Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Democratic leader and the other people involved. I hope this will not take 4 hours. This is another half day off of the August recess, which we hope will start sometime in August.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. If he would yield for a moment. I have talked to the managers of the bill. I think it is their intent to stay here late this evening. And I understand they are going to take the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin and take an amendment from the Senator from Iowa. But we need to find other amendments. And we have had a five-hour delay here, rain delay, that is not the fault of the managers. So we have lost five hours. So they would like to make up some of that time tonight. If we cannot find any amendments, we need, in fairness, to let our colleagues know. If we cannot find amendments, we need to have our colleagues know whether we can have a roll call, and at what time. So maybe the managers can take a quick check and let the leaders know, so we can advise our forces. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to hear the debate. I know every second has been used. To many this is a very important matter and certainly the charges leveled against the Senator from Oregon are serious ones. There is no place for sexual harassment or any other form of sexual misconduct in the United States, in the U.S. Senate. That is point one. Equally as important is point two. We do have an Ethics Committee. We may not have another one again. Maybe this is the end of the Ethics Committee. Maybe it should be. If they do not have any standing, if they do not have any credibility, if they are not supported by the bipartisan leadership, I am not certain what function they can perform in the future. It is supposed to be a bipartisan committee. That is why it is 3 to 3, to avoid all the things we are doing right now. That is the reason it was implemented in this way, structured in this way, so we avoid a circus on the floor if somebody felt so inclined. So we have a procedure that has worked, as I understand, fairly well for 31 years. I think it ought to be followed today. We have had 2\1/2\ years of investigation in this case--2\1/2\ years--against Senator Packwood. As a part of this investigation, the Ethics Committee has interviewed 264 witnesses, taken 111 sworn depositions, issued 44 subpoenas, read 16,000 pages of documents and spent 1,000 hours in meetings just on this case alone. It is now my understanding, at least, that the Ethics Committee is preparing relevant information, the most detailed public submission ever made by the committee in any case. As it does in other cases, the Ethics Committee will also recommend an appropriate sanction. And before the Senate votes on this sanction, the committee will provide a full and complete record of all relevant evidence, and this record will be made available to the public. So I believe the American people, as they should, will have a right to know. The American people will know; they will have an opportunity to review the record, blemishes and all. It just seems to me, as someone not on the Ethics Committee--and, believe me, it is not easy to ask your colleagues to serve on that committee; it is going to be even more difficult from this day forward, I assume, unless you want to make it just a partisan committee, and then maybe we ought to change the numbers. But I guess the real question is whether or not we are going to allow the Ethics Committee to do its work without second-guessing on the floor of the Senate. The Ethics Committee should not be a political football. We have a process and that process should be followed. It has been followed in numerous cases in the past. If we want to change the rules and change the process, I assume we will do it as we normally do, prospectively, in future cases, and not in the middle of a case. I can imagine what would happen if this case were on the other side of the aisle. The Senator from California would not be on her feet. There were several cases in the House, as I understand it, and there was not a word uttered by the Senator from California, who was then in the House. But this is different. I have confidence in the Ethics Committee. We are out here in the middle of a case--actually, at the end of this case, because I understand the committee would like to act. Now, if we do not believe in the integrity of the Ethics Committee, why do we not abolish it? We can turn it over to the Senator from California to be in charge of everybody's ethics in the Senate, or to someone else who does not agree with the Ethics Committee. We do not agree with a lot of things that happen in committees around here, but I am not certain we challenge every committee when we have a disagreement and bring it to the floor and demand a public hearing on our issue because we did not prevail in any other committee. This is the Ethics Committee. I can tell you, as the leader, that it is extremely difficult to ask your colleagues to serve on this committee. It is going to be more difficult if this becomes a transparent effort to score partisan political points either in this case or the next case. Maybe the next time it will be on this side and we will want to score the partisan political points. Things that go around come around here, or whatever it is. I hope that is not the case. If I felt for a moment that there were Republicans on the Ethics Committee--not in this case--who were not men of integrity, I would say move right ahead. I think their integrity probably matches that of those on the other side. I think they are all men and women of integrity on the Ethics Committee. So I hope my colleagues will defeat the amendment offered by the Senator from California and then adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. Let the