PAGENO="0001"
I /~ ๑ GOV. ~
~ / ~
CREATING A SELECT COMNIITTEE ON
STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
HEARING
BEFO;RE THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
II. Res. 18
and Similar Measures
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
AND OONDUCT
FEBRUARY 21 AND 22, 1967
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
&j 1ZPi~
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
75-196 WASHINGTON: 1967
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE OX RULES
RAY J. MADDEN, Indiana
JAMES J. DELANEY, New York
RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri
THOMAS P. O'NEILL, JR., Massachusetts
B. F. SISK, `California
JOHN YOUNG, Texas
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida
SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii
WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, Tennessee
NINETIETH CoNGI~ss
WILLIAM M. COLMER, Mississippi. Chairman
H. ALLEN SMITH, California
JOHN B. ANDERSON, Illinois
DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska
JAMES H. QUILLEN, Tennessee
DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio
LAURIE C. BATTLE, Counsel
MARY SPEXCEa FORREST, .4ssistan t Co unsel
ROBERT D. HINES, Jr., JUnority Counsel
II
4
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Statements of- Page
Hon. Claude Pepper, Member of Congress from the State of Florida 1
Hon. Charles E. Bennett, Member of Congress from the State of
Florida 6
Hon. Wayne L. Hays, Member of Congress from the State of Ohio - 36
Hon. Catherine May, Member of Congress from the State of Wash-
ington 53
Hon. G. Elliott Hagan, Member of Congress from the State of
Georgia 53
Hon. Horace R. Kornegay, Member of Congress from the State of
North Carolina 54
Hon. Richard L. Ottinger, Member of Congress from the State of
New York 54
Hon. Dante B. Fascell, Member of Congress from the State of Florida 55
Hon. E. S. Johnny Walker, Member of Congress from the State of New
Mexico 55
Hon. Silvio 0. Conte, Member of Congress from the State of Massa-
chusetts 56
Hon. Daniel E. Button, Member of Congress from the State of New
York 57
Hon. Samuel S. Stratton, Member of Congress from the State of New
York 58
Hon. Richard T. Hanna, Member of Congress from the State of Cali-
fornia 58
Hon. Charlotte T. Reid, Member of Congress from the State of Illi-
flO~S~ - 59
III
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDTJCT
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
C0MMrrrEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 45 a.m., in room H-313,
the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.
The committee has before it some 40 resolutions. These, House
Resolution 18 and about 39 others, deal with the subject of setting up
a select committee to set up a standard of ethics, honesty, conduct of
the office of Members of Congress and House employees.
It will be recalled that last year the House did set up such a resolu-
tion which was headed by the distinguished gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Bennett, and that committee functioned for some month or two
and made a report.
For some reason there seems to be a great interest in this subject
right now and, hence, the large number of resolutions that have been
introduced.
Mr. Bennett has reintroduced his resolution, No. 18, and I think it
would be well for the committee to hear from Mr. Bennett as chair-
man of that committee in just a moment.
If the time permits and the desires of the members exist, we will
hear from other members who have had similar or unsimilar
resolutions.
Mr. Pepper, before we hear from Mr. Bennett, I understand that
you have another commitment and if you would like to make a brief
statement, you may go ahead.
STATEMENT OP HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA
Mr. PEPPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee.
I am on the Powell committee which is meeting now and absented
myself to come `here because of my deep interest in the subject that is
before this committee.
I have before me the Gallup poll of February 5 which appeared in
the Washington Post, or rather the Gallup poll which appeared in the
Washington Post of February 5. It said-the big headline is "Major-
ity Favor Ouster of Powell, Fund Misuse Is Believed Common."
Then the first two paragraphs:
1~
PAGENO="0006"
2 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDtCT
PRINCETON, N.J., February 4.-A majority of Americans believes Representa-
tive Adam Clayton Powell, Democrat, New ~Tork, should not be permitted to keep
his seat in the House of Representatives, according to a Gallup survey com-
pleted within the last few days. The survey also showed that almost the same
number think that misuse of Government funds, one of the charges made against
Powell, is fairly common among Congressmen-
And then the last question pi'opouiidccl in that Gallup inquiry is the
following:
Representative Powell is charged with misuse of Government funds for per-
sonal reasons. Just your own feeling or impression. do you think the misuse
of Government funds by Congressmen is fairly common or not?
The results based on the total sample: ~Tes. fairly common. 60 percent; no. 21
percent; no opinion. 19 percent.
Now, having sat on the Powell committee and heard the testimony,
I think I can say and I think when the report of this committee is clis-
closed, that there has been no instance in the history of this country
where there has been: such shocking misconduct, officially, as there has
been on the part of Mr. Powell. I hope the House next week will deal
either very severely with Mr. Powell or expel him from the body.
However, I don't think it is fair to say that any other Member of
Congress has been guilty of comparable conduct. At least I have not
l~earcl of it or reacT about. it. However. this is this opinion among the
people and I think that the only way that. we can dispel that opinion
is to have a standing committee where. there will be some sort of a
generally accepted code of ethics and propriety to be observed on the
part of the Members of this House and we all have our opinions about
the propriety of such a thing for the other House. In fact, there is a
Rules Committee or a s~5eciahiy set up ethics committee that is function-
ing in the other House, which is informed and conducting inc1uiries.
That. standing committee would be in constant existence. so if any-
body had any complaints that. lie presented to the committee. I think
there should be safeguards. It should be under oath if it is submitted
by a citizen, but if a Member of the Congress or a Member of the House
had any complaint or any question or any matter of suspicion on that
he thought should be given consideration by a standing committee,
that material could be properly brought to the attention of such a
committee and proper inquiry.
No doubt most of the cases would be disposed of without there ever
being public hearings audi just the very fact that. there was such a
committee would tendi to discourage. incliscretions or in many instances
carelessness on the part. of Members which may well be construed as
acts of impropriety by the public.
