CIVIL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3764 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Serial No. 111–87 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

CIVIL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2009 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–179 PDF 2010

CIVIL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3764 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Serial No. 111–87 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3764, the ‘‘Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009’’ ............................................. 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 28 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................. 29 

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................ 30 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41 

The Honorable Tom Harkin, a United States Senator from the State of 

Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

Mr. John G. Levi, Chairman, Board of Directors, Legal Services Corporation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Mr. Jeffrey E. Schanz, Inspector General, Legal Services Corporation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 69 

Mr. Kenneth F. Boehm, Chairman, National Legal and Policy Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 88 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 91 

Ms. Rebekah Diller, Deputy Director, Justice Program, Brennan Center for 

Justice at NYU School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 105 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 107 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ......................................... 31 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee 

on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................... 35 

Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee 

on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................... 136 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 139

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from John G. Levi, Chairman, Board 

of Directors, Legal Services Corporation ............................................................ 152 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Jeffrey E. Schanz, Inspector General, Legal Services Corporation ......................................................................... 168 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Kenneth F. Boehm, Chairman, 

National Legal and Policy Center ....................................................................... 201 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Rebekah Diller, Deputy Director, 

Justice Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law ............. 217 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 237

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................ 249 

Material submitted by Rebekah Diller, Deputy Director, Justice Program, 

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law .......................................... 335 

(1) 

CIVIL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2009 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:08 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cohen, Conyers, Watt, Johnson, Scott, 

Chu, Franks, and King. 

Staff present: (Majority) Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff Member; and Justin Long, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. This hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will now 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing. I now recognize myself for a brief statement. 

During the last session, October 2009, this Subcommittee held a 

hearing on Legal Services Corporation. Witnesses testified about 

Legal Services Corporation implementing recommendations made 

by the Government Accounting Office to improve corporate governance and internal controls within the Legal Services Corporation 

and the need for increased funding for Legal Services to help it fulfill its mission. 

Witnesses also briefly discussed H.R. 3764, the ‘‘Civil Access to 

Justice Act,’’ which will reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation. 

This morning we meet to discuss and have more detailed conversations about H.R. 3764 in particular, legislation which a majority of the Subcommittee and myself are co-sponsors. 

First, as we learned at the October 2009 hearing, during this economic downturn grantee programs have increased significantly in 

the requests that they have received for legal services. They have 

seen more families and individuals hard hit in this economy ask for 

legal assistance to obtain public benefits and to fend off home foreclosures. 

Members of the Subcommittee are well aware of the impact that 

foreclosures have on our communities and the national economy. 

Unfortunately, many of legal services’ programs have not been able 

to meet the growing urgency. 

2 

According to the 2009 report in support of the anecdotal evidence 

of our witnesses at the October hearing, not all eligible potential 

clients of LSC-funded programs are receiving the legal assistance 

they so desperately need. 

In fact, the former president of LSC, Helaine Barnett, testified 

that for every three people requesting help, LSC only funded one, 

turning two out of three people away. Lack of sufficient funding is 

the reason. 

The Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009 attempts to fill that void 

for these families and for others who need legal assistance. It 

would authorize LSC, which was last authorized—reauthorize it— 

over 30 years ago. 

It would authorize a much needed increase in funding to $750 

million, which would help LSC support more legal service attorneys, providing assistance to the growing poor in our country, a 

fact that we see every day as the—and the disparate amount of 

wealth between the rich and the poor grows and grows and grows 

with the awful end of the 110th Congress—President’s economy. 

The bill makes an additional change, one which may have a substantial impact. It would allow LSC-funded programs to utilize 

non-Federal funds more efficiently by removing some of the current 

restrictions limiting legal aid programs. This change by itself would 

infuse legal aid programs with millions of additional dollars. 

For example, the Oregon Legal Center has calculated that eliminating the restriction on the use of non-Federal funds would result 

in $300,000 of savings, money currently spent on unnecessary administrative overhead for separate programs. 

The Civil Access to Justice Act does more than just provide legal 

assistance to our neighbors in need. At the end of the October 2009 

hearing we were assured that implementing these recommendations made by the GAO will prevent the misuse of taxpayer funds. 

These recommendations attempt to strengthen Legal Services’ 

governance practices, improve oversight within LSC and improve 

management practices. I applaud Legal Services Corporation in implementing the recommendations, and to guarantee that these recommendations are implemented—the Civil Access to Justice Act 

codifies them. 

Perhaps we can do even more to protect taxpayer funds. In his 

written testimony for today’s hearing, the inspector general suggests we make several changes. These changes prevent and detect 

waste, fraud, abuse, and improve effectiveness, efficiency and economy of Legal Services’ programs. 

I look forward to hearing the inspector general’s testimony and 

that of the other witnesses to determine what changes they believe 

may be appropriate to the legislation. I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I look forward to their testimony. 

I now recognize my colleague Mr. Franks, the distinguished 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 

[The bill, H.R. 3764, follows:] 

3 


HR3764-1.eps
4 


HR3764-2.eps
5 


HR3764-3.eps
6 


HR3764-4.eps
7 


HR3764-5.eps
8 


HR3764-6.eps
9 


HR3764-7.eps
10 


HR3764-8.eps
11 


HR3764-9.eps
12 


HR3764-10.eps
13 


HR3764-11.eps
14 


HR3764-12.eps
15 


HR3764-13.eps
16 


HR3764-14.eps
17 


HR3764-15.eps
18 


HR3764-16.eps
19 


HR3764-17.eps
20 


HR3764-18.eps
21 


HR3764-19.eps
22 


HR3764-20.eps
23 


HR3764-21.eps
24 


HR3764-22.eps
25 


HR3764-23.eps
26 


HR3764-24.eps
27 


HR3764-25.eps
28 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing. I welcome 

the opportunity to look closely at H.R. 3764, the Civil Rights—Civil 

Access to Justice Act of 2009. 

And I say this because we know that LSC has a deeply troubling 

history of mishandling Federal funds. This has been revealed in 

news articles, reports from the LSC inspector general and reports 

from the General Accounting Office. 

It is clear, too, that this historical pattern hasn’t stopped. To the 

contrary, troubles continue. Last year the Washington Times and 

CBS News reported numerous instances of wasted funds, including 

unnecessary travel expenses and a decorative wall costing more 

than $180,000. 

Also, LSC’s inspector general reported problems with the organization’s consultant contracts last year. And as we speak, the GAO 

is preparing its third report on LSC since 2007. And so I am concerned about H.R. 3764 because it would greatly expand LSC’s 

funding, at the same time loosen or lift a number of restrictions on 

how LSC uses those funds. 

Additionally, depending on how the bill is interpreted, H.R. 3764 

might strip LSC’s Office of Inspector General of so much authority 

as to prevent that office from fulfilling its statutory duty to identify 

waste, fraud and abuse. 

Before rewarding LSC with more funds and looser uses of those 

funds, we should first have proof that LSC has stopped mishandling funds. Some witnesses today may point out that LSC has 

implemented 11 of the 17 recommendations provided by the GAO 

in 2007 studies. But there are still six more of those recommendations left, and there are still—there is still a third GAO study coming in the near future. 

And despite LSC’s efforts to reform itself in 2008 and 2009, multiple news stories emerged in 2009 with new instances of mishandled funds. 

So how, Mr. Chairman, can we trust that the most recent fixes 

at LSC will really work unless it is proved through a track record 

of responsible fund management over the course of at least a few 

years? Should we not first wait and see if LSC and its grantees improve their performance before rewarding LSC with this bill? 

The 1996 restrictions on funds’ use were enacted by Congress in 

response to evidence that Legal Services lawyers were systematically using taxpayer money to further ideologically motivated lawsuits. The restrictions banned represented—the restrictions banned 

representation of undocumented aliens, persons evicted for drug 

use, suits in which attorneys’ fees are collected, class action lawsuits, prisoner advocacy, and challenges to welfare reform. 

Not only do these—not only do they keep LSC out of the partisan 

area, these restrictions also focus LSC on its true mission, ostensibly to provide legal aid to the poor. 

Even with the restrictions, however, Legal Services lawyers funded by LSC have apparently attempted to use Federal funds to engage in prohibited—in prohibited activism. 

As recently as 2008, for example, LSC’s inspector general subpoenaed California Rural Legal Assistance to see if it violated the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:00 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\042710\56179.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56179
29 

striction on representing undocumented aliens. The National Legal 

and Policy Center reported in 2009 that a former CRLA lawyer 

said the organization had a policy of providing aid to illegal aliens. 

Evidence like this misuse of Federal funds should stop before we 

reward LSC with increased funds, Mr. Chairman. Congress should 

not consider giving LSC more money and more ways to misuse its 

money at this point in time. 

Oversight, not increased funding and loosened restrictions, is 

what we need today and in the foreseeable future. Until LSC has 

proven over a sustained period of time that its funds are no longer 

being used for partisan activism and wasted on decorative Italian 

walls, unused casino rooms and lavish travel expenses, we should 

not even consider rewarding LSC with increased funds and loosened restrictions. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Franks. 

I am going to recognize Mr. Conyers, the distinguished Member 

of the Subcommittee and Chairman of the Committee. He has 

never failed me when I have recognized him before. But before he 

makes his opening statement, I do want to give notice that this 

young man has a little bit more experience than me, so I need to 

ask him a question that I hope he will respond to. 

I just wonder when the Department of Defense was exposed for 

buying $200 hammers and toilets that cost $18,000 and things like 

that, did we shut down the Department of Defense? 

Mr. Conyers, you are recognized for your statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. I reserve the right to answer that question. 

[Laughter.] 

But I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Franks of Arizona, who looks at these matters with great care 

and with great scrutiny. And I am glad that we are holding the 

hearing. 

And to have our former colleague Senator Harkin here with us 

and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime in Judiciary, 

Bobby Scott, I think signals that this is an important issue that we 

are charged under our jurisdiction to deal with. 

Now, there is a constitutional basis for everyone being able to receive equal justice. As a matter of fact, it is on the front of the Supreme Court itself. And as the late Justice Powell said, equal justice should be accessible to all, without regard to economic means. 

Now, one of our very distinguished witnesses, the chairman of 

the National Legal and Policy Center, suggests that we use mediation and more mediation, and to—that premise I agree with. But 

mediation without representation and legal counsel to get you to 

mediation I think would be self-defeating. 

And so I see three issues, and I am going to yield to our distinguished senior Member from North Carolina for just a moment. 

But the three things that we want to concern ourselves with is 

what are the resources that are needed to have equal justice for 

those who cannot afford legal counsel. 

The second thing I think we need to do is reexamine the restrictions that have been placed on these agencies. 

And third, I think that we ought to make sure, through our auditing and oversight and the way we look at the way all Federal 

30 

money is spent out of the Treasury, that we are doing absolutely 

everything that we can to make sure that this meets the scrupulous inquiry of the gentleman, the Ranking Member from Arizona. I join him in that. We want to be as careful as we can about 

how we use this money. 

And I now yield to Mr. Watt of North Carolina the remainder of 

my time. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to prolong 

this because I am so anxious to hear my colleague Mr. Scott testify 

on the other side of the desk. 

And I am anxious to hear Senator Harkin, too. Although you reminded us that he was a former colleague, that must have been 

long before my time, because ever since I have known him he has 

been on the Senate side. 

I did want to correct one error that my colleague Mr. Franks 

made in his—in his opening statement. I think we often miss the 

distinction, at least on the House side—I don’t know how it works 

on the Senate side—the distinction that we make over here between authorizing Committees and appropriating Committees. 

There is nothing in this bill that is going to provide any money 

to anybody, because we don’t have the authority to do that. Only 

the appropriators, as I understand it, have that authority. 

And we make that mistake quite often and miss the point that 

the role of the authorizing Committee is to—is to set the rules 

under which, if money is available and if the appropriators find it 

in the public interest to fund, they will—they will do so. 

Most of these restrictions that have been placed on the Legal 

Services Corporation have never been acted on by any authorizing 

Committee. And this notion that there were extensive hearings 

held by the folks who put these restrictions on—on the bill is just 

not—that is not the case. 

