Congress or state legislature have
determined that their actions are illegal.
2
ATTACHMENT 6
TALKING POINTS
RESTRICTIONS
ON NON-LSC FUNDS
The Conference Bill restricts the use of all of a recipients non-LSC funds to the same
degree as LSC funds are restricted.
The Conference Bill would put severe limitations on the ability of private funders and state
and local governmental agencies, including IOLTA programs, to ensure that legal services
they have identified as necessary to meet the full range of legal needs of poor people
within their jurisdictions are available.
The Conference Bill would prohibit recipients from representing a significant number of
clients who are today represented using private, public and IOLTA funds such as certain
categories of legal aliens, families challenging welfare rules under state law, women
seeking family planning assistance, and defendants in proceedings which some states
characterize as criminal, such as paternity or child support contempt actions.
A number of states, including New York, Maryland and North Carolina, now meet their
court imposed obligation to provide access to the courts for prison inmates in civil matters
by contracting with legal services programs to represent inmates on a wide variety of
matters, including custody and other family law issues, bankruptcy, consumer matters, as
well a prison conditions cases. States would no longer be able to enter into these
contracts under the Conference Bill.
The Conference Bill would make it impossible for most private attorneys, law firms and
bar associations to bid for grants or contracts from LSC, because the bill would restrict all
of their non-LSC public and private funds, including fees received by private lawyers from
their non-LSC clients.
The Conference Bill would prohibit private funders, state and local governments from
funding legal services programs to provide critical services, including representation on
behalf of poor people before administrative rulemaking bodies, even when those
governments have determined that such representation is essential to ensure that the laws
and regulations they adopt take account of the needs and legal interests of poor people.
While Congress should have the authority to determine how the funds it
appropriates should be used, it should not be permitted to impose those determinations on
the choices that private funders and other sovereign governmental entities wish to make
with respect to their own funds.
Public and private funders should have the same opportunity as Congress to determine the
purposes for which their funds will be used and to select the institutions that can best carry
1
out those purposes. Congress should not interfere in decisions by other private and public
funders, including state IOLTA programs, on how to allocate their funds and with whom
to contract. With rare exceptions, restrictions on non-LSC funds should be imposed only
by the private or public entity or government agency providing those funds.
In the event that Congress determines that certain specific activities are inappropriate for
any recipient of federal funds to undertake, regardless of the funds used, it should outlaw
those specific activities, rather than simply apply the whole panoply of restrictions to the
recipient's non-LSC funds.
Congress should encourage, rather than discourage, the creation of additional funding
sources for civil legal services and federal-state cooperation to ensure the effective and
efficient use of resources, rather than stimulate wasteful duplication of programs if private
and public funders are forced to put their resources elsewhere in order to accomplish their
purposes.
Congress should not single out legal services recipients and the poor that they serve by
denying them the use of private and other public funds that it has permitted other
nonprofit and profit-making organizations receiving federal funds to use without
restriction.
Recipients should not be forced to choose between receiving LSC funds and providing
needed services to their clients that private funders or state or local governments are
willing to support. The result of such a choice is that fewer resources will be available to
serve eligible clients.
Timekeeping proposals that will be imposed on recipients will ensure that LSC funds are
not used inappropriately to supplement or provide overhead for restricted activities that
Congress has determined are inconsistent with the purposes of the LSC Act.
The Conference Bill's restrictions on the use by recipients of non-LSC public and private
funds to conduct Constitutionally protected activities on behalf of their clients raises
serious Constitutional questions.
2
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
02/21/96
LSC and Recipients Funding* : 1980 - 1995
Total
NON-LSC
FUNDING
LSC
Other
Other
Private
Total Non-LSC
Total
Appropriation
Federal
Public
Funds
Funding
Funds
Year
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
1980
300,000,000
27,167,000
3,557,000
6,938,000
37,662,000
337,662,000
1981
321,300,000
32,124,000
5,309,000
10,767,000
48,200,000
369,500,000
1982
241,000,000
26,371,686
6,249,644
15,278,776
47,900,106
288,900,106
1983
241,000,000
25,490,293
11,022,332
15,443,426
51,956,051
292,956,051
1984
275,000,000
23,166,872
17,356,678
23,168,566
63,692,116
338,692,116
1985
305,000,000
24,718,960
22,723,891
34,007,507
81,450,358
386,450,358
1986
292,363,000
25,399,966
38,760,315
26,834,413
90,994,694
383,357,694
1987
305,500,000
26,539,000
26,665,000
(N/A)
123,154,565
428,654,565
1988
305,500,000
27,678,482
63,706,311
37,834,710
129,219,503
434,719,503
1989
308,555,000
28,132,139
78,963,189
42,007,908
149,103,236
457,658,236
1990
316,525,000
28,473,066
105,185,868
50,201,397
183,860,331
500,385,331
1991
328,186,000
29,512,709
125,941,484
58,814,990
214,269,183
542,455,183
1992
350,000,000
31,434,331
146,685,756
60,517,386
238,637,473
588,637,473
1993
357,300,000
32,182,415
145,920,735
67,737,581
245,840,731
603,140,731
1994
400,500,000
34,605,425
140,022,406
68,216,677
242,844,508
643,344,508
1995 (Proj.)
415,000,000
37,235,629
133,338,199
68,350,811
238,924,639
653,924,639
Sources: LSC Fact Books, 1980-1985, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-1991
LSC Annual Appropriations History
LSC Annual Reports, 1991 - 1993
The 1995 Non-LSC figures are projections.
ATTACHMENT 7
TALKING POINTS
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT RECIPIENTS TO
RESPOND TO REQUESTS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Proposed provision would permit recipients to use non-LSC funds to respond to requests
for information or testimony from legislators or agency officials.
The amendment would permit a narrow range of activities, limited only to responding to
written request from a legislator or agency official. The response could be made only to
the official (or staff) making the request. Recipients would not be permitted to evade the
general lobbying restrictions by arranging to have a request made.
Legislators and administrators should not be kept in the dark about issues affecting poor
people. They should not be prohibited from calling on, and receiving critical information
from, legal services attorneys who are often the only source of expertise on how a
particular proposal would affect poor people and their rights.
Permitting such responses will assist legislators in crafting statutes that will take into
consideration the interest of those poor people who may be affected by them and avoid
unintended consequences.
Legal services should also be able to make their expertise available to agency officials by
commenting on proposed rules when specifically requested to so by an agency official or
when proposals have been published by an agency that is seeking public comment.
Permitting such comment will provide agencies with valuable information that will ensure
that they understand the impact of their proposals on those directly affected by them and,
in many instances, prevent litigation challenging those rules that might arise later if poor
people's interests had not been considered and addressed at the outset.
A
ATTACHMENT 8
TED STEVENS ALASKA, CHAIRMAN
WELLIAM V. NOTH in DELAWARE
JOHN GLENN 0100
WEDAM 5. COHEN MAINE
$AM NUNIL GEORGIA
FRED THOMPOON TENNESSEE
CARL LEVEL MICHIGAN
THAC COCHRAN, WASSINSIPPI
DAVID PHYOR ARKANSAS
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
JOSEPH L LEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
DANIEL K AKAKA, HAINAG
BOE SMITH, NEW MAMPSHIRE
BYROWL DORGAN, NORTH DAKOTA
Anited States Senate
ALBERT L McDERMOTT, STARE DIRECTOR
LEONARD wass. MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20610-6250
November 8, 1995
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Pete:
As we discussed during the debate on funding for the Legal Services
Corporation, I remain concerned about some of the restrictions on legal services
organizations' use of non-federal funds. In particular, the bill in its current form
would prohibit Maine's Pine Tree Legal Assistance from working with the state
legislature and executive branch agencies on issues of concern to Maine's indigent
population, which it now does with broad bipartisan support. At your suggestion, I
spoke with Nancy about this and she urged me not to propose a floor amendment to
the appropriations bill, but instead to have the change made in conference and on the
reauthorization bill.
