[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10449-S10451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HEARINGS ON ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, because the Senate polices itself, there 
has been much debate over the years about how the Senate should address 
allegations of misconduct. This debate has intensified in recent weeks 
because the Select Committee on Ethics has determined that allegations 
of wrongdoing made against a sitting Senator are supported by 
substantial, credible evidence.
  With this determination, the case moved into a formal investigative 
phase. As of today, in what appears to be a break with well-established 
traditions, no public hearings into this case have been scheduled. I 
have written the Ethics Committee and informed them that if no public 
hearings were scheduled by the end of this week, I would seek a vote on 
the matter by the full Senate. Mr. President, I have the legislation 
prepared and will seek to offer it next week. It is very 
straightforward and it will require that the pending case be treated in 
the same fashion as all other cases. I trust the Republican leadership 
will allow me a vote on my amendment in this very important matter, 
because the Senate's reputation is at stake.
  I will take some time today to explain why I believe that the Ethics 
Committee should follow its longstanding practice and schedule public 
hearings in this case.
  When an allegation of misconduct is received by the Select Committee 
on Ethics, it conducts a preliminary inquiry, the first stage of its 
procedures. If, at the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry, the 
committee determines that there is reason to believe improper conduct 
may have occurred, the committee may conduct a more exhaustive review 
called an initial review.
  To proceed beyond an initial review into the investigative phase, a 
rigorous test must be met. The committee must determine that there is 
``substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for 
the committee to conclude that a violation'' within its jurisdiction 
has occurred.
 If the committee finds that substantial credible evidence of 
wrongdoing exists, the case now enters the investigative phase. So, Mr. 
President, there is a preliminary inquiry, there is the initial review, 
and then there is the investigative stage.

  This three-tiered process for evaluating allegations of impropriety 
was established by this Senate in 1977. Since then, every case reaching 
the investigative phase has included public hearings. Let me repeat 
that, Mr. President. Since 1977, every single case reaching the 
investigative phase has included public hearings.
  Mr. President, even before the formal procedures were established in 
1977, when the Ethics Committee was created, the Senate followed the 
practice of holding public hearings in cases of alleged misconduct of 
its Members. For example, in 1954, extensive hearings were held by a 
special committee investigating misconduct by Joseph McCarthy. And as 
long as 65 years ago, in 1929, a special subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee held hearings to investigate alleged misconduct by Senator 
Hiram Bingham, and the committee made the complete records public.
  In other words--and I think this is important for Senators to 
understand--even before the three-tiered procedure was established, 
investigations into alleged impropriety included extensive hearings and 
full public disclosure.
  In 1978, shortly after the Ethics Committee was established, there 
was alleged financial misconduct by a Member of the Senate. After 
completing a preliminary inquiry, the committee voted to conduct an 
initial review, and then a full investigation. During that stage--the 
first in the history of the Senate--public hearings were held from 
April 30 to July 12.
  Following these hearings, the committee recommended that the Senator 
be censured because his conduct tended to ``bring the Senate into 
dishonor and disrepute.'' In one day of debate on October 11, 1979, the 
Senate accepted the committee's recommendation.
  The following year, the committee faced its most serious allegation 
of misconduct. In 1980, a Senator was indicted on nine criminal charges 
ranging from bribery to fraud, stemming from the Abscam sting 
operation. The Ethics Committee deferred its investigation until the 
criminal case was concluded. After the Senator was convicted, the 
committee authorized a formal investigation.
  As has been its practice, the committee held public hearings into the 
charges once it reached the investigative phase. The committee, then 
chaired by Senator Malcolm Wallop, found the Senator's conduct 
``ethically repugnant'' and recommended that the 

[[Page S10450]]
Senator be expelled. Rather than face expulsion, the Senator resigned.
  In 1989, a Senator was accused of financial misconduct related to a 
book deal and his ownership and use of a condominium and was 
investigated by the Ethics Committee. The committee followed the same 
procedure--a preliminary inquiry, initial review, and finally, a formal 
investigation.
  In the investigative phase of that case, the Committee held public 
hearings on the allegations. One month after the hearings, the Ethics 
Committee submitted to the Senate a resolution recommending censure for 
``reprehensible'' conduct ``in violation of statutes, rules, and Senate 
standards.'' And the Senate upheld that decision.
  I think it is important to note that after that investigation, some 
Senators were critical of the length of time it took to fully 
investigate ethics complaints--nearly 2 years in that case. Several 
Senators suggested streamlining the operations of the committee by 
reducing the number of investigative stages. But the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Howell Heflin, and the vice chairman, Senator Warren 
Rudman, noted that the three-tiered procedure is designed for the 
protection of the accused, because its first two stages are conducted 
in private, while the last stage is conducted in public. The Senate 
historian has summarized the arguments of the chairman and vice 
chairman as follows, and I think this is important for Senators to 
hear:

       The multistage process was actually designed to protect the 
     individual being investigated. Under the committee's rules, 
     the two early portions of an inquiry were carried out in 
     closed session, and only the third stage--the formal 
     investigation and hearing--was conducted in public. In fact, 
     on a number of occasions . . . the confidentiality of the 
     procedure had protected Senators against whom unjust charges 
     had been brought.