We need to be aware of whatever abuses have been—have taken 

place, if abuses have taken place, and we need to set up a structure 

in the authorizing Committee to try to prevent those abuses from 

taking place in the future. 

But we shouldn’t abdicate our responsibility to authorize a Legal 

Services Corporation to do what it needs to do to provide justice to 

the American people, and we should do that not—without regard 

to what it costs, really, and let the appropriators play their role in 

this process and try to figure out how much money we can afford 

to devote to it. 

Our responsibility should be to authorize Legal Services at a— 

at a level and with—without the baggage that they have been 

given by the appropriators to do what the Legal Services Corporation was set up to do. 

So with that, I appreciate the Chairman yielding, and I am looking forward to the testimony of these witnesses and the witnesses 

of the next panel. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Watt. I thank each of 

you for your statement. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


1-1.eps
32 


1-2.eps
33 

I am now pleased to introduce our first panel of witnesses and 

hear their testimony. Thank you for participating in today’s hearing. Without objection, your written statements will be placed in 

the record. We ask you limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes and 

note we have a lighting system. You are all familiar with that. 

Our first witness is Congressman Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, again, 

serving his ninth term as a Member of Congress in 2009. Prior to 

serving in the House he served in the Virginia house of delegates 

and in the senate in Virginia. 

In November 1992 he was elected to the U.S. House, currently 

serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, where he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, distinguishing—distinguished Member of this Subcommittee, and also serves on Education and Labor and the Committee on the Budget. 

During his 16 years he has become known as a champion of the 

U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular, fighting to 

protect the rights and civil liberties of all Americans. 

Pleased to have worked with him on this—Legal Services Corporation matters, which he anteceded me on. He is a driving force 

and a recognized champion as the author of the H.R. 3764, the 

‘‘Civil Access to Justice Act.’’ 

Thank you, Congressman Scott, and if you would begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Ranking 

Member Franks, Chairman Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, 

Ranking Member Franks, Chairman Conyers and other Members 

of the Committee. 

I thank you for holding the hearing today on H.R. 3764, the Civil 

Access to Justice Act. I am honored to be here to testify on behalf 

of the legislation to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation. 

Also pleased that Senator Harkin could join us to testify on behalf of the efforts being made in the Senate to pass similar legislation. I look forward to his testimony and the testimony of those on 

the second panel. 

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said in an opinion that 

there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets 

depends on the amount of money he has. So the Legal Services 

Corporation was established by Congress in 1974 to provide legal 

assistance to people in civil matters who otherwise could not afford 

a lawyer. 

The LSC directs and supervises Federal grants to local legal 

services programs which provide such assistance, and the importance of this program has not diminished over time. As President 

Richard Nixon, who was President when the program was established, once said, legal assistance to—legal assistance to the poor, 

when properly provided, is one of the most constructive ways to 

help them help themselves. 

I have a special connection, Mr. Chairman, to the LSC. I was the 

original board chairman of the Peninsula Legal Aid Center, which 

34 

is located in Newport News-Hampton, Virginia area. And given 

this experience, I know firsthand the benefit and needs of legal aid 

programs around the country as well as the benefit they provide 

to those they serve. 

H.R. 3764 accomplishes several goals. It increases the authorized level of—for LSC to $750 million. This is approximately the same 

amount appropriated in 1981, adjusted for inflation. LSC currently 

is funded at $420 million, which is well below the amount needed 

to meet the recognized need for legal services. 

Currently more than 80 percent of individuals who need civil 

legal representation do not have the means to obtain it, and nationally 50 percent of the eligible applicants for legal assistance from 

federally funded programs are turned away because these programs lack ample funding. 

Moreover, given the state of the economy the number of individuals who will qualify for legal representation will likely increase. 

We need to ensure that resources are available to provide legal 

services to those who cannot afford adequate legal representation. The $750 million authorized in the bill will enable each LSC program to begin to address the legal needs of low-income residents 

in their communities. 

The bill also lifts most of restrictions placed on the program 

through appropriations bills over the years, including the restriction on collecting attorneys’ fees, the prohibition on legal aid attorneys bringing class action suits, and the—and the prohibition on 

what programs can do with non-Federal funds. 

The bill does maintain the prohibition on abortion-related litigation and incorporates some of the limits on whom LSC-funded programs can represent, including prisoners challenging prison conditions and people convicted of illegal drug possession in public housing eviction proceedings. 

Additionally, the legislation provides for more effective administration of LSC. Government Accountability Office reports do emphasize the need for better corporate oversight and management, 

so this bill seeks to improve corporate practices of LSC. 

I am pleased that we have a companion bill in the Senate. Overall, the bills are similar but do have some differences. One example 

is the issue of class action lawsuits. The House bill allows class action suits with the approval of the project director, which is what 

the original Legal Services Act allowed. The Senate bill permits 

class actions if the suit arises ‘‘under established state or Federal 

statutory or judicial case law.’’ 

Even with these differences, however, it is my hope that both 

bills can be passed by this Congress, reconciled and sent to the 

President for his signature. And I am not the only one. As of this 

morning, the House bill has 44 co-sponsors, including a majority of 

the Members of the House Judiciary Committee. 

The bill also has the support of over 150 national, state and local 

organizations, including the—including the American Bar Association, the Brennan Center for Justice New York University Law— 

School of Law, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 

and the Virginia State Bar. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a letter 

signed by all of the groups supporting the bill. 

35 

[The information referred to follows:] 


2-1.eps
36 


2-2.eps
37 


2-3.eps
38 


2-4.eps
39 

Mr. SCOTT. And the end of the—I would like to end with a quote 

from Justice Lewis Powell during his—who, during his tenure as 

president of the American Bar Association, said, ‘‘Equal justice 

under the law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme 

Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. 

It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists. It is 


2-5.eps
40 

fundamental that justice should be the same in substance and 

availability without regard to economic status.’’ This is the goal 

that H.R. 3764 seeks to achieve. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the—this hearing and 

giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Civil Access to 

Justice Act. I hope we can mark it up in the near future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA


Scott-1.eps
42 


Scott-2.eps
43 


Scott-3.eps
44 


Scott-4.eps
45 


Scott-5.eps
46 


Scott-6.eps
47 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and appreciate your 

testimony. 

Was Justice Powell from Richmond? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, he was. 

Mr. COHEN. So I think I visited his grave when I was there. Yes. 

Our second witness is Senator Tom Harkin. Senator Harkin has 

represented Iowa in the United States Congress for 35 years and 

is the first Iowa Democrat to win a fifth term in the United States 

Senate. First winning election to the House in 1974, he served 10 

years representing the Fifth District, and then he challenged an incumbent senator and won. 

He currently Chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions Committee and as a senior Member of the Senate Appropriations, Agriculture and Small Business Committees. Since arriving in Congress he has been a champion of the issues that I think 

touch every American’s life in a special way—health care, education, and equal rights. 

He has worked to transform America into a wellness society focused on disease prevention and improving public health and is a 

staunch defender of America’s working families. He has made Iowa 

proud and is a great representative of Iowa in the great tradition 

of Henry Wallace and Governor Hughes and other great Iowans. 

He did run for President and would have made a great President. 

Senator Harkin is the author of S. 718, the ‘‘Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009,’’ which is the companion to Representative Scott’s 

bill. 

We thank you for taking time out of your schedule and coming 

back to visit us and share your testimony, Senator. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TOM HARKIN, 

A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator HARKIN. Well, Chairman Cohen, thank you for the honor 

of coming back to my—to the bosom of the start of my political career here in the House of Representatives. It is always wonderful 

to be back here. 

I thank you for your leadership on this issue. I would be remiss 

if I didn’t thank my hero, and I say that with all that it means, 

my hero John Conyers. 

When I first got here that many years ago—Mr. Watts, I want 

to say—reminded me a couple years ago I had—school kids were 

out on the Senate steps, and I was telling them about being a senator, and I said, ‘‘But before I was a senator I served over there 

in the House of Representatives in the Congress.’’ But I said, ‘‘That 

was some time ago.’’ I said, ‘‘That was the last century.’’ This little 

kid looked up with these big eyes and said, ‘‘How old are you?’’ I 

had to explain what—10 years ago. 

But anyway, but John Conyers to me has always embodied what 

I think is the epitome of the great public servant. For his entire 

lifetime he has fought to make our society a more fair, a more just, 

a more caring and compassionate society. And it is always an honor 

to be here in front of Congressman Conyers. 

And, Representative Franks, thank you also for your interest in 

this. I just have a couple things I will say about a couple of the 

48 

comments you made about that, about governance, which—you are 

right on track, by the way. A lot of that has disturbed a lot of us. 

And to be here with Representative Scott—an honor. He has 

been a constant champion again for equal rights and justice. I 

couldn’t ask for a better partner in this effort to try to get this legislation through. 

Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Washington, D.C., I came to 

law school. I went to Catholic University Law School just up the 

street here. And we had a dean, Dean Clinton Bamberger, who decided to start a neighborhood legal service clinic with law school 

students. 

And he got some money, I guess, from some friends and stuff, 

and we opened a clinic up on North Capitol Street. It was the first 

neighborhood legal services based out of—out of a law school in the 

District of Columbia. 

And I can remember going over there to staff that after class 

hours, in the evenings, on Saturdays. It was all volunteer. And 

having people come in—I can remember—this was not too long 

after the Walker-Thomas case here in the district, a Supreme 

Court case. 

A person came in and—and wife—he and his wife, couple of 

kids—I think—I forget, maybe two or three, four kids, and all their 

possessions had been taken out of their apartment and just put out 

because of an illness that he had had and he had missed one payment on his rent. And the landlord decided to just take everything 

out and put it outside. 

I said, ‘‘Well, that can’t happen in our society.’’ But it was happening. And so how do you handle a case like that? I wasn’t a lawyer. We were just law students. Our legal clinic then had to go to 

law firms in the District of Columbia to try to find some lawyer 

that had some free time to help us out. And that is the way we 

operated. It was sort of hit or miss. Now, that was before 1974, obviously. 

After I graduated from law school, I went to Iowa, went back to 

my home state, and I joined the Polk County Legal Services—Polk 

County Legal Services and became a lawyer there for Polk County 

Legal Services. I will never forget the first person that walked into 

my little cubbyhole where I had my desk. 

She came in. She had a little girl with her, her daughter. And 

she came in and she was assigned to me. She came in. She had 

these welts on her face and on her—and she showed me her back 

and her arms. She had a couple of teeth missing, and her little kid 

just so frightened. 

I thought, ‘‘Well, surely this is a criminal case. We don’t handle 

criminal cases. We handle civil cases.’’ What it was was that her 

husband had been beating her up, and she wanted to come in to 

get some protection. 

She wanted to know if there was a safe place where she could 

go with her daughter. She wanted to know if we could handle a divorce so she could get away from this abusive relationship. I will 

never forget that and how we were able to help in those cases. 

And then through my tenure there, the landlord-tenant cases, 

the workers’ comp cases, the disability cases that came through the 

49 

door, left a lasting impression on me of how important it is for poor 

people to have legal—access to legal services. 

Well, then after that, Legal Services Corporation was started, as 

Congressman Scott said, in 1974, I might add under a Republican 

president, Richard Nixon. And then by the time I got here to the 

Congress in 1975, Legal Services was just starting to get off the 

ground and make its way across the country. 

So I was able to see it grow until about 1981 when I think the 

high point was reached in terms of funding, and then during the 

1980’s, during the Reagan years, it just kept getting cut more and 

more and more and more, and we reached a low point I think some 

time in the 1990’s in terms of funding. 

But nonetheless, the Legal Services that—Corporation and those 

lawyers out there kept at it, kept doing more with less, until finally 

it reached a crisis, till what—people just couldn’t handle it any 

longer. And so we finally started, then, in the 1990’s getting the 

funding back up for the Legal Services Corporation. 

Even where the funding is now—and right now—it got down 

quite a bit. I can get the numbers. But we are now back up to just 

about where we were in the mid 1990’s, not counting for inflation. 

If you count inflation, we are way back. We are way back. 