Frankly, I think we have waited too long in order to set up such a
committee and that it is imperative that we do so as soon as we
can.
Now, I personally subscribe to the resolution offered by my dms-
tinguishedi colleague, Mr. Bennett. I did last session and had the
honor to report that resolution from this committee to the floor.
I think we have a better understanding of the whole subject. now than
we had last year when the matter came to the attention of the House.
Mr. Bennett. has been offering this resolution or one of similar
character. I think perhaps 14 years. So far as I have observed
I believe lie is senior in the number of Representatives who are now
PAGENO="0007"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 3
Members of the House who have been constantly trying to get some-
thing like this established as a standing committee of the House.
He is here today to be heard; as 1 said, I introduced the same resolu-
tion as that offered by Mr. Bennett because I subscribe to it in prin-
ciple and generally in form, although details of improvement may be
suggested. Why, of course, I am sure that he, and certainly, I would
be agreeable to their consideration.
Mr. Bennett is here today, he is accompanied by two of my other
distinguished colleagues from Florida, Mr. Fascell and Mr. Gibbons,
all of whom subscribe to these principles and are here to be heard
before t.he committee.
I am sorry that. I will not be able to be here to hear them, but I just
did want to make that preliminary statement in view of the fact that
I shall have to be absent probably during these hearings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett, we will be pleased to hear from you.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, would it be entirely irreg~
ular to ask the gentleman to answer one brief question, because he may
be the only member of the Powell committee to testify before the
group? I think it is pertinent.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I concur in your statement and I appreci~
ate your statement, but I have this question: As a member of the ad hoc
Powell committee do you feel that the investigation of the Powell
matter could have been conducted more expeditiously and the com-
rnittee could have worked its will more easily and in a better fashioi~
if there had been in existence a select committee such as the one pro-
posed by the Bennett resolution, which had already promulgated a
set of standards of conduct so that the committee would have had
fixed guidelines by which to proceed.?
Mr. PEPPER. I am pleased to answer my distinguished friend from
Illinois very strongly in the affirmative.
The committee determined to limit its invest.igation of Mr. Powell's
alleged official misconduct to the beginning of January 1961. I think
that's when he became chairman of the Education and Labor Com-
mittee, but this course of conduct which has been the subject of the
committee's inquiry and was the subject of the House is concerned-
had been going on for several years and building up, getting worse and
wOrse-the cumulative effect of it.
If there had been a standing committee it may well be that the mai'
himself would have been spared the tragedy of his case as it now
appears and the Congress would have been spared the embarrassment
of having to deal with a Member who has been here 23 years, as this
committee is called upon by the direction of the House is going to
have to do.
So, I think that the existence of this committee w1ll do a great deal
to keep these ca.ses from building up into causes celebres, as it were.
Of course, they are there all the time. As soon as the whispers begin
to get around and reports begin to circulate, why, either somebody
could he called in t.o have a talk with them and say we have had com-
plaints about your committee and we thought you ought to be informed
about these complaints and so-and-so and so-and-so. It maybe could
PAGENO="0008"
4 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDIJCT
be squelched right there by proper, tactful cooperation between maybe
the leadership and such a committee as that..
Mr. ANDERSON. As a watchdog committee.'?
Mr. PEPPER. That's right. It would have a dete.rrent. effect and also
an ameliorative effect..
Mr. O'NEu~L. Se.nator, there is one thing that bothers me. A man
could be brought before a committee because. of innuendoes and whis-
pers. The mere fact that a Member of Congress has be.en brought be-
fore tha.t committee could leak out to the press and get home; it would
ruin him. I agree with your statement. I think we ought to be care-
ful on those we are going to bring before the committee. You. should
not bring a man before a committee beca.use of a. whisper.
Mr. PEPPER. I'm glad my able friend from Massachusetts gave me an
opportunity to correct a. wrong impression.
What I meant was that there not be any public hearing. I meant if
reports kept coining to t.he committee, tha.t such things as Mr. Powell
was doing, for example, were occurring, t.hat it might well be that the
chairman of that committee, or the committee, in some informal wa.y
could just sit down in his office and have a talk with hhn and say, "I
think you ought to know that these reports have been coming and we
have investigated sufficiently to find apparently there is some basis
for them," and give the ma.n a.n opportunity to save himself and t.o
correct .the practices.'
But I agree with you that the utmost of circumspection and discre-
tion should be exercised not to embarrass a member and not to let
rampant hearsay or evil people who want to destroy a Member come
in with reports unless they are properly authenticated by oath.
All these safeguards will undoubtedly have to be work out, but that
is a problem in administration. We must, of course, protect t.he in-
nocent. We are not going to allow the innocent to be pilloried here. by
that, but that will all have to be worked out, I think, in the details of
the administration of the committee, and I a.1n glad you gave me an
opportunity.
I did not mean upon every whisper that a. man should be brought
before the committee. I thought maybe when they were well enough
substa.ntiated, t.ha.t they should become a. p~.rt of the official concern
of the committee, then it might well be that the chairman or somebody,
or the chairman and the Speaker, in the utmost of secrecy should just
have `a talk with the chairma.n and tell him, "We wa.nt you to know
these reports have come in which we have found to be prima. facie,
creditable, and we thought you ought to know about."
Mr. ANDERSON. I knew you would want to correct tha.t statement.
Mr. PEPPER. It is for the innocent as well `as upon the guilty.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latt.a.
Mr. LATTA. It is not often tha.t we get a~ chance to quiz a member
of this committee.
Let me just say that I have agreed with what. you had to say up
to the point when you mentioned that had we had this committee
in existence for these 23 years, maybe Mr. Powell would not. be in
the "embarrassing end" position that he finds hintself today.
How do you come to' that conclusion? Do you mean it would have
been such a deterrent to this man tha.t lie would not have done all
these things he is charged with doing?
