To provide, in a fiscally responsible manner, additional funding for United States attorneys to prosecute violent crimes in Indian country.

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have on this bill that is now before the
Senate--the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill--about eight
amendments that Democrats have pending or wish to offer, and we have 26
Republican amendments. Everyone should understand we are going to
finish this bill tomorrow. It does not matter what events are going on
around town, we are going to work and finish this bill. If it takes
until 8 o'clock tomorrow night, fine; there will be no windows. We are
going to work right through this. If people try to hold this up, we
will have a bunch of votes. We will have the Sergeant at Arms
instructed. We are going to move through this.
I am told we want to finish appropriations bills. This is our second
week on this bill. We are going to finish this bill tomorrow or
sometime early Wednesday morning. We are going to continue working on
this until it is completed or until we find there is such intransigence
by the Republicans that they do not want us to finish this bill. I hope
that is not the case.
We have had on our appropriations bills some decent cooperation from
the Republicans, for which I am appreciative, but we have other bills
we have to do. If we finish this legislation, we will still have seven
appropriations bills to do.
I am aware we have had to file cloture 49 different times this year
to defeat Republican filibusters or to turn them around, and if it is
necessary to file the 50th, we will do that. I think that would be a
shame to have to do that.
We have a finite number of amendments now, and we need to try to work
through them. What we could do, of course, here--there are more
Democrats than Republicans--we could move to table all the Republican
amendments. It would take a lot of time to do that. I hope we do not
have to do that. I hope we can work through these amendments and some
of them will be accepted and some will be voted upon.
I want to be as reasonable as possible, but I have the Nation's
business to be concerned about. We have to

[[Page S12854]]

work through this. We have been off work now doing other things in our
districts. We all worked hard. Now we are back to legislating. As part
of that legislation is this bill that is before the Senate now. We are
going to work on it and complete it. I was hopeful that with the 2:30
deadline we would come back with a reasonable number of amendments, but
that is not, in fact, the case.

We have on the Republican side a number of Senators who are offering
multiple amendments. I know they are important, and I understand that,
but I hope that we can, as I have said, work our way through these. We
will one way or the other work through these, because I do not want and
do not intend to file cloture. I intend to work until we finish this
bill.
I don't know how I can be more clear than that. We have to move after
this to another appropriations bill, one that is extremely important,
the Labor-HHS bill, an extremely important piece of legislation
involving so many different and important issues, as the Presiding
Officer, for example, is well aware.
It is my understanding the distinguished junior Senator from South
Dakota wishes to call up an amendment before I do the closing matters,
and I am happy to wait. I ask now to return to legislative business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. What is the matter before the Senate now, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Vitter amendment is the pending question.

Amendment No. 3317

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding to
give me an opportunity to offer this amendment. I call up amendment No.
3317 and ask unanimous consent that it be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an
amendment numbered 3317.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide, in a fiscally responsible manner, additional
funding for United States attorneys to prosecute violent crimes in
Indian country)