One of the things that our bill does is it sets an authorization 

level that is basically where it was in 1981. That is the authorization level we have, adjusted for inflation, so it is around $750 million. 

And I think right now we are at about $420 million. So it sets 

that as an authorization level, because right now, even where we 

are, 50 percent—50 percent—of the people who walk in the door of 

a Legal Services office anywhere in America—half of them—are not 

helped, not because their cases aren’t good or they don’t need help. 

Legal Services simply do not have—does not have the money or 

the resources to help these people. One out of every two are turned 

away because they don’t have the wherewithal to help them. And 

it is probably getting worse. 

I checked with Iowa legal aid. Our Iowa legal aid—just in the 

last few years, their housing cases have gone up 300 percent. No 

surprise, with the housing crisis. That has gone up 300 percent. 

The chief justice of the Texas supreme court said this is a crisis 

of epic proportions. A crisis of epic proportions. Chief justice of the 

Texas supreme court. 

And it has real consequences for people. Our bill, I think, would 

bring this into the 21st century. As I think was pointed out, this 

bill has not been authorized since 1981. So if there is problems 

out—it is because we haven’t brought it into this century. 

The Federal funds, I said, have been cut. When you consider the 

inflation, it is way down. So we do need to reauthorize it, and I 

think Congressman Scott went through some of the things. But I 

mentioned we increase the authorizing level basically where it 

would be at 1981. 

It lifts some of the restrictions, like collecting attorneys’ fees and 

things like that, but it also does better governance, Congressman 

Franks. One of the things we put in this bill is we incorporated all 

of the GAO recommendations. 

50 

And believe me, I have watched this with some anger and frustration as I have seen some of the governance of Legal Services in 

the last few years. But we are getting it back. We have got a new 

chairman of the board who is excellent, and you are going to hear 

from Mr. Levi. 

So I think we are now moving in—but we incorporate all those 

GAO recommendations and codified them—codified them—in this 

bill. 

And lastly, I might say one of the things I really wanted in this 

bill was it expands the law school clinics. Maybe that is personal 

to me, but we can—we can make our dollars go a lot further by expanding the use of law school clinics, for law school clinics like the 

one I started up on North Capitol Street, where we don’t have to 

go shopping around all the time to one law firm or other to find 

who might have some free time, but where we can go to Legal 

Services with these cases from the law school clinics and get people 

the kind of representation they need. So we expand those—those 

clinics in this—in this bill. 

Lastly, let me just say, again, I have never considered this a Republican or a Democratic issue. Many of the lawyers I served with 

in Legal Services in Polk County were Republicans and are still 

today. Many of the champions of this have been Republicans as 

well as Democrats. 

You mentioned President Nixon. I mentioned somebody closer to 

home. I worked for years in the Senate with Pete Domenici, from 

your neighboring state, New Mexico, one of the great champions of 

this. 

And here is what Pete said once. He said, ‘‘I do not know’’—we 

were talking about funding for legal services. He said, ‘‘I do not 

know what is wrong with the United States of America saying to 

the needy people of this country that the judicial system is not only 

for the rich. What is wrong with that? That is what America is all 

about.’’ 

So I have never considered this a Republican or Democratic 

issue. I consider it an issue of just basic fairness and justice. That 

statue of Justice up there with the blindfold is holding those scales, 

but the scales get tipped if you put dollar bills on them. That not 

equal justice. That is not equal justice. 

We have got to take away that influence of whether or not you 

have the money to get a lawyer or not to make sure you get equal 

representation in our society. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. I hope 

we can move this bill as expeditiously as possible. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin follows:] 

51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM HARKIN, 

A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA


TH-1.eps
52 


TH-2.eps
53 


TH-3.eps
54 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for your testimony, Senator Harkin, 

heartfelt and personal, anecdotal, and publicly thank you for sponsoring the Senate apology for slavery and Jim Crow in the 111th. 

We thank each of you for your statements, and we excuse you. 

We know you need to get back to the Senate for duties. 

And, Congressman Scott, you have duties as well. 


TH-4.eps
55 

So we thank each of you and we will now empanel the second 

witnesses, group of witnesses. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, you mean I am not going to get a 

chance to question Mr. Scott? [Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Not here. [Laughter.] 

Out of order. Thank you all for participating. The second panel 

will come forward. 

I would like to thank everybody for participating in today’s hearing, and the same instructions that went to the first panel go to 

your panel, except you have to answer questions. 

Our first witness on this panel is Mr. John Levi. On April 7, 

2010 he was elected chairman of Legal Services Corporation board 

of directors. Mr. Levi is a partner in Sidley’s Chicago office. He represents major professional financial services firms and corporations 

in employment and labor matters before numerous Federal and 

state courts, government agencies and arbitration forums. 

He regularly litigates claims regarding wrongful termination for 

employment issues, restrictive covenants, wage and hour and other 

employment-related matters in these various forums. In addition, 

Mr. Levi advises clients on their internal policies and governance. 

He has counseled numerous clients regarding their employment 

policy handbooks and manuals, prepares and negotiates executive 

employment agreements and post-employment covenants, and has 

spoken at a number of employment law conferences as the author 

of ‘‘Legal Issues Regarding AIDS in the Workplace.’’ That was published in the January 1988 issue of Commerce magazine. 

Anecdotally, he related to me that historically his father, Mr. Edward Levi, was the United States attorney general under the Ford 

administration and served with distinction there. 

We thank you for your service and appreciate your attendance, 

and you can begin your testimony and the 5-minute light will start. 

I think I forgot to—I dismissed giving the warnings to the previous panel because they are so used to them. There is a light that 

goes on that is green. That means you have got your—you are in 

your okay zone. It goes on for 4 minutes. At the end of 4, it goes 

to yellow. At the end of that minute, which is a total of 5, it goes 

to red. And at red you should be concluding or have concluded. 

Thank you, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. LEVI, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Mr. LEVI. Thank you, Chairman Cohen. In our profession we are 

familiar with lights. 

Chairman Cohen, Chairman Conyers, Congressman Franks, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

and providing the Legal Services Corporation with the opportunity 

to testify on H.R. 3764, the Civil Access to Justice Act. I will keep 

my comments very brief. 

My thanks to you, Congressman Scott, for your sponsorship of 

this bill and to you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the co-sponsors. 

We wholeheartedly support the authorized funding level of $750 

million because it will significantly strengthen our ability to provide legal aid to the poor. Higher annual funding for LSC will help 

56 

expand the capacity of local Legal Services programs to meet the 

needs of their communities. 

Those needs are on the rise, especially given the risk that the 

economic downturn raises to jobs and homes, the jeopardy of physical violence and family conflict, and the special needs of veterans, 

and yet all these needs are increasing at precisely the same time 

that local resources are in decline. 

A major source of legal aid funding, IOLTA, is in a downward 

spiral because of the drop in short-term interest rates. LSC programs were hit with a 24 percent reduction in IOLTA funding in 

2009 compared to 2008, and that is a loss of $27 million. 

The near term is just as troubling. Most programs project declines in their IOLTA funding this year and probably into 2011, so 

this is a moment when every dollar counts, and the board is encouraging local programs to think strategically about partnerships, 

collaborations with others, such as law firms, law schools, medical 

centers, local businesses and community agencies. 

Our programs report that cases closed by private attorneys increased significantly, up 11 percent in 2009, from the previous 

year. And we want to do all we can to continue to foster commitments for pro bono work from lawyers in every community. 

With the bill’s sponsors, I share the goal of improving governance 

and accountability so that every dollar is well spent. With new 

membership and renewed dedication, the board is committed to serious improvement in the organization’s accountability and transparency. 

We also greatly appreciate the increase in the corporation’s executive pay schedule from level five to level three. We are now about 

to launch a nationwide search for a new president of LSC, and 

more competitive pay will help us recruit an innovative and forceful leader. 

Let me close with a couple of observations from my first few 

weeks on the job. We held our regular board meeting about 10 days 

ago in Arizona where we were briefed by the three LSC programs 

in that state. 

Legal aid programs in Arizona, as in most parts of our Nation, 

are unable to provide assistance to a majority of those who need 

help and daily turn people away. While board members were being 

briefed at Southern Arizona Legal Aid offices, clients filled every 

intake desk and the waiting room, with a line out the door. 

In my home town of Chicago, the Legal Assistance Foundation 

operates the Foreclosure Project, and its intake telephone lines 

usually have to shut down early Monday afternoon for the rest of 

the week because of the overwhelming need and limited staff resources. 

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, the corporation supports reauthorization because it represents an expression of ongoing support for the mission of LSC. In particular, the proposed 

funding level in the legislation reaffirms that Congress recognizes 

the profound importance of the work performed by the 136 LSC 

programs across the Nation and located in every state. 

With 54 million Americans—one-sixth of our population—qualifying for legal assistance, the magnitude of this issue cannot be 

overstated. 

57 

My father, as you recognized, served as attorney general of the 

United States in the Ford administration, in a different time of crisis. And in his farewell address to the Justice Department he reminded us that the values on which our country was founded ‘‘can 

never be won for all time. They must always be won anew.’’ 

Every day legal aid attorneys do their best to ensure the poor receive fair treatment in the resolution of their pressing legal problems. I thank the Subcommittee for taking up this legislation. It 

represents a giant step toward fulfilling our national promise of 

equal justice for all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to respond to questions 

at an appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levi follows:] 

58 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN G. LEVI


Levi-1.eps
59 


Levi-2.eps
60 


Levi-3.eps
61 


Levi-4.eps
62 


Levi-5.eps
63 


Levi-6.eps
64 


Levi-7.eps
65 


Levi-8.eps
66 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Levi, for your service and that of 

your family and for your testimony. 

Our second witness is Mr. Jeffrey Schanz, who was appointed 

Legal Services inspector general effective March 3 of 2008. He has 

had a long and distinguished career with the Federal Government, 

34 years, the last 32 in DOJ, served 17 years as director of the Office of Planning and Development, Audit Division, in the inspector 

general’s office. 


Levi-9.eps
67 

Thirty-two years at DOJ have included auditing, program analysis, investigation, legal analysis of top management positions. 

After leaving the Department of Health, Education and Welfare he 

served with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Justice Management Division, and the Office of the Inspector General, 

and a recipient of several attorney general awards. 

Thank you, Mr. Schanz, and you can begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY E. SCHANZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Mr. SCHANZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Franks and other distinguished Members, as 

you just heard, my name is Jeff Schanz. I have been the inspector 

general for Legal Services since March of 2008. Sorry. 

I believe strongly, being in the I.G. community for so many 

years—actually, decades; three decades—I strongly believe in the 

values of accountability, transparency, effectiveness and efficiency 

that are mandated by Inspector General Act. 

I fully endorse Chairman Levi’s statement underscoring the critical importance of the LSC mission, and I look forward to working 

with Mr. Levi and the new board in fulfilling the corporate mission 

by ensuring that Federal funds are appropriately used to help the 

indigent, the people that it is designed to help. 

One of my duties as the inspector general is to keep the Congress 

fully and currently informed of my findings and activities and comment on existing and proposed legislation, that latter function 

which brings me here today to comment on H.R. 3764. 

At this Subcommittee’s hearing last year, Chairman Cohen asked 

what steps the corporation had taken to ‘‘protect against the misuse of Federal funds.’’ I will briefly talk about some of the activities 

that my office has done in the last 18 months, recognizing I have 

been here 2 years. A more robust list of my activities are in the 

formal statement that I prepared for today that will be, hopefully, 

entered into the—into the record. 

We did complete a series of audits of grant management and 

oversight, reporting on issues that affected almost $1.5 million in 

LSC or LSC derivative funds and referred over $400,000 to the corporation as questioned costs to be recouped. 

We launched a number of initiatives to help and detect—prevent 

and detect fraud and abuse. We have issued fraud alerts, an initiative that was undertaken to all of the executive directors of the 

programs, the 136 programs, to highlight vulnerabilities identified 

in the course of OIG audits and investigations. 

We also took numerous steps to improve the government practice—governance practices and accountability at LSC by independently and objectively conducting an audit of the LSC contracting 

with respect to consultants. 