PAGENO="0009"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 5
Mr. PEPPER. These things have been disclosed through the years.
It was in the press when Mrs. Powell was here, 5 years being on her
husband's payroll, she never got but two checks. Probably somebody
would have found out about it prior to the end of 5 years and the
amount would not have built up to such an amount as it is and this
erroneous airplane travel where the chairman and one or more mem-
bers of the committee traveled under assumed names, that is built up
now to where it is quite a sum of money.
The scope of it would certainly not have reached, it seems to me,
the proportions that it has today if there had been some committee
that was authorized to have taken jurisdiction, but in this case it had
to wait until an aroused country and an aroused House finally deter-
mined to do something about it and appointed a special committee.
All these years a lot of these practices have been going on and
there wasn't anybody to do anything about them.
Mr. LATTA. One further question: Say you had this meeting you
referred to and you call this individual in. You have gotten these
reports. Take this case of Adam Clayton Powell, suppose this com-
mittee, the creation of which I favor as you know-suppose you call
him in and he takes the fifth like he did. What are you going to do
in that case?
Mr. PEPPER. That's up to the committee. I want to make it clear
I was speaking for Mr. Bennett, Mr. Fascell, and Mr. Gibbons. I was
giving my own ideas how the chairman might operate the committee.
That seemed to me to be a proper thing.
In the case you put, the chairman would never have said anything
to the Member unless he had conducted a quiet investigation and
found that there was a prima facie justification for the criticisms that
had been made.
Now then, if the Member scorns the factual and the kindly, coopera-
tive inquiry from the committee, why then, if the case justifies it, the
committee will have to decide whether to hold a public hearing and
take the normal procedures of redress.
Mr. LATTA. Then if this committee does find that he has done these
things like having people illegally on his payroll, outside the country,
and so forth, would you think that this select committee ought to just
tap his wrist and say, "You put the money back, that's all we are
going to do to you"?
Mr. PEPPER. The resolution, the language, will provide the things
that the committee may do.
Now, that is up to this committee to approve or not to approve and
up to the House to decide whether this is the authority that the com-
mittee should have or not. I think it is a matter that should be given
a lot of care, as my friend here from Massachusetts points out. We
have to be careful to avoid abuse, to avoid extremism and that sort
of thing.
But the committee would certainly have authority to hold a public
hearing and to make recommendations in cases which it appeared
justified affirmative action on the part of the committee just as this
special committee is doing right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YOUNG. Might I say, Mr. Chairman, before we get away from
this point-
75-196-67-------2
PAGENO="0010"
6 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG. I hope that your committee will be careful to empha-
size that the reprehensible aspect of padding the payroll is in padding
the payroll, whether it be with relatives or nonrelatives. A lot of
people around here-obviously I have none or I wouldn't be speaking
like this-but there are a lot of people that have some relatives on
the payroll that work hard and do good jobs.
It is very unfair to penalize them, but padding the payroll is wrong.
It doesn't make. any difference whether you do it with a relative or not.
Mr. PEPPER. That is the reason I say that a standing committee like
this would be a protection to Members. Well, a Member could say,
for example, before a standing committee, "My relative is on my pay-
roll. I ask this committee to make an investigation to see whether
or not it is a padded payroll or whether service is being rendered."
It would be a protection to the Member who observed the proprieties
as well as the means of punishment for the one who does it..
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Bennett, if there is anything left. for you
to say. [Laughter.]
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, as usual, very eloquent.
Before I get into the formal part of my presentation and relative
to what has just been said, it seems to me that it would be a good sug-
gestion, if I am on the committee next time, I would expect to rec-
ommend that it be set up a.s a first matter of business that. a resolution
be passed that no matter should be considered as under investigation
by this committee until after the passage of a motion by the. committee
expressly stating that tile matter is under consideration.
This would keep somebody from writing in to the committee and
branding a person on the theory that they were under investigation
by the committee and I think it would be a very proper t.hing to do so.
It could not be used in that manner.
Of course, this could be done right now. Anybody can write a
letter to the Speaker or the President and sa.y he is under investiga-
tion, but I think this would be a good thing to do to forestall any-
thing like thath.
STATEMENT OF lION. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity
to appear before this committee in behalf of House. Resolution 18
unanimously recoimnencleci by the House Select Committee on Stand-
ards a.nd Conduct., which had a short life-from October 19. 1966, to
January 3, 1967.
The House Select Committee ~n Standards and Conduct was di-
rected by Congress to recommend to the House ~`suc.h additional rules
or regulations as the select committee shall determine to be necessary
or desirable to insure, proper standards of conduct by Members of the
House and by officers or employees of the House."
In its report to Congress (H. Rept.. 233S. 89th Cong.. 2d sess.'~. the
committee askedl that the coimnittee be reconstituted because there
PAGENO="0011"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 7
was not sufficient time in the closing months of 1966 to make such
recommendations and because such efforts should be made while Con-
gress is in session so that the full membership of the House could `be
available for comments, recommendations, and hearings.
The, only new power asked, over what the committee had in 1966,
would be the power to make an investigation and recommend censure
on a violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House, of a
standard of conduct which had been established by the 1-louse by law
or resolntion previous to the act complained of.
The comparable ~Senate committee now operating has, incidentally,
much broader powers than are requested here, as it is not restricted to
recommending resolutions of censure, but is authorized in broad terms
to recommend "disciplinary action to be `taken" (sec. 2(a) (2), S. Res.
338, 88'th Cong.).
It is believed that the ability to at least recommend resolutions of
censure in a proper case is necessary for three reasons: First, to
effectively handle any such matter that may arise; second, to help the
committee in getting the attention and assistance of the whole mem-
bership of the House in drafting workable and practical rules; and
third, to reassure the public `that any improper `conduct that may arise
will `be adequately and promptly looked into.
I would like to call attention to the Washington Star article of Feb-
ruary 2, widely circulated `by some Members in an effort to show that
the `Commitee on Standards and Conduct should not be reconstituted.
A group of women reporters asked me to appear before them, and
they interviewed me. I quickly sensed that they felt this committee
,was being set up as a "whitewash" committee. I felt that such an
impression on the press would further unfairly damage the image of
Congress with the public.
In reply to a question expressing disbelief that any Congressman
would `be willing to present to the committee any matter at all for
investigation, I replied that in a case fully substantiated by compe-
tent evidence and reflecting on the Congress, it was my belief that 90
percent or all Members would be willing to do so in a serious case
publicly reflecting on Congress.
The article gave the impression that 90 percent of Congress was
waiting to present existing charges against other Congressmen. No
other article coming from this well-attended interview gave such an
impression as far as I know.
Further, in answer to a question on how narrow or broad the fields
of study of" new legislation might be, I replied they could cover "all
matters of impropriety" covered by legislation that might be intro-
duced and assigned to the committee for study. The article as printed
implied to many readers that the committee would have power to in-
vestigate charges under legislation not yet enacted. This is clearly
untrue because the proposed bill would not allow any case to be investi-
gated unless it were based on a statute or resolution previously passed
by the House; and then only under the additional sa-fegua.rds set up
in the proposed bill before you.
`As I stated in the first hearing of the committee last year (and ap-
PAGENO="0012"
8 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND COXDt~CT
proved by the full uom.mittee) ; and I am rea ding from the minutes
of the committee of October 20, 1966, what I said:
I do not think a man's private life is detrimental to the House. No one is
perfect; and if lie privately has weaknesses, it should not be something that
should be before this cOmmittee, as it would not reflect upon the House.
Inaccurate press reports, only as far as I know, and opponents of
the committee, have alarmed some members; but the record of actual
statements and actions of the committee and its chairman aive no
grotmds for any fear of "witch htmt.s" or snooping of any kind.
In fact, two complaints were received by the committee, during the
adjournment (based on the c.oimnittee's ability to look into violations
of criminal law) ; and in both, the chairman refused jurisdiction be-
cause the complaints were not in writing and under oath. as the stani-
tory history of the act required. Moreover, the full committee would
have to decide such matters, within the statute which empowers it; and
clearly the legislative history as well as the terms of the statute rule
out any abuses of the committee in such matters.
Such an investigation could be made only upon receipt by the select
committee of a complaint based on competent. evidence in writing and
under oath, made by or submitted to a. Member of the House and
transmitted to the select committee by a. Member. Even when so
formally presented, the. committee would have. discretionary power
not to act on the matter if it appeared to be trivial or otherwise im-
proper. No such resolution would be effective unless approved by
the House.
I would think there would be very few complaints about the con-
duct of Members of the 1-louse, but if a serious case, reflecting publicly
on the House, were substantiated by competent evidence, it is my opin-
ion that 90 percent, or perhaps all Members, would be wffling to sub-
mit it for consideration.
The committee would not be a snooping commitee looking into the
private lives of Members. But serious charges. fully substantiated.
reflecting on the U.S. House of Representatives. would or should be
looked into. Moreover, the committee would devote its efforts to
preventing, rather than penalizing and publicity.
The main purpose of this committee is to help improve the stand-
ards of the House of Representatives and also the public confidence
therein.
The public image of Congress demands that the House establish
a full, working, thoughtful committee working solely in the field of
standards and conduct. Sixty percent of those answering a recent
Gallup poll said they believe the misuse of Govermnent. funds by
Congressmen is fairly common. Of course. we know that such abuses
are, in fact, not common, but we have seen a number of such damaging
polls showing the people's lack of faith in the integrity of Congress.
There is a need for a vehicle in the House to achieve and maintain
the highest possible standards by statute and enforcement thereof.
This can only be done after thorough study by a committee whose
primary interests are in the field of ethics.
`The House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct has wide
support and adequate precclent for its reestablishment in the 90th
Congress. It was the Rules Committee which brought the resolution
PAGENO="0013"
SELECT COMMI~TEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDIJCT 9
to the floor in the 89th Congress and gave the select committee its first
opportunity to help lift and maintain the standards of the House.
This was the first time in history that the House of Representatives
ever had such a committee. Prior to that the Senate Select Commit-
tee on Standards and Conduct was established. A House committee
has been recommended by the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress.
There are over, or at least in the House, 40 resolutions before the
committee which call for a House Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct.
Mr. Chairman, I must add to this positive statement in support of
reestablishing the House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,
some comments concerning the recent action by the House Administra-
tion Committee. A Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts was set
up by the House Administration Committee apparently to kill the
committee which I am supporting today before your committee-
supporting along with dozens of other House Members.
I am not competent to look into the motives of this move, announced
to the press as an action to "obviate" the broader House Select Com-
mittee on Standards and Conduct.
However, I do believe that neither a subcommittee of the House
Administration Committee nor the mother, its full committee., is in a
position to do what the public has a right to demand and is demanding.
In the first place, that committee has only jurisdiction in the field of
House accounts and Federal elections matters.
According to the rules of the House of Representatives (rule XI
specifically), the Committee on House Administration can look into
matters dealing only with elections, accounts, and other housekeeping
matters. There is one section of the rules which says the committee
can look into "measures relating to the election of the President, Vice
President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested elec-
tions; credentials and qualifications; and Federal elections generally."
The phrase "corrupt practices" in this section relates directly to
elections, and cannot be construed to deal with general congressional
ethics. The positioning of this phrase in the midst of provisions
relating solely to elections is clear evidence of the legislative intent to
restrict this phrase to election matters.
Also, I may say the legislative history in the background of how the
House Administration Committee was set up shows this as well and the
way in which they got their authority from the previous Elections
Committee. Moreover, even aside from that, a long line of court de-
cisions so restricts it. The only interpretation this phrase has ever
had deals with elections.