I do not believe that legal services organizations should be using their scarce
funds, regardless of the source, to engage in grass-roots lobbying or participate in
political campaigns. Yet, I believe it is unwise to prohibit legal services attorneys,
who are among the leading experts in the country on poverty law, from testifying
before legislative committees, commenting on public rulemakings, or working with
government officials to develop effective programs and policies. Depriving state and
local governments of this source of expertise at this time when we are transferring
primary responsibility for welfare and Medicaid to the states may be
counterproductive.
I propose that an exception be written into both the appropriations and
authorization bills that would allow legal services organizations to respond to requests
for information or testimony from legislators or agency officials. In my view, this is a
modest proposal that would enable legal services organizations to make a positive
contribution to the development of programs to assist the poor while maintaining the
prohibition on the type of lobbying that we all believe should not be occupying the
time of legal services attorneys.
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
November 8, 1995
Page 2
I am attaching proposed legislative language. I hope you will urge the
conference to adopt this amendment.
With warmest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tyll William S. Cohen
United States Senator
WSC:dhs
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
November 8, 1995
Page 3
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
SECTION 504
+
*
(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit -
*
*
(3) a recipient from using funds from a source other than the Corporation to
comment on a public rulemaking or respond to a written request for information or
testimony from a State or local agency, legislative body or committee, or a member of
such an agency, body, or committee, so long as the response is made only to the
parties that make the request and the recipient does not arrange for the request to be
made.
LOWENSTEIN, SANDLER, KOHL, FISHER & BOYLAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
65 LIVINGSTON AVENUE
ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY
Douglas S. Eakeley
07068-1791
TELEPHONE (201) 992-8700
FACSIMILE (201) 992-5820
March 19, 1996
Hon. Bill Clinton
President
The United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500-2000
Dear Mr. President:
Re: Legal Services Corporation
I wanted to share with you the enclosed letter from Harrison McIver, the
Executive Director of the Project Advisory Group (the national organization of legal services
programs). Harrison speaks from the heart when he expresses our collective anguish over recent
Congressional actions to reduce funding, impose new restrictions, and ultimately deny access to
justice to the needy. Needless to say, we appreciate all you have done to keep the Legal Services
program alive -- and with it, the American dream of "liberty and justice for all." Now more than
ever, as we struggle with this year's Continuing Resolution and prepare for next month's
appropriations process, we need your continued leadership and support.
Yours truly,
Douglas
Day Eakey Day Eakeley
DSE:cw
encl.
cc w/encl.:
Ms. Nancy Hernreich
Melanne Verveer, Esq.
Harrison D. McIver, III, Esq.
03/19/960222184.01
1625 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 505
P-A-G
(202) 223-1760/FAX (202) 223-1803
HANDSET ID #HN 0686
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
INFORMATION HOTLINE:
HARRISON D. McIVER, III
1-800-231-7536
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP
202-833-2054 (D.C. Area)
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
February 28, 1996
LOWENSTEIN, SANDLER
Douglas Eakeley, Chair
MAR 0 4 1996
Legal Services Corporation
Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan
RECEIVED
65 Livingston Ave.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Alex Forger, President
Legal Services Corporation
750 1st St., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Doug and Alex:
After reflecting on the LSC Board meeting last week, I appreciated even more the very
difficult job you have leading a Corporation that is under attack on the Hill and by the right-
wing. Similarly, I am moved on a daily basis by the many voices from program leaders who have
to inform dedicated staff members who have devoted their lives to the provision of legal services
to the poor that their employment will end. Of equal or perhaps greater significance is the
unenviable and unavoidable chore of turning away clients in need of services because of the
absence of resources.
During the meeting I chose not to speak on the record but I heard in my mind the voices
of my colleagues and their clients saying that $340 million does not nearly approach the
resources necessary to meet an ever increasing demand for client services. At the same time, I
am not politically naive to think that the final FY 1997 appropriations for LSC likely will be $340
million. As Don put it in our meeting with LSC a couple of weeks ago, representation that
programs will at least provide geographic coverage should be reassessed in light of the reduction
in funding. Indeed, can we, with a straight face, continue to tell Congress that geographic
coverage is even a plausible goal?
My silence at the meeting was a recognition that you, for practical political reasons, had
little choice but to embrace the President's budget figure, though there is precedent to the
contrary. It is clearly a different time and indeed a different place. Nonetheless, I submit it is
important to inform congressional supporters, and those who are marginally supportive, of the
specific impact that the reduced LSC FY 1996 budget will have upon the lives of citizens within
their respective districts or states.
We all recognize the existence of a demoralized Legal Services community, grasping for
us in Washington to stand up when it is important to do so. This you have done on the migrant
funding and other issues, for which I commend you.
ANDREW J. STEINBERG
GLADYS BARNES
JOSÉ R. PADILLA
DOROTHY REED
Chairperson
Vice-Chairperson
Vice-Chairperson
Secretary/Treasurer
Western Massachusetts Legal Services
Legal Services Corporation of Alabama
California Rural Legal Assistance
Legal Aid Society
Gadsden, Alabama
San Francisco, California
Charleston, West Virginia
Springfield, Massachusetts
Douglas Eakeley and Alex Forger, February 28, 1996, p. 2
Please accept this correspondence in the positive manner in which it is intended.
Sincerely,
Haman Harrison D. McIver, III
Executive Director
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Suggested List of Priorities for Programs
Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation
May 20, 1996
Public Law 104-134, the omnibus legislation that includes the FY 1996 appropriation for
the Legal Services Corporation, contains two modifications of current law relating to grantees'
allocation of priorities in the use of resources. The governing boards of grantees are directed to
set specific priorities in writing, pursuant to the Legal Services Corporation Act and the
Corporation's priority-setting regulation, of the types of matters and cases to which they will
devote time and resources, and their staffs must sign written agreements not to undertake cases or
matters other than in accordance with these specific priorities except in emergency situations
[Section 504 (a)(9)]. The Corporation itself is directed to promulgate a suggested list of priorities
that local boards of directors may use in setting their local priorities [Section 504 (c)].
Accordingly, the following suggested list of priorities has been adopted by the Board at its
meeting on May 20, 1996.
The one-third reduction in funding for the Legal Services Corporation for Fiscal Year
1996 requires that the Corporation's grantees exercise the utmost care in making the difficult and,
at times, painful decisions as to the types of cases they can accept and the nature of the service
they will provide. While the ultimate decision in these matters rests with the local program --
which must develop its own priorities within the context of the circumstances in its own
community, in consultation with the client community, subject to applicable legislative and
regulatory restrictions -- the Corporation expects each program to respond to the most
compelling and critical needs of its eligible clients and to leverage its resources in order to
compensate to the greatest degree possible for the inevitable reduction in client service resulting
from this cut in funding. In meeting this crisis, each program must continue to maintain a high
level of professionalism and quality in the delivery of legal services and in the observance of
ethical standards.
To this end, and in response to the direction of Congress, the Corporation's Board of
Directors has identified the following suggested priorities to help guide local legal services
programs as they strive to continue to provide high quality, effective legal services to members of
their communities. It has formulated this response in the context of the existing pattern of
individual cases being handled nationwide, the largest category of which involves family matters,
1
in which the client base is disproportionately comprised of women and children. Hence, a
principal focus by the Board of Directors is in the context of the family. Recognition is given,
however, to other critical case needs comprising the everyday problems encountered by our
eligible clients.
Support for Families
The cohesiveness of the family is not only a time-honored value fundamental to our
American way of life but also the undergirding of the stability of our American society. Programs
should take cognizance of the vulnerability of American families to problems requiring legal
assistance for their resolution. The Corporation suggests that programs place a high priority on
those cases in which legal assistance supports the integrity, safety, and well-being of the family.
