[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1220-E1221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION REAUTHORIZATION

                                 ______


                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 1995
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Stenholm amd I introduce a bill 
which proposes to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation and 
institute major and significant reforms to the Corporation. Over the 
years we have seen extensive abuses within the Legal Services 
Corporation by lawyers with their own political agendas actively 
recruiting clients, creating claims, and advancing their own social 
causes. They have been involved in inappropriate lobbying, highly 
controversial issues like abortion litigaiton, and impact litigation in 
an attempt to socially engineer change in our laws and rules.
  It is for this reason that Mr. Stenholm and I today introduce a bill 
which calls for extensive reforms in the Legal Services Act. This bill 
will restore the very limited and appropriate Federal role in the 
delivery of legal services to the poor. At the same time, this bill 
enhances accountability and compliance for the restricted and limited 
activities of the Legal Services Corporation.
  I will submit for the Record a partial section-by-section summary 
which outlines the reform measures included in our bill. We seek to 
significantly limit the activities of a Legal Services Corporation and 
to return its function to the original and envisioned intent, providing 
the bread and butter basics of legal representation for the poor of 
this Nation.
                 The Legal Services Reform Act of 1995

       In order to create a non-political, accountable and fair 
     federal legal service program, The Legal Services Reform Act 
     of 1995 does the following:


                             non-political

              Prohibits redistricting activity (Section 4)

       Redistricting at all levels is inherently political. Many 
     non-federally funded organizations, including the major 
     political parties, are actively involved in redistricting 
     fights. No matter which party is advantaged by litigation of 
     these matters (who is advantaged is unclear) federally funded 
     legal services attorneys should not be involved.

             Prohibits solicitation of clients (Section 6)

       If as many poor persons
        are being turned away for lack of funding as the American 
     Bar Association estimates, the only reason to solicit 
     would be to find clients that fit the political agenda of 
     the lawyers. Our bill specifically allows outreach to 
     educate potential clients of their legal rights but leaves 
     it up to clients to seek legal help.

         Prohibits lobbying or rulemaking activity (Section 8)

       Nothing is more political or creates as much controversy as 
     lobbying. We believe the intent of Congress in 1974 was to 
     provide poor persons access to the legal system to have their 
     existing legal rights vindicated. There are hundreds of 
     organizations which have competing views on what changes in 
     the law are in the best interest of the poor. Taxpayer's 
     should not be forced to fund any particular side of that 
     debate.

 Prohibits the use of funds from any source for prohibited activities 
                              (Section 11)

       While Congress continues to believe that certain activities 
     are too controversial or otherwise inappropriate for the use 
     of federal funds--controversy will still attach to programs 
     which engage in those activities with funds from other 
     sources. Let the many groups of lawyers, on the right and on 
     the left, who are not constrained by Congressional 
     restrictions, handle the highly political cases. In our 
     opinion, we should promote this diversity. Why give a virtual 
     monopoly to the federally funded program?

         Prohibits abortion litigation or lobbying (Section 15)

       Abortion is probably the most volatile issue facing the 
     country today. Organizations and activist attorneys abound on 
     each [[Page E1221]] side of the debate. As in 1974, abortion 
     remains highly controversial and a threat to the support of 
     the program. It would be inappropriate for Congress to fund 
     either side of the right to life/right to abortion struggle.

         Prohibits training for political purposes (Section 18)

       This prohibition has been in appropriation riders since 
     1982 and reflects Congress' concern about political activity 
     by legal services attorneys.

       Elimination of the regional resource centers (Section 14)

       These regional resource centers have proven to be a bed of 
     controversy where research, training and technical assistance 
     have been used to promote a particular agenda, not 
     necessarily to the benefit of the poor. The Legal Services 
     Administration Act practically gave these Centers carte 
     blanche authority to pursue their social agendas.


                              accountable

    Requires local boards to set and enforce priorities (Section 10)

       Our bill requires local boards of directors of LSC 
     recipients to set and monitor
      priorities for the use of recipient resources. We feel 
     strongly that deviating from those priorities should be 
     the exception, not the rule; our bill would require staff 
     attorneys to follow an established procedure when an 
     emergency requires taking a case that is outside the 
     specific priorities set by the local Board.

