[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8851-8852]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     AUTHORIZING ACTION IN HAROLD A. JOHNSON V. MAX CLELAND, ET AL.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 313, submitted 
earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will report the 
resolution by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 313) to authorize representation by 
     the Senate Legal Counsel in Harold A. Johnson v. Max Cleland, 
     et al.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a pro se plaintiff has commenced a civil 
action against Senator Cleland and a state official in Georgia state 
court seeking an order removing them from office on the purported 
ground that their election by plurality vote, while expressly 
authorized by Georgia statutes, violates the Georgia Constitution. This 
suit is the plaintiff's second challenge to Georgia's current election 
laws. Having lost his first challenge against the State Board of 
Elections, the plaintiff now is bringing an identical challenge to the 
Georgia election laws

[[Page 8852]]

through the use of the ancient writ of quo warranto.
  Senator Cleland, who was elected to the Senate almost four years ago, 
in 1996, in an election that was not the subject of any election 
contest brought before the Senate, is sued solely because of his 
official capacity as a sitting Senator. This quo warranto action in 
essence challenges his taking of the oath of office, as well as the 
Senate's action in seating him. As such, it falls appropriately within 
the Senate Legal Counsel's statutory responsibility to represent 
Members of the Senate in civil actions in which they are sued in their 
official capacity.
  The writ of quo warranto can have no applicability to United States 
Senators or Representatives, as Article I, section 5 of the United 
States Constitution commits to each House of Congress the sole power to 
seat and remove its Members. This action is also barred by the speech 
or debate clause.
  This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent 
Senator Cleland to seek his dismissal from this matter.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 313) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 313

       Whereas, Senator Max Cleland has been named as a defendant 
     in the case of Harold A. Johnson v. Max Cleland, et al., Case 
     No. 2000CV22443, now pending in the Superior Court of Fulton 
     County, Georgia;
       Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) 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 
     represent Members of the Senate in civil actions with respect 
     to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 
     represent Senator Max Cleland in the case of Harold A. 
     Johnson v. Max Cleland, et al.

                          ____________________