Preserving the Home
Preservation of the home is essential to the well-being of every person. The loss of
housing through uninhabitability, eviction or foreclosure can precipitate exposure to physical and
medical risks in crowded shelters or the streets, disruption of the schooling of young children, loss
of employment, and the splintering of families whose members may be dispersed in seeking
alternate shelter. Enabling families to avoid loss of their home should be an important priority for
grantees, as should assistance to those families or individuals who have become homeless.
Of equal importance is the assurance that families can be safe and secure in their places of
residence. This is of particular concern in public housing complexes where crime and violent
behavior put many families at risk. Legal assistance to tenant associations or other groups of
eligible clients seeking to ameliorate the condition of a dangerous environment contributes to
family well-being and should be a priority where appropriate. The Corporation also encourages
grantees to give a high priority to representation of individual families threatened by unsafe or
unhealthy conditions in both public and private rental housing.
Help may also be needed when physical harm to family living quarters is caused by natural
disaster, such as flood, earthquake, fire and hurricane. Programs are urged to respond to the
needs of clients in such emergencies and, when appropriate, to cooperate in joint endeavors with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Funds may be available through special
appropriations which programs can use to provide emergency services to clients in matters such
as relocation, repair of housing, filing for benefits, and dealing with insurance, contractors, and
creditors.
Maintaining Economic Stability
Families must be economically viable in order to survive. The Corporation encourages
programs to give high priority to cases in which the family's source of income is at risk.
2
For the working poor, those seeking to avoid dependency and find a route out of poverty,
the loss of a job may trigger a plummet into abject poverty, possibly leading to the loss of
housing, access to health care, and even the breakup of the family. The prevention of
unemployment may obviate a sequence of far greater legal activity, and should therefore be a high
priority for legal services programs. In addition to matters directly involving employment law,
other cases may fall into the category of potentially preventing joblessness, for example consumer
cases relating to the tools of a worker's trade or to an automobile which is needed to transport the
worker to the site of the job. A category of the working poor whose legal needs should not be
overlooked in setting priorities are family farmers, who are especially vulnerable to the vagaries of
weather and markets.
The Corporation also suggests that programs accord a high priority to cases involving
parental responsibility for the support of their children. In light of recent legislative attention to
this issue, the rate of success in obtaining child support from absent parents makes such
representation an ever more efficient and cost-effective use of legal time.
For workers who have lost their jobs or become disabled or those who are otherwise
unable to obtain employment, representation in cases involving eligibility for benefits to which
they have a claim may be the only way to preserve a source of income for the family.
Other legal matters may threaten basic economic stability and therefore merit high priority.
For example, a family entrapped by a fraudulent scheme may be forced into bankruptcy if it has no
recourse to legal assistance.
Safety, Stability and Health
Domestic violence threatens the security and stability of families at all economic levels.
The physical abuse of women, frequently mothers of children in the household, as well as neglect
and harm to children themselves, calls for heightened awareness in, and quickened responsiveness
by, the justice system. The intervention of legal service lawyers in obtaining judicial remedies,
such as orders of protection, can be life-saving. Every program should endeavor to offer that vital
assistance.
Representation in legal separation or divorce may also be essential to sustain what remains
of a viable family structure, especially as it relates to regularization or clarification of the custody
of children. Programs should also consider representation where dissolution of the marital
relationship is the result of abandonment or other compelling circumstances, applying their own
assessment of priorities to take cognizance of the exigencies of each situation.
Representation in cases involving access to health care may also be essential to preserve
the security and stability of families, and should be accorded an appropriate priority.
3
Populations with Special Vulnerabilities
While the Corporation encourages programs to focus prime attention on providing
support for families, this cannot and should not be to the exclusion of assistance to individuals
living outside a family context. This is particularly true with respect to the growing numbers of
elderly individuals in our population who are among the most vulnerable, particularly as their
capacity to make independent and informed judgments diminishes. In addition to assurance of
access to basic needs of life -- food, shelter and medical care -- they often require remedies
against the unscrupulous who take unfair advantage in their dealings with them.
Programs should also pay particular attention to other similarly vulnerable individuals
within their service areas who, in addition to being in a marginal economic status, are less capable
of fending for themselves by reason of difference in language, cultural and educational
backgrounds, disability, or other special problems of access to legal assistance or special legal
needs.
The Delivery of Legal Services
Apart from the focus on substantive issues or client populations, the Corporation expects
its grantees to give attention to matters relating to the nature or method of delivery of legal
services. The sharp reduction in funding will necessarily cause programs to turn away an
increasing number of eligible clients needing assistance. Before the FY 1996 reduction, it had
been estimated that only a fraction of the legal needs of low-income clients were being met,
perhaps as little as twenty percent. In some of our programs, the turn-away rate of those who
sought assistance was over fifty percent. The Corporation understands that a one-third budgetary
cut may well, in a given program, translate into a reduction in service capability greater than one-
third, as staff and fixed commitments do not yield to simple proportionate reductions. It is
therefore essential that each program consider methods by which it can stretch its resources in an
effort to compensate in part for the substantial loss in capacity.
To this end, the Corporation urges programs to make maximum use of available
technology in screening, researching and responding to client needs. Because the Corporation can
offer no assistance with acquisition of equipment, we suggest programs consider discrete
fundraising projects for this purpose. Centralized intake through hotlines and computerized
networks can facilitate referrals and brief service and result in more efficient use of lawyer time.
Similarly, community legal education, pro se representation and other forms of self-help can
reduce the need for legal intervention, enabling programs to conserve their resources for matters
most requiring a lawyer's help.
The Corporation recommends that programs place a high priority on activities designed to
involve the entire community in sharing the responsibility for facilitating access to justice. Special
attention should be accorded to the involvement of the private bar in the provision of pro bono
client representation. Although increased pro bono services will not make up for the effects of
4
the current cutbacks in funding for the Corporation, involvement of the private bar represents an
important supplement to direct service by Corporation grantees. In addition to pro bono
representation, the private bar can provide assistance in relevant substantive areas of law, training
for staff and volunteers, and both direct financial support and assistance with fundraising. Law
schools and other law-related entities can also make unique contributions. The community at
large, including clients, religious and civic groups, community service agencies, and business
enterprises and organizations should also be included in efforts to broaden each program's
outreach effort.
Conclusion
The Legal Services Corporation recognizes that different communities have different
needs, and will respect the autonomy of every grantee to make decisions that reflect the resources
available to it and the demographics and peculiar circumstances of its client populations. In some
communities, issues not touched upon here may be of grave concern to clients, and worthy of
being accorded a high priority. Nevertheless, we expect that each grantee will give careful
consideration to the issues which have been identified here as priorities from the Corporation's
nationwide perspective.
5
P.2
- NOV 28 '95 14:04
TALKING POINTS ON LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ISSUES
IN THE COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED
AGENCIES FY 96 APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT (H.R. 2076)
The House and Senate Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
appropriations bills (H.R. 2076) are substantially similar on most issues affecting the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC). In most of those areas of difference we favor the Senate
language. We urge the Conferees to recede to the Senate provisions on the following issues:
I. Funding and Distribution of Funds
1)
Conferees should support the Senate's mark of $340 million. This amount represents a 15
percent cut from LSC's post-rescission FY 95 funding level compared to the one-third cut in the
House bill. LSC estimates that at the House level of funding 150,000 fewer potential clients and
their families, totalling upwards of a half million people, would be served and as many as an
additional 100 legal aid offices, a large proportion of them in rural areas, would be forced to
close.
2)
Conferees should support the distribution of funds in the Senate bill, which would provide
$13 million for LSC Management and Administration (M&A), to be allocated by the LSC Board.