On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
Sec. 217. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the amount appropriated under the heading ``united
states attorneys salaries and expenses'' under the heading
``Legal Activities'' under this title is increased by
$20,000,000, which shall be used for the prosecution of
crimes described in section 1152 or 1153 of title 18, United
States Code.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
amount appropriated under the heading ``payment to the legal
services corporation'' under the heading ``Legal Services
Corporation'' under title IV is reduced by $20,000,000.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this appropriations bill, as all
appropriations bills, comes down to a matter of priorities. We have a
limited amount of resources and we have to figure out where to put
those limited resources to the most effective use for the taxpayers.
My amendment is very simple. It takes $20 million from an authorized
program that has problems with wasteful spending and it spends that $20
million instead to give Federal prosecutors badly needed additional
funding to fight violent crime in Indian country. Violent crime has
become a serious problem on reservations in South Dakota and elsewhere,
and I am determined to put an end to it. If our tribal communities are
to have a chance to be prosperous, they must first have strong public
safety.
A few weeks ago I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Dorgan to
provide more law enforcement presence in Indian country. I strongly
support this effort. The other part of the equation, though, is to
ensure that those who have been arrested for violent crimes are
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Because the Federal
Government has a trust responsibility to the tribes, the task for
prosecuting violent crimes in Indian country lies with our U.S.
attorneys. However, our U.S. attorneys often cannot prosecute crimes
because of a lack of resources. An article published last June in the
Wall Street Journal by Gary Fields about crime in Indian country
pointed out that Federal prosecutors often do not intervene in cases
involving serious crimes due to the long distances involved, lack of
resources, and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to Federal
court. The same article goes on to say that in the past two decades,
only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were
prosecuted, according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse
University. That compares with 56 percent for all other cases. I ask
unanimous consent that the June 12, 2007 Wall Street Journal article
headlined ``Tattered Justice on U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals
Slip Through Gaps'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. THUNE. I hasten to add that the U.S. attorney in South Dakota is
doing a fantastic job prosecuting violent crime and white-collar crime
on South Dakota's Indian reservations. However, I am certain he can put
more funding to good use in his office, as could every U.S. attorney
prosecuting violent crime in Indian country.
The rate of violent crime in Indian country is disproportionately
high. The Department of Justice reported that from 1992 to 2001, the
average rate of violent crime among American Indians was 2\1/2\ times
the national rate. According to one report in the Indian Country Today
newspaper, Native American women are 7 times more likely to be victims
of domestic violence than all other women are, and more than 60 percent
of Indian women will be victims of violent assault during their
lifetimes. According to the same report, nearly one-third of all Native
American women will be raped. This is unacceptable.
The FBI estimates that 40 to 50 percent of Indian country violent
crime is now methamphetamine related. In fact, we know that meth
traffickers and dealers target Indian country jurisdictions because
they believe they will not be prosecuted, even if they are apprehended.
According to Chris Chaney, the BIA Deputy Director of the Office of
Justice Services, meth distribution on tribal lands often occurs due to
the belief that it is easier to get away with such a crime in Indian
country. That is why we must dramatically ramp up prosecutions of
violent crime, of meth-related violent crime in Indian country.
I offer my amendment today to help provide more resources to U.S.
attorneys in Indian country to prosecute more crimes referred to them.
Specifically, my amendment would provide an additional $20 million to
U.S. attorneys that can only be spent to prosecute crimes under the
Major Crimes Act of 1885 and the Indian country Crimes Act of 1834. The
amount will be paid for by subtracting $20 million from the amount
appropriated under this bill to the Legal Services Corporation.
This bill provides $390 million to the Legal Services Corporation, a
program that has not been reauthorized since 1980. This is a 12-percent
increase over the amount appropriated to the LSC in fiscal year 2007,
and a 30-percent increase above the administration's recommendation.
This substantial increase comes at a time when the Legal Services
Corporation has faced serious questions about its management and
expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
In August, the GAO published a report entitled ``Legal Services
Corporation: Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be
Modernized and Strengthened.'' In the report, the GAO noted that a
dozen officers and employees of the Legal Services Corporation had
received compensation in excess of the statutory compensation
limitation. According to the GAO, an outside legal counsel issued an
opinion last May concluding that the Legal Services Corporation had not
complied with the statutory limitation on the rate of compensation. The
GAO agreed with that conclusion and went on to state that without a
properly designed and implemented process for overseeing

[[Page S12855]]

compensation, the Legal Services Corporation remains at risk of not
complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in imprudent
management practices.
The GAO also noted in the report that:

In recent years, LSC management has engaged in practices
that may have been prevented through effective implementation
of strong ethics policies.

These practices are reported by the LSC's inspector general. The
inspector general found that food costs at meetings exceeded per diem
allotments by 200 percent and that LSC used funds to pay travel
expenses for its president for business related to her positions with
outside organizations. The inspector general also found that LSC hired
acting special counsels from grant recipient organizations, causing
potential conflicts of interest, and could not complete an
investigation into this practice because of the failure to provide
documentation required by Federal law and LSC grant agreements. The GAO
concluded that:

Without the presence of a strong ethics committee providing
effective oversight in the development, implementation,
updating, and training for the code of ethics, the LSC is at
increased risk of fraud or other ethical misconduct.