 Allows clients to affect priorities by modest co-payments (Section 19)

       Some observers of the Federal legal services programs see 
     the number of cases taken by LSC recipients involving drug 
     dealers as a symptom that programs are often out of touch 
     with client concerns. Requiring a modest co-payment will help 
     insure that resource allocations reflect client priorities. 
     Co-payments would allow clients to feel a sense of dignity 
     and control and the lawyers would be held accountable by 
     their clients.

 Requires keeping time by type of case and source of funds (Section 9)

       Today--no one--not Congress, not the LSC, not the 
     recipients themselves, can determine whether one program is 
     more or less efficient than another. It may take one program 
     4 lawyer hours to handle a type of case which takes another 
     program 12 lawyer hours to handle. The taxpayers have a right 
     to know exactly what they are getting for their money. 
     Accountability depends on knowing where a grantee spends its 
     time and money. Currently no one knows.

    Organizations to compete periodically to obtain federal funding 
                              (Section 13)

       The genesis of protection Congress gave to existing LSC 
     recipients was concern that a hostile Administration would 
     replace grantees on ideological grounds. To the extent that 
     threat ever existed it has passed. The presumption that a 
     grantee will be refunded has meant an existing grantee will 
     be funded again no matter how poorly it performs or complies 
     with Congressional mandates.
       Competition generally produces innovation, efficiency and 
     excellence. It is hard to believe that, if competition 
     involving complex weapons systems--long resisted by the 
     defense industry--has produced the F15, the best fighter of 
     its generation and the Advanced Tactical Fighter--then 
     competition will not produce better delivery systems for 
     legal services to the poor.
       We have defined our proposed competitive bidding system in 
     Section 13 where we note that this competition is not in the 
     sense of the least cost program that might be offered but 
     rather competition in the sense of quality and variety in the 
     type of service that a program might offer.

         Application of waste, fraud and abuse laws (Section 5)

       There is no disagreement that the federally funded legal 
     service program should be subjected to the same rules as 
     other federal programs.
    Prevention of evasion of congressional restrictions (section 24)

       In 1981 the GAO found that a number of legal services 
     recipients had set up mirror corporations to evade 
     Congressional restrictions. That must not happen again. If a 
     group of lawyers want to engage in activities which Congress 
     prohibits, they should not be set up and controlled by 
     federally funded recipients.

                   Attorney client privilege defined

       Recently the GAO was asked to investigate legal services 
     practices in a particular industry but reported it was unable 
     to reach any conclusions because it was denied access to 
     records and documents by LSC grantees. While we do not want 
     to preclude legitimate claims of attorney client privilege, 
     we should not allow exaggerated claims to shield programs 
     from legitimate oversight.

           Appointment of corporation president (Section 23)

       This section changes the way in which the president of the 
     Corporation is appointed making him serve at the pleasure of 
     the President of the U.S. upon the advise and consent of the 
     Senate. Presently, the president of the corporation is 
     elected by the Board. This will serve to bring more 
     accountability to the LSC.

          Naming plaintiffs and statements of fact (section 7)

       Private parties who are sued by Federally funded LSC 
     attorneys are often at a tremendous disadvantage. They are 
     generally not lawyers and must bear the often considerable 
     expense of hiring legal counsel. Demands for money damages 
     often strain or exceed their ability to pay. Our bill 
     attempts to help such citizens by requiring, under most 
     circumstances, that they know who is bringing the complaint 
     and that a statement of facts by the plaintiff is on file. 
     The potential defendant can then intelligently evaluate 
     whether to settle or litigate.

         No attorneys fees from private defendants (section 14)

       Private parties who are sued by Federally funded attorneys 
     pay four times: (1) their taxes, (2) their own attorneys 
     fees, (3) a money judgement and (4) the attorney's fees of 
     taxpayer funded attorneys who sued them. We don't think that 
     is fair. Our bill provides that while government defendants 
     would still be liable for attorneys fees, taxpayers would not 
     be required to pay the attorneys fees of taxfunded lawyers.
     

                          ____________________