The jurisdiction which the House Administration Committe.e doe.s
have is broad with regard to the expenditure of House funds, and I
would assume for instance, that bills relating to nepotism in the House
would continue to be handled by the House Administration Committee
while ones of general application throughout the entire Federal em-
ployment would continue to go to the House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
Mr. Chairman, one of the main purposes of the House Committee on
Standards and Conduct would be to reassure the public that matters
PAGENO="0014"
10 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
will be handled promptly in the field in which it will have jurisdiction.
Within the past 2 years the Committee on House Administration, by
virtue of its supervisory administrative functions in House accounts,
has had knowledge of a number of situations involving very question-
able activity; and it has failed to act promptly.
There may have been good and sound reasons for its failure, to act
promptly, but the records of the committee itself, t.he House Admin-
istration Committee, speak for what was actually left undone, and
cannot be reassuring to the public without explanation.
Illustrations of the slowness of the House administration to deal
with matters within their jurisdiction are replete in the hearings of
the Special Subcommittee on Conracts held December 10, 20, 21, and
30, 1966. For examples: The matter of not cutt.ing off the pay of
Mrs. Y. Marjorie Flores Powell when paid in violation of law (see
p. 44 of those hearings), and the matters of travel pay and per diem
costs (see pp. 16, 17, 22, 113, 114, 115, 191, and 193 of those same
hearings).
So despite the fact that there may have been good and sound
reasons for these delays, the public could not be reassured by any
action of Coiigress placing these new responsibilities in that same
committee, without adequately documented and understood explana-
tions of its past ina.ction. Moreover, clearly, a.ny committee set up
to do the broad task of raising and maintaining standa.rds in the
House should be a nonpartisan committee, with equal membership
between Republicans and Democrats. The House Administration
`Committee is, of course, not so constituted as it should be for this
purpose.
In conclusion, there is a need for the new Committee on Standards
`and Conduct t.o be established, a broadly based committee, but one
devoted solely to the problems of raising and maintaining the highest
J?ossible standards in the House of Representatives. The House
should come to grips with this need in an effective manner and in an
important manner, and not just "sweep the problems under the carpet."
~We can do no less for our count.ry.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett, specifically, there seems to be. no
provision in your resolution for a termination of the study. I assume
that, if this resolution is adopted by this conunittee antI by the House,
it would operate throughout the 90th Congress. It would be author-
izeci to do so.
Then, projecting that further, is it reasonable to assume that. the
distinguished gentleman has in mind that the committee, if it proves
effective or desirable, should be continued in the next CongTess?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir..
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, there would ha.ve to be a new authori-
zation setting it up.
Mr. BENNETT. The resolution I am bringing to you now is the
unanimous recommendations of the. committee that has existed in the
last session of Congress.
On further thought I, myself, and this was not. brought. before the
committee, have come to a strong conclusion that the committee really
should be a. standing committee and the reasons for this are twofold:
One, by analogy to the bar association committee on grievances or
PAGENO="0015"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 11
ethics, or whatever you want to call it, they have found it wise in
that professional group to have a continuing committee through the
years, and I think it would be a wise thing to do, because ~of the ex-
perience of other groups that have had this problem before them.
Secondly, in order to do a really good job in this field, there really
should be a very good staff and it should not be overpaid. To get
people to work in this field and not overpay them, an element which
is going to arise is a question of how long their tenure is going to
be; if that is going to be for only 2 years, I would say it is going to
be rather difficult to get good men at a reasonable price to come and
assist the committee in doing its research. So I strongly favor a
standing committee, but I am now before you in the capacity of an
ex-chairman of a committee which unanimously recommended a select
committee and the matter of making a standing committee was not
before the committee.
We never discussed it; although it's my personal view it ought
to be a standing committee I am suggesting here only that it be a
select committee.
The CHAIRMAN. That was what prompted my question. If this
type of committee is desirable, then should it not be a permanent
committee rather than just dip into the thing for one session?
Mr. BENNETT. I think it would be much better if it was a standing
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. My second question has to do with the staff and
the gentleman mentioned that himself.
How much staff did you have when you operated the last session?
Mr. BENNETT. The committee did not spend a single penny on a
staff because I found the problem arising right there. To get really
top flight people for a short period of time, the only way in which
I could get them was from volunteers, and I got volunteers. I got
in addition to my own staff, I got people from the Library of Con-
gress who worked off-time and I got a Mr. William Norman, who
is a general counsel, I believe, or head of the staff on the Senate
committee, who used to be my administrative assistant, and others
assisted me.
Mr. Dick Sewell, who is here, who is my administrative assistant,
they all worked without additional pay, even the secretary that took
the notes did it free. So the committee did not cost you anything.
It wasn't because I was trying to save money, it was because I
couldn't find top flight people to come and work for this committee
unless it was on a volunteer basis. They were willing to volunteer,
but they were not anxious to go into a temporary situation like this.
The CHAIRMAN. Could the gentleman who has given much thought,
I am sure, to this matter give us any idea about what staff he envisions
for the future if the committee should be set up?
Mr. BENNETT. I think we could probably operate with one good
man who would have to be well paid, a man with a legal background,
and one or two secretaries, which would mean if you paid the man
adequately, I don't think I could get the type of man I think this
committee should have for less than about $18,000 or $20,000.
As a matter of fact, the people that came to assist us, I think Mr.
Norman, in the committee position he has now, which is permanent,
gets $22,000 on the Senate committee and I don't know what the com-
PAGENO="0016"
12 SELECT CO~llTTEE OX STAXDARDS AXD COXD~CT
mittee feels about him. But if they approved him, I would be glad
to offer hir~i this job, but I don't think he would want to take very much
of a cut, because that's a permanent job and lie has a lot of children and
I just don't think lie would be willing to take a deep cut to come to
this committee although lie is interested in the subj ect matter.