I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the LSC Office
of Inspector General ``Report on Certain Fiscal Practices at the Legal
Services Corporation,'' dated September 25, 2006 be printed in the
Record at the end of my remarks. Also, I commend to my colleagues a GAO
report entitled ``Legal Services Corporation Governance and
Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and Strengthened,''
dated August of 2007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I do not believe an organization that has
received such stinging criticism from the GAO about management
practices and its handling of taxpayer dollars should be receiving such
a substantial increase in funding that is reflected in the underlying
bill. My amendment simply reduces a $40 million increase to a $20
million increase for the Legal Services Corporation for fiscal year
2008. That is, the Legal Services Corporation would still receive an
increase under my amendment, just not nearly as substantial as
originally reflected in the underlying bill.
As I said earlier, we must begin to choose priorities. Should we
provide more badly needed funding to fight violent crime in Indian
country or should we reward an organization that is engaged in wasteful
spending of taxpayer dollars by providing a massive increase over the
President's recommendation of $300 million, and a massive increase even
compared to the amount of funding it received in the last fiscal year
of $348 million?
I urge the Senate to join me in voting for more funding to help
reduce violent crime in Indian country and to address what is a very
desperate need across Indian reservations in South Dakota, and to do it
in a way that is consistent, I believe, with what the priorities in
this underlying bill ought to be, by paying for it with a $20 million
increase, actually, that is going to be allocated this year to the
Legal Services Corporation. In my judgment, in my view, that makes
sense. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, and my amendment
would take us down that road, coupled with the agreement that was
earlier reached on the Dorgan amendment, to provide more of a law
enforcement presence on Indian reservations. So I hope we can
accomplish both of those objectives through the appropriations process
this year, and it starts right here with adopting this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to do that. I again thank the distinguished
majority leader for his patience in yielding me time to speak to this
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2007]

On U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals Slip Through Gaps

(By Gary Fields)

Cherokee, N.C.--Jon Nathaniel Crowe, an American Indian,
had a long-documented history of fighting with police
officers and assaulting women. But the tribal court for the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee, under whose jurisdiction he
lives, couldn't sentence him to more than one year for any
charge. Not when he left telephone messages threatening to
kill an ex-girlfriend, not when he poured kerosene into his
wife's mouth, not when he hit her with an ax handle.
``We put him away twice for a year, that's all we could
do,'' says James Kilbourne, prosecutor for the tribe. ``Then
he got out and committed the same crime again.''
Indian tribes are officially sovereign nations within the
U.S., responsible for running services such as schools and
courts. But a tangle of federal laws and judicial precedents
has undermined much of their legal authority. As a result,
seeking justice on Indian reservations is an uneven affair.
Tribes operate their own court systems, with their own
judges and prosecutors. Sharply limited in their sentencing
powers, they are permitted to mete out maximum jail time of
only 12 months for any crime, no matter how severe. The law
also forbids tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians, even
those living on tribal land.
Federal prosecutors can intervene in serious cases, but
often don't, citing the long distances involved, lack of
resources and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to
federal court. In the past two decades, only 30% of tribal-
land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted,
according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse
University. That compares with 56% for all other cases. The
result: Many criminals go unpunished, or minimally so. And
their victims remain largely invisible to the court system.
The justice gap is particularly acute in domestic-violence
cases. American Indians annually experience seven sexual
assaults per 1,000 residents, compared with three per
1,000 among African-Americans and two per 1,000 among
whites, says the Justice Department. The acts are often
committed by non-Indians living on tribal land whom tribal
officials cannot touch. Local prosecutors say members of
Indian communities have such low expectations about
securing a prosecution that they often don't bother filing
a report.
``Where else do you ask: How bad is the crime, what color
are the victims and what color are the defendants?'' asks Mr.
Kilbourne, who has prosecuted cases on Cherokee lands since
2001. ``We would not allow this anywhere else except Indian
country.''
The lack of prosecutorial discretion is one of many ways in
which Indian justice has been split off from mainstream
American due process. For example, some defendants appearing
before Indian courts lack legal counsel, because federal law
doesn't require tribes to provide them with a public
defender. Although some tribes have them, others can't afford
to offer their members legal assistance. It's not unusual for
defendants to represent themselves.
The Indian Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1968,
limited to six months the sentences tribes could hand down on
any charge. At the time, tribal courts were seeing only minor
infractions. Congress increased the maximum prison sentence
to one-year in 1986, wrongly assuming that the Indian courts
would continue to handle only misdemeanor-level crimes.
Tribal offenses, meanwhile, escalated in both number and
severity, with rape, murder and kidnapping among the cases.
The Supreme Court weighed in on another level, with its
1978 Oliphant decision ruling that tribes couldn't try non-
Indian defendants in tribal courts--even if they had
committed a crime against a tribe member on the tribe's land.
In its ruling, the court held that it was assumed from the
earliest treaties that the tribes did not have jurisdiction
over non-Indians.
``If you go to Canada and rob someone, you will be tried by
Canadian authorities. That's sovereignty,'' says University
of Michigan law professor and tribal criminal-justice expert
Gavin Clarkson. ``My position is that tribes should have
criminal jurisdiction over anybody who commits a crime in
their territory. The Supreme Court screwed it all up and
Congress has never fixed it.''
Jeff Davis, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan who
handles tribal-land cases, acknowledges that his hands are
often tied. Mr. Davis is also a member of North Dakota's
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. ``I've been in the U.S.
Attorney's office for 12 years, and both presidents I have
served under have made violent crime in Indian country a
priority. But because of the jurisdictional issue and
questions over who has authority and who gets to prosecute,
it is a difficult situation.''
Often cases don't rise to the level of felony Federal
crimes unless the victim has suffered a severe injury.
Federal prosecutors have limited resources and focus almost
exclusively on the most serious cases. Compounding that is
the fact that domestic-abuse cases are difficult to prove,
especially if the lone witness recants.
``It requires stitches, almost a dead body,'' says Mr.
Davis. ``It is a high standard to meet.''
For some non-Indians, tribal lands are virtual havens.
Chane Coomes, a 43-year-old white man, grew up on the Pine
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota--home to the Oglala Lakota,
near the site of the infamous 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee.
Marked by a small obelisk, the mass grave is a symbol of
unpunished violence, literally buried in the soil of the
tribe. The 2000 census documented Shannon County, which
encompasses the remote and desolate reservation, as the
second-poorest county in the U.S., with an annual per-
capita income of $6,286 at the time. Only Buffalo County,
SD, was poorer.

