[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31860-31861]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LAW STUDENT CLINIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4194) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying 
law school students participating in legal clinics or externships from 
the application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of 
such title.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4194

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Student Clinic 
     Participation Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. LAW STUDENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXEMPTION.

       Section 205 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a law student 
     or legal clinic staff member participating in the legal 
     clinic or externship of an accredited law school, with 
     respect to a matter within the scope of the clinic or 
     externship, unless--
       ``(1) the student or staff has participated personally and 
     substantially in the matter as a Government employee or 
     special Government employee through decision, approval, 
     disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, 
     investigation, or otherwise; or
       ``(2) the matter is pending in the department or agency of 
     the Government in which the student is serving.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4194 would address an unfortunate consequence of 
current law that hinders participation by law students in pro bono 
clinics, which limits the provisions of these needed services to the 
community. It is appropriate that this resolution follow that of 
Justice Brandeis, who really was the father of pro bono work.
  Title 18, section U.S.C. 205 makes it a crime for a Federal 
Government employee to provide legal assistance to anyone bringing a 
case adverse to the United States or in bringing a case adverse to a 
substantial U.S. interest. Section 205(b) applies the same rule to 
employees of the District of Columbia.
  For law school students or legal clinic staff who hold government 
jobs, this criminalizes participation in a wide range of political 
programs, including those funded by the Federal Government. Law 
students or legal clinic staff who are full- or part-time government 
employees face criminal penalties if they participate in law school pro 
bono clinics that represent plaintiffs whose claims are adverse to the 
Federal or D.C. Governments. Yet this opportunity is important for 
students to learn their craft and become lawyers.
  This disqualifies the law students from participation in many service 
activities that benefit both the students and the wider community, 
among them juvenile justice clinics, death penalty appeal projects, 
advocacy programs on behalf of parents with special needs children, and 
low-income taxpayer clinics.
  This also has the perverse effect of forcing law students to choose 
between government service and community service. It also needlessly 
deprives government employees of a range of real-world educational 
experiences that would be particularly beneficial to them when they 
become lawyers. Just this year, this Congress passed the Edward Kennedy 
Service Act encouraging people to participate in public service, and 
this is another area where we should encourage it.
  This is a misguided choice to force on law students, for they should 
be able to have both government and community service and be encouraged 
to do so. This bill will stop the law from forcing them to have this 
conflict.
  Section 205 already contains an exemption that narrows the definition 
of ``conflict of interest'' to those instances of actual conflict: 
cases in which a government attorney substantially and personally 
participated as a government employee, and cases in which the 
employee's department or agency is currently directly participating.
  By applying this exemption to law students and legal clinic staff, 
the bill will eliminate the pernicious effects of section 205 while 
retaining its safeguards against true conflict of interest. Law 
students and legal clinic staff would be able to participate in law 
school clinics that are, by their nature, adverse to the Federal or 
D.C. Government while continuing to prohibit actual conflicts of 
interest involving specific parties.
  Law students and staff who choose government service would remain 
subject to governmental conflict of interest rules while also being 
permitted to enjoy the same clinical resources and opportunities as 
their peers.
  I commend our colleague Congressman Dan Lungren from California for 
his leadership on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  H.R. 4194, the Law Student Clinic Participation Act of 2009, makes a 
simple yet important change to Federal

[[Page 31861]]

law so as to increase law students' access to clinics and other law 
school programs.
  Nearly 44,000 law students nationwide will graduate this year from 
more than 200 law schools across this country. During their time in 
school, each of these students will study property, criminal, 
constitutional, and contract law, just to name a few. And these classes 
not only instruct the students on the relevant case law or statutes but 
also attempt to teach them how to think like a lawyer; that is, to 
analyze cases from a lawyer's perspective.
  As important as that is, equally important are the clinical programs 
offered by virtually every law school in the country that teach 
students how to practice law. Clinical programs include prosecution and 
defense, appellate advocacy, including death penalty appeals projects, 
juvenile justice, and even tax assistance clinics. Yet, a little-known 
provision in Federal criminal law--Federal criminal law; that is, it 
makes is a crime--prevents certain law students from participating in 
these clinics. In other words, they would be subject to criminal 
penalties if they participated in these clinics. That is because 
section 205 of title 18 prescribes criminal penalties for government 
employees who provide outside legal assistance in a case against the 
United States or adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Therefore, law 
school students, or even staff, who are also employed by the Federal 
Government, full time or part time, may be barred from participating in 
these valuable clinical programs.
  The impact of this provision is perhaps no greater than right here in 
our Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which is the home to over half 
a dozen law schools. It comes as no surprise that many of these 
schools' students are also Federal Government employees. Some of the 
schools have night programs, so the students work full time during the 
day and take classes at night. Many times they do work for the Federal 
Government or the D.C. Government, but because of their employment, 
they are, therefore, disqualified from participating in these extremely 
beneficial programs. This was most certainly not Congress' intent when 
it enacted section 205.
  H.R. 4194, remedies this problem by extending an existing exemption 
within the statute to include Federal employee law students. The bill, 
therefore, appropriately allows students and staff to participate in 
clinics, including those that are adverse to the Federal or D.C. 
Governments; however--and this is important--the bill continues to 
prohibit any actual conflict of interest involving specific parties. 
Therefore, if the student or staff member is involved in a matter which 
would be a direct conflict of interest, they are not covered by this 
waiver. It would seem that this is a commonsense solution to provide 
those students employed by the government the same opportunities as 
other students.
  I might say, Mr. Speaker, when this came to my attention, I thought 
that perhaps we could have a relatively simple, straightforward waiver 
or exemption to take care of this problem, which was unanticipated by 
the Congress when it passed the relevant law, and, therefore, I would 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  And if the gentleman from Tennessee has no other speakers, I would 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Lungren for bringing this to 
us. It is important that the law students do have this opportunity and 
that the conflicts be real and not imagined. I would like to encourage 
a ``yes'' vote and would move that we pass the bill at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4194.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________