Opinion ID: 344772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injuries Related to Senate Work.

Text: 35 Appellant Metcalf claims three injuries in his capacity as a United States Senator. First, he claims that his previously cast votes in favor of FACA and FEAA have been effectively nullified by the alleged lack of fair balance in the membership of the NPC. 94 Second, appellant Metcalf alleges that until the legal issues surrounding the operation of the NPC are resolved by a federal court, he is uncertain how best to take effective legislative action to correct the illegalities he perceives. 95 Appellant Metcalf relies solely on this court's decision in Mitchell v. Laird 96 as support for the acceptability of this second injury as a basis for legislator standing. Third, appellant alleges that the imbalance of the NPC has caused him injury in his committee work in the Senate. 97 In view of our opinion in Harrington v. Bush, we conclude that the first two asserted injuries do not satisfy the constitutional requirement of injury in fact. 98 We therefore turn our attention to appellant Metcalf's contention that he has been injured in his Senate committee work. 36 Appellant Metcalf is a member of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and is Chairman of its Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels. 99 This subcommittee has major responsibility . . . in the Senate's task of developing national policies on fuels and other energy matters. 100 Appellant Metcalf is also a member of two other Interior Committee subcommittees which deal with issues on which the NPC renders advice. 101 Although he contends that all of his committee work suffers because of the allegedly tainted and biased advice of the NPC, appellant Metcalf focuses primarily on his work as a subcommittee chairman in describing the injury done to him as a Senator. 37 In the process of developing national policies and legislation on energy-related matters, appellant Metcalf's subcommittee holds hearings and obtains data and recommendations from the DOI, the FEA, and other sources. 102 The NPC does not testify or otherwise provide data or advice directly to this subcommittee. 103 Appellant complains that, since the DOI and FEA rely on advice from the Council, the input which these two federal agencies have into his subcommittee is biased and tainted to the extent that the agencies' views reflect the Council's advice. By relying on the recommendations of DOI and FEA which may have been developed on the basis of Council advice, appellant alleges that he is impeded in his efforts to develop the best possible legislative product. 104 This is the injury which appellant Metcalf believes to be sufficient to confer standing on him as a Senator. 38 It is necessary to make several additional observations concerning appellant Metcalf's claim of legislator standing. First of all, appellant admits that he has other sources 105 than DOI or FEA that could be utilized by his subcommittee in gathering data and advice on energy-related matters. Curiously, however, appellant contends that he is under no legal obligation to employ these additional sources in order to mitigate any bias he perceives in the Council's input into DOI and FEA or these agencies' input into Congress. 106 Appellant asserts that he relies on DOI and FEA input even though he firmly believes the Council advice to these agencies to be biased and tainted and therefore is misled in his committee work to the detriment of his status as a Senator. It may well be that appellant Metcalf is under no obligation to consult other sources, but his tenacious insistence on reliance on agency advice which he thoroughly disbelieves certainly undermines his concern with developing the best possible legislative product. 39 Appellant Metcalf does not contend that the investigatory or information-gathering powers of his subcommittee have been circumscribed in any manner because of the alleged illegality of the NPC's operation. In addition, he in noway specifies the characteristics of the best possible legislative product which he seeks to develop so that the impact of the Council's advice on the product can be delineated. Indeed, appellant points to no specific legislation which has been impaired by the Council's actions; rather, the asserted injury relates to appellant's subjective judgment as to the quality of legislation which his subcommittee can produce under present circumstances.