[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12422-S12423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL REPRESENTATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed en bloc to 
the immediate consideration of three Senate resolutions, S. Res. 152, 
S. Res. 153, and S. Res. 154, which were submitted earlier today by 
Senators Lott and Daschle. I further ask consent that the resolutions 
be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and statements relating to 
these resolutions be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolutions (S. Res. 152, S. Res. 153, and S. Res. 154), en bloc, 
were agreed to.
  The preambles were agreed to.
  The resolutions, with their preambles, read as follows:

                              S. Res. 152

       Whereas, in the cases of City of New York, et al. v. 
     William Clinton, et al., Civ. No. 97-2393, National Treasury 
     Employees Union, et al., v. United States, et al., Civ. No. 
     97-2399, and Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., et al., v. 
     Robert Rubin, Civ. No. 97-2463, all pending in the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
     constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, Pub. L. No. 104-
     130, 110 Stat. 1200 (1996), has been placed in issue;
       Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c), 
     288e(a), and 2881(a), the Senate may direct its counsel to 
     appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate in any 
     legal action in which the powers and responsibilities of 
     Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to 
     appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in the cases 
     of City of New York, et al., v. William Clinton, et al.; 
     National Treasury Employees Union, et al., v. United States, 
     et al.; and Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., et al., v. 
     Robert Rubin, to defend the constitutionality of the Line 
     Item Veto Act.
       Sec. 2. That while the Senate is adjourned the Senate Legal 
     Counsel is authorized to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of 
     the Senate in other cases in which the constitutionality of 
     the Line Item Veto Act is placed in issue: Provided, That the 
     Joint Leadership Group authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to 
     appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in such other 
     cases.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, last year, after years of legislative 
consideration and debate, Congress enacted into law

[[Page S12423]]

the Line Item Veto Act. For the next several years, this act gives the 
President authority, within carefully circumscribed limits, to cancel 
particular items of appropriation, direct spending, or limited tax 
benefits. The President must send Congress a special message reporting 
his cancellations within five days after he approves the bill 
containing the spending or tax provisions, and Congress may then 
consider, under expedited procedures, whether to pass a new law 
disapproving the President's cancellation.
  Congress delegated this responsibility to the President as a means of 
furthering our goal of balancing the federal budget. Congress's 
enactment of the Line Item Veto Act followed vigorous debate in the 
Senate, in which some opponents raised doubts about the law's 
constitutionality. All Members recognized that these constitutional 
questions likely ultimately would be resolved only in the Supreme 
Court.
  Last January, the day after the law took effect, in the case of Byrd 
v. Raines, six of our colleagues filed suit challenging the 
constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. On January 22, 1997, the 
Senate directed the Senate Legal Counsel to appear on behalf of the 
Senate as amicus curiae in Byrd v. Raines to defend the 
constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. In June the Supreme Court 
dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked legal 
standing to bring their suit. The Court did not address the 
constitutional question.
  In August, the President began using the Line Item Veto Act's 
cancellation authority for the first time. As a result of the 
President's cancellations, three new actions have recently been filed 
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia again 
challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The plaintiffs assert 
that the Act violates the lawmaking provisions of Article I of the 
Constitution by authorizing the President to nullify the effect of 
portions of recently enacted laws. These challenges call into question 
the full range of cancellation authority provided by Congress in the 
Act, as the three cases address direct spending, discretionary 
appropriations, and limited tax benefits, respectively.
  Mr. President, as with the Senate's appearance amicus curiae in Byrd 
v. Raines, appearance in these cases as an amicus curiae would again 
enable the Senate to present to the courts its reasons for enacting the 
Lien Item Veto Act and the basis for the Senate's conviction that the 
law is consistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, this resolution 
would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to appear in these cases in 
the name of the Senate as amicus curiae to support the 
constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act.
  The Senate would not take a position on questions about the legal 
standing of any of these plaintiffs, as it did not in the prior 
litigation. However, as in the earlier litigation, the Senate Legal 
Counsel will be expected to describe to the courts, in the course of 
supporting the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, the 
statutory limits embodied in the Act that constrain the President's use 
of this authority to the particular circumstances and conditions 
carefully prescribed by the Act.
  Finally, this resolution also would authorize the Senate Legal 
Counsel to appear in the name of the Senate as amicus curiae to support 
the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act in any other cases 
challenging the constitutionality of the Act that may occur during the 
adjournment of the Senate, if authorized to do so by the Joint 
Leadership Group. This is the procedure the Senate has used in the past 
to protect its legal interests during adjournments.

                              S. Res. 153

       Whereas, in the case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol 
     Guide Board, Case No. 1:97CV00823, pending in the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia, a 
     subpoena has been issued for the production of documents of 
     the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
       Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 
     288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent 
     Members, officers, and employees of the Senate with respect 
     to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or document 
     production relating to their official responsibilities;
       Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United 
     States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no 
     evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate 
     may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from 
     such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
       Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 
     in the possession of the Senate may promote the 
     administration of justice, the Senate will take such action 
     as will promote the ends of justice consistently with the 
     privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the 
     Senate is authorized to produce documents relevant to the 
     case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, except 
     where a privilege should be asserted.
       Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 
     represent the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate 
     in connection with the production of documents in this case.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol 
Guide Board, pending in the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia under the Congressional Accountability Act, 
involves claims of employment discrimination by the plaintiff, former 
employee of the Sergeant at Arms who worked for the Capitol Guide 
Service.
  The plaintiff in this case has issued a subpoena for documents to the 
Senate Sergeant at Arms. The enclosed resolution would authorize the 
Sergeant at Arms to produce such documents, except where a privilege or 
objection should be asserted. It wou8ld also authorize the Senate Legal 
Counsel to represent the Sergeant at Arms in connection with the 
production of such documents.

                              S. Res. 154

       Whereas, in the case of Magee, et al. v. Hatch, et al., No. 
     97-CV02203, pending in the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs have named Senator 
     Orrin Hatch as a defendant;
       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) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel to 
     defend its Members in civil actions relating to their 
     official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 
     represent Senator Hatch in the case of Magee, et al. v. 
     Hatch, et al.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Magee, et al. v. Hatch, et al. is an action 
arising out of Congress's enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996. The suit names Senator Orrin G. Hatch and 
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as the sole defendants. This 
resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator 
Hatch in this matter. If so authorized, the Senate Legal Counsel will 
seek dismissal of the complaint.

                          ____________________