committee proceed. This may be good media, but it is bad policy. The press loves this. They have been flocking in all day long. They like it. Going after a Member really whets their appetites, whether it is this case or any other case. It is a great way to get big headlines and make the nightly news. But what does it do for the integrity of the Ethics Committee to score a few political points at the expense of the institution? If anybody can show me that Senator McConnell or Senator Craig or Senator Smith have, in some way, violated their oaths and violated their obligations as members of the Ethics Committee, or anybody else in this Chamber, then I would say, OK, let us proceed, because they have let us down. If anybody, including the Senator from California, can find one scintilla of evidence that somehow the Republican members prejudged or overlooked whatever they overlooked, whatever the charge might be, then that is one thing. So I hope I will be standing here the next time when it may be reversed, and I will be making the same speech, not a different one. I will be saying, maybe the next time, wait a minute, we have an Ethics Committee--we may or may not have an Ethics Committee, who knows. But if we have an Ethics Committee, and if it is evenly balanced with Democrats and Republicans, then let us wait until we hear what the decision is. So for all the reasons I can think of--and I know it is, again, good theater, but sometimes we have to look beyond the theater in this body. This is a proud institution and, in my view, I think we can properly oversee and provide appropriate remedies for misconduct by anybody in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, and I trust that is the way it will be in the future. Mr. President, the charges that have been leveled against my colleague from Oregon are very serious ones. There is no place for sexual harassment or any other form of sexual misconduct in the United States or in the U.S. Senate. That is point 1. Point 2 is that the Ethics Committee has established procedures for investigating charges of misconduct against Members of the Senate. These procedures have worked in the past, an they should be followed today. During the past 2\1/2\ years, the Ethics Committee has been diligently investigating the charges against Senator Packwood. As part of this investigation, the Ethics Committee has interviewed 264 witnesses, taken 111 sworn depositions, issued 44 subpoenas, read 16,000 pages of documents, and spent 1,000 hours in meetings just on this case alone. It is my understanding that the Ethics Committee is now preparing the largest, most detailed public submission every made by the committee in any case. As it does in other cases, the Ethics Committee will also recommend an appropriate sanction. And before the Senate votes on this sanction, the committee will provide a full and complete record of all relevant evidence in this case. This record will be made available to the public. So, this debate is not about the American people's right to know, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed. The American people will know. They will have an opportunity to review the record--blemishes and all. The real question here is whether we will allow the Ethics Committee to do its work, without second-guessing from the floor of the Senate. The Ethics Committee should not be a political football. We have a process, and that process should be followed as it has been followed in numerous cases in the past. If we want to change the rules, change the process, then we should do so prospectively, in future cases, not in the middle of this case or any other case, and certainly not as part of a transparent effort to score partisan political points.

Mr. DOLE. How much?

Mr. DOLE. Yes.

Mr. DOLE. What is the pending business?

Mr. DOLE. I think we have worked out an agreement that might not require the introduction of an amendment and second-degreeing it, and that is in the process of being typed, so if we could just have a brief quorum call, I think it would be a matter of 2 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, commencing at 2 p.m. to consider H.R. 660, the Older Americans Act.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Wednesday, August 2, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on the privatization of the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, to conduct a hearing on the Dual Use Export Control Program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of John Garamendi to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing Wednesday, August 2, at 2 p.m. on section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995 at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Administrative Conference on the United States Court.''

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence matters.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on Intelligence matters.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss leasing of the Arctic Oil Reserve located on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration and production and the inclusion of the leasing revenues in the budget reconciliation.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Wednesday, August 2, 1995, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the future of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on the implementation of P.L. 103-176, the Indian Tribal Justice Act.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, August 2, at 9 a.m. on the following nominations: Jacob Joseph Lew, Deputy Director of OMB; Jerome A. Stricker, Member, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Sheryl R. Marshall, Member, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; William H. LeBlanc III, Commissioner, Postal Rate Commission; and Beth Susan Slavet, Merit System Protection Board.