[[Page S12856]]

According to local authorities, Mr. Coomes used his home on
the reservation as a sanctuary, knowing he would be free from
the attentions of tribal prosecutors.
Tribal Police Chief James Twiss says Mr. Coomes was
suspected of dealing in small amounts of methamphetamine for
years. Tribal police also thought he might be trafficking in
stolen goods.
In 1998, Mr. Coomes assaulted a tribal elder, Woodrow
Respects Nothing, a 74-year-old decorated World War II and
Korean War veteran. Because it couldn't prosecute, the tribe
ordered Mr. Coomes off its land. But attempts to remove him
were unenforceable.
``All I could do was to escort him off the reservation,''
says tribal police officer Eugenio White Hawk, who did that
several times, the last when he spotted the banned man
hauling horses in a trailer. ``He kept coming back. After a
while I just left him alone and let it go. It was just a
waste of time.''
Mr. Coomes remained in his Shannon County home until 2006
when he was accused of beating his estranged wife in nearby
Nebraska and threatening to kill her, according to Dawes
County District Attorney Vance Haug. The crime was committed
off the reservation, and the subsequent investigation gave
state authorities official jurisdiction.
After raiding his home, they found stolen equipment as well
as 30 grams of methamphetamine and $13,000 hidden in the
bathroom, along with syringes.
Mr. Coomes is now in the Fall River County Jail charged
with possession of stolen property, grand theft and
unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. He also
faces separate charges, of assault and ``terroristic
threats'' related to his wife, in Dawes County, NE. If
convicted on the latter charges, he faces up to six years in
prison, Mr. Haug said. Mr. Coomes's attorney declined to
comment.
The jurisdictional quagmire also has implications for
Indian members on the other side of the tribal border. Gene
New Holy, an ambulance driver on Pine Ridge, had been
arrested by the tribe more than a dozen times for various
drunk-driving offenses, for which he received only two
convictions totaling about a month in a tribal jail. In state
court, four convictions would have led to a maximum sentence
of five years.
Lance Russell, the state prosecutor for Shannon County and
neighboring Fall River County, had never heard of Mr. New
Holy until Feb. 11, 2001, when Mr. New Holy got drunk at a
Fall River County bar. According to court documents, he
nearly hit one car on a main highway, forced two others into
a ditch and sideswiped a third that had pulled off the road
as Mr. New Holy approached it in the wrong lane.
The last car he hit contained three tribe members--cousins
Bart Mardinian, Anthony Mousseau and Russell Merrival--all of
whom died. The accident was less than a mile off the
reservation, enough to give Mr. Russell and the state
jurisdiction in the case. Mr. New Holy is serving 45 years in
state prison for three counts of vehicular homicide--much
longer than the 12 months per count he would have served
under tribal law. His attorney didn't return a call
seeking comment.
``The holes in the system are more practical than legal,
and the victims of crime pay the price,'' says Larry Long
III, the South Dakota attorney general. ``The crooks and the
knotheads win.''
The Eastern Band of Cherokee, located in the Smoky
Mountains of North Carolina, is one of the most efficiently
run tribes in the country. Its ancestors hid in these
mountains while Cherokee east of the Mississippi River were
forcibly moved to present-day Oklahoma, a migration known as
the ``Trail of Tears.'' Today the tribe is spread across five
counties and is economically well off: It takes in more than
$200 million annually from the Harrah's Cherokee Casino &
Hotel, which it owns, and has a robust tourist industry.
About half of the tribe's gambling spoils go to pay for
infrastructure and government services.
Its court, which is housed in a prefabricated building,
looks like any other in the U.S., except the judges wear
