(1) December 8, 2003 Statement of Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) regarding restrictions on use of private money in legal services programs. (2) Letter from nonprofits seeking end to legal services restrictions. (3) Letter from 16 members of Congress seeking end of restrictions. 1. Floor statement of Rep. Serrano (Portion relevant to legal services in bold.) 149 Cong.Rec. H12766-02 2003 WL 22889076 (Cong.Rec.) Congressional Record --- House of Representatives Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, First Session Monday, December 8, 2003 *H12766 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2673, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT,2004 Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the finish of this session of the 108th Congress, and I am sure most Members will be heartily glad to see it end. Today, we are considering an Omnibus bill making appropriations for departments and agencies that ought to be funded in seven separate appropriations bills, which have been held up by various obstacles, including insufficient allocations and controversial riders-or riders to stop controversial administration policies. On the matter that should be in a separate bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Federal Judiciary, and several important related agencies, we began with a bad budget allocation that has gotten worse and will be further reduced by across-the-board cuts, both within our division of the Omnibus and across the government. I must say that our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WOLF) is not to blame for the deficiencies in our portion of this bill. Throughout the process, he has been very fair and has sought to produce the best possible bill, given the limited resources his leadership gave him to work with. For that, I thank him very much.*H12839 I also cannot thank the staff enough for all their hard work, long hours, and time away from their families. Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Christine Ryan Kojac, and John Martens for the majority, as well as Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, this year's detailees, have worked closely with Rob Nabors and David Pomerantz of the Democratic staff and Lucy Hand, Nadine Berg, and Diaraf Thiouf of my staff and my Presidential Management Interns Pete Balfe and Erin McKevitt. However, the allocation is still too small, and I am seriously concerned about its impact on very important government functions in law enforcement, the judiciary, foreign affairs, and other areas. I am alarmed that the amounts we have worked out in conference with the Senate will be reduced by across-the- board cuts. We fought hard for adequate funding, for example, for the FBI and other law enforcement, but even those amounts face devastating cuts. Among the most worrisome deficiencies are the State and local law enforcement programs. Most of them are at barely acceptable levels, before the across-the-board cuts, but the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, funded at nearly $400 million last year, falls to $225 million this year, before the across-the-board cuts. Even relatively small programs had to be cut, such as the Police Integrity grants, which falls from nearly $17 million in fiscal year 2003 to $10 million. We are asking State and local governments to do more to protect our people, as the resources available to support this work decline. Another alarming problem is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which this year falls from over $106 million to just under $40 million, before the across-the-board cuts. This is a severe blow to a very important program, at a time when manufacturers need help. I can only hope that in fiscal year 2005 we can get back to a more appropriate level. One last agency I would like to mention is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) We had tried to stabilize LSC's funding this year, but across-the-board cuts will undercut that goal. Beyond that, there is growing concern that limits on the uses of private money donated to independent LSC grantees are hurting America's low-income families and imposing unwarranted government restrictions on the private sector. The administration does not tolerate such interference with the privately funded religious activities of its faith-based grantees. It-and we-would not tolerate such interference with privately funded secular activities also dedicated to helping families in need. I am hopeful that next year we can address these restrictions on privately donated funds. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the RECORD letters I have received on this issue. I am also alarmed by the process that got us to this point. The Republican leadership has imposed policies that are not supported by the majority of the American people, the Congress, or the conferees-in our subcommittee's division, the dead-of-night "compromise" on media ownership. The gun provisions are also different from what was agreed to by the conferees. Mr. Speaker, if we can find $87 billion for a war we didn't have to fight, we ought to be able to find the resources to support our domestic law enforcement agencies with the personnel and resources they need; the commercial, statistical, and environmental activities of our Commerce Department; our foreign policy establishment; and such crucial agencies as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Mr. Speaker, in the end, however most Members vote on the Omnibus Appropriations bill-and I recognize that many crucial programs would suffer under a long-term continuing resolution-I must emphasize that the resource allocation that has yielded Division B of the Omnibus, which funds the agencies in the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, is grossly inadequate and may prove damaging to the national interest. 2. Letter from Nonprofits November 20, 2003. Hon. FRANK R. WOLF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Hon. JOSE E. SERRANO, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN WOLF AND CONGRESSMAN SERRANO: We write to thank for your tremendous leadership on behalf of America's families by supporting increased funding for the Legal Services Corporation in the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill introduced in your Subcommittee. However, we also write to express our regret that for the past several years this bill has included a restriction that severely limits the manner in which independent civil legal aid programs funded by LSC can spend their own private, state and local funds. This "private money" restriction annually encumbers more than $300 million in non-federal money, and harms communities in two distinct ways. First, the restriction imposes costly government obstacles to private philanthropy. Second, the restriction closes the doors of justice to many low- income individuals and families unable to afford necessary legal representation in civil matters. The undersigned groups write to express our support for amending the LSC appropriation in order to end this governmental interference with non-federal funding for legal aid nonprofits. We urge you to continue your tremendous leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts to end this unfairness. In particular, we hope you will support removal of the private money restriction because the restriction improperly interferes with the right of private philanthropies and other non-federal donors-including state and local governments-to determine the purposes for which their charitable donations will be used. In addition, the restriction interferes with the right of non-federal donors to select those local institutions best equipped to carry out the purposes of their charitable donations. By removing the private money restriction, but keeping intact restrictions that control activities financed with federal LSC funds, Congress would properly place independent LSC recipients in the same position as nonprofit grantees of other federal entities which are permitted to use their non-federal funds free of unwarranted restrictions. This would bolster the mission of LSC as a model public-private partnership dedicated to supporting independent and accountable local programs that set their own priorities based on community need. Furthermore, Congress's removal of the LSC private money restriction may well encourage increased charitable donations to the more than 150 independent LSC recipients that serve the working poor, veterans, the elderly, victims of domestic violence, family farmers and people with disabilities in every county and Congressional District in the Nation. Thank you very much for your support and continued leadership on behalf of America's families. Sincerely, Brennen Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; International Union, UAW; National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Center for Law and Social Policy; National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW Local 2320; National Immigration Law Center; Open Society Policy Center; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Community Service Society of New York; National Council of La Raza; Council on Foundations Independent Sector; National Council of Nonprofit Associations; National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy; OMB Watch; Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest; Alliance for Justice; Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York. ---- 3. Letter from 16 Members of the House of Representatives COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC, September 23, 2003. Hon. JOSE SERRANO, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SERRANO. We greatly appreciate your efforts to secure additional funding for the Legal Services Corporation in the 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (CJS). You know as well as any of us the importance of providing affordable legal services to our country's most needy. We write today because, like you, we are increasingly concerned about an unfair and unnecessary provision in the CJS Appropriations bill that restricts the use of private and other non-federal funds by independent legal service providers funds in part by LSC. The "private money restriction" encumbers more than $300 million annually in non-federal funds-money that could be used to provide critical legal assistance to our society's most vulnerable individuals and families. The private money restriction burdens independent legal service providers with unwarranted costs; it impedes private charitable initiatives, and it undermines our Nation's promise of equal justice for all. It is our hope that the Committee on Appropriations will revisit the private money restriction when it considers the 2005 CJS Appropriations bill. We urge you to continue your leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts in your Subcommittee to end this unfairness. Sincerely, John Conyers Jr., Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Robert C. Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Maxine Waters, William D. Delahunt, Tammy Baldwin. Adam B. Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Melvin L. Watt, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Martin T. Meehan, Robert Wexler, Anthony D. Weiner, Linda T. Sanchez.