The House bill would drastically slash LSC's M&A budget from the current level of $10 million
to $5 million. The total of LSC's fixed obligations for FY 96 is $3.6 million. If the M&A budget
is reduced to $5 million, M&A is left with only $1.4 million to meet its expenses for the rest of the
year. At this level of funding LSC will be forced to lay off more than 50 employees
immediately. (In anticipation of reduced funding, LSC has already reduced its staff from 97 to
68 people.) Severance payments for these employees would total approximately $500,000,
leaving only $900,000 for operating expenses for the rest of FY 96 and permitting a staff of
approximately 15. Clearly this reduction in staff and funding would completely undermine LSC's
ability to implement competition and fulfill other programmatic responsibilities. Also, the Senate
bill would permit the LSC Board of Directors to allocate its M&A funds in a way that will ensure
continuity in the compliance monitoring function.
3)
Conferees should support the Senate provision which addresses the special needs of
certain populations. Both the House and the Senate bills call for a funding formula based on the
1990 census that would distribute funds equally among geographic regions for basic field
programs. However, the Senate bill would allocate an amount of money at the national level from
which to make grants for the direct delivery of legal assistance to Native Americans and would
permit LSC to allocate an amount of money for migrant farmworker programs. While the House
bill does not prevent LSC from serving these special populations. additional assistance would not
be possible under the per capita poor person formula. In addition, the Senate bill would allow
LSC to continue its current practice of funding programs in Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands
on the basis of an adjusted census count in order to take into account the high costs of delivering
services in these areas.
1
P.3
NOV 28 '95 14:05
II. Transition and the Date for Implementation of Competition
1)
Conferees should support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit legal services
programs to complete existing cases that were begun before the Appropriations Act becomes law,
but which could no longer be brought in 1996 under the restrictions in the Appropriations Act.
Such a provision is essential to permit legal services programs to withdraw from pending cases,
find alternative counsel and take necessary steps in cases pending before the courts to obtain
approval from the judges involved. If programs are not given time for such a transition, they will
encounter serious problems in complying with state ethical rules governing representation of
clients. Many will be faced with orders from judges requiring the program to continue
representation in cases where alternative counsel is not available or where the case is at a stage
that requires the continuation of the current attorney. In such cases they would be required to
discontinue the provision of services with LSC funds.
2)
Conferees should support the provision in the Senate bill providing for a date of
September 1. 1996, for the implementation of a competitive system for awarding grants. The
House bill requires the system to be in operation by January 1, 1996, which is only a few weeks
away. While implementation of our competition plan is well under way, additional time is
necessary to evaluate applications fully and provide technical assistance to new applicants in order
to ensure that the competitive system for awarding grants is fairly implemented.
III. Correcting Unintended Consequences of the House Bill
1)
Conferees should support the provision in the Senate bill that would permit programs to
accept fee-generating cases if private attorneys are not available or are unwilling to take the case.
The House bill could be interpreted to prevent a recipient from taking a fee-generating case even
if private attorneys were not available or were not willing to take the case. Many nominally fee-
generating cases involve such small fees for the work required that private attorneys will not take
the cases. For example, Black Lung cases provide for fees, but the fees are so small that private
attorneys in Kentucky have not taken and will not take such cases. These are handled today by
legal services programs in Kentucky. In Alaska, there is a general fee-shifting provision for all
civil cases, so that virtually all the litigation that Alaska Legal Services does could be viewed as
fee-generating. In some rural areas of the country there are no private attorneys available to take
cases whether or not they are fee-generating.
2)
Conferees should support the provision of the Senate bill that would permit legal services
programs to use non-LSC funds to contact communicate with and respond to requests regarding
the funding of a recipient by a State or local legislative body or administrative agency. Recipients
should be encouraged to seek funds from state and local legislative and administrative bodies to
expand the availability of legal services to the poor. Recipients which receive funds from such
bodies should be able to communicate with and respond to such bodies when they are considering
issues affecting the recipient's funding.
2
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
750 1st St., NE, 11th FL, Washington, D.C. 20002-4250
(202)336-8800
Fax (202) 336-8959
Alexunder D. Forger
FAX REQUEST
President
Writer's Direct Telephone
(202)
ROUTINE:
CONFIDENTIAL:
TO:
Melanne Veveer
FAX NO.:
456- 456-6244 6244
DATE:
3/22/96
FROM:
Gail W. Laster, Director - Government Relations
PHONE NO: 202-336-8815
Number of Pages sent:
(not including cover page)
Hard Copy to Follow: Yes
REMARKS: FYI - Anti LSC "CATS" LETTER
If there is a transmission problem, please contact me at the
above number. Thank you.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Douglas S. Eakeley, Chairman. Roseland. NJ
Huleft H Askew
LaVerda M. Battle
John T. Broderick, Jr.
John G. Brooks
Maria L. Mercado
Atlanta, GA
Hirmingham, AL
Manchester, NH
Boston, MA
Galveston. TX
F. Wm. McCalpin
Nancy H. Rogers
Thomas F. Smegal, Jr.
Emestine P. Watlington
Edna Fairhanks-Williams
St Louis. MO
Columbus, OH
San Francisco, CA
Harrisburg, PA
Fairhaven, vr
100
/
LSC GEN COUNSEL
6202 336 8954
19:58
03/22/96
Emity batach
Charles H. Jefor
Just Dolitte
John n Hostettler
Dave Welden
VAN Hilleary
Welen Chemowin
800
LSC GEN COUNSEL
8954 336 2020 19:52 03/22/96
Congress of the United States
Missington, DC 20513
March 20, 1996
The Honorable Dick Armey
Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representative
H-329, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Dick:
We are writing with regard to the Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations bill
(H.R. 3019) and funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
As you will recall, after lengthy negotiations last year, we reached an agreement
to fund the LSC at no more than $278 million for Fiscal Year 1996. $141 million for
Fiscal Year 1997, and $0 for Fiscal Year 1998. You and the rest of our leadership have
been diligent In ensuring adherence to this agreement.
It has come to our attention that the Senate version of the continuing resolution
contains a funding level of $300 million for Legal Services. in addition, the Cohen
Amendment, approved by the Senate Thursday evening. creates a massive loophole
allowing legal services grantees to engage In lobbying activities.
We are writing to ask that you: along with our conferees, resist all pressure from
the Senate and the White House to go along with any funding level in excess of $278
million. Every additional dollar that we appropriate is another dollar that the LSC has
to continue engaging in politically motivated litigation, such as challenging the
constitutionality of welfare reform and blocking public housing developments from
evicting drug dealers. We also request that you ask our conferees to oppose inclusion
of the Cohen Amendment in the conference report. Experience has shown that legal
services lawyers will exploit the smallest of leopholes to flout the will of Congress and
pursue their radical agenda.
Thank you for your continued assistance on this very important issue,
Sincerely,
Dan Button
Baselat
Bob Dmuan ACCVCUR AND
002
LSC GEN COUNSEL
6202 336 8954
19:51
03/22/96
07/14/95 FRI 16:40 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
START
TO:
Melanne Jerver
FAX NO.:
456-6244
BOB BRINK
FROM:
PHONE:
202/514-2138
DATE:
7-14-95
NO. OF PAGES: 18
(EXCLUDING COVER)
COMMENTS:
L.S.C.-- -- HOUSE APPROPS
BILL AND REPORT LANGUAGE
07/14/95 FRI 16:41 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
$
002
78
1 amount of Japanese currency not to exceed the equivalent
2 of $1,420,000 based on exchange rates at the time of pay-
3 ment of such amounts as authorized by Public Law 94-
4 118.