We also have taken a more robust look at all the IPA reports, 

the independent public accountant reports, that come in to the 

OIG, and we have also overseen and continue to oversee the annual 

corporate audit. 

While H.R. 3764 proposes some useful reforms in the areas of 

governance, it also contains that—we believe, a number of provisions that threaten to undermine the I.G.’s work. 

68 

If a provision comparable to Section 509 of the 1996 LSC Appropriation Act is not included, the reauthorization bill would take the 

corporation backwards to a time where the respective roles of management, LSC management, the OIG and the aforementioned IPAs, 

the independent public accountants who audit grantees, were unclear. 

The GAO in their first audit has specifically identified such lack 

of demarcation as a major factor in LSC’s heretofore weak governance and accountability practices. 

Without Section 509 or an equivalent, oversight of grantee audits 

would no longer be held to the same standards that the OMB Circular A-133 makes applicable to audits of states, local governments 

and nonprofit organizations receiving Federal grants. 

In addition, the bill as constituted would restrict the OIG’s access 

to grantee records as it contains no provision comparable to Section 

509(h) of the 1996 act, which provides the OIG access to the 

records it needs to perform our statutory oversight duties. 

Moreover, under the proposed LSC bill, grant money would no 

longer be considered Federal funds for purposes of Federal statutes 

relating to fraud and embezzlement—unfortunately, issues that we 

have uncovered. 

The bill would also make it difficult for the OIG to ascertain the 

source of funding for grantee activities by repealing current provisions that require recipients to account separately for LSC and 

non-LSC funds. 

In addition, the bill would repeal the current statutory requirements that grantees make their timekeeping records available to 

oversight entities, OIG, GAO and the corporation included, and 

eliminates statutory provisions designed to foster competition in 

the grant award process. 

I stand ready to work with the Committee and the new board of 

directors to ensure that the LSC OIG can function with the independence and authority it needs to ensure the—that Federal funds 

entrusted to LSC are spent with the appropriate level of transparency and accountability. 

I am pleased to answer any questions that the Committee may 

have. Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schanz follows:] 

69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY E. SCHANZ


JES-1.eps
70 


JES-2.eps
71 


JES-3.eps
72 


JES-4.eps
73 


JES-5.eps
74 


JES-6.eps
75 


JES-7.eps
76 


JES-8.eps
77 


JES-9.eps
78 


JES-10.eps
79 


JES-11.eps
80 


JES-12.eps
81 


JES-13.eps
82 


JES-14.eps
83 


JES-15.eps
84 


JES-16.eps
85 


JES-17.eps
86 


JES-18.eps
87 


JES-19.eps
88 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Schanz. I appreciate your service 

and your statements. 

Our third witness is Mr. Kenneth Boehm. Mr. Boehm is the fulltime chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center in Falls 

Church, Virginia since 1994. Previously he was in a senior position 

in Legal Services Corporation, from 1991 to 1994, assistant to the 

president of LSC and counsel to the board of directors. 

He has received his J.D. and since then he has been a prosecutor 

in Chester County, Pennsylvania; treasurer of a top 10 political action committee; chief of staff to Representative Chris Smith, Republican of New Jersey; and chairman of Citizens for Reagan— 

awful young to have done that. 

In addition to his legal career, Mr. Boehm spent 5 years as an 

award-winning radio talk show host on Philadelphia’s WWDB. His 

broadcast experience—guest commentator at NPR and guest interviews on more than 500 radio and TV programs. 

We appreciate your being here and look forward to your melodious voice. I believe you need to turn on the microphone. 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER 

Mr. BOEHM. There we go. So much for my broadcasting background. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Franks and distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to 

testify this morning on the proposed reauthorization of the Legal 

Services Corporation. 

If there is one thing that everybody familiar with the Legal Services program knows, it is that it has had a very troubled history. 

A lot of this has been commented on—the GAO studies, the other 

problems, et cetera. 

One of the reasons that we are here today is because this program has not been—was last reauthorized in 1977, authorization 

that expired in 1980. There are few Federal programs out there 

that have been unauthorized for some 30 years. 

The reason—— 

Mr. COHEN. We talk through that. 

Mr. BOEHM. Oh, okay. The reason that it has been unauthorized 

for so long is because of these controversies. It reached a head in 

1996 when there were deep cuts in the program. Actually, the 

House budget resolution called for phasing it out over 3 years. 

The people who supported Legal Services said, ‘‘It is time for an 

historic compromise. The compromise is this. Let’s do away with a 

lot of the more controversial programs—lobbying, congressional redistricting, the class actions, prisoner litigation—you name it—and 

in return for that, we will see how they do, see if these reforms 

stick, and let’s press ahead.’’ 

That is, in fact, what happened. And most of these reforms have 

been repeating year after year since 1996. There has been a broad 

bipartisan coalition. There has been no real effort to gut them in 

any substantial way. And that brings us to today. 

The problem I have with the proposed reauthorization is it basically would eliminate or weaken almost all of the 1996 reforms. We 

won’t have to wonder what will happen if that occurs, because we 

89 

just have to look at what happened before the reforms were in 

place. 

One of the problems were these series of legal actions that don’t 

have to do with the day-to-day legal service of the poor that generated most of the problems. It is almost an 80-20 Pareto principle. 

Eighty percent of the problems came from 20 percent of the cases, 

but it was those 20 percent that got an awful lot of attention. 

Prisoner lawsuits—now the current reauthorization would allow 

them with the exception of prisoner conditions. This was highly 

controversial. 

You had a situation in a Pennsylvania prison where a triple murderer was released back to the general population through the good 

services of Legal Services and in a prison break attempt took 30- 

something hostages. The governor really was very, very upset with 

that. He later became attorney general of the United States. And 

it received a lot of bad publicity. 

I would argue that in a time and date when we have so many 

unemployed and so much traditional legal services to be done, this 

is the last time to be wasting scarce resources on civil lawsuits on 

behalf of prisoners. 

The real outrage is one—I think is congressional redistricting, or 

any legislative redistricting. Incredible as it seems, Legal Services 

has been involved in this area. When this reform was proposed, 

even Congressman Barney Frank said, ‘‘I don’t know what Legal 

Services lawyers are doing in congressional redistricting cases.’’ It 

is not like the poor people are wading into the offices saying we feel 

malapportioned, we think the 16th Congressional District should 

look like this, as opposed to this. 

On top of that, one of the problems with these cases is they are 

very, very expensive, with computer models and the rest of it. It 

is hard to say it is not a politicized program if it is doing something 

as political as redistricting. It is hard to imagine anything less 

tinged with partisanship than that. 

Another argument is drug-related evictions for public housing. 

This was another hot-button issue. Legal Services was more involved than any other single group of legal groups in thwarting 

drug-related evictions up to the 1996 reforms. And the rule was 

that—that came in 1996 you can’t participate in these at all. 

The new proposed reauthorization allows them to get back in but 

draws the line at convicted drug dealers. Well, convicted drug dealers aren’t going to be in that public housing. They are generally 

going to be in other public housing. And usually, they are not even 

client eligible at all because they tend to have cash income that 

makes them uneligible. 

I couldn’t begin to understand why Legal Services would go back 

into this very controversial area and yet allowed under this legislation. 

Then you have class action lawsuits. The reason they were restricted was because so many of them were very, very highly political. In many cases you could argue against the interests of the 

poor. 

One of the more celebrated ones was a class action lawsuit in the 

case of Atlanta public housing in which case they were trying to 

90 

screen out violent criminals from becoming tenants in public housing. 

Legal Services brought a very expensive class action lawsuit to 

try to stop that. I don’t think if you polled the average public housing person they want violent criminals in their public housing unit, 

and yet Legal Services was involved. 

And so class actions has been for the last—since 1996 restricted 

and, again, I think opening the door back to that is a backwards 

step. 

Lobbying, the same argument. The bill would allow lobbying with 

non-Federal funds. The trick there is—or the real issue there is 

who picks what is lobbied on. It would be the Legal Services lawyers. And again, I think you could make a good argument when 

they were lobbying they were lobbying on a lot of things that an 

awful lot of poor people would not agree with. 

The most important provision of all is the one that says that you 

cannot do with non-LSC funds—the restriction—you cannot do 

with non-LSC funds what you can’t do with LSC funds. 

And the reason that that was a problem up to 1996 was that so 

many of the individuals that were involved in Legal Services at the 

time, frankly, didn’t—you couldn’t tell whether it was Federal 

money or other money, and the tools weren’t there. The oversight 

wasn’t there. And so that was a major problem. 

If you allowed it, essentially it would be anything goes, and they 

would be doing lots of restricted activities and it would be impossible to sort it out. 

The final argument I would make is this, that we are going backward when we eliminate all these common-sense restrictions, and 

we should instead keep them. 

And I think ultimately Legal Services would have a better 

chance of getting funding if it weren’t engaged in these highly political and controversial subjects and instead was actually helping 

the traditional legal needs of the poor. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehm follows:] 

91 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH F. BOEHM


KFB-1.eps
92 


KFB-2.eps
93 


KFB-3.eps
94 


KFB-4.eps
95 


KFB-5.eps
96 


KFB-6.eps
97 


KFB-7.eps
98 


KFB-8.eps
99 


KFB-9.eps
100 


KFB-10.eps
101 


KFB-11.eps
102 


KFB-12.eps
103 


KFB-13.eps
104 


KFB-14.eps
105 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Diller is our next witness, Ms. Rebekah Diller. She is deputy 

director of the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, coordinates the 

Brennan Center’s legislative and public education campaign to 

eliminate private money restriction on Legal Service programs and 

other initiatives. 

Prior to joining that center, she served as staff attorney at the 

New York Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Rights Project. She 

oversaw litigation and other initiatives there. She represented lowincome citizens in housing and government cases, legal service of 

the elderly—basically the panoply of good things. 

Now, if you would be so courteous as to watch the 5-minute limit, 

I would appreciate it, and you are recognized for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF REBEKAH DILLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, JUSTICE PROGRAM, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU 

SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. DILLER. Good morning, Chairman Cohen, Chairman Conyers, Representative Franks and other Members of the Subcommittee. The Brennan Center thanks you for holding today’s 

hearing and for permitting me to testify in support of the Civil Access to Justice Act. 

I will start by saying that we have heard various views about 

particular provisions of the bill, but one thing I hope we can all 

agree on is that the need right now, as others have so eloquently 

testified, is tremendous. 

Americans are facing foreclosure at record rates. The ranks of 

the unemployed have swelled. Many of those folks are facing longterm unemployment. And all of this is giving rise to tremendous 

legal need. Often a Legal Services lawyer is a lifeline. It is the one 

thing standing between a family and homelessness and a downward spiral into—into more crisis. 

I think it is a critical time and this bill will reinforce our Legal 

Services program at a time of great need and allow for the infrastructure to serve more people. 

We heard today some claims about some old cases regarding restrictions. These are some cases out of a program that serves nearly a million people a year. I would like to tell you about how the 

restrictions are affecting Legal Services clients today. And they are 

affecting them in ways that have nothing to do with ideological-crusade-types of cases. They are affecting them in their daily breadand-butter-type cases. 

First of all, the most harmful restriction that we have seen has 

been the restriction on non-LSC funds. This is the restriction that 

says if you take one dollar from LSC, all the money you receive 

from state, local governments, IOLTA programs, private donors— 

all of that is restricted. 

And that restriction hampers $526 million a year, or 60 percent 

of the funding at LSC recipient programs. So the Federal Government, which is in essence a minority stakeholder, if you will, here, 

is dictating to all these other players how their money gets spent. 

And what we have seen is that this restriction has been tremendously wasteful for a system that already has scarce resources. In 

many places, state and local funders have not wanted their money 

106 

tied up by the Federal restrictions, and so they have had to form 

duplicate legal aid systems, which means you are paying two sets 

of rent, two computer networks, two copy machines. All of these 

extra expenses could go toward serving more clients more effectively. 

Second of all, that restriction sends exactly the wrong message. 

We should be welcoming private participation. We should be welcoming a leveraging of the Federal funds. And instead, it says to 

private donors, ‘‘We will restrict how your money, your donations, 

are spent.’’ 