So I would think I could probably not offer him less than $20,000
a year. He is a master of law from Harvard and a capable man.
The committee would have to approve who is selected. They might
want to take somebody else who is less experienced and less capable
and pay them less money, but my own feeling is it is better to have
a small staff coniposeci of really competent. PeoPle than to have a large
staff composed of people who really have, very little to offer.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Bennett, I would like to go back briefly
and then I am going to finish my part of this, as far as this witness
is concerned anyway.
The question was discussed here between your colleague on this
committee and others about what would have happened with refer-
ence to a certain other Member of this House a.nd his alleged dere-
lictions had your committee been in existence.
Do we not now have laws that c.over all of tilese alleged violations?
Mr. BENNETT. Well, there a.re laws now dealing with things in the
House Administration Coimnittee's activities and those are the only
laws that are being looked at as far as I Imow with regard to the
Powell hearing. Of course, I am not on tha.t conunittee, so I cannot
speak to everything they looked at. But there certainly are vacancies
in the existing laws.
If you read the report which this coimnittee got. out, about 10 pages
in the report, I think, relate entirely to existing standards in this
field.
The ChAIRMAN. And I rea.d that.
Mr. BENNETT. Just by reading them. you will see they were enacted
for particular circumstances and not a. general look at. the. law at. all.
A specific thing had to be cured and they wrote a law to cure that
thing without looking at the broad picture at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, any law t.hat was recommended by
your committee would have to be specific, would it not ?
Mr. BENNETT. It sure would and it would also have to be passed
not only in our committee and passed by the House of Representatives,
if it was going to be a real law, it would have to be passed the Senate,
too.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just come back to the basic question that
bothers me about this, whether you can set up the standard code of
standards or ethics that would be effective or would result. in the de-
sired results of making Members of the Congress, employees of the
House, conduct themselves in an ethical manner.
Mr. BENNETT. This falls into .two categories: First, the question of
drawing a general statement of code of ethics, not criminal law; and,
secondly, the bringing in of criminal law in this field, or specific laws
which would say that certain things are prohibited and they COiildl be
taken to t.he courts if they were wrong.
I think it would be very difficult to draw a code of ethics which
wouldi be meaningful andl helpful in the field of general House. be-
havior, but that is not to say it. cannot he done. I think it can be clone
PAGENO="0017"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 13
and I think it would be helpful both ways: To eliminate some bad
behavior that might occur and to create a better image on the part
of the public that these things are being looked into and that the
standards are there.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. What I am trying to say
is this: I am trying to think out loud about it-is it possible to legis-
late ethics and morality and honesty? Is that matter not, in the final
analysis, going to have to be settled by the constituency of the Rep-
resentative or the employee?
Mr. BENNETT. Well, if you are referring to the second group of
things I referred to, which is statutory law, you realize that most of
this report that I referred to deals with statutory law. If you are
referring to that, obviously you can make improvements.
The first law probably was a law against murder and to say that
there are not fewer murders because of this law, I think, is to make an
untrue statement. I don't know when that law was written, probably
thousands of years ago, but to say that laws-I will put it this way:
It is obvious that no law can make a man good, but it is also obvious that
a law can make a man perform well or do things well and not do bad
things because of the penalty which may be applied to him.
All of us here are members of some religious faith and I think we
would all agree that the only way in which we can make ourselves bet-
ter is to live by high spiritual standards, but we cannot enact anything
like that into law. That could not be done.
So far as the second aspect of it is concerned, the bringing forth of
new statutory law with specific penalties, obviously this committee can
do that. People have been doing this for thousands of years, and suc-
cessfully, to improve society. As to the first point of drawing a gen-
eral code of ethics for Members of Congress and just leaving it in the
gray area without any real prohibitions, I think your observations are
well `taken. I think it is very difficult to draw a general or even rather
specific thing in this field.
I am sure it could be done and would do some good, but I am not
saying it would be an easy thing to do.
I was going to say after it is done, if it can be done, and I believe it
can be done, I think there would be two benefits, as I have already men-
tioned. One of them is to raise the standards of the House and the
other is to allay the apprehensions of the public, which I think is a
good thing to do. But this is not the main thrust of this committee.
The main thrust of this committee is not just to do that; it is to see
wherever the deportment or activities of Members of Congress should
be restricted in whatever fashion, by statutory law or whatever it
might be. I am more hopeful that something can be done in the field
of statutory law than I am in drawing a statement which is just going
to appeal to people's higher principles.
Like you, I question whether, if you don't put some teeth in it, it is
going to be very effective.
The CIIAIR1~IAN. It was the question of standards, the code of ethics,
I had reference to and was emphasizing particularly.
However, I recognize that, due to recent developments and events
that have happened, there is a great demand for this Congress to do
something and I assume that something will be done.
Mr. Anderson?
75-iDG--67---3
PAGENO="0018"
14 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. One question. Mr. Chairman.
Section 2 (b) of your resolution. Mr. Bem~etr. refers to the power of
the select committee to make an investigation of any violation by a
Member, officer, or employee.
WThat would you do given the case of someone like the former secre-
tary to the Senate majority who resigns before the full story of his
misdeeds unfolds? V\Tould the committee have jurisdiction to enter-
tain charges in a case like that a.nd conduct an investigation?
Mr. BENNETT. Well, tile committee, after this legislation is passed,
if it is passed, would have no jurisdiction to investigate, unless it
violated existing statutes at tile time that the man performed the duties,
not the duties but the improprieties.
I want a.n extra. copy of this so I can give this to Mr. Anderson.
So it is difficult for me to say what would be done ai~ut the former
Secretary of the Senate, because I do not have all the facts before me.
But if this was enacted and he ha.d done this in tile House and there
was a law duly enacted by Congress, either in the future or in the past,
as set out in the report, and he violated it, he could be given a. censure.
