Date: 1982-12-09
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. with reference to this amendment. I do not want to belabor this any great period of time. But some matters have been said here today that I think need to be answered. It was pointed out by one who is opposed to his amendment that there are many social security problems today that need the work of legal services people. I have before me an order of dismissal of a social security case filed by Paul Harkey. administrative law judge in Dallas. Tex. In the process of writing that order of dismissal he makes this comment. I am quoting from that order: With the proper exercise of Judicial reticence. the undersigned makes no comments regarding the quality of representation furnished the claimant In his Social Security claim by the employees of East Texas Legal Services. The undersigned has done his best to patiently educate tlhose employees and has remonstrated with the director covering these derelictions in duty by the service from what was expected by the Congress when it provided federal funds to finance such a fiasco as this. That order is signed March 27. 1980. I would like to point out also that in a case styled Simer against Olivares. which was filed in 1979. which was a class action suit filed by the Legal Services on behalf of eight eligible claimants against the Community Services Administration claiming the agencys failure to distribute fuel assistance funds. The original decision in the case resulted in an award of $18 million. Of this amount. $250 was distributed to each of the eight named defendants. with the remainder to be distributed to "public interest" groups. including $2.3 million to the National Consumer Law Center. The largest chunk of the money. $4 million. was granted to local groups to fund an antiutility energy advocacy. The legal aid officers. the lawyers. further built in a requirement that at least half of the funds for fighting energy companies must be used to hire legal aid lawyers also funded by the Legal Services Corporation. Listen to this: When Investigative research by a Colorndo professor turned up the collusive nature of the suit. the judge who handed down the decision reversed himself and vacated the original order. He noIed. and I am quoting: I believe the parties both by what they said and what they did not say. misled me. both as to the facts and the law. What the Legal Services attorneys with the cooperation of the defendant. the Community Services Administration. had done was to conclude a "sweetheart deal" on the distribution of energy assistance funds intended by Congress to benefit the true needy. The court set that judgment aside because of the practices practiced upon him. The city of Tenaha. Tex.. in a letter to me dated August 26. 1982: The city of Tenaha is experiencing hinderance in their daily operation as well as city growth from legal services being provided from this organization to one of our citizens. The citizens claims against the city have all been proven unfounded. And last. on October 21. 1982. there appear in a Gilmer. Tex.. paper. where two jail inmates had filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. claiming that "the jail was not sufficiently suitable to hold people." If you go back and look at the charter of Legal Services. it said that it is to be for the purposes of bringing suit for the poor. There is nothing in that charter. it cannot be found in that charter. where it says that class action suits should be brought. And from what we have in the order of Judge Harkey in Dallas. it is indicative of the fact that the type of representation that social security claimants are getting is not worth its salt.