Second of all, as to the restrictions on advocacy tools, there is 

simply no justification in a country that promises equal justice for 

all for telling a low-income client that he or she cannot have access 

to the same legal tools that are available to a client with means. 

And I would like to tell you about some of the ways this has been 

playing out, particularly as low-income communities and communities of color have faced crises with predatory lending and other 

consumer scams. 

A number of providers across the country have reported this 

alarming incidence—this is just to give you one example—of foreclosure rescue scams. These are companies that promise you that 

they will refinance your mortgage. They take your money and then 

they are never heard from again. 

And the effective way to deal with that kind of operation would 

be to bring a class action on behalf of your client and all others 

who have been affected. Unfortunately, because of the restriction, 

programs can’t do that. They can represent one victim at a time, 

maybe achieve a result in that one particular case, but they can’t 

seek the broader relief that would stop the illegal practices and 

bring those companies to justice. 

So instead of performing some sort of ideological screening test, 

what the restriction has been doing is it has been really insulating 

those who prey on the poor from accountability and from being 

brought to justice. 

The other thing I will just mention is we heard from the inspector general a number of suggestions for changing and improving 

the bill, and I would just say that we are eager to work with Subcommittee staff on a number of those which I think we could reach 

agreements on. 

The one area where I would disagree is that—is the need to access confidential information such as client names and the like. 

There has simply not been a showing that there is a need to get 

that information. There is a way to ensure accountability by using 

other means without violating state confidentiality protections. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Diller follows:] 

107 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBEKAH DILLER


RD-1.eps
108 


RD-2.eps
109 


RD-3.eps
110 


RD-4.eps
111 


RD-5.eps
112 


RD-6.eps
113 


RD-7.eps
114 


RD-8.eps
115 


RD-9.eps
116 


RD-10.eps
117 


RD-11.eps
118 


RD-12.eps
119 


RD-13.eps
120 


RD-14.eps
121 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Diller. I appreciate your testimony. 

And I will now recognize myself for questions. 

Mr. Levi, first of all, we—Ms. Barnett’s contract ended at the end 

of 2009. Where is the board in finding a permanent replacement for 

her? 

Mr. LEVI. Well, this afternoon our search committee will have its 

very first meeting and will issue a request for proposals and begin 

the process of getting a high-quality search firm to help us. And 

then we intend to conduct a nationwide search and bring in somebody who is absolutely outstanding, with a distinguished career, to 

help in this very important problem in our country and to lead us 

in an innovative and forceful way. 

Mr. COHEN. As new chair of the board, what are your goals and 

how do you see that the past problems can be rectified and the 

public to embrace LSC and Mr. Franks to wrap his arms around 

LSC? 

Mr. LEVI. I hope to convince our Congressman Franks to—— 

Mr. COHEN. Particularly about the fraud and abuse, because that 

is important to all of us. 

Mr. LEVI. Absolutely. And I would say we have—I have a number of priorities, but four in particular. The first, we do have to conduct a first-rate search. I have done that for other organizations. 

I am confident that we can get an outstanding president in. 

The second is that we have to call attention throughout the country, here and elsewhere, to the existence of this problem, encouraging not only Congress but the—but private individuals, the law 

firms, to step up and do as much as they can to help with this situation. 

The third is certainly to—and they are not in order here, but 

they are my priorities—to make sure as a—look, our board wants 

to make sure that our internal controls—my understanding is that 

of the GAO recommendations all 17 have been addressed. 

But look, we are—we are new. We are going to take a deep dive 

in here and make sure to—for our own selves that appropriate controls are in place, that you and the American people can have confidence that money is being well and properly spent. And I look forward to working closely with the inspector general on that. 

And finally, we have to come up with a new strategic plan. The 

current plan expires this year, and I look forward to developing 

such a plan for the corporation. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Levi, I imagine, looking at your vitae, you do 

employment law. You generally represent management. 

Mr. LEVI. More often management, yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Business. 

Mr. LEVI. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. You don’t see any contradiction in any way in doing 

that and yet looking out for the equal justice for the poor. 

Mr. LEVI. Not at all. In fact, I have been in my private life involved in doing just that for many, many years. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

I join you and Mr. Franks and others in wanting to see the 

money properly spent. It galls me when I see people having trips, 

monster meals, limousines on government money that should be 

going to the public’s needs and particularly to the poor. 

122 

So I appreciate the inspector general’s reports, and there are 

things that are not in our bill that are in the Senate bill. I would 

like to see them get into our bill and make it as strong as possible, 

because that is one of the—you know, that is one of the ways you 

go to hell, I think, is taking money from the poor. 

Mr. SCHANZ. Yes, sir. Thank you. We have worked with both 

staffs on the Senate side and the House side, and my long statement for the record will include most of those amendments that we 

need to have inserted into the bill to increase, not decrease, governance. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Diller, let me ask you a question about—Mr. Boehm made 

a point about talking about the drug situation. In drug-related 

cases, the change in the law would simply say that if you are convicted of a drug offense. Would you remind us something about innocent till proven guilty? 

Ms. DILLER. Yes, Chairman. I mean, that is exactly the point. 

You are innocent until proven guilty. And this legislation would 

only change the existing provision to honor that principle, so that 

if you have not been convicted, there are cases where charges are 

brought, and then they are dropped later. People are acquitted. 

And in the meantime, you can lose your home. 

So the only thing that this would do is make sure that for that 

set of cases where there has merely been a charge brought, you are 

eligible for representation, whereas once you are convicted there is 

no representation. 

Mr. COHEN. And might people that have drug charges brought 

against them have families and children and—— 

Ms. DILLER. Absolutely. I mean, the sort of classic case is the 

grandmother living with her grandson or whoever—— 

Mr. COHEN. Right, extended family. 

Ms. DILLER [continuing]. Faces eviction. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there a distinction in the law between felonies and 

misdemeanors, possession and sale? 

Ms. DILLER. I would have to double check that. I mean, my understanding was that this is a pretty far-reaching restriction. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much. 

I now yield to the—Mr. Franks for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boehm, I guess the first question I would ask—I know that 

of the poor who need legal services that are not able to afford it 

themselves that probably only a certain percentage of them actually gain some outside help of some kind. I don’t know what that 

is. 

And you know, just for the record, you know, I certainly want to 

do everything I can to see that the poor receive the appropriate 

legal representation that they deserve under our Constitution. 

With that said, I don’t know what the percentage of the total 

poor that actually get help, but of those who get—that do get help, 

isn’t it about 10 percent or a little less than 10 percent of them get 

help from LSC? 

Mr. BOEHM. That is the case, sir. There have been studies of this. 

One was a study by a former LSC inspector general looking at pro 

bono activities, activities representing the poor pro bono from 

123 

groups not getting LSC funding, and the figure came out as less 

than 10 percent of the poor who do get some kind of legal advice 

and representation get it from Legal Services. 

But there is another statistic, and it was mentioned by Ms. 

Diller, which is 60 percent of the money that goes to LSC-funded 

groups comes from non-LSC or non-Federal sources. So you take 

those figures and you actually look at it, and it is a very small percentage of the poor who get money from the LSC program. 

And then, when you have all of these more politicized types of 

cases, prisoner cases and the rest of them, that takes away from 

the money that is available to the more deserving poor, to use an 

archaic phrase. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. Well, I guess that is the point I wanted to 

make, Mr. Chairman, is that, you know, those of us that object to 

the Federal funds being spent in a way that it is—that is 

counterindicative of what the mission statement of LSC is, do so 

on the basis that as far as, you know, the private sector doing what 

they can—you know, Ms. Diller mentioned that the private sector— 

they want to encourage that. And certainly if this was a private endeavor I don’t think there would be a hearing here. You know, you 

could represent who you wanted, how you wanted. 

But if the Federal Government is going to take tax money from 

its citizens and—you know, under a obligatory scenario and give it 

to Legal Services, I think it has the right and responsibility to 

make sure that there are restrictions on what they do, what organizations that they fund. 

And if we have an organization that 60 percent of which is privately funded, and they help less than 10 percent of the poor who 

actually get legal service help from someone, which is probably— 

I don’t know what percentage of the poor actually get help, but I 

am sure it is less than it should be—then you begin to understand 

why there is hesitation on our part to see monies from taxpayers 

go to an organization that uses it for ideological purposes rather 

than the stated purpose of helping the poor. 

So, Mr. Boehm, I guess I—you know, the 1996 restrictions I am 

understanding have been violated using the so-called mirror corporations that enable restrictions to be circumvented. I know you 

have written about that. Could you explain that, that kind of underscores one of the reasons why we are hesitant in this case? 

Mr. BOEHM. Certainly. One of the ways that programs have dealt 

with the restrictions is to set up a closely connected but legally distinct organization. And there is a set of rules within the LSC regs 

as to what you can and can’t do. 

There was an investigation by a prior LSC I.G. into programs 

where they were working out of the same office. Individuals were 

wearing both hats. The net result was lots and lots of restricted activities were being conducted in very, very close coordination with 

Legal Services. 

And in one case, the rent by the non-LSC group that was doing 

all the restricted activities hadn’t been paid to the federally funded 

LSC group over a long period of time. 

And it was basically a loophole to get around what Congress said 

shouldn’t be done with Federal funding. 

124 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I think, again, Mr. Chairman, that is another 

point that is a concern to us. The taxpayers that fund this—oftentimes, you know, they are obligated to do it under the laws. They 

do so to help poor people gain legal services that they need. 

And so when they find themselves funding these ideological-driven issues that they may not necessarily agree with, then of course 

they—I think they reject that. 

So my last question is can you give us a little bit of a sense of 

what types of ideologically motivated lawsuits brought about the 

1996 restrictions? 

Mr. BOEHM. Yes. There are an awful lot of cases that I think 

were ideological, if not political. There was a celebrated case in 

1997 where Legal Services tried to overturn an election in Texas 

by invalidating 800 absentee ballots filed by servicemen and 

women. 

These are people in Kosovo who were fighting for their country, 

received notice that they had to answer a 20-something-page case 

within 3 days because Legal Services was trying to overturn the 

election. 

Now, in that particular case, they also asked for attorneys’ fees, 

although attorneys’ fees had just been banned. Fifty-eight United 

States senators wrote a letter, and the letter was drafted by Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and it went to Janet Reno, the attorney 

general, saying, ‘‘What in the world is Federal tax money going to 

try to invalidate service people’s absentee ballot?’’ If there is anybody in this country who should be entitled to an absentee ballot, 

it is somebody serving their country. 

I think that was a very celebrated case, but that illustrates the 

type of mischief there can be if there aren’t, in fact, real reforms 

that operate in a real way. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It also illustrates 

how difficult it would be in the U.S. Senate without those stalwart 

conservatives like Barbara Mikulski. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, 

Mr. John Conyers of Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hesitate to bring up my relationship with the Levi family because if the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina didn’t 

know the senatorial witness that came over when he was in Congress, I don’t know how ancient the history would be for him to 

find out that I knew his father, Ed Levi, when he was the attorney 

general. That could go back to maybe the Hayes-Tilden controversy 

or—— [Laughter.] 

God knows where that would lead, but I think I ought to make 

full disclosure before he finds this out anyway. 

So I am happy to welcome Mr. Levi here today and I fondly remember his father. I was Subcommittee Chairman of Crime at the 

time that I appeared in the Department of Justice pretty regularly 

to have consultation with him. 

Now, Mr. Schanz, with your background, could—we want everybody to sleep more comfortably in their beds tonight. Could you 

help Mr. Boehm out on anything that you think would make him 

more receptive to the fact that moving ahead and making the imVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:00 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\042710\56179.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56179
125 

provements that are embodied in the Scott legislation more palatable? 

How can we make him feel better about this whole proposition 

that brings us here today? 

Mr. SCHANZ. I want to say a snide remark, but I won’t. He and 

I will work behind the scenes, or me lobbying him successfully. But 

the real answer to your question, Mr. Conyers, is transparency. I 

mentioned that in my prepared statement. I mentioned that in my 

5-minute monologue. 

