Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966) . . . . 19 Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America, 103 S.Ct 3556 (1983). Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. FLRA, 672 F.2d 109 (D.C.Cir. 1982). Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974). Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C.Cir. 1981). . United Mine Workers v. Federal Mine Safety and Health United States v. 0.37 Acres of Land, More or Less, 414 F.Supp. 470 (D.Mont. 1976) 2 15, 16 United States v. Romano, 583 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978) Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) Statutes: Act of September 2, 1789, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65-66 40 U.S.C. $484 (e) (6) Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of War Powers Resolution, $$3,4 (b), 50 U.S.C. SS1543, 1544 (b) 41 C.F.R. $101-47-304-12 (f) (1982) 15 15 passim 6, 7 passim 20 41 Miscellaneous: Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Potts, Power of Legislative Bodies to Punish for Contempt, 74 U. Pa. L. Rev. 691 (1926) 14 R. Fenno, The Power of of the Purse: Appropriatons 20, 21 Wilson, Congressional Government (1885) 15 Memorandum Re Constitutionality of Provisions in Proposed Reorganization Bills Now Fending in Congress (S.526 and H.R.2361, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.) reprinted in Reorganization Act of 1949, S. Rep. No. 232, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949) . Reports To Be Made To Congress, Communication From The U.S. Supreme Cuort Decision Concerning the 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad News 2861 H.R. Rep. No. 1763, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) . . H. R. Rep. No. 1778, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) 20 17, 18 .16 5, 6 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives appear to support the constitutionality of provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 377, 40 U.S.C. $471 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III) declared unconstitutional by the Court below under the authority of INS v. Chadha, 103 S.Ct 2764 (1983). Under the terms of the statute governing the sale of government property declared to be "surplus," 40 U.S.C. $472 (g), the terms of negotiated sale are to be submitted to the House Committee on Government Operations by the Administrator of General Services Administration (GSA). $484 (e) (6). Id., In its decision in this case, the Court below construed the requirement that the GSA submit an explanatory statement concerning negotiated sales of surplus property to constitute an impermissible "legislative veto" rendered invalid by the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, supra. The obvious interest of the committee in preserving statutes under which it receives information necessary to perform its legislative and oversight functions compel its Chairman and Ranking Member to present their view to the Court on the questions presented concerning the constitu tionality of the statute. Indeed, in Chadha itself, and the companion cases decided subsequent thereto it fell to the legislative parties to defend the constitutionality of the statutory provisions at issue. As the Court noted in remarking on the argument advanced by the House of Representatives respecting the lack of adversariness, "Congress is the proper party to defend the validity of a statute when a government agency, as a defendant charged with enforcing the statute, agrees with plaintiffs that the statute is inapplicable or unconstitutional." INS v. Chadha, 103 S.Ct at 2778. Although here the agency apparently will defend the statute against judicial sua sponte onslaught below, it is the Committee's interests which will be most vitally affected by the judicial nullification of the statute. Moreover, because of the adverse decision below would have on scores of other statutes which require reporting or submission of information to Congress by hundreds of executive, independent, and advisory agencies, it is important for the Court to have the views of the bipartisan Committee 1/Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America, 103 S.Ct. 3556 (mem.) and Consumers Union of United States v. FTC, 103 S.Ct. 3556 (1983) See also Pacific Legal Foundation v. Watt, 539 F.Supp. 982 (D.Mont. 1981) reconsideration denied, 539 F.Supp. 1194 (1982); League of Women Voters v. FCC, 489 F.Supp. 517 (E.D. Calif. 1980) leadership on the statute's operation to assist in evaluating constitutionality. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Court below struck down a provision of law which requires the agency responsible for the negotiated sale of surplus government property to merely submit an explanatory statement to the appropriate committees of Congress. The Court catapulted itself across the constitutional rubicon of invalidating validly enacted statutory provisions, sua sponte without urging by the parties or an ample opportunity by the government to adequately address the constitutional issue broached by the Court. The Court determined that under the recent decision in INS v. Chadha, 103 S.Ct. 2764, striking down the so-called legislative veto because of its violation of the constitutionally prescribed procedures for lawmaking, the provision of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, supra, requiring submission of reports on the proposed negotiated sale of surplus property, together with informal discussions between committee staff and agency personnel, constituted a de facto legislative veto. The Court further declared that the requirement imposed upon the agency to report, the subsequent informal discussions, and the agency regulations, impermissibly permit the Committee to intervene in and block an Executive Branch decision, all in contravention of Chadha. |