[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5889-S5890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AUTHORIZING SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL REPRESENTATION

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 101, submitted 
earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 101) to authorize representation of 
     Members, officers, and an employee of the Senate in the case 
     of Douglas R. Page v. Richard Shelby, et al.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a resident of California has, for the second 
time in the past several years, filed a lawsuit in the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the 
constitutionality of

[[Page S5890]]

rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Under rule XXII, debate 
on a pending matter may be limited by a vote of three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn or, in the case of an amendment to a 
Senate rule, a vote of two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum 
being present.
  The plaintiffs has named as defendants in this action all Members of 
the Senate, together with the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at 
Arms, the Parliamentarian, and two executive branch officials. He seeks 
a declaration that rule XXII is unconstitutional and a court order 
rewriting rule XXII to permit a simple majority of a quorum to limit 
debate in the Senate.
  With respect to a prior action filed by the same plaintiff also 
challenging rule XXII, Senate Resolution 150 of the 103d Congress 
authorized the Senate Legal Counsel to defend Senators named as 
defendants in that action. With respect to the plaintiff's prior 
challenge, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. 
On appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court 
vacated the district court's decision and ordered the plaintiff's 
complaint dismissed as moot. In his complaint, the plaintiff had sought 
to present his alleged injury as frustration of the majority party's 
legislative program by the minority. The appellate court noted that the 
intervening change in the control of the Senate after the 1994 election 
had mooted his allegations of injury.
  The plaintiff's new action alleges an injury independent of party 
control, as well as adding non-Member defendants. The new action is 
subject to the same grounds for dismissal as was the previous action.
  Over the years, the Senate has vigorously debated the merits of rule 
XXII. That debate has included the question that the plaintiff seeks to 
present to the court in the instant action of whether a majority of the 
Senate should be permitted to end debate. The resolution of this issue 
under our constitutional system, Mr. President, is best decided in the 
Senate and not in the courts.
  The resolution at the desk would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel 
to represent the Members, officers, and an employee of the Senate who 
have been named as defendants in this case and to move to dismiss the 
complaint.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid 
on the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear 
at this point in the Congressional Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  The resolution (S. Res. 101) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 101

       Whereas, in the case of Douglas R. Page v. Richard Shelby, 
     et al., C.A. No. 97-0068, pending in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff 
     has named all Members of the Senate, and the Secretary, the 
     Sergeant at Arms, and the Parliamentarian, of the Senate, as 
     defendants;
       Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) 
     and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend 
     Members, officers, and employees of the Senate in civil 
     actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to 
     represent the Members, officers, and employee of the Senate 
     who are defendants in the case of Douglas R. Page v. Richard 
     Shelby, et al.

                          ____________________