Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Act of 2008

DANIEL WEBSTER CONGRESSIONAL CLERKSHIP ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - September 09, 2008)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank not only Congressman Daniel E. Lungren for cosponsoring this bill with me, but also note the important support of Dean Larry Kramer, the dean of the Stanford Law School, whose original idea this was, and we two California Members took it up. I think that our country will be enriched by the enactment of this measure.

It has been mentioned, and we all know, the top law graduates of the top law schools in the country are recruited to serve as clerks in the judicial branch, and as a consequence of that experience, those top legal minds then go on to fabulous careers, understanding the law from the point of view of the judiciary. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but we also want to have top legal minds that relish and appreciate the law from the point of view of the legislative branch, and that is really the grit and the intent of this measure.

As has been mentioned I'm sure, the program created by the bill will have clerks chosen from a pool of exceptional law school graduates who have demonstrated commitment to public service. No fewer than six clerks will be chosen for each Chamber. The clerks will be divided equally among the parties, and they will receive the same pay and equivalent benefits as first-year law clerks in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

As the dean of Stanford Law School, Larry Kramer, said, ``This bill will serve an important role by educating young lawyers and future leaders of the profession about the legislative process. It will be enormously beneficial for both the profession and the public if some of the Nation's brightest young lawyers begin their careers in the legislature and so develop and can convey to the public an appreciation of Congress and the legislative process equal to that lawyers have shown for courts and the judicial process.''

I would like to mention that we were not able to include the Congressional Research Service in the legislation at this time. However, if there is a bipartisan effort to achieve that in the future, I would welcome that collaboration and understand we may yet have the opportunity to do that.

So in furtherance of this bill, I would hope that our colleagues would support it. I would again like to thank my colleague, the former Attorney General from California, DAN LUNGREN, for his cosponsorship.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren). And indeed, this is not a measure that does harm or damage to the judiciary or to the executive branch, but it really is to elevate article I. Sometimes we see our colleagues with little buttons that say ``article I'' on them, and we want to make sure that the important role of the legislative branch is understood by these top legal graduates who will go on to careers in the judiciary, in public service, in law schools and the like.

I want to make clear not only that this has bipartisan support, but that it will be administered in a totally bipartisan way. The name, ``The Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program,'' really selects somebody who was an honored ancestor of the legislative process, not a contemporary, but someone we can look back on with esteem.

The Clerks will be selected by a selection committee that will consist of the committee of Rules and Administration of the Senate, and the Committee on House Administration of the House. And as was mentioned by my colleague and myself, six clerks will be evenly divided between the two parties.

Just by way of example, and without mentioning names, sometimes the courts do not necessarily understand how we do business here. And I'll give three examples recently mentioned to me by judicial officers.

Colloquies on the floor of the House. We know when we stand up to do a colloquy it is to set something in the Record for a purpose. It is by agreement, but it has a meaning that is meant to stand as the legislation moves forward. Courts don't always understand the meaning of a colloquy. And I think if we had some of these excellent law students here who helped to write a colloquy and were on the floor as it was being delivered, they would understand and be able to impart to the judicial branch the importance of a colloquy.

Example number two, committee reports. There are things that committees agree on completely but are not actually part of a bill. And they don't need to be part of a bill because they can be implied by the legislation. A committee report doesn't have the force of law, but it should be enormously persuasive to a court looking for the meaning of legislation if the parties--sometimes fractious parties--can agree to language in a committee report, that means something. And I think if we had some of these excellent law students here helping in the committee process to understand how that comes about and the import that it has, it will help them to tell a judge--or if they are a judge later--what that means and how to interpret the law.

And legislative findings, the role of legislative findings; you know, obviously they're precursors to the language itself.

These are just three small examples of how the Congress and its will is not always upheld by the courts, not through any chicanery, not through any deviousness, but just a lack of full appreciation for how the legislative process works.

And so I think this bipartisan measure is a step forward in seeing that that trend in American law interpretation does change, both in the courts, and also in the teaching of law in the Nation's top law schools.

So while this may seem not an earth-shattering measure in some ways, it will have import long after the Members here are retired and reading about the Congress in the paper. What we do here with this clerkship bill will improve the law in America. And therefore, I hope, as Mr. Lungren does, that we will have a unanimous vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. As the gentleman knows, I have substantial disagreements with Justice Scalia and his interpretation of the Constitution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Somehow I thought that might be the case.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. You thought that might be the case. But the point I was making on colloquies and committee reports is this: Justice Scalia says--and I think properly--that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not to make it up themselves. And so to the extent that there is unintended ambiguity in a law that is written by the Congress where the committee report or colloquy can give the court some insight into what the intentions were on the part of the legislative body, then that is a helpful thing. And understanding how that develops would be enormously useful.

There are times, as the gentleman knows, where ambiguity is the oil that makes the legislative process work. I remember Wilbur Mills suggesting there could not be an agreement on what Medicare would cover, that it would cover a ``spell or illness.'' And maybe that was necessary in 1965, but it was not the kind of ambiguity that could have been resolved through a colloquy.

And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Reclaiming my time, I would just say I remember an instance about 25 years ago on the floor here dealing with a matter, the Bankruptcy Act. And the late, great chairman of judiciary, Peter Rodino, got up and gave his interpretation of it which was contrary to the interpretation we had. So every time he would get up to give his colloquy I would get up to give ours to make sure that when the judges looked at it they would see there were two contrary positions so they could decide, as they should, under the words we actually used in the statute. And I thank the gentlelady.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was expecting one person here to be a speaker, that person has not shown up. So maybe I will just make a few additional comments in the hopes that their elevator can get to the second floor. And that would be that, in addition to the Dean of the Stanford law school we were advised that the progress of this bill is being watched by law professors and deans throughout the United States who have really resolved that this is going to be a very positive thing for the development of American law.

I would just note also, as Mr. Lungren has pointed out, we do these things sometimes very quickly. I think the addition of six top law students in each body--as the ranking member of the full committee has suggested, as time goes on maybe we will find that it works so well it should be expanded--I certainly do think, however, it is appropriate to start at this level, do an assessment. And I think our committee, the Administration Committee, will be in an ideal position to do an assessment.

But no doubt, if we have some of the smartest young lawyers in the United States here in this institution, they will not only bring the knowledge of this institution out to the world after they become top lawyers, but they will also help us become even more excellent legislators. So I think that this is a benefit that really there is no down side to it. So it has really been a pleasure to work with the bipartisan cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have said really all I have to say on the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program of 2008. As mentioned, this will be a tremendous improvement to the development of American law, and I have given the support that has been expressed for the measure here today on the floor. I am hopeful that we will have a unanimous vote for this important measure.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Brady, for his tremendous support on this and in every way, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Lungren. And I don't know if Mr. Brady has anything further to add.

If not, I would simply say please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6475.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source