But I firmly believe that if the funds maintain their Federal 

character all the way through the system and are transparent in 

their use, then there should not be a problem that we have found 

in the past in a lot of cases prior to my tenure here. 

I do believe that with my staff and with a new president and a 

new chairman we can make a lot of progress in the areas of accountability, responsibility and transparency. Now, whether I can 

convince Mr. Boehm of that remains to be seen. It depends on my 

lawyerly skills, how good I still am. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I think for the short time that I met and 

heard and know him that he is a reasonable person. And the one 

thing I am so relieved about is that he did not call for a abolition 

of Legal Services, and you don’t harbor that thought, or do you, sir? 

Mr. BOEHM. I spent my first part of my adult career—I spent the 

first part of my adult career being a supporter of Legal Services. 

I wouldn’t have gone over to work there if I hadn’t. I worked for 

a congressman, who was a Republican congressman, who had supported Legal Services. 

Where I became very disenchanted was I saw firsthand the resistance to reforms that I thought were common-sense reforms. I 

think the real question is is the—is this program capable of the 

types of reforms that I think would have broad bipartisan support 

and then sticking to them. 

My concern is that the proposed reauthorization does away with 

the reforms that we have had since 1996. And I think most of them 

were pretty reasonable reforms. If it can’t, I don’t believe spending 

Federal money for a program that can just basically do whatever 

it wants, without even releasing—one of the things that is cut out 

is a list of the cases, the litigation cases. 

I don’t know what policy reason you would give that the public 

and the Congress and even a taxpayer shouldn’t know what cases 

are litigated with Federal funds. And yet that is one of the things 

that is on the cutting room floor with this legislation. 

So the real answer I think is if the program were accountable 

and did the reforms that I think there is broad support for, I don’t 

think there would be any problem. I have got plenty of other things 

to do. But if it is just going to be a blank check and do whatever 

you want, including redistricting, I have serious problems with 

that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Levi, can you give him any comfort in this discussion? 

Mr. LEVI. Well, first of all, as it relates to the spending of the 

taxpayers’ money, we want to make sure that every dollar is well 

spent. 

126 

And I look forward to working with the inspector general and to 

making sure and assuring us internally that we have the best practices, modern practices, brought in to LSC throughout the country—there are 136 grantees—making sure that they are conducting 

their business affairs in the manner that you and we would hope. 

Mr. CONYERS. Feeling better? 

Mr. BOEHM. There are a couple of other issues we need to discuss. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Last question. You co-founded the National Legal and Policy Center back in 1991. You are proud of that, 

I presume. 

Mr. BOEHM. I was on the first board. And they were not involved 

in any of these activities because it was a one-person operation 

then. 

Mr. CONYERS. With whom did you co-found it? 

Mr. BOEHM. Peter T. Flaherty, who was its president. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is he still around? 

Mr. BOEHM. He is still around. 

Mr. CONYERS. And then, finally, you are treasurer of one of the 

10 largest political action committees in the country. What committee is that? 

Mr. BOEHM. That was in 1980. I am much older than I think Mr. 

Cohen thought I was. I am 60. But that was in 1980. It was the 

Fund for a Conservative Majority. It was the third-largest political 

action committee in the country in the 1980 election cycle. 

Mr. CONYERS. And so you are—you are, rightfully so, a proud Republican. 

Mr. BOEHM. I have been a Republican. Sometimes I have been 

proud of that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you are—well, let me ask you this. Are you 

proud of—sometimes proud of being a conservative Republican? 

Mr. BOEHM. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. And are you other times proud of being a—proud 

of being a neoconservative Republican? 

Mr. BOEHM. I don’t know if I am a neoconservative, because I 

don’t know what the official definition is. That used to apply to 

former Democrats, I think, in the Reagan years who went over and 

joined the Reagan administration. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. I yield. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, neoconservative means new conservative. It 

really is a—it is a liberal with a daughter in high school. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BOEHM. Yes, that doesn’t apply to me. I actually started out 

as a Democrat, if that makes you feel any better. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, a lot of people—Jarvis started out, I think, 

as a Democrat. 

Now, you believe that there is a constitutional right to everybody 

receiving equal justice. 

Mr. BOEHM. A constitutional right, and you do also, under the 

Sixth Amendment, have a constitutional right—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Right. 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. To an attorney. 

Mr. CONYERS. Exactly. And the Sixth—— 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. Criminal cases. 

127 

Mr. CONYERS. Exactly. And do you have an idea—are you forming some ideas about a counter bill to the one that Scott’s introduced? I mean, we seem to be reaching some agreements on some 

very significant points here. 

Would you submit to the Chairman of this Subcommittee the 

ideas around which you would find a bill to continue to promote 

Legal Services more to your liking? 

Mr. BOEHM. Well, Congressman Conyers, I would be happy to. I 

testified before a Senate Committee 2 years ago on things that can 

be done that help the poor get better access to justice, and I would 

be happy to forward along those ideas. 

And there are a lot of very good ideas that aren’t touched in this 

that I think ought to be considered that I think cross party and 

ideological lines, because the real problem is getting good legal representation is not only hard for the poor, it is hard for the middle 

class. 

And there is a lot of things that can be done that increase access 

to justice that can only be done on the Federal level that should 

be done. 

And again, I would be happy, Chairman Cohen, to forward along 

that information. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and I am swinging 

back and forth here as I listen to this. Now that I know about Mr. 

Boehm’s complete and detailed political pedigree, all the way back 

30-plus years, it looks pretty stellar to me. 

And I also am looking at a list here—but I direct my first question to Mr. Schanz, and that would be as you understand this legislation that is proposed that is the subject—H.R. 3764—does it remove the prohibition to Legal Services Corporation and engaging 

in representing cases involving illegal aliens? 

I am going to give you the list—illegal aliens, abortion-related 

litigation, prisoner advocacy, class action lawsuits, challenges to 

welfare reform, and congressional redistricting cases. Are those 

prohibitions all removed, as you understand the language in the 

legislation? 

Mr. SCHANZ. As I understand the language, no. My concern is a 

little more fundamental from an inspector general’s point of view 

to being able to have the tools I need to enforce whatever restrictions this body—whatever Congress imposes on the Legal Services 

Corporation. 

I need to have access to the records. I need to have the specific 

identifiers of Federal versus non-Federal funds. There is a lot 

that—within the I.G. community—— 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Mr. SCHANZ [continuing]. That I need to—— 

Mr. KING. Excuse me. 

Mr. SCHANZ [continuing]. Be able to have put into this legislation 

so we don’t revert back to the days that Mr. Boehm remembers so 

vividly. 

128 

Mr. KING. And I would want you to have all of those tools to examine that thoroughly, and I would want transparency and sunlight. So I would turn to Mr. Levi. 

And of this list that I have read, is it your understanding that 

these prohibitions are removed under H.R. 3764? 

Mr. LEVI. That is not my understanding. 

Mr. KING. Could you then clarify to this Committee your understanding as to which provisions would be removed under 3764? 

Mr. LEVI. This is an issue that we are going into in terms of the 

corporation’s view about restrictions, and I am concerned here because LSC is charged with enforcing the restrictions throughout 

the country. And in fact, we are currently doing that in court. 

We have staff in the field ensuring that our programs are complying with the restrictions. So as chairman of the board, I am 

really not comfortable speaking about any particular restrictions, 

and we will continue to enforce the will of Congress, whatever it 

would be. 

Mr. KING. Okay. I thank you, Mr. Levi, and I am going to take 

it, then, that you are not speaking to the language in the bill but 

the current practice and the current statute in your response. Is 

that accurate? 

Mr. LEVI. That is accurate. 

Mr. KING. Okay, thank you. And then I would turn to Mr. 

Boehm. 

Your response to this—have you reviewed H.R. 3764 that was 

testified to by Senator Harkin? And would you understand that it 

removes restrictions? 

Mr. BOEHM. It removes most of the restrictions—removes most of 

the restrictions that were put in in 1996. Otherwise are modified. 

On the prisoner restriction, it allows prisoner litigation but not 

for prisoner conditions. With respect to illegal aliens, it broadens 

the category exceptions of illegal aliens that can be represented, 

but it doesn’t allow wholesale representation of illegal aliens. 

One of the real problems with all of these restrictions is that— 

is in the LSC act, which is if LSC does not enforce something—they 

are the only legal body to do this. And this is one of the reasons 

Senator Grassley has been so interested in Legal Services, is he 

was involved in this battle in the 1980’s. 

If LSC doesn’t enforce any restriction—illegal aliens, you name 

it—nobody else has legal standing to do it. And the one time where 

a program was illegally lobbying, a Federal judge did a judicial 

finding that they were illegally lobbying, and Legal Services challenged that and said, ‘‘Hey, we don’t have to—we are not subject 

to judicial review. We are a 501(c)(3).’’ And they won, and they 

should have won, because legally they don’t. 

And so essentially, they can do anything if LSC doesn’t enforce 

it as a practical matter, and that is pretty—— 

Mr. KING. Okay. So there are two components, then. This proposed legislation loosens the restrictions, some dramatically, some 

incrementally, and the point that the enforcement of the restriction 

has to be within LSC themselves, then. 

Mr. BOEHM. Right. 

Mr. KING. And so let me pose this question, and it is really at 

this point not hypothetical, under current law or under H.R. 3764 

129 

as proposed, could the Legal Services Corporation be enlisted to 

join in a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of 

‘‘Obamacare?’’ 

Mr. BOEHM. Well, LSC itself wouldn’t do it. It would be a—a program can do that sort of thing. If they are allowed to do class actions, and they have a client and there is waiting rooms full of clients, I don’t see why they couldn’t bring the lawsuit. 

The problem is the decisions as to class actions, like lobbying, 

can be very, very subjective. Unlike all other Federal benefit programs, nobody has a right to be represented by Legal Services, and 

so the Legal Services lawyers have pretty wide discretion as to 

which cases they will take or don’t take. 

Mr. KING. Would you concede, Mr. Boehm, that I have proposed 

about the most improbable case that could be taken up by LSC—— 

Mr. BOEHM. Well—— 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Or their surrogates? 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. Yes, that is pretty improbable. 

Mr. KING. And that is because if I listened to your testimony that 

it sounds to me as though LSC has been very high percentage intensively populated with liberal activists. Could you explain to me 

why that would be, why that is—why we are looking at this from 

a political perspective? 

The Chairman, Mr. Conyers, asked you a whole series of questions about your political pedigree. But as I listen to the testimony 

here, I would suspect that the political pedigree of the people that 

are—a significant percentage of those within LSC would be the 

exact opposite of the pedigree that he has talked with you about. 

Why is that? What has brought that about? 

Mr. BOEHM. Well, that has been the history since it was founded. 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. BOEHM. It was founded as part of the Great Society. Over 

the years, poor people who were home-schooling their kids who had 

legal needs and met the legal definition of poor invariably found 

Legal Services’ doors were closed. You know, a poor gun owner who 

thought the registration rules—they wouldn’t get the time of day. 

And so there always has been a double standard, and the double 

standard could be enforced because the decision to take or not take 

a case was so subjective and it was in the hands of the local Legal 

Services—— 

Mr. KING. Is the LSC to the right or the left of the ACLU? 

Mr. BOEHM. I think they are—— 

Mr. COHEN. I believe that question is beyond your knowledge. 

Mr. KING. I would ask unanimous consent the gentleman be allowed to answer the question. 

Mr. COHEN. Five minutes has expired. 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Mr. COHEN. And so we are going to—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be 

given an additional minute. 

Mr. COHEN. We always play bad cop and good cop, and he is the 

good cop. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. BOEHM. I appreciate that. Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is frequently in the past they joined together in cases with the 

130 

ACLU. That is public record. There are a lot of instances of that, 

so—— 

Mr. KING. And an adequate answer for me, and I thank you very 

much, all the witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman—Chairmen, I yield back the balance of my time, 

and I say thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Before I recognize Mr. Watt, just to the—I was a history major. 

You said that Legal Services was formed during the Great Society. 

Wasn’t it 1974? 

Mr. BOEHM. In 1974 it became a corporation—in 1974 it became 

a corporation. It was actually the Office of Legal Services in the 

1960’s under the Great Society. It was very controversial. They decided they would spin it off as a corporation. 