5
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
6
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
7
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to
8 carry out the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation
9 Act of 1974, as amended, $278,000,000 of which
10 $265,000,000 is for basic field programs; $8,000,000 is
11 for the Office of the Inspector General, of which
12 $5,750,000 shall be used to contract with independent au-
13 diting agencies for annual financial and program audits
14 of all grantees in accordance with Office of Management
15 and Budget Circular A-133; and $5,000,000 is for man-
16 agement and administration.
17
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS-LEGAL SERVICES
18
CORPORATION
19
SEC. 501. Funds appropriated under this Act to the
20 Legal Services Corporation shall be distributed as follows:
21
(1) The Corporation shall define geographic
22
areas and funds available for each geographic area
23
shall be on a per capita basis pursuant to the num-
24
ber of poor people determined by the Bureau of the
25
Census to be within that geographic area: Provided,
26
That funds for a geographic area may be distributed
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:41 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
003
79
1
by the Corporation to one or more persons or enti-
2
ties eligible for funding under section 1006(a)(1)(A)
3
of the Legal Services Corporation Act, subject to
4
sections 502 and 504 of this Act.
5
(2) The amount of the grants from the Cor-
6
poration and of the contracts entered into by the
7
Corporation in accordance with paragraph (1) shall
8
be an equal figure per poor person for all geographic
9
areas, based on the most recent decennial census of
10
population conducted pursuant to section 141 of title
11
13, United States Code.
12
SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
13 to the Legal Services Corporation shall be used by the
14 Corporation in making grants or entering into contracts
15 for the provision of legal assistance unless the Corporation
16 ensures that the person or entity receiving funding to pro-
17 vide such legal assistance is-
18
(1) a private attorney or attorneys admitted to
19
practice in one of the States or the District of Co-
20
lumbia;
21
(2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered
22
under the laws of one of the States or the District
23
of Columbia, a purpose of which is furnishing legal
24
assistance to eligible clients, the majority of the
25
board of directors or other governing body of which
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:42 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
004
80
1
is comprised of attorneys who are admitted to prac-
2
tice in one of the States or the District of Columbia
3
and who are appointed to terms of office on such
4
board or body by the governing bodies of State,
5
county, or municipal bar associations the member-
6
ship of which represents a majority of the attorneys
7
practicing law in the locality in which the organiza-
8
tion is to provide legal assistance;
9
(3) a State or local government (without regard
10
to section 1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Legal Services
11
Corporation Act); or
12
(4) a substate regional planning or coordination
13
agency which is composed of a substate area whose
14
governing board is controlled by locally elected offi-
15
cials.
16
SEC. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
17 to the Legal Services Corporation for grants or contracts
18 to basic field programs may be obligated unless such
19 grants or contracts are awarded on a competitive basis:
20 Provided, That not later than sixty days after enactment
21 of this Act, the Legal Services Corporation shall promul-
22 gate regulations to implement a competitive selection proc-
23 ess: Provided further, That such regulations shall include,
24 but not be limited to, the following selection criteria:
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:43 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
005
81
1
(1) The demonstration of a full understanding
2
of the basic legal needs of the eligible clients to be
3
served and a demonstration of the capability of serv-
4
ing those needs.
5
(2) The quality, feasibility, and cost effective-
6
ness of plans submitted by the applicant for the de-
7
livery of legal assistance to the eligible clients to be
8
served.
9
(3) The experiences of the Corporation with the
10
applicant, if the applicant has previously received fi-
11
nancial assistance from the Corporation, including
12
the applicant's record of past compliance with Cor-
13
poration policies, practices, and restrictions:
14 Provided further, That, such regulations shall ensure that
15 timely notice for the submission of applications for awards
16 is published in periodicals of local and State bar associa-
17 tions and in at least one daily newspaper of general cir-
18 culation in the area to be served by the person or entity
19 receiving the award: Provided further, No person or entity
20 that was previously awarded a grant or contract by the
21 Legal Services Corporation for the provision of legal as-
22 sistance may be given any preference in the competitive
23 selection process: Provided further, That for the purposes
24 of the funding provided in this Act, rights under sections
25 1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:44 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
006
82
1 Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j) shall
2 not apply.
3
SEC. 504. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
4 to the Legal Services Corporation may be used to provide
5 financial assistance to any person or entity-
6
(1) that makes available any funds, personnel,
7
or equipment for use in advocating or opposing any
8
plan or proposal, or represents any party or partici-
9
pates in any other way in litigation, that is intended
10
to or has the effect of altering, revising, or reappor-
11
tioning a legislative, judicial, or elective district at
12
any level of government, including influencing the
13
timing or manner of the taking of a census;
14
(2) that attempts to influence the issuance,
15
amendment, or revocation of any executive order,
16
regulation, or similar promulgation by any Federal,
17
State, or local agency;
18
(3) that attempts to influence any decision by
19
a Federal, State, or local agency, except when legal
20
assistance is provided by an employee of a grantee
21
to an eligible client on a particular application,
22
claim, or case, which directly involves the client's
23
legal rights or responsibilities, and which does not
24
involve the issuance, amendment, or revocation of
25
any agency promulgation described in paragraph (2);
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:44 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
007
83
1
(4) that attempts to influence the passage or
2
defeat of any legislation, constitutional amendment,
3
referendum, initiative, or any similar procedure of
4
the Congress of the United States, or by any State
5
or local legislative body;
6
(5) that attempts to influence the conduct of
7
oversight proceedings of the Corporation or any per-
8
son or entity receiving financial assistance provided
9
by the Corporation;
10
(6) that pays for any personal service, adver-
11
tisement, telegram, telephone communication, letter,
12
printed or written matter, administrative expenses,
13
or related expenses, associated with an activity pro-
14
hibited in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5);
15
(7) that brings a class action suit against the
16
Federal Government or any State or local govern-
17
ment;
18
(8) that files a complaint or otherwise pursues
19
litigation against a defendant, or engages in
20
precomplaint settlement negotiations with a prospec-
21
tive defendant, unless-
22
(A) all plaintiffs have been specifically
23
identified, by name, in any complaint filed for
24
purposes of litigation; and
J. 89-863
14/95 FRI 16:45 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
008
84
1
(B) a statement or statements of facts
2
written in English and, if necessary, in a lan-
3
guage which the plaintiffs understand, which
4
enumerate the particular facts known to the
5
plaintiffs on which the complaint is based, have
6
been signed by the plaintiffs (including named
7
plaintiffs in a class action), are kept on file by
8
the person or entity provided financial assist-
9
ance by the Corporation, and are made avail-
10
able to any Federal department or agency that
11
is auditing the activities of the Corporation or
12
of any recipient, and to any auditor receiving
13
Federal funds to conduct such auditing, includ-
14
ing any auditor or monitor of the Corporation:
15
Provided, That upon establishment of reasonable
16
cause that an injunction is necessary to prevent
17
probable, serious harm to such potential plaintiff, a
18
court of competent jurisdiction may enjoin the dis-
19
closure of the identity of any potential plaintiff
20
pending the outcome of such litigation or negotia-
21
tions after notice and an opportunity for a hearing
22
is provided to potential parties to the litigation or
23
the negotiations: Provided further, That other parties
24
shall have access to the statement of facts referred
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:46 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
009
85
1
to in subparagraph (B) only through the discovery
2
process after litigation has begun;
3
(9) unless, after January 1, 1996, and prior to
4
the provision of financial assistance—
5
(A) the governing board of a person or en-
6
tity receiving financial assistance provided by
7
the Legal Services Corporation has set specific
8
