[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S10263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AUTHORIZATION OF SENATE REPRESENTATION

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 173 and 
S. Res. 174, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolutions by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 173) to authorize representation of 
     the Senate Committee on Armed Services in the case of Philip 
     Tinsley, III v. Senate Committee on Armed Services.
       A resolution (S. Res. 174) to authorize representation on 
     the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the case of Philip 
     Tinsely III v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolutions.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, an individual has filed two pro se civil 
actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia against two Senate Committees. In the first suit, against the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the plaintiff alleges that he was 
wrongfully denied a commission in the Navy and documentation of a prior 
honorable discharge from the Army Reserve. He has sued the Armed 
Services Committee because, in his view, the Committee failed to take 
sufficient steps to rectify these errors after he brought them to the 
Committee's attention.
  The second complaint alleges that the Judiciary Committee failed to 
take appropriate action when the plaintiff, in correspondence with the 
Committee, accused a federal judge and state and federal law 
enforcement officers of malfeasance.
  These resolutions authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the 
Committees in these suits to move for their dismissal.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, 
the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, any statements relating to the resolutions appear in the Record, 
with the preceding all occurring en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 173) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 173

       Whereas, in the case of Philip Tinsley III v, Senate 
     Committee on Armed Services, Civil Action No. 99-951-A, 
     pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of Virginia, the plaintiff has been used the United 
     States Senate Committee on Armed Services;
       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 
     Senate committees in civil actions. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to 
     represent the Senate Committee on Armed Services in the case 
     of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on Armed Services.

  The resolution (S. Res. 174) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 174

       Whereas, in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate 
     Committee on the Judiciary, Civil Action No. 99-952-A, 
     pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of Virginia, the plaintiff has sued the United 
     States Senate Committee on the Judiciary;
       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 
     Senate committees in civil actions: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to 
     represent the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the case 
     of Philip Tinsely III v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________