Extensions of Remarks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
28040 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS October 17, 1983 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION It is our opinion, based upon a careful it is necessary for employment or for medi REGULATIONS SEEK TO SIDE review of the proposed regulations, that cal-related treatment. <Sec. 1611.4, 1611.5> TRACK SERVICES TO SENIORS their implementation would result in a 5. Counting assets of family members: By severe and unacceptable alteration or elimi requiring that the assets of all household nation of legal services to the poor elderly. members be counted under Section 1611.6, HON. MARIO BIAGGI Such action is directly contradictory to both the proposed rules provide a number of dis OF NEW YORK the spirit and intent of the 1977 amend incentives for family members to care for el IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ments to the Act which specifically state derly relatives at home if they also seek that priority for services shall be given to legal services. Monday, October 17, 1983 the elderly and the handicapped. In our es 6. Verification: The requirements set forth e Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to timation, if the proposed regulations are im in the proposed rules would impede legal bring to the attention of my col plemented, over one-half and as many as services by creating an excessive paperwork leagues an ongoing battle which has two-thirds of the elderly poor could be burden upon legal services attorneys. The eliminated from legal services. verification requirements that allow all cli been waged with the Legal Services In testimony before the Subcommittee on ents information to be made available to the Corporation proposed eligibility guide Human Services of the House Select Com Legal Services Corporation not only forces lines issued on August 29, 1983. These mittee on Aging on September 22, it was re attorneys to violate client confidentiality guidelines seek to restrict access to vealed that the proposed regulations depart codes , but also to divert staff time to deter legal services by imposing guidelines dramatically from existing eligibility re mining complex eligibility criteria. which, in my eyes, and in the eyes of quirements for the two major income sup In sum, we believe that if these regula many, directly violate not only the port programs for the elderly: Food Stamps tions were to become final---either in whole spirit, but the very intent of the Legal and Supplemental Security Income <SSI>. or in part-they would violate the spirit, if This inconsistency will have the effect of not the very intent of the Legal Services Services Corporation Act. eliminating the very same clients from the Corporation Act. Specifically, we feel that On September 22, the House Sub program that the program was created to these new eligibility requirements are in committee on Human Services of the serve. In addition, the new assets test will direct conflict with the specific mission of Select Committee on Aging, which I require local legal service providers to the Corporation under Sections 1002(3) and Chair, conducted a hearing to examine endure an excessive paperwork burden to 1007 <a><2><B> to provide services to "any the impact of the proposed regulations verify assets of potential clients. Such an person financially unable to afford legal as upon the elderly and the disabled. My administrative burden would only serve to sistance. We call upon you to withdraw the special interest in this issue stems divert critically-needed resources. August 29, 1983 regulations. There is no rea from my authorship, in the 1977 There are specific provisions within the sonable explanation why the Corporation, proposed regulations <Section 1611.6 maxi without a confirmed Board of Directors, amendments to the Legal Services mum allowable assets> which we feel would should undertake such a radical reversal of Corporation Act, for priority services seriously impact upon the elderly. These eligibility requirements at this time. We to the elderly and the disabled. The provisions include, but are not limited to: intend to assure that adequate funding is proposed regulations, in their original 1. Group Representation: The application provided to the Corporation to protect the form, would have diminished substan of an assets test to members of an organiza right of poor citizens of this Nation to equal tially, if not completely eliminated tion designed to protect groups of poor and justice under the law. access to legal services by the very frail elderly is a misapplication of law. We are also including, as part of our offi same people the act is charged to There are many organizations, such as cial comments on the proposed regulations, serve. those which represent institutionalized el testimony received by the Human Services derly, who are not composed of potential cli Subcommittee on this matter. We ask that The subcommittee received exten ents, but instead, represent those in institu you make this testimony part of our official sive testimony from not only the Cor tions that cannot speak for themselves. position. poration but from a number of organi Eliminating group access to legal services by Sincerely, zations which represent the elderly imposing an asset test upon the group does MARio BIAGGI, and the handicapped. By our own esti a direct disservice to the very people living Chainnan. mates, legal services would be denied in such homes that cannot represent them OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, to at least one-half if not two-thirds of selves. This provision reflects not only a Ranking Minority Member. the eligible elderly population had the misunderstanding of the role of such groups BARNEY FRANK, in protecting the elderly, but more impor Member of Congress. regulations been finalized in their tantly, is a direct attack upon the right of CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, original form. As a result of the hear the poorest of the poor elderly to be afford- Member of Congress. ing, I was joined by a number of my ed equal justice under the law. · LEs AuCoiN, colleagues, including the ranking Re 2. Home equity not to exceed $15,000: This Member of Congress. publican member of our subcommit provision ignores the fact that the majority STAN LUNDINE, Member of Congress. tee, 0LYMPIA SNOWE, in calling for the of the elderly who live in their own homes complete withdrawal of the proposed have also owned them for some time. The EDWARD RoYBAL, regulations. A copy of our comments most recent housing survey notes that 88% Member of Congress. to the Corporation on the proposed of all low-income homeowners own homes On September 28, Mr. Donald P. nationwide valued above $15,000, including Bogard, president of the Legal Serv regulations are included here for the 3,095,000 who are over 65. benefit of my colleagues. ices Corporation, sent the subcommit 3. IRA's and Keogh plans: Inclusion of tee the accompanying letter which in SELECT COJlDI[I'rl'EE ON AGING, income from such government-protected re SUBC011D4I'ITEE ON HUMAN SERVICES, tirement plans in determining eligibility dicates his intent to revise substantial Washington, D.C., September 28, 1983. contradicts all incentives provided to the el sections of the proposed rules. For the Mr. JOHN c. MEYER, derly to establish and contribute to such benefit of my colleagues, the letter fol Deputy General Counsel, Office of General plans. lows: Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 4. Maximum equity of $4,500 for one or LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Washington, D.C. more licensed vehicles: This provision over Washington, D.C., September 28, 1983. DEAR MR. MEYER: We are writing to pro looks the fact that many working, low Hon. MARio BIAGGI, vide you with our comments on the pro income seniors would be forced to choose House of Representatives, posed regulations addressing client eligibil between working and unemployment in Washington, D. C. ity published by the Legal Services Corpora order to obtain legal services. Furthermore, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you tion on August 29, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 39086). the SSI program totally excludes one car if for the time and attention you and your e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. October 17, 1983 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 28041 Committee devoted to the Legal Services consideration by the Corporation. that they do not have the resources to hire Corporation last week. After carefully con These issues-both addressed exten private attorneys. Our extensive experience sidering the suggestions you made, I have sively in our hearing, are the issue of with such advocacy organizations, which decided to accept your most important rec group representation and the public primarily exist to protect the legal rights of ommendations and am redrafting the pro poor elderly and institutionalized individ posed eligibility guidelines to include the benefits exemption. Current regula uals, conclusively demonstrates that these following provisions: tions allow for advocacy groups to groups are not composed of "rich members" 1. Local programs will establish the specif retain legal services attorneys on as the proposed regulations contend. ic guidelines for determining eligibility. behalf of individuals or groups which Rather, these groups are composed of con 2. Special consideration must be given to they represent. A perfect example of cerned citizens who recognize that those the needs of the elderly, institutionalized this are those groups which exist to who cannot help themselves, such as nurs and handicapped. protect the right of nursing home resi ing home residents, must retain access to 3. A client's equity in a home may be ex dents-who by definition are poor and legal service in order to protect the rights of cluded from the assets considered by the those who cannot help themselves.