bright, red robes. The offices, while cramped, are modern and
computerized, and are a little over one hour's drive from the
federal prosecutor's office in Asheville. Tribal authorities
meet regularly with federal prosecutors for training. The
tribe's top jurist is a former federal prosecutor who has
regular contact with his successors.
Yet even here, the justice system works erratically. In
2005, tribal police received a tip that James Hornbuckle, 46,
an Oklahoma Cherokee who had moved to the reservation, was
dealing marijuana. Officers built a case for weeks. They
raided the business and then Mr. Hornbuckle's home, where
they found 10 kilograms of marijuana, packaged in small
bricks. By tribe standards, it was a big haul, and
authorities approached the U.S. Attorney's office.
Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western District
of North Carolina, says federal sentencing guidelines for
marijuana are so lenient, that ``we'd need 50 kilograms in a
typical federal case'' to pursue it. The feds rejected the
case.
If the state court had jurisdiction to prosecute the crime,
Mr. Hornbuckle might have received a three-year term.
Instead, he pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was
sentenced to one year in tribal court. Recently the tribal
council voted to permanently ban him from the reservation,
with backing from the feds. Messages left for Mr.
Hornbuckle's attorney weren't returned.
Mr. Crowe's name is all too familiar on the reservation.
Tribal Police Chief Benjamin Reed has known him since he was
a juvenile. ``What I remember is his domestic-violence
incidents. He just wouldn't stop,'' Mr. Reed says.
Crystal Hicks, who dated Mr. Crowe before his marriage,
says the tribal member was verbally abusive. She says she
left him after she had a miscarriage, when he berated her for
not giving him a ride to a motorcycle gathering. ``He said I
was using the miscarriage as an excuse,'' says Ms. Hicks, 27
years old.
After that, in several telephone messages saved by Ms.
Hicks and her family, Mr. Crowe threatened to kill them and
bury Ms. Hicks in her backyard. He was jailed by the tribe
and ordered to stay away from the Hicks family.
``One year,'' says Ms. Hicks. ``He even told me he was fine
in jail. He got fed three times a day, had a place to sleep
and he wasn't going to be there long.''
After he married, the violence escalated, says Police Chief
Reed. During one incident he drove to the home Mr. Crowe
shared with his wife, Vicki. ``He had threatened her, and dug
a grave, and said no one would ever find her. We believed
him,'' Mr. Reed said. ``Just look at some of the stuff he'd
done. That girl was constantly coming down here, her face
swollen up.'' At one point, he choked his wife, poured
kerosene into her mouth and threatened to light it, police
reports say. Mr. Crowe's attorney didn't return calls seeking
comment.
None of these acts led to more than one year in jail, a
sentence he has been given twice since 2001. His criminal
file at the tribal court building fills a dozen manila
folders. There are reports of trespassing and assault
convictions, telephone harassment, threats and weapons
assaults--one for an incident when he hit his wife with an ax
handle, breaking her wrist. His latest arrest, in September,
came about a week after he finished his most recent sentence,
when he came home and beat his now-estranged wife--again.
After seven years, his crimes finally triggered federal
involvement, although almost by accident. Federal prosecutors
from around the country met at Cherokee earlier this year to
discuss crime on tribal land. One federal official mentioned
to Mr. Kilbourne, the tribal prosecutor, a new statute that
allows federal intervention where defendants have at least
two domestic-violence convictions, regardless of the crime's
seriousness.
Mr. Kilbourne, who was preparing for a new trial against
Mr. Crowe the following week, quickly turned the case over.
Mr. Crowe pleaded guilty to assault last Friday and is
awaiting sentencing.
____

