[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

              BARRING CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joining my good friend 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, as a cosponsor of his bill to limit 
civil actions against a sitting President. The Supreme Court may have 
been right in its analysis in Clinton v. Jones that the separation of 
powers doctrine does not require immunity from civil suit for a sitting 
President, but it was wrong when it concluded that ``a deluge of such 
litigation will never engulf the Presidency,'' and when it went on to 
assert, ``if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us 
highly unlikely [for the Paula Jones civil suit] to occupy any 
substantial amount of petitioner's time.''
  No one can reasonably believe that President Clinton didn't spend a 
significant amount of his time preparing his defense in the Paula Jones 
case. Moreover, we can all understand how the existence of such a case 
can be a significant distraction and preoccupation even when it is not 
being worked on directly.
  The Supreme Court recognized in its decision in Clinton v. Jones the 
all-consuming nature of the responsibilities of being President of the 
United States. The Court wrote:

       ``As a starting premise, petitioner [the President] 
     contends that he occupies a unique office with powers and 
     responsibilities so vast and important that the public 
     interest demands that he devote his undivided time and 
     attention to his public duties . . . We have no dispute with 
     the initial premise of the argument. Former presidents, from 
     George Washington to George Bush, have consistently endorsed 
     petitioner's characterization of the office. After serving 
     his term, Lyndon Johnson observed: ``Of all the 1,886 nights 
     I was President, there were not many when I got to sleep 
     before 1 or 2 A.M., and there were few mornings when I didn't 
     wake up by 6 or 6:30.''

  Being President of the United States is a 24 hour a day job. That's 
both necessary and desirable. To allow the President to be sued for 
matters arising from acts committed prior to his taking office makes 
the President vulnerable to mischievous, possibly politically-motivated 
and time-consuming litigation. As the leader of our country and the 
most important political leader in the world, I don't want the 
President's attention diverted from the many important and 
consequential responsibilities of the office to defend against lawsuits 
based on allegations of conduct before the President ran for office and 
which could have therefore been filed prior to his taking office. 
That's why I support limiting the involvement of sitting Presidents in 
civil litigation.
  Senator Moynihan has taken the first step in addressing this problem. 
His bill would bar the President from participating in any civil trial 
involving the President as plaintiff or defendant but would permit 
discovery to the extent it is carried out with ``due deference to 
Presidential responsibilities'' and using ``reasonable case management 
principles.'' The bill would allow a civil suit to be filed and limited 
discovery to occur, but would not allow a President to proceed to trial 
as either a plaintiff or defendant. Senator Moynihan has made a 
thoughtful proposal. However, I prefer that the bill be limited to only 
those civil cases brought with respect to matters that occurred before 
the President assumed office or before the President participated in 
the general election; I would not want to affect cases brought against 
Presidents for actions they have taken while President in their 
official capacity. There are a significant number of cases against 
every President for actions taken during their term in office, and I 
don't believe we can or should immunize the President from those types 
of cases. For example, President Truman was sued when he seized the 
steel plants. President Carter was sued over his decision to return the 
Panama Canal to Panama. President Reagan was sued regarding the role of 
America in El Salvador, and President Bush was sued for various matters 
relating to the Persian Gulf War. I am not commenting on the validity 
of these suits, I am only saying that such suits should not be 
disallowed since they are brought against the President in his or her 
official capacity and they are handled not by the President but by the 
Department of Justice and White House Legal Counsel. Another class of 
cases that should be permitted while a President is in office are 
domestic cases--those related to or involving personal family 
relationships such as the resolution of a will or an estate or child 
support.
  The Supreme Court reported that only three sitting Presidents have 
been defendants in civil suits involving their actions prior to taking 
office. These were Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman whose cases were 
dismissed before they took office, and John F. Kennedy, whose case was 
settled once he took office. Given the increasing litigious nature of 
our society, we cannot rely on this history to project what may happen 
in the future. And given the recent experience of President Clinton and 
the Paula Jones case, we know the enormous consequences just one such 
case can have.
  I look forward to working with Senator Moynihan on this legislation 
and to getting it enacted in this Congress, before the next President 
takes office in the year 2001.

                          ____________________