And so the Legal Services program itself began in the 1960’s. I 

believe it was 1966. In 1974 what happened is it became a corporation. It was reauthorized once in 1977 and then that expired in 

1980 and it has been the way ever since. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I thank you. I mean, people can define the 

Great Society as being 1974. It just depends on your perspective. 

But—— 

Mr. BOEHM. Well—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. Thank you. 

Mr. Watt, you are recognized. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to get us 

back to a less philosophically based discussion here, if I can, by 

asking a couple of practical questions. 

Mr. Schanz, Ms. Diller objected to one aspect of—what she understood your testimony to be, having to do with personal—identification of personal information. Is this something that you would 

think would be an irreconcilable problem, or did you understand 

what she was saying? 

Mr. SCHANZ. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. WATT. Explain that to us a little bit and tell us how we 

might be able to reconcile that. 

Mr. SCHANZ. Well, first off, I don’t think anything is 

unreconcilable. Secondarily, in order for me to perform the statutorily required duties of an inspector general, there are instances 

where in cases of fraud or embezzlement or potential fraud or embezzlement I would need access to client records to be able to identify whether or not a fraud has been perpetrated on the—on the 

Federal—— 

Mr. WATT. So—so something that gave you that access under 

those circumstances might—— 

Mr. SCHANZ. In this legislation—— 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Serve the purpose. 

Mr. SCHANZ [continuing]. That would be very helpful. 

Mr. WATT. Yes, okay. And what is the status of your access to 

that information now? 

Mr. SCHANZ. We have to litigate for that, and—— 

Mr. WATT. So you are saying you don’t have that access to individualized records now under existing law. 

Mr. SCHANZ. That is correct. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. 

131 

Mr. SCHANZ. We have to litigate for that. 

Mr. WATT. So you are saying we need to amend existing law to 

try to tweak that in such a way that you can serve your purposes. 

Mr. SCHANZ. If I was to have the full powers of a presidentially 

appointed inspector general, yes. I would have those powers. 

Mr. WATT. All right. I am just trying to make sure I understand 

what we are trying to accomplish here, and—Mr. Boehm, Ms. 

Diller said—and I obviously agree—that it is a lot more efficient to 

litigate cases that have a class impact rather than doing it one by 

one by one, to do it as a class action. 

If we can put aside for the moment the categories of things that 

you would not want Legal Services to be involved in on a class action basis, would you agree with that general basic proposition? 

Mr. BOEHM. Yes, I would. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. So if we could find some satisfactory way of delineating the—those kinds of cases, would you have some particular problem with Legal Services having the ability to do class 

action cases in some limited number of cases? 

Mr. BOEHM. If you could come up, I think, with a screen or a set 

of criteria that would address the thing that I think most of the 

critics, especially in Congress are concerned about—that is, redirecting the focus toward good legal services—traditional legal 

services—— 

Mr. WATT. All right. I—— 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. That is the criteria. 

Mr. WATT. Yes. So but you agree that it would be more efficient 

to do some categories of things through class action litigation than 

to individual by individual—I mean, the two things that I think 

of—I think it was Legal Services in North Carolina that actually 

stopped the kind of individual by individual setting of tenants out 

on the street. 

But it was a class action lawsuit, as I recall, that said landlords 

in general have to go through a process before they can set tenants 

out on the street. 

And I think it was actually a class action lawsuit in North Carolina that resulted in substantial benefit to disabled veterans and 

people with disabilities under—to be able to be eligible for Social 

Security benefits. 

Those kinds of things that are not controversial in a philosophical sense you wouldn’t—you wouldn’t have any problem with. 

Mr. BOEHM. I think I would go beyond that, and I would say if 

those were the types of cases that Legal Services stuck to, there 

wouldn’t be a controversy. The unfortunate history was—— 

Mr. WATT. Well, I am not dwelling on how we got here. You 

know, I heard a lot of discussion on how we got here. I am trying 

to—I am trying to pick up here and move us beyond where we are 

and get us back to some kind of rational set of rules going forward. 

You know, it is just—it is hard for me to get in—involved in a 

discussion about whether Legal Services is to the right of or left 

of the ACLU and all of that stuff. That is history. I am trying to 

figure out how we can move forward in a very constructive way. 

So my time has expired, and I will—I will hopefully segue to 

some more rational discussion with my colleagues down the way 

here. I will yield back. 

132 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Watt. I appreciate it. 

And now with the burden of having more rational discussion is 

the Chairman of the Constitutional—the Committee on—on Antitrust, Mr. Johnson from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And a little rationality here in the face of a lot of intellectual 

gymnastics that we have been playing this morning—poor people, 

people without the means to participate in our justice system, without any assistance whatsoever from either government or from the 

private charitable interests that exist is indeed unsettling to me. 

And I am not one of those who grew up in a gilded setting as 

a child—you know, nannies, trips to Europe on vacation, spending 

weekends at the vacation home down on the ocean, you know, participating in horse riding activities, polo and all of the other—— 

Mr. COHEN. Cotillion? Were you in cotillion? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was not even in the cotillion. 

Mr. COHEN. Oh, my God. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not in the Jack and Jill or any of those organizations. And that was so unfortunate. 

Mr. COHEN. The Chairman is coming to tears. Please. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have been so deprived, and—of the finer things 

in life, and—but I did get a chance to meet a couple of poor people 

during my matriculation through school. 

I knew some who didn’t smell the best—we used to make fun of 

them—some who did not wear the finest clothes, and some who, 

you know, just were good people, but they were doing their best but 

their circumstances were limited. 

And I have always been for the underdog. I have always been for 

the people who don’t have the power. That is my prejudice. That 

is where I am coming from. My views are prejudiced. And so when we talk about waste and fraud and abuse in a $420 

million budget item, Legal Services Corporation funding—and right 

after I come from an Armed Services Committee hearing where at 

some points the armed services has to declare a period of time for 

vehicles to be turned in, Humvees, tanks, all kinds of vehicles, to 

be turned into—or back into the military’s accounting system, if 

you will, or inventory system, after they have been lost track of, 

billions of dollars, and inspector general’s not able to eke out a savings for the taxpayers in five, $600-billion-a-year budgets, and then 

I come over here and I hear from folks who want to say that—or 

imply that a $420 million program is riddled with fraud and waste 

and abuse. 

It pains me. It makes me angry, especially knowing that there 

has been a onslaught, an assault, against the Legal Services Corporation and against the movement to help poor people be a part 

of this system of equal justice for all, especially when I know that 

since 1980 we have been getting government off the backs of the 

people. 

After we had a campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi 

where only 13, 14 years prior three—Viola Liuzzo from Detroit had 

been murdered, Turner—I mean—— 

Mr. COHEN. Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. Liuzzo made 

a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think—— 

133 

Mr. COHEN. Liuzzo was an Alabama victim. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Less than 13, 14 years later we have an announcement for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi where those killings 

took place. And then we have been opposed to any efforts to help 

people, to help poor people. 

I am just astounded by, you know, what I have heard here today, 

the heartlessness that is on display when folks have not even met 

a poor person, don’t have any feeling for them one way or the 

other—mostly, though, despise them and wish that they could be 

avoided. 

And so those are my impressions of our political climate. It is not 

about making sure that it is—government monies are used effectively. It is about depriving people of their right to legal services 

that they cannot afford so that business can go on as usual, so that 

we can—we can continue to use our voting laws in a way so as to 

deprive people of their right to vote. And our history of doing that 

in this country is well documented. 

And we don’t want people to be able to be able to address those 

concerns through government money to LSC. We don’t want government funds to be used to file class action lawsuits against entities like the old Fleet Finance that was found to have engaged in 

predatory lending back in the 1990’s. 

If we had been able to file class action lawsuits, legal aid, against 

banks that participated in predatory lending during the early years 

of this century and the late years of the previous decade, we could 

have avoided a $700 billion taxpayer bailout. 

And so if we had been able to claim attorneys’ fees for engaging 

in that litigation, then we could have had money that would replenish the operation—the operating budget of LSC at no cost to 

the taxpayers. 

And my last comment, Mr. Chairman, is this. Here I see a letter 

from the Chamber of Commerce opposing H.R. 3764 which Mr. 

Scott has offered and which is a very important piece of legislation. 

Chamber of Commerce, opposed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your statement. 

And now Mr. Scott, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Law and the sponsor of this legislation and distinguished 

champion of justice, is recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Levi, somebody made a comment—I think it was Mr. 

Boehm—that the receipt of these funds would not be categorized as 

Federal funds for the purpose of the antifraud statutes. Did you 

want to respond to that? 

Mr. LEVI. I am sorry. I am not familiar with that question. I am 

sorry. I didn’t hear that. 

Mr. SCHANZ. Mr. Scott, that would have been me. I do want to 

correct for the record that also. As the current law exists in 1996, 

the 1996 law, we do have access to client names and records 

through Section 509(h). We want to see that maintained in your 

piece of legislation. 

The one thing as an inspector general that we have to be very 

wary of is that we trace the Federal dollars. The former chairman 

of the board of the LSC said, you know, find where the money goes. 

134 

And it is part of the I.G.—that is, part of my statutory responsibility—to find out where the Federal dollars—that they continue to 

maintain their identity. 

And that is why there has been a distinction between LSC-funded programs and restrictions inherent in that, and non-LSC funds 

have been in the past subject to the same restrictions as the federally funded LSC monies. 

Mr. SCOTT. So that if you receive Federal funds and essentially 

steal it, it is not—it is a Federal offense? I am trying to understand 

what—I can’t imagine Mr. Levi has a problem with someone being 

charged with a Federal offense for abusing Federal funds. 

Mr. LEVI. No, not at all. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so we will—well, we will follow through with 

that. 

You mentioned, Mr. Schanz, the access to client names. This isn’t 

the only agency that involves state bar regulations on ethics and 

confidentiality. How do other agencies deal with maintaining confidentiality and ethical—and avoid ethical violations and still allow 

oversight and accountability? How do other agencies deal with 

that? 

Mr. SCHANZ. Well, my most recent example would be my 30-plus 

years in the U.S. Department of Justice where we were, as an I.G., 

able to obtain confidential informants’ names to determine whether 

the funds were being protected properly or whether they were 

being sold back on the street. 

So we were able to, as an inspector general—in that situation we 

had top-secret clearances, and in some cases M clearances, to make 

sure that nothing ever came out of the I.G.’s office that would in— 

that would put into danger any confidential informant or any drug 

buys—— 

Mr. SCOTT. That is confidential informant. I am talking about 

normal legal representation. Do you have access to client files in 

other agencies? 

Mr. SCHANZ. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And—— 

Mr. SCHANZ. Ones that I am aware of, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. If we could see what you have done in 

other agencies, that would help us deal with the problem we have 

got with the legal aid programs. 

Mr. SCHANZ. I will get back to you on that very shortly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, Ms. Diller, you mentioned the drug-related evictions. If someone can prove—if a defendant can prove his innocence, what happens in the meanwhile to the relatives that live in 

that household? 

Ms. DILLER. Well, they may well have been evicted during that 

time, because as the law stands right now, just the mere charge 

of some sort of drug-related crime is enough to disqualify you from 

eligibility. So when you have—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, when—— 

Ms. DILLER [continuing]. A whole family—— 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. When you say—when you say ‘‘you,’’ you 

mean the whole family? 

135 

Ms. DILLER. Well, that client who may have family members, 

may have children living with them—they are not eligible for representation at that point. 

Mr. SCOTT. And they can be evicted. Do they have any recourse? 

Ms. DILLER. At that point there is nothing you can do. And so 

that is why this language would be a big improvement to address 

that problem. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you are not allowing class actions, how would 

you—Ms. Diller, how would you deal with systematic ripoffs, systematic abuses like failure to comply with Fair Labor Standards 

Act, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to withhold Social Security? How would you deal with that if you can’t use a class action? 

Ms. DILLER. Well, you simply can’t deal with it in the most effective way. What you can do is you can represent one client at a 

time, which is the most labor-intensive and inefficient way to go 

about dealing with those problems. 