Exhibit 2

[From the Office of Inspector General, Sept. 25, 2006]

Report on Certain Fiscal Practices at the Legal Services Corporation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to a Congressional request, the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) initiated a review of allegations
concerning fiscal practices, conflicts of interest, and
general mismanagement at the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC). This report presents our findings with respect to
certain LSC fiscal practices, including allegations of fiscal
abuse and wasteful spending. Other matters identified for
review will be addressed in subsequent reports.
With respect to many of the allegations, our review found
spending practices that may appear excessive and
inappropriate to LSC's status as a federally-funded non-
profit corporation, particularly in light of its mission in
distributing taxpayer dollars to fund legal services for the
poor. We also found a number of transactions which did not
follow LSC's own policies and a number which would be
impermissible under the rules governing federal agency
spending. While generally those rules are not directly
applicable to LSC, they provide a familiar reference point
for Congressional overseers and the public. Our principal
findings and recommendations are summarized below:
We found the cost of food at Board of Directors meetings
appeared excessive in some instances and should be reduced.
In nine of the eleven Board meetings that we were able to
examine, we found that the total cost of food was equivalent
to more than 200 percent of the applicable per diem food
allowance.
We found lunch costs at the January 2006 Board meeting to
be more than $70 per person, afternoon snack breaks costing
as much as $27 per person, and a total hotel food cost
(breakfast, lunch, and snacks) of $8,726 for the entire two-
day meeting. We also found the contracting process for Board
meetings was not in compliance with LSC's own policies. LSC
did not generally follow its competitive contracting
practices in selecting a hotel venue for Board meetings or
properly document the selection process or the justification
for the selection. Finally, we found LSC could save thousands
of dollars by holding its local, Washington, D.C., board
meetings at its headquarters rather than at a hotel.
We found that the LSC Chairman's authorization to allow the
LSC president to travel to or from any of her homes in
connection with official travel was contrary to the terms of
the General Services Administration (GSA) travel contract and
LSC's obligations as a mandatory user thereunder. We

[[Page S12857]]

