the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, a Federal law enforcement agency within the Postal Service. Mr. Williams was sworn in as the second Inspector General at the Postal Service in August of 2003.

Mr. Williams previously served as IG for five Federal agencies. He was first appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve as the IG for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1989 to 1996. President Clinton next appointed him as the IG for the Social Security Administration from 1996 to 1998 and thereafter as the IG for the Department of Treasury in 1998. In 1999, President Clinton named him as the first IG for tax administration of the Department of Treasury, where he directed a staff of 1,050 to detect waste, fraud and abuse. In 2001 President George W. Bush named Mr. Williams to be the Acting IG for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Williams is the recipient of the Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Medal of Honor for service in Vietnam. He received his undergraduate degree from Southern Illinois University and earned his Advanced Degree in Education and a Masters in Education from the University of Illinois. He also attended the U.S. Military Intelligence Academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the U.S. Secret Service Training Academy. We like tough guys. Maybe I should speak generally, but I think Mr. Watt likes tough guys.

Our final witness is Frank Strickland, who is the Chairman of the Board of the Legal Services Corporation. He is a partner in the Atlanta firm of Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

President Bush nominated Mr. Strickland to the LSC Board of Directors in 2002, and he was sworn in as a member of the Board and elected Board chairman in April of 2003.

Mr. Strickland received his undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University and his law degree from Emory University. He served in the U.S. Coast Guard and is Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard reserves on retired status. Also a tough guy, I might

say.

In addition, I would also like to note that that we are missing a witness at today's hearing. The empty chair at the witness table is for the Legal Services Corporation President Helaine Barnett. According to Ms. Barnett, Chairman Strickland does not believe it is necessary for her to testify, perhaps an important topic for this Subcommittee to explore with him this afternoon.

I extend to all of you my warm regards and appreciation for your willingness to participate at today's hearing. In light of the fact that your written statements will be included in the hearing record, I request that you limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. Accordingly, please feel free to summarize or highlight the salient points of your testimony.

You note we have a lighting system in front of you that starts with a green light. After 4 minutes it turns to a yellow light, and then at 5 minutes it turns to a red light. It is my habit to tap the gavel at 5 minutes. We could appreciate it if you could finish up your thoughts within that time frame. We don't like to cut people off in their thinking, but I find that it works much better if everybody knows that 5 minutes is 5 minutes.

Other people may be joining us here. If not, we may be a little more loose than that, but it is my tendency to tap with a pencil just to draw your attention the light has run and so we will move on and then strictly abide by the 5-minute rule when we go to questioning if we have other members. If it is just Mr. Watt and me, we tend to be a little more lax on that. After you have presented your remarks to the Subcommittee, in the order they arrive they will be permitted to ask questions to that witness subject to that 5-minute rule.

Pursuant to the directive of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I ask the witnesses to please stand and raise your right hand to take the oath.

The record will reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. [Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CANNON. We will start with Mr. West. Would you please proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD “KIRT” WEST, INSPECTOR GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Mr. WEST. Good afternoon, Chairman Cannon, Ranking Member Watt. My name is Kirk West. As you have mentioned, I have had nearly 20 years of experience with other IGs at Labor, CIA, and the Postal Service. I also had the privilege of working for David Williams when he was the-when I was at the Postal Service and in the capacity as IG. With your approval, I would like to submit my written statement for the record.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on H.R. 6101. Since the passage of the 1988 IG Act amendments, LSC has had an IG that reports to an 11 member part-time Board of Directors. The LSC board has been and is now comprised of honorable and dedicated individuals who brought with them a high degree of understanding and commitment to delivery of legal services to the poor. Past and current Boards, however, have not brought with them the same degree of understanding or experience concerning the role of the Inspector General.

The challenges faced by the LSC IGs are longstanding. They are neither new nor unique to the current Board. The longest serving is Ed Quatrevaux, who held the post from 1991 to 2000. Mr. Quatrevaux has lent his support to H.R. 6101. He has stated the problems that I am facing, the same problems he faced with a different Board and with a different LSC management, leading him, as I have also, to conclude that LSC has an institutional problem in recognizing the proper role of the IG.

The Board's failure to recognize the role of the IG has led some members to react negatively to my reports, calling them prosecutorial and inflammatory. However, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Watt, I can tell you that based on my experience in the IG community that my reports are no different in character than those of the other 57 IGs in the Government.

The Board's reaction to them, however, is different than my experience at other agencies. What may seem appropriate to the Board based on their non-Federal background and limited experience with IGs are from my perspective attempts to retaliate against me for issuing critical reports and asserting IG independ

ence. As recently as this past weekend an Associated Press article described the Board's efforts to fire me or certainly to consider firing me.

Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of Congress have repeatedly put the Board on notice that any attempt to remove me would be construed as retaliation for conducting the very work that you have requested. I feel that if Congress had not intervened on my behalf it would have been impossible for me to fully carry out my statutory duty under the IG Act.

Unfortunately, my problems have continued. On August 25th, the Board's chairman and vice chairman provide a, quote, informal feedback, unquote, on my performance. This was highly questionable given that the Board knew at the time I was investigating allegations regarding expenses and other matters involving the Board. I found that not only threatening and retaliatory but also to have the potential of causing others, including Congress, to question whether the feedback could have influenced my report.

These events notwithstanding, I am pleased to report that my staff of highly experienced IG auditors, investigators and attorneys and I have not been deterred from carrying out the IG mission. Recently, I submitted a report to the Subcommittee in which the OIG found substantial evidence that an LSC grantee, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., violated Federal law by soliciting clients, working a fee generating case, requesting attorney fees and associating CRLA with political activities. Yesterday, I issued a report on the investigation that you requested regarding LSC spending practices, and I will be reporting to you later on your concerns about other LSC management practices and potential conflicts of interest.

I would like now to provide some comments on H.R. 6101, which is modeled after the similar provision of the United States Postal Service. As background, there are two categories of Inspectors General: Those appointed by the President and those appointed by their agency head. Presidentially-appointed Inspectors General cannot be fired by their agency head; only the President can do that. On the other hand, Inspectors General appointed by their agency head can also be fired by their agency head, which is the current situation at LSC. And usually it requires an appearance before the Merit Systems Reduction Board. The LSC IG, however, is an at-will employee and can be fired without cause and without a hearing. Thus, the LSC IG has the least amount of job security and therefore potentially the most easily subjected to undue or improper pressure.

Therefore, I support H.R. 6101 because it enhances Inspector General independence. In my opinion, H.R. 6101 is an appropriate, balanced, and thoughtful proposal to enhance Inspector General independence that will make LSC more transparent and accountable to Congress and the public.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. West follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. KIRT WEST

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Cannon, Ranking Member Watt, and Members of the Subcommittee: my name is Kirt West. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on H.R. 6101, which will improve the ability of the LSC Inspector General (IG) to function like any other Inspector General. By way of personal background, I have been the Inspector General of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) since September 1, 2004. Before becoming Inspector General, I served for nearly twenty years as a career Federal employee in various legal and executive capacities for Inspectors General: at the Department of Labor, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the United States Postal Service. At the United States Postal Service which is a quasi-federal agency like LSC, I worked with a Presidentially-appointed part-time Board, comprised almost exclusively of outside directors who did not have any Inspector General experience. I also worked for Inspector General David Williams while at the Postal Service.

Since the passage of the 1988 Inspector General Act amendments, LSC has had an Inspector General. Throughout those years my predecessors and I have reported to and been under the general supervision of a part-time 11-member LSC Board of Directors, unlike most Inspectors General who report to a full-time agency head. The LSC Board has been and is now comprised of honorable and dedicated individuals who have brought with them a high degree of understanding of the delivery of legal services to the poor, which is an asset to the position. Past and current LSC Boards, however, have not brought with them the same degree of understanding or experience concerning the role of the Inspector General. Historical and institutional misunderstanding between past and current Boards and their Inspectors General has threatened the independence and effectiveness of the LSC Inspector General. Efforts by LSC Boards and LSC management to stifle Inspector General independence through intimidation and retaliation appear to have existed throughout the history of the LSC Office of Inspector General. These problems are neither new to LSC nor unique to the current Board and Inspector General. The longest-serving LSC Inspector General, Edouard R. Quatrevaux, has lent his support to your bill and has stated that the problems I am facing are the same problems he faced with a different Board and with different LSC management, leading him to conclude that LSC has an institutional problem in recognizing the proper role of an Inspector General. Inspector General Quatrevaux was criticized for issuing reports that the former Board did not like and for communicating with Congress. He reported to Congress that the Board's criticism posed a potential impairment on his independence. As a result, GAO was called in to intervene but the disagreement between the Board and the Inspector General about the Board's proper role in evaluating the Inspector General still remains unresolved.

As a preliminary matter, I would like to note that I am not completely comfortable commenting on H.R. 6101, a legislative proposal that would have an impact on the Inspector General office that I currently hold. As someone who has worked in the federal Inspector General community for so long, it has become second-nature for me to try to ensure that whatever I say or do is legal and ethical and impartial. Ordinarily I would not volunteer to comment either one way or the other on a matter such as H.R. 6101, which could affect me personally. However, at your request I am prepared to offer my views concerning the proposed legislation. H.R. 6101 is similar to a provision enacted for the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service. The bill would, if enacted, require nine of the eleven LSC Board members to agree to remove me or a future incumbent from the position of Inspector General. It would require three more Board members than the current majority requirement of six to remove me or my successors.