That's all he could be given under this legislation. He could just be
censured for his act.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. But you spea.k of employees. He would
actually be an ex-employee if he had resigned. Do you still think
the language is broad enough to cover that contingency
Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think it is broad enough to cover an ex-
employee providing he did tile thing that was wrong after tile law
had been enacted and he violated the law. I tilillk he could be (en-
sured. I don't know how easy it would be to censure hint after he
left the entployrnent. I think that really has more effect upon the
people who expect to continue their employment than it does those who
have already left.
So whether the committee would waste its time to cellsure some-
body after they left, I don't know. Tile only tiling for this committee
would `be to `bring a proper case, one reflecting upon the House. pub-
licly, not a. private matter, brought to the atteiltion with all these safe-
guards to im-estigate his act, if his act occurred ill violation of a law
which existed at tile time wilell he did the violation.
That is a. very narrow field, but I do think it is a step forward.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. That's all the questions I have..
Tile CHAIRMAN. Mr. Delaney?
Mr. DELANEY. At the conclusion of the hearings on this select com-
mittee, you would file a report with recommendations: is that. rigilt?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. DELANEY. And the1l, ill order to have it effective, it would have
to go to one of t.ile committees of t.he House?
Mr.. BENNETT. No, I think tile comntittee would be able to take any
resolution tha.t was asisgned to it by tile Speaker and operate. on it as
if it were a legislative committee~ could report it back to the House and
tile House and tile House could act upon it. I dloll't think it would
have, to go tilrough allotiler legislative committee.
Mr. DELANEY. A select cOrflfllittee does not report. directly to the
House, does it?
PAGENO="0019"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 15
Mr. BENNETT. I think in this field, I think when it has been given
the iowers that are in this field, it is my understanding they do.
Mr. DELANEY. We have a conflict. There is a standing committee
with some powers, that is, on the election and so forth. Would it
not be better to include al of these things under one committee?
Mr. BENNETT. I am not avaricious for jurisdiction; it's not me.
The committee is not avaricious for jurisdiction. There is juridictioii
in the House Administration Committee which it has had for years
with regard to its accounts which it supervises administratively, in ad-
dition to oversight. In other words, it approves the checks, and I
don't see any reason to move that jurisdiction into this committee. I
would think the things that they have had before under their jurisdic-
tion they could well continue.
I think this committee is going to have plenty to do without getting
into the House Administration Committee's functions. If you wanted
to specifically spell it out in the resolution, this came up as a prac-
tical matter last fall because if this committee had been avaricious
about jurisdiction, it might have raised the question with regard to
House Administration Committee and its looking into Adam Clayton
Powell.
It did not do so. It felt that the House Administration Committee
had a jurisdiction in this field and it was proper for it to handle the
hearings. It made no protest or effort to get into this act whatsoever.
And I think this would be the experience in the future, but if you
wanted to write something into the law to specifically preserve to the
House Administration Committee the things that are within its pow-
ers, elections and accounts, this would certainly not in any way se-
riously affect this committee.
Mr. DELANEY. It seems there is such a close relationship between
the 1-louse Administration and this select committee that it should
come under one head rather than under separate heads.
Mr. BENNETT. Well, I have already stated in my sta!tement why
I don't think this broad power should be given to the House Adminis-
tration Committee. I must also add if you try to do so, you would
have to have a two-thirds vote, as I understand it, because it would
require an amendment of the rules.
It does not have the jurisdiction at the present moment and I think
this is an important enough thing and I think the country wants this
thing to be looked at importantly and handled importantly, an impor-
taut enough thing to put it in the hands of a committee which is de-
signed to try to improve this particular thing iiistead of just sticking
it in another committee which has endless things to do as it is.
Mr. DELANEY. We have a joint committee here with Mr. Madden
and Mr. Monroney. They recommend-
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, they did.
Mr. DELANEY. \~Vell, if they recommended an ethics committee, then
it would go through both 1-louses and we would have it as a joint
committee?
Mr. BENNETT. The only difference between that committee recoin-
mended by the Joint Committee on Organization of the House ai~d
Senate, and this committee, is this very mild-but I think important-
PAGENO="0020"
16 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
provision that in proper cases reflecting upon the House with com-
petent evidence submitted that they will have `the ability to censure.
Now, of course, the Senate committee which already stands, and it
is a standing committee, I believe, anyway it already exists-it has
much broader authority than what is recommended in the joint com-
mittee recommendation and much broader authority than this reso-
lu'tion could give, because it could actually, I assume, expel a member.
It could Rot itself; it could recoimnend impeachment or expulsion or
recommend a lot of things which this committee cannot dlo.
All this committee could do would be in these very narrow cases
properly safeguarded, based on a law which has already `been passed,
it could in those cases recommend to the House that a resolution of
censure be passed.
Mr. YOUNG. Is that the Committee on Rules atici Administration?
Mr. BENNETT. The House Committee on Rules.
Mr. DELANEY. This committee has been established and called upon
to act on their recommendation. \Ve are acting on their recommenda-
tion to the joint House and Senate on the organization of the coin-
mittee.
In the nieanwhile we have an amendment of their recommendations
right here with a select committee for the purpose of ethics. I under-
stand there is a recomniendation in there.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, but it does not contain this particular provision
~that I think is important to the committee. It does not contain it and
II think it ~houlcl contain it.
Mr. DELANEY. I don't know what the recommendations are, but I
understand there is a recommendation in `there.
Mr. BENNETT. It is virtually almost what our last vear~s bill was.
Mr. DELANEY. We are going ahead now and then we get a general
reorganization. We are doing this piecemeal when we could do the
whole thing together.
Mr. BENNETT. \\Tell, of course, this measure is a highly important
measure. If you took the testing of the. people throughout. the coun-
try on the things they are real interested in, this rates real close to
Vietnam, and to say this thing has got to wait until that omnibus
bill is passed, which may be defeated on something other than this
entirely, and all the delays involved in it. to tell the public they will
wait that long, I think. would frustrate the public and make them
rather furious, because I think they feel this is something we couldl
handle.