also found that the LSC president's use of a foreign air
carrier violated GSA's regulations implementing the Fly
America Act, which LSC is contractually bound to follow.
Further, we question the use of LSC funds to pay expenses
associated with the LSC president's continued service in
various capacities with outside organizations with which she
was involved prior to her selection as LSC president.
We found that LSC officials traveled first or business
class in three instances. In one instance in 2005, the LSC
Chairman traveled first class round trip from Atlanta,
Georgia, to Washington, D.C. The first class ticket was less
than a government ticket on the same flights. In a second
instance in 2005, the LSC president traveled one-way first
class to an international legal aid conference in Ireland at
an additional cost to LSC. Instead of using the government
fare initially booked, the president was ticketed full fare
coach, allowing her to secure an immediate first class
upgrade as a frequent flyer member, which would not be
available immediately with a government ticket. Finally, an
LSC vice president traveled business class round trip to
Melbourne, Australia, to attend the 2001 International Legal
Aid Conference. As the trip was well in excess of 14 hours,
it appears that business class would have been authorized for
this trip under the Federal Travel Regulation.
We estimate that LSC spent over $100,000 on coffee, holiday
parties and picnics, working lunches, and business
entertainment, going back as far as August 2000. These
expenditures did not violate LSC policy. While LSC is
generally not subject to Federal spending practices, these
expenditures would be impermissible under those practices and
we question whether many of them were reasonable and
necessary, and whether they were appropriate for LSC.
We found LSC has spent over $1 million in the past 10 years
in settlement agreements with departing employees.
We concluded that some of the allegations were unfounded,
or could not be substantiated. Specifically:
We found no evidence of excessive or undisclosed bonuses or
of other confidential or indirect payments by LSC to the LSC
president. We found no evidence of any ``secret deal''
between the LSC president and the LSC Board of Directors.
We did find, however, that the LSC president has been
receiving a ``Locality Pay'' supplement at a rate that is 1
percent of salary greater than that received by any other LSC
employee, all of whom work in Washington, D.C. (The Inspector
General also received locality pay with a 1 percent
differential for the first four months of his employment.
This ended December 2004.) We questioned the propriety of
such a payment. Locality pay rates by their nature are
geographically based; under the Federal system there would be
no variation for an individual payee within a given area.
We did not find unreasonable LSC's justification for
holding a board meeting in Puerto Rico. LSC stated that it
was appropriate to visit the largest LSC grantee and meet
with various judicial officials and members of the bar who
are involved in promoting the delivery of legal services to
low-income individuals in Puerto Rico.
We did not find widespread first-class travel and found
only one instance of questionable first-class travel.
We did not find LSC spending practices violated any laws.
However, we did find that LSC is not adhering to its
contractual obligations under the GSA City Pair Contract, as
well as instances where it is not following its own controls
and procedures regarding spending, contracting, and travel.
Our overall recommendations to the LSC Board and LSC
management include the following:
Undertake a comprehensive review to bring LSC's spending
policies and practices, particularly in the areas of travel,
meals, meetings, and entertainment, in line with those
applicable to Federal agencies, and require that the board
review and approve any deviation from Federal practice.
Review the overall cost of LSC board meetings to determine
whether there are ways to reduce costs. Also, require that
LSC's competitive requirements are followed in contracting
for board meeting locations.
Provide training and education for LSC staff to ensure that
all LSC policies are followed, particularly in the areas of
contracting and the Federal Travel Regulation related to the
GSA City Pair Contract.
Review LSC employment policies and practices to determine
if there are opportunities to reduce its potential liability,
and review its settlement policies and practices to determine
whether costs can be reduced and whether they are in the best
interest of the corporation and appropriate expenditures of
public funds.
LSC Response: The LSC Board and management responded
positively to a draft copy of this report. They have agreed
to implement substantially all of the report's
recommendations. In some cases, they have already taken steps
to do so, as noted in the specific recommendations within the
report.