  So here we have the historian of the Senate making the case that in 
the third stage of the investigation, it must and should go public.
  It is clear that the Ethics Committee procedures were intended to 
include a public airing and disclosure of the cases, once the committee 
has determined that the allegations were supported by substantial 
credible evidence.
  The most recent Ethics Committee complaint to reach the investigative 
stage involves a Senator accused of improper conduct related to the S&L 
industry. In conducting its preliminary inquiry, the committee 
conducted extensive public hearings over a two-month period. That 
Senator was disciplined by a new form of reprimand, where the full 
Senate did not adopt a resolution of censure, but it was required to 
assemble on the Senate floor to hear a strongly worded committee 
reprimand.
  Mr. President, this is a simple matter of fact: Since the Ethics 
Committee adopted its current procedures in 1977, every case to reach 
the investigative stage has included public hearings.
  And furthermore, it is an indisputable matter of historical fact that 
in investigating allegations of improper conduct, the Senate has a 
well-established practice and record of conducting hearings. This 
practice dates back to a time before the Ethics Committee was formed.
  Now, why are public hearings important? Because they demonstrate to 
the people--out in the sunlight--that we take seriously our 
constitutionally mandated responsibility to discipline our own, to 
discipline our own for unethical conduct. Each time an allegation of 
misconduct surfaces, the bonds of trust between the Congress and the 
people are strained. But by facing these allegations head-on, by 
holding public hearings and supporting appropriate disciplinary 
actions, we begin to repair those bonds of trust. Covering up our 
problems and attempting to hide them from the people only makes matters 
worse. And that is not the way we should function as a democracy.
  Mr. President, I have taken the Senate's time today to discuss this 
issue because it now appears that the Ethics Committee is on the verge 
of abandoning its well-established procedure of conducting public 
hearings, in a case currently before it--a case that has reached the 
investigative stage. In my view, such a significant departure from 
established practice demands the attention of the full Senate and of 
the American people.
  For more than 2\1/2\ years, the Ethics Committee has been considering 
very serious allegations against the junior Senator from Oregon. On May 
17 of this year, the committee completed its inquiry of the case and 
voted unanimously to proceed to the final investigative stage. In 
adopting its resolution for investigation, the committee found 
``substantial credible evidence'' to support numerous allegations of 
sexual and official misconduct.
  It is my view that the Ethics Committee should follow the normal 
practice of the Senate and hold public hearings on these allegations 
promptly. There is nothing about this case that warrants making an 
exception. I am very disappointed that a number of Senators have 
advocated the opposite, and have indicated their desire to keep this 
investigation behind closed doors.
  Mr. President, opponents of public hearings in this case have raised 
three objections.
  First, they say public hearings on this matter would bring the Senate 
into disrepute. I argue that the opposite is true. As former Chief 
Justice Brandeis said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of 
disinfectants.'' By acknowledging problems and demonstrating a 
willingness to discipline our own, we strengthen the Senate and the 
bonds with the people. We win confidence from the people by discharging 
our responsibilities frankly and openly--no matter how controversial 
the issue. But we irrevocably lose the people's respect by sweeping our 
problems under the committee room rug. The Senate is not a private 
club; it is the people's Senate. We do not go in the back room, light 
up a cigar, and decide these cases.
  Second, opponents of public hearings in this case say that the 
allegations are so explosive that hearings would degrade into a circus-
like atmosphere. I understand these concerns. However, I have 
confidence that the committee can discharge its responsibilities with 
dignity.
 What is the message here? Is it that the more embarrassing the 
charges, the more a Senator will be protected behind closed doors? That 
would be a terrible message to send to the American people.

  I ask another question: If all the other issues were dealt with in 
public, is it a signal that if the issue were sexual misconduct you get 
the safe haven of a private club? That would be a terrible message.
  Third, some opponents of hearings in the open argue that these 
hearings would be unfair to those who make the complaints because they 
could be subjected to uncomfortable questions and difficult cross-
examination. I am confident that the committee will treat all witnesses 
fairly. In fact, several of the complainants in this case traveled to 
Washington to ask the Senate to hold public hearings.
  Moreover, the Ethics Committee can decide under current Senate rules 
to close any portion of a hearing if it decides it is necessary to 
protect a witness. That is an important point. Under the rules of the 
Senate, the Ethics Committee may close any part of a hearing to protect 
a witness.
  If it is true that hearings in this case would be painful--and it 
probably is--I must ask, is it the responsibility of a Senator merely 
to avoid painful issues? The Anita Hill hearings were painful, and what 
came of it? A national debate about sexual harassment that led to 
increased public awareness and better laws. Embarrassing? So were the 
Watergate hearings. Painful? So were the Waco hearings, where this week 
a young girl went before a committee and millions of viewers and 
described in detail the most despicable sexual abuse. The description 
was so graphic, in fact, that the committee felt compelled to warn 
television viewers in advance.
  Hurtful? Think of Vince Foster's widow, who 2 years later has to turn 
on the television and see that story before her again. Mr. President, 
personal discomfort is, unfortunately, part of our job.
  I hope I have explained why holding public hearings in this case is 
also part of our job. There is no reason to make an exception in this 
case and break with well-established procedures. That is what this 
issue is about.
  I also feel obligated to discuss what this issue is not about. It is 
not about any other Senator. It is not about partisan politics. It is 
not about personalities. Perhaps the most shocking thing 

[[Page S10451]]
to me in this process has been the private and public threats to a 
Senator who simply wants to continue the tradition of public hearings. 
I will not be deterred. I believe most Senators will support public 
hearings.
  Mr. President, I urge the Ethics Committee again today, on this 
Senate floor, to call a meeting of their committee, which last week 
they canceled, which this week they have not scheduled, to open this 
particular case to the public. It is, without doubt, the right thing to 
do.
  However, if the committee refuses to do this, I will have no 
alternative, as I have said before, but to bring this issue to the 
Senate floor directly. My legislation is ready. It is straightforward. 
I will offer it at the earliest opportunity next week if we have no 
action.
  In my view, a major procedural change overturning decades of well-
established precedent must be debated by the full Senate. I think this 
is very, very serious. The charges are serious against the Senator, but 
equally important, is that the precedents of this U.S. Senate not be 
cast aside.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________