◆ SpookStack

™ os : ~ United Scares _O @o z ongressional Record of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF ‘THE 97 1b CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol, 128 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1982 Na. 23 Pp. Ss ~ Senate SENATOR HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, for over 2 years, the Senate has lived with the events called Abscam. These 2 years have been sad ones for Senator Wiuiams and his family, for the people of New Jersey, for the Senate, and for the thousands of Americans Senator WiLLiaMs has helped through his legislative accomplishments. No Senators have labored more on this issue than the Senate Ethics Com- mittee which is charged with responsi- bility for the standards of the Senate. Since its report last August on Senator WItiaMs, I have agonized over my own course of action. I am grateful for the help and _ friendship Senator WILLIAMs extended to me as a new Senator. It was long my sense of him that his service to New Jersey was a testimony to his caring, and to his propriety. Now, I have seen and heard Senator ‘WitiaMs on tape—attending seven meetings in five locations over 11 months in pursuit of Arab money for a company. I have seen and heard him saying “no problem” when asked if he could help the company obtain Gov- ernment contracts. Most important, I have heard him accepting that compa- ny's stock certificates, which were en- dorsed in blank and which he said pro- vided him with foundations for future independence. Nothing in this debate _can-change-that final fact —__—_——. My personal conflict is complicated by what many say has been an abuse of power by the FBI—an abuse which constitutes entrapment or even an as- sault on the legislative branch by the executive. It is my hope that the Senate will conduct an investigation of Abscam. - Such an investigation cannot erase the ethical question before us with regard to Senator Wittrams. Iam not a lawyer. My reading of the extensive report of the Ethics Com- mittee and the responses of Senator. Wittrams has not been done with a lawyer's eye. My hearing of the past days’ debate has not been done with a lawyer's ear. It is the business of the judiciary to say whether or not Sena- tor Witrams is guilty or innocent by judicial standards. We are not judges. We are the Senate. It is our constitutional respon- sibility, as Senators, to assess our col- league's actions by standards we hold for ourselves, Like each of you, I carry in my own heart and in my own head an idea of the standards a Senator of the United States should follow and exemplify. For whatever reasons or friendships, : under whatever motivation or provoca- tion—whatever may have been the in- ducement or the entrapment—Senator Witiams’ behavior did not meet the minimum standards expected of a US. Senator and the Senate must react. What is the proper reaction? The Ethics Committee unanimously recom- mends expulsion. A search for exact precedents yields none. In history, the 15 Senators who have been expelled were all expelled on grounds of treason. Three other Senators, whom committees of the Senate had recommended for expul- sion after charges of bribery, either re- signed or lost at the polls before the Senate could act on the recommenda- tions. The Senate never has been asked to vote on the expulsion of a sit- ting Senator who has been convicted of such a felony—until now. If this should happen again, our determina- tion will be the precedent. The House of Representatives has lexpelled Members who have been con- victed of certain felonies. ‘There is also instructive history in he Senate’s action on Federal judges. hen a Federal judge did not volun- tarily resign after having been found to have taken illegal fees, these “high crimes.) and misdemeanors” were grounds for impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. With that much example in mind and with Senator WILLIAMs’ case under consideration, one must ask the following questions: