[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12411-S12412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   SENATE RESOLUTION 163--RELATIVE TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

  Mrs. BOXER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Select Committee on Ethics:

                              S. Res. 163

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. ETHICS HEARINGS INVOLVING SERIOUS ETHICS 
                   VIOLATIONS BY MEMBERS.

       Section 2(d)(5) of Senate Resolution 338, agreed to July 
     24, 1964, is amended by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following: ``The Select Committee shall hold hearings in 
     any investigation conducted under subparagraph (A) that 
     involves a complaint against a Member. The hearing 
     requirement may be waived by the Select Committee by a 
     recorded majority vote of the members of the Select 
     Committee.''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

       The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any 
     investigation within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee 
     on Ethics pending on the date of adoption of this resolution 
     and any investigation commenced after the date of adoption.

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution 
to require the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to hold hearings in 
any case involving a Senator to reach the final investigative stage. 
This proposal is identical to the amendment I offered to the Department 
of Defense authorization bill that was narrowly rejected by a vote of 
48 to 52.
  Since the Senate voted on this issue, new information has become 
available 

[[Page S 12412]]
that strengthens the arguments for hearings in ethics cases. It is my 
hope that opponents of public hearings will reconsider their positions 
in light of this new information.
  Mr. President, the Senate is not a private club; this is the people's 
Senate. We have an obligation to demonstrate to our constituents that 
we take seriously our constitutionally-mandated responsibility to 
police ourselves. By attempting to sweep our problems under the 
committee room's rug, we do the opposite. The committee should do what 
it has always done in cases to reach this final phase; it should hold 
public hearings to investigate the allegations.
  This proposal is fair and reasonable. It allows the Ethics Committee 
to close its hearings in accordance with rule XXVI or to waive the 
hearing requirement altogether by a majority vote.

                          ____________________