When I agreed to become the Inspector General for LSC in 2004 I was aware that there had been an Inspector General at LSC since the late 1980's. I was relatively confident that the LSC Board had gone through the same familiarization process as other agency heads in dealing with the Inspector General concept. I lived through those processes at the Department of Labor, the CIA, and the Postal Service, where those agency heads eventually came to terms with having an Inspector General who was independent, who had access to information, and who reported openly and regularly to Congress. Over the past two years, however, I have become aware that LSC Boards have not developed the same understanding of the role of their Inspector General.

My initial experience of the lack of appreciation of the IG concept and the role of the Inspector General occurred when I issued my first report to Congress concerning the LSC headquarters lease. As I testified before this Subcommittee last

June, the report made several observations, including that LSC was paying too much rent and paying higher rent than other tenants. The then 10-member LSC Board (6 of whom remain on the current Board) unanimously "rejected" the lease report. The report, however, had undergone a quality review that ensured it contained accurate information. The report was predicated on the work of two independent real estate appraisal experts as well as very senior and experienced career IG auditors and lawyers. The fact that the Board "rejected" this report was an early indication that the Board did not fully comprehend the role of an Inspector General. I have taken affirmative steps to help familiarize the Board with what an independent, effective Inspector General is supposed to do. I arranged for David Williams, a highly-respected Inspector General with many years of experience, to address the LSC Board, which he did. Mr. Williams, who served not only as Inspector General at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and at the United States Postal Service, but also as the first chief investigator at the then Government Accounting Office, spoke to the Board at length about the role of an Inspector General. In addition, I arranged for a meeting with the LSC Chairman and Senate appropriations staff to share a Congressional perspective about the role of an Inspector General and how an agency should interact with its Inspector General. I offered to arrange more such meetings. I also suggested to the LSC Chairman that we meet with the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, who serves as the Chairman of the Inspector General councils. Finally, I reported my concerns to the Vice-Chairman of the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency in an attempt to find other, informal ways of improving the LSC Board's relationship with the Inspector General.

The Board's failure to recognize the Inspector General's role has led some members to react negatively to my reports, calling them prosecutorial and inflammatory. However, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you and members of the Subcommittee that based on my 20+ years of experience in the IG community my reports are no different in character than those issued by other IGs. The Board's reaction to them, however, is different than what my experience prepared me for. What may seem appropriate to the Board based on the members' non-federal backgrounds and limited experience with IGs are from my perspective attempts to retaliate against me for issuing critical report and for asserting IG independence. The Board's misunderstanding of the role of its Inspector General may not be so surprising given the background and experience of most members in the non-Federal sector, which is generally unfamiliar with the Inspector General concept, a concept that was also difficult in the early years of the IG Act for some agencies.

For example, as recently as this past weekend, an Associated Press article quoted the proceedings of a closed Board meeting which the article described the Board's discussion about firing me. There had been previous concerns that some Board members would like to fire me. As a result, Mr. Chairman, you wrote the LSC Board in July of last year to express your concerns. In addition, Senators Enzi and Grassley wrote to the LSC Board in April 2006 informing the Board that any attempt to remove the Inspector General would be construed as retaliation and obstruction of an investigation that they, along with you, Mr. Chairman, had asked me to conduct on a number of issues involving the LSC Board and the LSC President. I feel that if Congress had not intervened on my behalf, it would have been impossible for me to carry out my statutory duties under the IG Act.

My difficulties, unfortunately, have continued. On August 25, the Board provided "informal feedback" on my performance. Among other things, I was told that I take a prosecutorial stance towards management, I issue inflammatory reports and I am not a positive help to LSC. These and other criticisms by the Board are examples of a misunderstanding about the role of an Inspector General, which includes being independent and objective, obtaining necessary information, and reporting findings that could be critical of management.

The decision of the Board to provide "informal feedback" was highly questionable given that the Board knew I was investigating allegations regarding expenses and other matters involving the Board. While I respect the role of the Board, which is statutorily responsible for the "general supervision" of the Inspector General, and while the Board may have felt its actions were appropriate from the private-sector perspective, I found the “informal feedback" not only threatening and retaliatory but also having the potential of causing others, including Congress, to question whether the feedback could have influenced my report.

These events notwithstanding, I am pleased to report that my staff of highly experienced IG auditors, investigators and attorneys and I have not been deterred from carrying out the IG mission. Recently, I submitted a report to the Subcommittee in which the OIG found substantial evidence that an LSC grantee, California Rural