priorities in writing, pursuant to section
9
1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal Services Corpora-
10
tion Act, of the types of matters and cases to
11
which the staff of the nonprofit organization
12
shall devote its time and resources; and
13
(B) the staff of such person or entity re-
14
ceiving financial assistance provided by the
15
Legal Services Corporation has signed a written
16
agreement not to undertake cases or matters
17
other than in accordance with the specific prior-
18
ities set by such governing board, except in
19
emergency situations defined by such board and
20
in accordance with such board's written proce-
21
dures for such situations:
22
Provided, That the staff of such person or entity re-
23
ceiving financial assistance provided by the Legal
24
Services Corporation shall provide to their respective
25
governing board on a quarterly basis, and to the
J. 89-863
07/14/95
FRI
16:46
FAX
202
514
9353
DOJ OLA
010
86
1
Corporation on an annual basis, all cases undertaken
2
other than those in accordance with such priorities:
3
Provided further, That not later than 30 days after
4
enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall promul-
5
gate a suggested list of priorities which boards of di-
6
rectors may use in setting priorities under this para-
7
graph;
8
(10) unless, prior to receiving financial assist-
9
ance provided by the Legal Services Corporation,
10
such person or entity agrees to maintain records of
11
time spent on each case or matter with respect to
12
which that person or entity is engaged in activities:
13
Provided, That any non-Federal funds received by
14
any person or entity provided financial assistance by
15
the Corporation shall be accounted for and reported
16
as receipts and disbursements separate and distinct
17
from Corporation funds: Provided further, That such
18
person or entity receiving financial assistance pro-
19
vided by the Corporation agrees (notwithstanding
20
section 1009(d) of the Legal Services Corporation
21
Act) to make such records described in this para-
22
graph available to any Federal department, or agen-
23
cy or independent auditor receiving Federal funds to
24
conduct an audit of the activities of the Corporation
25
or recipient receiving funding under this Act;
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:47 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
011
87
1
(11) that provides legal assistance for or on be-
2
half of any alien, unless the alien is present in the
3
United States and is-
4
(A) an alien lawfully admitted for perma-
5
nent residence as defined in section 101(a)(20)
6
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
7
U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
8
(B) an alien who is either married to a
9
United States citizen or is a parent or an un-
10
married child under the age of twenty-one years
11
of such a citizen and who has filed an applica-
12
tion for adjustment of status to permanent resi-
13
dent under the Immigration and Nationality
14
Act, and such application has not been rejected;
15
(C) an alien who is lawfully present in the
16
United States pursuant to an admission under
17
section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
18
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee admis-
19
sion) or who has been granted asylum by the
20
Attorney General under such Act;
21
(D) an alien who is lawfully present in the
22
United States as a result of the Attorney Gen-
23
eral's withholding of deportation pursuant to
24
section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nation-
25
ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)); or
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:48 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
012
88
1
(E) an alien to whom section 305 of the
2
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
3
applies but only to the extent that the legal as-
4
sistance provided is that described in such sec-
5
tion:
6
Provided, That an alien who is lawfully present in
7
the United States as a result of being granted condi-
8
tional entry pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of the Im-
9
migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7))
10
before April 1, 1980, because of persecution or fear
11
of persecution on account of race, religion, or politi-
12
cal calamity shall be deemed, for purposes of this
13
section, to be an alien described in subparagraph
14
(C);
15
(12) that supports or conducts training pro-
16
grams for the purpose of advocating particular pub-
17
lic policies or encouraging political activities, labor
18
or anti-labor activities, boycotts, picketing, strikes,
19
and demonstrations, including the dissemination of
20
information about such policies or activities, except
21
that this paragraph shall not be construed to pro-
22
hibit the training of attorneys or paralegal personnel
23
to prepare them to provide adequate legal assistance
24
to eligible clients or to advise any eligible client as
25
to the nature of the legislative process or inform any
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:48 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
1
013
89
1
eligible client of his or her rights under statute,
2
order, or regulation;
3
(13) that provides legal assistance with respect
4
to any fee-generating case: Provided, That for the
5
purposes of this paragraph the term "fee-generating
6
case" means any case which, if undertaken on behalf
7
of an eligible client by an attorney in private prac-
8
tice may reasonably be expected to result in a fee for
9
legal services from an award to a client from public
10
funds, from the opposing party, or from any other
11
source;
12
(14) that claims, or whose employees or clients
13
claim, or collect attorneys' fees from nongovern-
14
mental parties to litigation initiated by such client
15
with the assistance of such recipient or its employ-
16
ees;
17
(15) that participates in any litigation with re-
18
spect to abortion;
19
(16) that participates in any litigation on behalf
20
of a local, State, or Federal prisoner;
21
(17) that provides legal representation for any
22
person, or participates in any other way, in litiga-
23
tion, lobbying, or rulemaking involving efforts to re-
24
form a State or Federal welfare system, except that
25
this paragraph shall not preclude a recipient from
J. 89-863
90
1
representing an individual client who is seeking spe-
2
cific relief from a welfare agency where such relief
3
does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise
4
challenge existing law;
5
(18) that defends a person in a proceeding to
6
evict that person from a public housing project if
7
that person has been charged with the illegal sale or
8
distribution of a controlled substance and if the evic-
9
tion proceeding is brought by a public housing agen-
10
cy because the illegal drug activity of that person
11
threatens the health or safety of other tenants resid-
12
ing in the public housing project or employees of the
13
public housing agency: Provided, That for the pur-
14
poses of this paragraph, the term "controlled sub-
15
stance" has the meaning given that term in section
16
102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
17
802): Provided further, That for the purposes of this
18
paragraph, the terms "public housing project" and
19
"public housing agency" have the meanings given
20
those terms in section 3 of the United States Hous-
21
ing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a);
22
(19) unless such person or entity agrees that it
23
and its employees will not accept employment result-
24
ing from in-person unsolicited advice to a
25
nonattorney that such nonattorney should obtain
J. 89-863
07/14/95 FRI 16:50 FAX 202 514 9353
DOJ OLA
5
015
91
1
counsel or take legal action: Provided, That such
2
person or entity or its employees receiving financial
3
assistance provided by the Corporation shall also
4
agree that such person or entity will not refer such
5
nonattorney to another person or entity or its em-
6
ployees that are receiving financial assistance pro-
7
vided by the Legal Services Corporation; or
8
(20) unless such person or entity enters into a
9
contractual agreement to be subject to all provisions
10
of Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal
11
funds, the violation of which shall render any grant
12
or contractual agreement to provide funding null
13
and void: Provided, That for such purposes the Cor-
14
poration shall be considered to be a Federal agency
15
and all funds provided by the Corporation shall be
16
considered to be Federal funds provided by grant or
17
contract.
18
SEC. 505. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
19 to the Legal Services Corporation or provided by the Cor-
20 poration to any entity or person may be used to pay mem-
21 bership dues to any private or non-profit organization.
22
SEC. 506. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
23 to the Legal Services Corporation may be used by any per-
24 son or entity receiving financial assistance from the Cor-
J. 89-863
07/14/95
FRI
16:51
FAX
202
514
9353
DOJ OLA
016
92
1 poration to file or pursue a lawsuit against the Corpora-
2 tion.
3
SEC. 507. None of the funds appropriated in this Act
4 to the Legal Services Corporation may be used for any
5 purpose prohibited or contrary to any of the provisions
6 of authorization legislation for fiscal year 1996 for the
7 Legal Services Corporation that is enacted into law: Pro-
8 vided, That, upon enactment of Legal Services Corpora-
9 tion reauthorization legislation, funding provided in this
10 Act shall from that date be subject to the provisions of
11 that legislation and any provisions in this Act that are
12 inconsistent with that legislation shall no longer have ef-
13 fect.
