[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION--BLILEY VERSUS KELLY

                                 ______


                       HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 25, 1994

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals in 
Bliley versus Kelly concluded that Congress must have a full 30-day 
review period within which to consider legislation passed by the 
District of Columbia government or voters.
  In February 1992, Congressmen Larry Combest, Dana Rohrabacher, Bill 
Lowery, and I, sued the ranking officials of the District of Columbia 
city government regarding the legal status of the Assault Weapon 
Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990. We have always maintained 
that the lawsuit was not about guns, but about the relationship between 
the District of Columbia and the U.S. Congress. I am pleased to 
announce that our position has been vindicated.
  Without reciting the entire history of this case, allow me to 
summarize by stating that in October 1991, the D.C. Corporation Counsel 
advised me that ``Congress no longer has authority under the Self-
Government Act to prevent the Strict Liability Act from becoming law by 
passing a joint resolution of disapproval.'' My colleagues and I could 
not accept the implications of this opinion which, if upheld, would 
have allowed the District to avoid full congressional review. In 
February 1992, we sued the District of Columbia.
  In court, the D.C. Corporation Counsel subsequently argued that the 
law went into effect on or about December 26, 1991 upon the expiration 
of the temporary repealer or, alternatively, on March 6, 1991 as the 
D.C. Court of Appeals held in the Atkinson decision. The U.S. Court of 
Appeals rejected all of these arguments and found that it was the 
congressional review period, not the act, which has been suspended. The 
court has affirmed our fundamental argument in the case that Congress 
must have a full 30-legislative-day review period after the local 
legislative process is exhausted.
  While Congress may be able to follow this marker in the future, at 
the time, the Republican members faced the opposition of the erroneous 
Corporation Counsel opinion. Ironically, as the new 30-day review 
period ticked away, we had to seek outside legal assistance to 
vindicate our rights as Members of Congress. We filed suit against the 
District on February 19, 1992, not knowing that the U.S. Court of 
Appeals would determine that the new 30-day review period in which 
Congress may have passed a resolution of disapproval, had not yet 
expired.
  It is also important for Members to know that the court also upheld 
our right to review an act before it becomes law and to use the 
government of the District of Columbia.
  In time, this lawsuit may prove to be an important footnote to the 
history of the Nation's Capital. But I believe, it is important to the 
history of the House of Representatives as well. Before any lawsuit was 
filed, the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia and I 
wrote to the Speaker, requesting a review of the Corporation Counsel's 
opinion and support for protecting the rights of Congress which was the 
real issue at stake. A bipartisan group of House Members, including the 
chairman of the Committee on Energy, also wrote to the Speaker with a 
similar request. But we did not receive the support we needed.
  It is popular to talk about reforming Congress. Here is a real 
example of one important matter which should be addressed. When the 
rights of Congress are at stake, it should not be left to just a few 
individuals to protect those institutional rights. Without our lawsuit 
and appeal, Congress would have given up its future right to review 
simply through default. That would not have been right. That would not 
have been good for this institution. The executive branch obviously has 
tremendous resources to draw upon when its authority is threatened. 
Even the District of Columbia has substantial resources to call upon 
when its interests are at stake. This lawsuit presents an opportunity 
to ask ourselves, how will the interests of the House of 
Representatives be protected in the future?

                          ____________________