[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10782-S10783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senator from 
Kentucky has announced that the Ethics Committee will be meeting 
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and I certainly wish to thank Senator Bryan 
from Nevada, who took to this floor yesterday and asked for that 
meeting. I also want to be clear about what my intentions are, because 
those intentions cannot be stated by any other Senator but this 
Senator.
  First of all, I was very pleased that my colleague from Kentucky did 
not raise the specter of threats against any other Senator. That is a 
step forward from where we were last week. But I do feel that since the 
Senator from Kentucky did not ask this Senator what my intentions were, 
he really has no idea what I am planning to do in this matter, although 
he has essentially taken it upon himself to tell the Senate what I am 
not going to do.
  Now, I also wish to thank the Senator from Kentucky for realizing 
that I have rights as a Senator. He did not need to remind me of that. 
I am aware of my rights. He said that I had a right to vote for tougher 
penalties in the Packwood case if I felt that the committee penalties 
were not tough enough. I know that because I voted for tougher 
penalties than had been recommended by the Ethics Committee in the 
House twice on sexual misconduct cases, once against a Democrat and one 
against a Republican. There was no room for partisanship. And contrary 
to what the Senator from Kentucky said, Congressman Gerry Studds was 
stripped of his chairmanship. In the next Congress, he ran again, he 
won and he got back his seniority. But he was stripped of his 
chairmanship.
  So, yes, I understand the rights of Senators very well. And I will 
absolutely, absolutely make sure that all my rights are protected.
  Now, let me make it clear I do plan to offer my amendment on the 
public hearings issue if the committee does not meet in a timely 
fashion--and I am very delighted to hear that they are going to meet on 
Monday; that is a timely fashion--or if after they meet, they do not 
vote for public hearings.
  Let me repeat that. If they do not meet or if after they meet they do 
not vote for public hearings, I will be offering my amendment.
  The Senator says my amendment treads on the Ethics Committee. We have 
never discussed my amendment, but nothing could be further than the 
truth. My amendment is very respectful of the Ethics Committee.
  Yes, it says that Senate precedents and procedure should be upheld. 
And the Senator says there is no precedent for public hearings. I beg 
to differ with him. Senator Bryan laid that out in this Chamber 
yesterday. I have laid that out for all to see. Public hearings in 
cases that reach the final stage of an investigation is the practice of 
the Senate.
  My amendment is very respectful of the Ethics Committee because the 
crux of it is that there will be public hearings but--but--the Ethics 
Committee by majority vote could say we will not have public hearings. 
And rule 26 is an important Senate rule that is there to protect 
witnesses, or matters of national security will allow the committee to 
close off parts of that hearing.
  So the Boxer amendment, as I will offer it, if I have to offer it--
and let me say I hope the committee votes overwhelmingly for public 
hearings so I will not have to--will be respectful of the committee.
  My colleague from Kentucky mentioned Senator Byrd's name quite a few 
times. And who more reveres the Constitution than Senator Byrd?
  Well, just read article I, section 5 of the Constitution, and you 
will find that in there it says we must police ourselves. We must 
discipline our own. And that is a serious responsibility of every 
Senator, not just the Senators who serve on the Ethics Committee but 
every single Senator. And that is why every Senator has a right, in my 
view a responsibility, if he or she feels that the investigation at 
this stage should be open to the public, to say so and not be 
intimidated and not be threatened privately, publicly, in the press, 
outside this floor.
  Well, it was serious to me in the House. It was serious to me in the 
House. And for a freshman in the House to override the committee is 
speaking with a very loud voice.
  A colleague came to me, a friend, and said, ``If you persist in this, 
they are going to talk about your record in the House.'' I said, 
``Good. Good. I'm proud of it.'' Not only did I vote tougher penalties, 
but in 1989 I voted to change the rules in the House so that hearings 
would be public in the final stage of an investigation. Look at the 
record, 1989. And that is all I am asking for here.
  How about changing the subject? We have the Senator from Kentucky 
reading articles from Roll Call about things that happened in the 
1980's. How about working on things that happen right here?
  How about bringing justice and upholding the precedents of the 
Senate? Let the sunshine in and let us deal with these matters.
  I want again to compliment Senator Bryan. I think in no small measure 
he is responsible for the fact that the committee is meeting again 
because the rules of the Senate allow the vice chairman to call a 
meeting if the chairman does not. So I want to thank him for his 
leadership in getting the committee going again.
