[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S10711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ETHICS COMMITTEE MEETING

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to talk to my colleagues for a 
moment regarding the situation which has arisen on the question of 
holding public hearings on the charges brought by the Senate Ethics 
Committee against Senator Packwood, and as a result of remarks on the 
floor last Friday by the Ethics Committee chairman.
  First, I want to briefly tell Members of the Senate where the process 
now stands, in terms of the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee 
rules provide for a three-tier process. The first stage, preliminary 
inquiry; second stage, initial review; and the investigation phases.
  The Ethics Committee completed its preliminary inquiry and voted on 
May 16 of this year to skip the initial review phase and move into the 
final investigative phase.
  Since the three-tier process was created, only four other cases have 
gone to the final investigative stage. The committee found there is 
substantial credible evidence that a violation may have occurred in 18 
incidents of alleged sexual misconduct, intentional tampering with the 
evidence, and improperly soliciting financial assistance.
  At that point, under our rules, the committee offered Senator 
Packwood an opportunity to appear before the committee, and he availed 
himself of that opportunity on June 27-29.
  As the media has reported, when the Senate returned from the July 4 
recess, the committee began meeting again. At that point in the 
process, it was time for the committee to make a decision on what else 
needed to be done in the investigative phase, including the question of 
holding public hearings. That is where the process stood when the 
committee met on July 11 and 12; meetings which have been duly reported 
in the media.
  I went to the July 12 meeting thinking we would vote that day on the 
question of holding public hearings. The media has reported that the 
committee did not vote that day and that the meeting set for July 13 
was canceled. The chairman of the Ethics Committee acknowledged on the 
floor last Friday that no other meetings are planned.
  One thing I want to make clear, without getting into a long debate at 
this time on the merits of public hearings, is that holding public 
hearings in this case would be consistent with a long and well-
established precedent. Those of us who are advocating public hearings 
are not trying to change the rules of the game. All four other cases 
which went into the final investigative phase had public hearings. 
Indeed, every major ethics case this century has had public hearings. 
This would be the first case to be the exception.
  The process needs to move forward. I know of no reason the Ethics 
Committee has not met nor any reason why the committee has not voted on 
the question of holding public hearings. I am fully prepared to do so. 
We have now gone 2 weeks without a committee hearing.
  Today I wrote the chairman, appealing to him to call a meeting of the 
Ethics Committee this week for the purpose of voting on the question of 
holding public hearings. Whatever may happen or not happen on the floor 
is a separate issue. There is simply no reason for the committee to 
delay further, and I hope the chairman will establish a meeting time 
this week so the committee can proceed with its business.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. And I thank my colleagues for 
their accommodation.

                          ____________________