You can’t really mount an effective deterrence to those who are 

implementing these schemes on low-income communities. And you 

can’t get broad widespread relief. So you can represent an individual client, but then you have got to keep doing that over and 

over and over again, and you don’t reach as many people. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

I now recognize—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record a letter from numerous organizations in support of the legislation? 

Mr. COHEN. That can be done, and I believe Mr. Franks wants 

to enter into the record a letter from an organization that is 

against the legislation, and that will be granted without objection 

as well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

136 


3-1.eps
137 


3-2.eps
138 

Mr. FRANKS. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have three, the letter 

from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to you and to me, and the letter from Senator Grassley and Mr. Issa and myself to LSC Inspector General Jeff Schanz, and then the October 15th letter from LSC 

I.G. Jeff Schanz to you and to me. 

Mr. COHEN. Anything personal in those letters to me? I 

didn’t—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, I just think you should read them. 


3-3.eps
139 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Thank you. Without objection, they will 

be entered into the record, all of them. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


4A.eps
140 


4B-1.eps
141 


4B-2.eps
142 


4B-3.eps
143 


4C-1.eps
144 


4C-2.eps
145 


4C-3.eps
146 

Mr. COHEN. Ms. Chu, the distinguished lady from the state of 

California, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Diller, there have been many questions about the restrictions 

in the Civil Access to Justice Act and the effect of these restrictions 

on both Federal and non-Federal funds. Can you clarify how the restrictions in the bill will affect organizations that accept LSC funds 

and distinguish between the LSC funds or non-LSC funds? 

Ms. DILLER. Sure. So first of all, it is a very important distinction. What the bill would do primarily is lift restrictions on nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:00 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\042710\56179.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56179

4C-4.eps
147 

LSC funds, with some exceptions—notably, the exception related to 

abortion litigation. That would be prohibited with any funds. 

And then the bill would treat differently some of the prohibited 

categories of representation under the 1996 rider with Federal 

funds. So for example, class actions would be permitted to be 

brought with Federal funds. Certain types of administrative and 

legislative advocacy could be done. 

But there are some categories where Federal funds would not be 

allowed to be used, and those are prison conditions cases. Those 

are the cases that have been restricted under the original LSC act, 

that have been restricted for all these years. So there still are a 

number of restrictions in place both on Federal funds and this one 

restriction still on non-Federal funds. 

Ms. CHU. And it is important to distinguish the fact that certain 

funds would be allowed for non-LSC versus LSC funds. 

Ms. DILLER. Yes. I mean, it is completely out of line with the way 

the Federal Government treats grantees. LSC grants money to 

independent local nonprofit organizations. And as I said earlier, 

they receive funds from a variety of sources. Sixty percent of the 

funds come from non-LSC sources. 

And it is completely out of the ordinary for Congress to restrict 

how states spend their money, how local governments spend their 

money, how private donors spend their money. That is not the 

norm by any means. This is virtually the only program that operates under that kind of really overarching Federal restriction. 

Ms. CHU. My office was recently contacted by the Chamber of 

Commerce who argued that—they say this ‘‘Class action litigation 

is known for providing very little benefit to class members and 

great benefits to those attorneys involved in the litigation. Scarce 

taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund such an expansion of 

speculative, costly and unwise private litigation at any time, and 

especially not in today’s vulnerable economic climate.’’ 

Can you explain how LSC grantees will use class action lawsuits 

if these restrictions are lifted? And also, the chamber charges that 

attorneys involved with class action lawsuits for indigent clients 

will benefit monetarily from the litigation. Can you respond to all 

of this? 

Ms. DILLER. Yes. I mean, it is simply not true that attorneys will 

benefit monetarily from that litigation. These are not the type of 

class actions that we hear so much about, like securities class actions or product liability class actions, where an attorney gets a 

third of the proceeds of the class action. 

I mean, these are not that kind of class action. These are class 

actions usually for broad injunctive relief, usually to stop the kind 

of predatory practices that Mr. Scott mentioned and that we have 

talked about earlier today. These are not money-making things by 

any means. 

And these are Legal Services attorneys who work on, I should 

say, the lowest salaries in the profession to help low-income people. 

And so there is not a monetary incentive for them to bring these 

big class actions. 

What the language change would do is it would just allow them 

to help more people more efficiently. 

148 

Ms. CHU. In fact, what options are available to low-income families on the—on the foreclosure issue? I know you talked about that 

earlier in your testimony and the fact that these low-income persons are subject to lots of scams. What alternative is available to 

them without this class action ability? 

Ms. DILLER. Well, I should say that, first of all, the programs are 

representing individual families and individuals in foreclosure 

cases. They are overwhelmed with them. I believe former president 

Helaine Barnett at one point testified that they were having to 

turn away two for every case that they could take. 

But the problem that we have seen is that in a lot of places foreclosures were the product of predatory lending practices, and so 

there has not been an effective way to combat those practices without the class action mechanisms. Then there is the subsidiary issue 

of things—businesses cropping up, scams cropping up, that are 

preying on the very distress of the homeowners who are facing 

foreclosure. 

And again, Legal Services offices have not been able to effectively 

combat those because of the fact that when you handle an individual case, the defendant or the—you know, it may be a plaintiff 

depending on the case—but the entity that has perpetrated the 

scam can write off an individual case as merely the cost of doing 

business, whereas if you are able to get broader relief, able to get 

relief for the whole class of victims affected, you have a much more 

efficient and effective response to those kind of practices. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I see my time is up, and I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you so much. 

Before we adjourn and allow me to quelch my hunger, I do want 

to ask Ms. Diller or Mr. Boehm, is current law that if you are 

charged with the possession of a drug offense that you can’t get 

Legal Services representation? 

Mr. BOEHM. No. 

Mr. COHEN. Excuse me? 

Mr. BOEHM. No. 

Mr. COHEN. No. What is—— 

Mr. BOEHM. Current law, meaning the 1996 restrictions—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. Was sale or distribution—— 

Mr. COHEN. Okay. 

Mr. BOEHM [continuing]. Only, and it had another thing, which 

is public housing only. So those were the two key factors as to what 

was restricted. 

Mr. COHEN. Great. It is not as onerous as I thought. It is still 

onerous, but not onerous to the end. 

And I thank each of the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions—the witnesses, as you answer 

promptly as you can and be made part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of any other additional materials. 

Again, I thank everyone for their time and patience and participation and service. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. 

149 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(151) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

152 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JOHN G. LEVI, CHAIRMAN, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


5-1.eps
153 


5-2.eps
154 


5-3.eps
155 


5-4.eps
156 


5-5.eps
157 


5-6.eps
158 


5-7.eps
159 


5-8.eps
160 


5-9.eps
161 


5-10.eps
162 


5-11.eps
163 


5-12.eps
164 


5-13.eps
165 


5-14.eps
166 


5-15.eps
167 

f 


5-16.eps
168 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JEFFREY E. SCHANZ, 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


6-1.eps
169 


6-2.eps
170 


6-3.eps
171 


6-4.eps
172 


6-5.eps
173 


6-6.eps
174 


6-7.eps
175 


6-8.eps
176 


6-9.eps
177 


6-10.eps
178 


6-11.eps
179 


6-12.eps
180 


6-13.eps
181 


6-14.eps
182 


6-15.eps
183 


6-16.eps
184 


6-17.eps
185 


6-18.eps
186 


6-19.eps
187 


6-20.eps
188 


6-21.eps
189 


6-22.eps
190 


6-23.eps
191 


6-24.eps
192 


6-25.eps
193 


6-26.eps
194 


6-27.eps
195 


6-28.eps
196 


6-29.eps
197 


6-30.eps
198 


6-31.eps
199 


6-32.eps
200 

f 


6-33.eps
201 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM KENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER


7-1.eps
202 


7-2.eps
203 


7-3.eps
204 


7-4.eps
205 


7-5.eps
206 


7-6.eps
207 


7-7.eps
208 


7-8.eps
209 


7-9.eps
210 


7-10.eps
211 


7-11.eps
212 


7-12.eps
213 


7-13.eps
214 


7-14.eps
215 


7-15.eps
216 

f 


7-16.eps
217 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM REBEKAH DILLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

JUSTICE PROGRAM, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW


8-1.eps
218 


8-2.eps
219 


8-3.eps
220 


8-4.eps
221 


8-5.eps
222 


8-6.eps
223 


8-7.eps
224 


8-8.eps
225 


8-9.eps
226 


8-10.eps
227 


8-11.eps
228 


8-12.eps
229 


8-13.eps
230 


8-14.eps
231 


8-15.eps
232 


8-16.eps
233 


8-17.eps
234 


8-18.eps
235 


8-19.eps
236 

f 


8-20.eps
237 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA, MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW


9-1.eps
238 


9-2.eps
239 


9-3.eps
240 


9-4.eps
241 


9-5.eps
242 


9-6.eps
243 


9-7.eps
244 


9-8.eps
245 


9-9.eps
246 


9-10.eps
247 


9-11.eps
248 

f 


9-12.eps
249 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE COHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


10A-1.eps
250 


10A-2.eps
251 


10A-3.eps
252 


10B1-1.eps
253 


10B1-2.eps
254 


10B1-3.eps
255 


10B2-1.eps
256 


10B2-2.eps
257 


10C-1.eps
258 


10C-2.eps
259 


10C-3.eps
260 


10C-4.eps
261 


10D.eps
262 


10E-1.eps
263 


10E-2.eps
264 


10E-3.eps
265 


10E-4.eps
266 


10E-5.eps
267 


10E-6.eps
268 


10E-7.eps
269 


10E-8.eps
270 


10E-9.eps
271 


10E-10.eps
272 


10E-11.eps
273 


10E-12.eps
274 


10E-13.eps
275 


10E-14.eps
276 


10E-15.eps
277 


10E-16.eps
278 


10E-17.eps
279 


10E-18.eps
280 


10E-19.eps
281 


10E-20.eps
282 


10E-21.eps
283 


10E-22.eps
284 


10F.eps
285 


10G-1.eps
286 


10G-2.eps
287 


10G-3.eps
288 


10G-4.eps
289 


10G-5.eps
290 


10H-1.eps
291 


10H-2.eps
292 


10H-3.eps
293 


10I.eps
294 


10J-1.eps
295 


10J-2.eps
296 


10J-3.eps
297 


10J-4.eps
298 


10J-5.eps
299 


10J-6.eps
300 


10J-7.eps
301 


10J-8.eps
302 


10J-9.eps
303 


10J-10.eps
304 


10J-11.eps
305 


10J-12.eps
306 


10J-13.eps
307 


10J-14.eps
308 


10J-15.eps
309 


10J-16.eps
310 


10J-17.eps
311 


10J-18.eps
312 


10J-19.eps
313 


10J-20.eps
314 


10J-21.eps
315 


10J-22.eps
316 


10J-23.eps
317 


10J-24.eps
318 


10J-25.eps
319 


10J-26.eps
320 


10J-27.eps
321 


10J-28.eps
322 


10J-29.eps
323 


10J-30.eps
324 


10J-31.eps
325 


10J-32.eps
326 


10J-33.eps
327 


10J-34.eps
328 


10J-35.eps
329 


10J-36.eps
330 


10J-37.eps
331 


10J-38.eps
332 


10J-39.eps
333 


10J-40.eps
334 

f 


10J-41.eps
335 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY REBEKAH DILLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, JUSTICE PROGRAM, 

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW


11-1.eps
336 


11-2.eps
337 


11-3.eps
338 


11-4.eps
339 


11-5.eps
340 


11-6.eps
341 


11-7.eps
342 


11-8.eps
343 


11-9.eps
344 


11-10.eps
345 


11-11.eps
346 


11-12.eps
347 


11-13.eps
348 


11-14.eps
349 


11-15.eps
350 


11-16.eps
351 


11-17.eps
352 


11-18.eps
353 


11-19.eps
354 


11-20.eps
355 


11-21.eps
356 


11-22.eps
357 


11-23.eps
358 


11-24.eps
359 


11-25.eps
360 


11-26.eps
361 

Æ 


11-27.eps