14
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. FEDERAL HOLIDAY
15
COMMISSION
16
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
17
For necessary expenses of the Martin Luther King,
18 Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, as authorized by Public
19 Law 98-399, as amended, $250,000.
20
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
21
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
22
For necessary expenses for the Securities and Ex-
23 change Commission, including services as authorized by
24 5 U.S.C. 3109, the rental of space (to include multiple
25 year leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and
J. 89-863
104TH CONGRESS
1st Session
}
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
{
REPORT
104-
07/14/95
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE,
THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-
TIONS BILL, FISCAL YEAR 1996
JULY, 1995.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union and ordered to be printed
FRI 16:51 FAX 202 514 9353
Mr. ROGERS, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
DOJ OLA
[To accompany H.R. I
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill
Report
Title I-Department of Justice
2
9
Title II-Department of Commerce and Related Agencies
32
44
Office of the United States Trade Representative
32
44
International Trade Commission
32
45
Department of Commerce
33
45
Title III-The Judiciary
47
74
Title IV-Department of State and Related Agencies
54
81
Department of State
54
81
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
65
99
United States Information Agency
65
100
Title V-Related Agencies
70
106
Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration
70
107
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
73
108
Commission on Civil Rights
73
108
Commission on Immigration Reform
73
109
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
74
109
Competitiveness Policy Council
110
90-068
017
The Committee assumes the phase out of the FMC to begin dur-
JAPAN-UNITED STATES FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION
ing fiscal year 1996. The Committee has not gone further pending
future action by the authorizing committee setting forth the de-
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
regulation of the maritime commerce industry. The Committee ex-
The Committee recommends $1,247,000 for the expenses of the
pects that the FMC will begin closing all field offices immediately,
Japan-United States Friendship Commission for fiscal year 1996.
and that all field offices will be closed no later than March 31,
This amount reflects the same level of funding provided in fiscal
1996.
year 1995. The bill also provides for an amount of Japanese cur-
The FMC regulates the waterborne domestic and foreign offshore
rency not to exceed the equivalent of $1,420,000. In accordance
commerce of the United States.
with Public Law 94-118, the interest earned on the principal in the
trust fund is subject to the annual appropriations process.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The Committee intends that the funds provided be used for the
promotion of scholarly, cultural, and business/economic relations
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
between the United States and Japan.
The Committee recommends total budget (obligational) authority
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
of $98,928,000 for the Salaries and Expenses of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) for fiscal year 1996. Of this amount,
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
$16,000,000 is to be derived from prior year unobligated fee collec-
07/14/95 FRI 16:52 FAX 202 9353
tions, and $48,262,000 is to be derived from current year offsetting
The Committee recommendation provides a total of $278,000,000
fee collections from pre-merger filing fees under the Hart-Scott-Ro-
for the Legal Services Corporation, the same level as recommended
dino Act resulting in a net direct appropriation of $34,666,000. The
in the House-passed Budget Resolution. This amount is a decrease
of $162,000,000 below the request, and $122,000,000 below the fis-
recommended budget authority freezes the FTC at the current ap-
cal year 1995 enacted level.
propriation, and is $8,945,000 below the request.
The Committee recommendation is distributed as follows:
The mission of the Federal Trade Commission is to enforce a va-
riety of Federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. Under
Fiscal year 1995
Recommendation
these laws, the Commission seeks to ensure that the nation's mar-
Basic field programs
$345,898,000
$265,000,000
kets are competitive, function vigorously and efficiently, and are
Supplemental programs
free from undue governmental and private restrictions. The Com-
Native American
8,867,000
0
Migrant
12,759,000
0
mission also seeks to improve the operation of the marketplace by
National support
8,109.000
0
eliminating deceptive and unfair practices.
State support
9.373.000
0
DOJ OLA
The Committee recommends bill language, similar to that in-
Supplemental field
1,274,000
0
Regional training centers
711.000
0
cluded in previous appropriations acts, which: (1) allows for pur-
Computer legal research
582.000
0
chase of uniforms and hire of motor vehicles; (2) allows up to
Clearinghouse
985,000
0
$2,000 for official reception and representation expenses; (3) allows
Law schools
726,000
0
Administration and oversight
for the collection of fees; (4) allows for the sum appropriated to be
Management and administration
10,716,000
5,000,000
reduced as fees are collected; (5) allows fees in excess of the
Inspector general
1,000,000
8,000,000
amount designated in the bill to be available in fiscal year 1997,
and (6) prohibits the use of funds to implement section 151 of the
The Committee understands that the Corporation has been in-
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvements Act of 1991.
volved in a reimbursable agreement with the Court of Veterans Ap-
The Committee has added new bill language making funds appro-
peals to work with a consortium of veterans service organizations
priated from the Treasury for the FTC available until expended.
to recruit pro bono attorneys to represent veterans otherwise un-
This language change is necessary to avoid setting up a separate
able to obtain legal counsel in the appeals before the Court. The
Committee supports this reimbursable agreement, and expects this
accounting system to track appropriated funds versus fee revenue.
The Committee has been made aware of concerns about the
agreement to continue in fiscal year 1996.
The Committee wants to ensure that a mechanism exists to pro-
FTC's involvement in areas more appropriately addressed by States
vide poor individuals with access to the civil justice system. The
and localities. As the Commission continues its ongoing review of
Committee recommendation provides for the continuance of fund-
antitrust and consumer protection policy and regulations, the Com-
ing for direct legal services but at the same time eliminates areas
mittee expects the FTC to identify those areas which are more ap-
of continuing controversy surrounding some of the activities of the
propriately enforced by the Commission and those which States
Corporation and its grantees.
and localities are better situated to enforce. The Committee encour-
The Committee remains concerned that the Corporation has been
ages the FTC to conduct this review in consultation with the State
unauthorized for a number of years. Consequently, each year, the
attorneys general.
Committee has been compelled to take action in the appropriations
process to ensure Federal funds are spent consistent with the pro-
018
114
115
gram's mission of providing poor individuals access to the civil
tant tool to ensure that programs are meeting the priorities and
court system. The Committee believes a comprehensive review of
goals of their programs in the most efficient and effective manner
the entire civil legal assistance system is long overdue, and hopes
Program Priorities.-The Committee recommendation includes
that such a review is conducted in the context of the authorization
numerous terms and conditions which a potential grantee must
process, obviating the need for continued action in the appropria-
meet in order to receive Federal funding. The Committee notes that
tions process.
Federal grants and contracts are voluntary agreements. It is both
In the interim, the Committee believes it has a responsibility to
the right and the responsibility of the Congress to decide what pro-
ensure that such funding is spent in accordance with the program's
grams and activities will be supported by Federal funds. Therefore,
mission. Therefore, in keeping with past practices, the Committee
the Committee has included numerous terms and conditions which
has included numerous administrative provisions on the allowable
target scarce resources to programs whose mission is to provide
use of the funds provided, in many cases significantly strengthen-
basic legal assistance to the poor.
ing current provisions, and in all cases applying the provisions to
The Committee understands that advocacy on behalf of poor indi-
Federal and non-Federal funds used by a grantee. These provisions
viduals for social and political change is an important function in
govern funds for the Corporation, pending final authorization ac-
a democratic society. However, the Committee does not believe
202
tion.
such advocacy is an appropriate use of Federal funds. The Commit-
tee notes that there are hundreds of private organizations which
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS-LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
can and do fulfill this advocacy role. The Committee notes that any
The Committee has included language in Section 507, providing
funding devoted to advocacy is funding taken away from basic legal
that, upon enactment of authorization for the Corporation, such au-
assistance.
9353
thorization will supersede all contradictory provisions in this act.
The Committee recommendation requires that a grantee receiv-
In Section 501, the Committee recommendation provides for
ing Federal funding must agree not to engage or participate in: (1)
funding for basic field programs to be distributed by geographic
redistricting activities or litigation (Section 504(1)); (2) actions in
area, with such areas to be determined by the Corporation. Fund-
an attempt to lobby or influence any legislative or rulemaking ac-
ing among the geographic areas will be distributed by a formula
tivities, or interfere in oversight of the Corporation or its grantees
based on the number of poor people residing in each area.