  My colleagues, I have never heard of a circumstance where a 
committee's work grinds to a halt because the chairman is unhappy with 
another Senator's view on a matter and says, 

[[Page S 10783]]
``That Senator might offer an amendment.'' I do not know of many 
committee chairmen who are not facing that every day; there is somebody 
who does not agree with them and might offer an amendment. Do we stop 
the wheels of progress in the Senate because one Senator says she or he 
is going to offer an amendment on the floor and debate it in an open 
fashion, exercising his or her rights as a U.S. Senator? It is beyond 
me.
  So I hope we do not start that again. In other words, here I am on 
the floor saying I am not backing off. I am glad that the committee is 
meeting, but I am not backing off one bit. If they do not vote for 
public hearings, I will be back here with an amendment.
  The American people believe there ought to be public hearings. A 
recent CBS News-New York Times poll showed that less than 50 percent of 
the people think there ought to be hearings on Waco again. They have 
held them before. Less than 50 percent of the people think there ought 
to be hearings on Whitewater because they have been held before.
  But 60 percent of the people believe there ought to be hearings in 
the open on the Packwood case. It crosses over parties. Republicans 
think there ought to be open hearings. Democrats think there ought to 
be open hearings. Independents think there ought to be open hearings. 
And the committee has the protection of rule XXVI. And in my amendment, 
if I have to offer it, it gives them the chance on a 4 to 2 vote to 
close the doors altogether. That is respectful of the committee.
  So a lot of people are waiting for justice to be done. We are in the 
final investigative stage. In every case to reach this stage, there 
have been public hearings. There are those on this floor who would vote 
for public hearings for Waco. There were those on this floor who voted 
for public hearings on Whitewater. I am on that special committee. We 
now are in our second year of hearings on Whitewater. We are looking at 
the Vince Foster handling of the papers again. When we are finished 
with that, there is another phase to go. I voted for that because I 
feel it is not good for the country that there is whispering or people 
think there is somebody covering it up. Open the doors.
  But, suddenly, those who are chomping at the bit for hearings on 
these subjects are saying, ``Well, not on this. Not on this. Do not 
tell the Ethics Committee what to do.'' I do not want to tell the 
Ethics Committee what to do. I want them to do the right thing. I stood 
on this floor last week and I listed every case. I feel it was a 
complete recitation of the precedents. Today I feel more strongly than 
ever that that is the right course.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the history of 
Senate misconduct investigations under current procedures.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  History of Senate Misconduct Investigations Under Current Procedures

       In 1977, the Select Committee on Ethics overhauled its 
     rules and established a three-stage procedure for 
     investigating allegations of misconduct. Under the procedure, 
     the Committee first conducts a ``preliminary inquiry,'' and 
     if warranted, an ``initial review'' follows. Only if the 
     Committee finds that the allegations are supported by 
     ``substantial credible evidence'' does the case enter the 
     final phase, a formal investigation.
       Since these procedures have been in place, every Ethics 
     Committee case to reach the investigative phase has included 
     public hearings. The following chart summarizes Committee 
     action on misconduct investigations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Senator/Sanction               Inquiry begun            Investigation begun            Hearings held      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Packwood/Case Pending...  December, 1992............  May, 1995.................  None.                     
Alan Cranston/Committee       November, 1989............  February, 1991............  November, 1990-January,   
 Reprimand.                                                                            1991.                    
David Durenberger/Censure...  March, 1989...............  February, 1990............  June, 1990.               
Harrison Williams/Expulsion   February, 1980............  May, 1981.................  July, 1981.               
 (Resigned).                                                                                                    
Herman Talmadge/Censure.....  May, 1978.................  December, 1978............  April-July, 1979.         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. BOXER. In the Record you will see, each and every time, public 
hearings, public hearings, public hearings, public hearings. Oh, they 
say this one might be embarrassing. I heard a colleague say, ``The 
people are getting too much of the O.J. Simpson trial. Now they're 
going to get this.''
  What is the message here? If you commit an ethics violation, make it 
so embarrassing that you will be protected behind closed doors? I hope 
not. So here we are. We are moving ahead. I am very pleased that the 
Ethics Committee will be meeting Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. I will 
be watching and waiting and hopeful that they will hold a vote on the 
public hearings question. If some of them think we should not have 
public hearings, so be it. I will accept their opinion. I will not 
agree with it. And I will take the issue to the Senate floor. If they 
vote for public hearings, they still have the protection to close off 
part of those hearings if they feel it is necessary to do so.
  The Senate is the people's Senate. We did not get here because we 
knew the boss and got hired. We got here because a lot of people voted 
to send us here. This is the people's Senate. This is not a private 
club. Shining the light of day on this matter and resolving it is very 
important, Mr. President. And I hope that next week we will hear good 
news out of the Ethics Committee. And I will await that news with bated 
breath. If there is no movement on this matter, I will be back with an 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________