background

LSC is a private, non-profit corporation established by
Congress in 1974 to help provide equal access to the system
of justice in our nation to those who otherwise would be
unable to afford adequate legal counsel by making financial
support available to provide high quality civil legal
assistance. In establishing LSC, Congress explicitly
recognized ``providing legal assistance to those who face an
economic barrier to adequate legal counsel will serve best
the ends of justice, assist in improving opportunities for
low-income persons,'' and that the availability of legal
assistance ``has reaffirmed faith in our government of
laws.'' LSC has said, ``The goal of providing equal access to
justice for those who cannot afford to pay an attorney
remains the reason for LSC's existence and the benchmark for
its efforts.''
LSC's statutory mission is to provide ``financial support
for legal assistance in non-criminal proceedings or matters
to persons financially unable to afford legal assistance.''
Pursuant to its mission, LSC funds 138 non-profit legal aid
organizations across the United States and its territories to
address the most basic and critical civil legal needs of the
poor. Controlling statutes require that LSC choose grantees
to provide such legal assistance to the poor through a
process of competitive bidding, and also require LSC to
ensure grantee compliance with applicable laws and
implementing regulations and guidelines, and to ensure the
maintenance of high quality service. LSC is required to
ensure that grant dollars are provided so as to make the most
economical and effective use of its taxpayer-provided
resources in the delivery of legal assistance to eligible
persons.
LSC is wholly funded through taxpayer dollars; its 2006
annual appropriation was $326.6 million, including $12.7
million to support LSC headquarters operations (not including
the OIG). Given its mission as the principal provider of
federal funds for legal assistance to the poor and its status
as a quasi-federal agency, it is reasonable to expect that
LSC management should conform to the highest standards with
respect to fiscal responsibility and accountability. Indeed,
LSC, ``[a]s a matter of principle, [is] committed to being a
careful and frugal steward of taxpayer funds [and declares
that it has] strict policies in place to ensure LSC funds are
spent wisely and appropriately.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, one of
the areas we need to get to--and I want to do it before we leave on
November 16--is Indian health, which is something that is long overdue.
If we talk about people who need health care, everybody would stand in
line as second in need to the Indians around this country. We have a
bill, and the Finance Committee is in the process of getting money to
get it done. It is not everything we need, but it is starting something
that is long overdue.
I say to my friend, who has the most needy reservation--Pine Ridge--
in the country that we need to have the time to get rid of some of
these appropriations bills so we can do something about Indian health.
I have made a commitment that we are going to do that some way before
we leave this legislative year. We have to do that piece of
legislation. I know my friend from South Dakota understands the need in
Indian Country for health care. As I said, it is great that we want to
take care of the children's health initiative, which is important
because we have 50 million people with no health insurance. All those
problems are really in the shadows of how badly it is needed in Indian
Country.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment with Senator
Graham as a cosponsor which may provide up to $2 million, within the
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs account, for the Sex
Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and
Tracking, SMART, Office. The funding will be used to help hire
additional staff and cover expenses for the office. The SMART Office
was created by the Adam Walsh Act to help States change their sex
offender registry statutes to come into compliance with the law.
Currently, the SMART office is only funded through various
discretionary accounts, so it is critical that we ensure they have
enough staff and resources to help enforce this important law to
protect our communities.
Mr. President, today I filed an amendment with Senator Kennedy as a
cosponsor which would authorize the Director of the Federal Prison
System to carry out a pilot program to assist the children of female
prisoners. The pilot program can be developed at any Federal
correctional facility that houses women in the United States.
Specifically, the amendment gives the Director of the Federal prison
system discretion to make expenditures to institute a pilot program for
nonviolent female offenders and their children up to age 36 months to
allow the children

[[Page S12858]]

to be housed, fed, and cared for in Federal, or federally contracted,
correctional facilities housing women, in programs specifically
designed to benefit mother and child.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues
Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their first-class work on the
Fiscal Year 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. They have written legislation that strengthens
communities against crime and terrorism, provides important research
dollars for science and technology, and protects jobs here in the
United States against unlawful trade practices.
Unfortunately, we know from Federal crime statistics that violent
crime is on the rise in the United States. To combat this increase, we
must make a commitment to boost Federal support for State and local law
enforcement. This bill contains $2.66 billion for community police
departments, $26 million to hire an additional 100 FBI agents to fight
violent crime, and $5 million for the FBI to create a task force on
gang violence. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, we have
asked our local law enforcement officials to assume yet another role in
protecting citizens, namely homeland security. I believe that the
Federal Government must step in and provide a share of the resources to
community policing for their efforts.
I also commend my colleagues for the impressive funding package they
have devised for science and technology. This year, along with Senator
Bond, I helped lead the charge in the Senate for an increase in the
National Science Foundation's budget. This bill includes over $6.5
billion for the NSF, with a substantial $850 million for educational
programs to develop the next generation of leaders in science,
technology, and math. The future of innovation rests upon our ability
to recruit more talented students who want to pursue careers in science
and engineering. Looking at the challenges the United States faces in
maintaining global economic leadership, a comparatively small
investment now in the National Science Foundation will provide
exponential benefits for years to come.
Finally, I commend the adoption of Senator Mikulski and Senator
Shelby's amendment to add $1 billion to NASA's budget for this upcoming
fiscal year. Along with several other Senators, I was a proud co-
sponsor of this amendment, and I laud its adoption by unanimous
consent. The additional funding will enable NASA to revive its basic
science programs, such as its earth science and aeronautics research
initiatives. Global warming is a reality, and NASA's capabilities make
it uniquely positioned to provide the world's scientific community with
vital data about changes in Earth's atmosphere and the subsequent
impact on climate. Furthermore, we must remember that there are two
``As'' in NASA, and forgetting the ``Aeronautics'' component of the
agency's mission would be a grave mistake. Once again, I congratulate
my colleagues on a well formulated piece of legislation, and I urge the
President to sign this bill into law.

____________________