(Section 504(2)-(6)); (3) class action litigation against a Federal,
The Committee recommendation includes numerous require-
state, or local government (Section 504(7)); (4) political demonstra-
ments which must be met by the Corporation and its grantees.
tions, strikes, or union organizing activities (Section 504(12)); (5)
These requirements fall into the following categories: (1) program
abortion-related activities or litigation (Section 504(15)); (6) activi-
DOJ OLA
quality and effectiveness; (2) program priorities; and (3) account-
ties or litigation to influence welfare reform initiatives (Section
504)16)); (7) representation of illegal aliens (Section 504(11)); or (8)
ability. Program Quality and Effectiveness.-The Committee includes
representation of Federal, state, or local prisoners in civil litigation
several provisions designed to ensure that the highest quality of
(Section 504(16)).
legal services is provided with funding under this Act. In Section
In addition, Section 504(18) of the Committee recommendation
503 the Committee recommendation requires that all funds pro-
prohibits funding to grantees who represent a public housing ten-
vided to the Corporation for the direct delivery of legal services will
ant facing an eviction proceeding brought by a public housing au-
be awarded through a competitive selection system. Further, in
thority if that tenant has been formally charged by a prosecuting
Section 502 the Committee allows state and local governments, as
entity with the illegal sale or distribution of drugs. The Committee
well as substate and regional councils of government, an oppor-
notes that the Corporation's Board of Directors adopted a similar
tunity to compete to become service providers. The Committee be-
resolution, governing Federal funds, recently. The Committee com-
lieves that the competitive award of grantees, open to a wide array
mends the Corporation's initiative and believes that it is inappro-
of potential service providers, will guarantee that the highest qual-
priate for Federal funding to support, either directly or indirectly,
ity, most efficient programs are funded with limited federal dollars.
activities which impede the ability of public housing authorities to
Further, in Section 504(9) the Committee includes requirements
protect their residents from the continuing scourge of drug activity.
that all grantees receiving federal funds must establish and follow
The Committee recommendation also requires that a grantee re-
locally-decided priorities to meet the unique legal needs of their
ceiving Federal funding must refrain from: (1) accepting fee-gener-
communities and has directed the Corporation to establish guide-
ating cases (Section 504(13)); (2) collecting attorneys fees (Section
lines to assist local programs in establishing these priorities. The
504(14)); or (3) soliciting clients (Section 504(19)). The Committee
Committee notes that in a time of increasing budgetary con-
believes that Federally-funded legal aid programs should serve as
straints, it is important that all programs prioritize to ensure that
a catalyst, not a replacement, for private bar activity. The Commit-
they are able to meet the most pressing needs of the greatest num-
tee believes that cases which provide an opportunity for the collec-
ber of their potential clients.
tion of attorneys fees can be serviced by the private bar. Further,
In Section 504(8), the Committee recommendation requires feder-
the Committee notes that Corporation grantees are supported by
ally funded programs to name their clients and keep a record of the
public resources in order to provide free legal aid to their clients.
facts of the case on file. The Committee believes this is an impor-
Therefore, the Committee believes it is inappropriate for attorneys
116
117
fees to be collected for free legal aid. Finally, the Committee finds
The Committee believes that the goals that the Marine Mammal
it unacceptable for any Federally-funded legal aid program to so-
Commission seeks to accomplish can be achieved without the ex-
licit clients at a time when the Corporation and the legal aid com-
penditure of taxpayer dollars. The Commission's review of Federal
munity continue to testify that they must turn eligible clients away
efforts to protect marine mammals is duplicative of internal con-
due to lack of resources.
trols established by other agencies, as well as congressional over-
The Committee notes that previous appropriations acts have im-
sight. Further, the Committee believes that non-governmental or-
posed many similar restrictions on a grantee's Federal funds, as
ganizations are equally capable of providing objective analysis of
these are often highly political and controversial activities which do
proposed agency rulemaking regarding the protection of marine
not serve the core function of providing basic legal representation
mammals. A separate federal agency devoted solely to marine
to poor individuals. The Committee recommendation significantly
mammals cannot be justified in this time of extreme budget
strengthens current restrictions and expands them to encompass
constraint.
all funding received by a grantee by restricting a Federal grant
from being made to an entity that engages in these restricted ac-
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. FEDERAL HOLIDAY COMMISSION
tivities. The Committee believes that it is inappropriate for Federal
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
resources to be used to support directly or indirectly these activi-
ties. Such activities only further drain much needed resources from
The Committee recommends $250,000 for the Martin Luther
9353 514 202 FAX 16:56 FRI 07/14/95
the program's core mission-to provide basic legal aid to poor indi-
King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, which is $100,000 below the
viduals. Further, the Committee must note that there are hundreds
request and $50,000 below the current level of funding. The Com-
of private advocacy and special interest organizations which have
mission's Operations Committee presented a motion which was
the expertise, the resources, and the interest in pursuing these
passed by the Full Commission to sunset the Commission at the
types of issues.
end of fiscal year 1996. The Committee recommendation will allow
Accountability-The Committee recommendation also includes
the Commission to proceed with the funding of activities through
several provisions to strengthen financial management and ac-
fiscal year 1996.
countability over legal aid programs. Section 504(10) requires that
The Commission was established in order to encourage and pro-
all grantees institute timekeeping. Further, all legal aid programs
mote appropriate ceremonies and activities throughout the United
funded will be subject to financial and compliance audits. Bill lan-
States related to the observance of the Federal legal holiday honor-
guage requires that these audits will be conducted by an independ-
ing Martin Luther King, Jr., and to provide assistance to Federal,
ent, private accounting firm, in accordance with audit guidelines
State and local governments and to private organizations concern-
established by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133.
ing the observance of the holiday.
DOJ OLA
Further, section 504(20) requires all programs receiving Federal
The Committee intends that the funds provided be used toward
funds to comply with Federal statutes and regulations governing
programming and any shutdown costs for the Commission. The
waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds. The Committee believes
Committee understands that a transition team to carry out an or-
that these actions will provide invaluable tools to evaluate and en-
derly sunset of the Commission has been appointed, and expects to
sure program effectiveness and accountability.
be kept fully informed of the progress of the transition team.
The Committee recommendation also includes in section 505 a
prohibition against the use of Federal funds to be used to pay
OUNCE OF PREVENTION COUNCIL
membership dues or fees to advocacy or professional membership
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Ounce of
organizations. The Committee believes such use of Federal tax dol-
Prevention Council in fiscal year 1996. This is $14,700,000 below
lars is inappropriate and does nothing to serve the needs of indi-
the request, and $1,500,000 below the amount provided to the
gent clients.
Council in fiscal year 1995. Close-out costs are to be funded from
Finally, section 506 of the Committee recommendation prohibits
carry-over balances available to the Council.
an organization from using its Federal funds to sue the Corpora-
The Ounce of Prevention Council is intended to have two pur-
tion. Again, the Committee notes that Federal funding is provided
poses-program coordination and grant-making. The program co-
to represent individual poor people in seeking redress through the
ordination function includes such things as the development of a
civil court system. Any use of scarce federal dollars to the contrary
crime prevention program catalogue and the creation of strategies
does not further this goal.
for program integration and grant simplification. The Committee
believes the coordination of prevention programs can be accom-
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
plished without the creation of another level of bureaucracy to
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
carry out these types of activities, which cannot be justified within
the context of streamlining and reinventing government. The Office
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Marine
of Justice Programs currently funds the coordination of crime pre-
Mammal Commission in fiscal year 1996. This is $1,425,000 below
vention efforts at the State and local levels through programs such
its request, and $1,384,000 below its current appropriation.
as the National Crime Prevention Council.
020