It is not a coinplicatedl matter. The bill we had last session was
what was in the joint committee recoimnendation.
Now, the Senate itself, the Senate itself gave niuch nuore power
than we are asking for here in their Senate committee. As I say,
it has much greater power, but the joint. committee recommendation
was just exactly what we had in the last session.
Mr. MADDEN. WTouldl you yield ? IVere you talking about the joint
committee recommendation?
The CHAmMAN. Yes, the question was asked.
Mr. MADDEN. For the information of the committee, the recommen-
PAGENO="0021"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 17
dation of the Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress was,
and I will reacT it:
The House of Representatives shall create a committee on standards and
conduct. The Joint Committee heard considerable testimony with respect to
the problem of the ethical conduct of members of Congress. It is the opinion
of the Joint Committee that the House of Representatives should create a
committee to be concerned with the standards and conduct of members of the
House. The Senate has already created a committee to examine problems
in this area and the House might explore profitably the organization and
procedures of the Senate committee prior to implementing this reconunendation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that was the consensus of the opinion of the
joint committee and the recommendation as far as the I-louse was con-
cerned, so I just thought I would read that for the information of
the members.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from New York will yield to me
to answer the gentleman from Indiana's question.
You state in your report, as you read it, this was to be a select
committee. Is it to be a temporary committee or a permanent com-
mittee?
Mr. MADDEN. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is it?
Mr. MADDEN. It j5: the recommendation that the I-louse create such
a committee or explore the advisability of creating such a committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What committee; permanent or select?
Mr. MADDEN. It doesn't set that out.
Mr. BENNETT. I can answer that. Upon advice of Mr. Sewell here,
he tells me the bill that has been introduced to implement these recoin-
mendations provides for a select committee.
I misunderstood him. It is select in both instances.
Mr. SEWELL. In the bill it calls for a s.tanding committee.
Mr. BENNETT. In the bill they call for a standing committee.
Mr. MADDEN. As I understand, some of the resolutions call for a
select and some permanent; is that true?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, Mr. Delaney?
Mr. DELANEY. Just on the adoption, say, of the Madden bill, we
would have a standing committee of the House and here we would have
in existence a ten'iporary or select committee?
Mr. BENNETT. Of course, we could amend that to put in a l)roviSiofl
about censure so you could use this procedure. The question is whether
you want to occupy this kind of time since you are giving it a full
hearing now, whether you want to do that and whether you want to
occupy this kind of time since we have had this full hearing and the
issues are all before us.
I would hope the Rules Committee would come forth with whatever
committee they wanted to have, a standing committee, select commit-
tee, giving it power to censure or not power to censure, as you all de-
termine is best for our country and the House.
Mr. DELANEY. Suppose the Madden bill were to pass now, and pass
both Houses and you had a select committee here, then under this law,
why, we would have a standing committee of the House. We would
have a conflict then?
PAGENO="0022"
18 SELECT COMMITTEE OX ST~XDARDS AND COXDLTCT
Mr. BENNETT. I don't believe that would happen on the floor of the
House. I believe an amendment would take place during the debate
which would handle that. It would either take the standing commit-
tee we. create by the Rules Committee here, and I do hope. you create
a standing committee, or you would change that provision of the Mad-
den provision to make it a select committee, since that. would be the
normal way to operate, I would think.
The CIIAIR~rAN. Of course, this committee has original jurisdiction
in this matter. It. could report out. any kind of a resolution it. saw fit.
Mr. Martin?
Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I concur in your remarks. Mr. Bennett. I think you macic. a very fine
statement.. The. feeling in the country today anti the image of the
Congress, I think, demands completely that. a separate committee. he
set up in this area, not assigned to the House Administration Com-
mittee or any other committee that we have in existence.
I think this is most important for the image of the Congress itself.
I think we need a strong piece. of legislation in this area, or a. strong
resolution. I have a question or two on part of your testimony.
On page 3 under section 2, you sta.te:
Such an investigation may be made only upon receipt by the Select Committee
of a complaint, in writing and under oath, made by or submitted to a member
of the House, and transmitted to the Select Committee by such member.
Do you not think there is a. little weakness involved in that proce-
dure? There might be cases of misconduct that occur outside the House
which would not be known to the Members themselves, yet could be
reported by outside people w~ho, if they had the authority to report
directly t.o this select committee, would do so.
Secondly, it. seems to me that there is a weakness in that under this
language a. person would have to make his complaint to some other
Member of the House and there might be a great. reluctance on the part
of the Member to file, under oath, a formal complaint against one of
his colleagues.
Mr. B~-XETT. On that. last point, you make. it would not be en-
visioned that the Member of Congress would file anything under his
own oath, unless it was his own information. The procedure of setting
it up that way was clone analogous to the prosecuting attorney referring
things t.o the grand jury or things of this t.ype.
I must say, speaking for myself and I think for every member of this
committee, of course, I cannot spea.k for them because they did not vote
on this particular thing, but looking at. the careful minutes we took,
w~hich are available for anybody to read. the. provision about making
it nuclei' oath and in writing, and the provision about a Member of the
House having to refer it to the committee were done entirely for the
PlTrlose of reassuring Members of Congress that trivial matters would
not come in any way to the committee. The committee would still have
the discretion to turn it down.
Mr. MARTIN. Your staff could turn it down?
Mr. BENNETT. I would much prefer having those provisions stricken.
because the committee still does not. have to hear these matters. If
trivial, the staff or the committee can sift them. I don't, think a mat.-
ter should be considered under investigation unless the committee makes
PAGENO="0023"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 19
a motion it is under investigation, so I think the committee can well
protect Members in this field.
Analogous in the Senate, they did not put anything in theirs about
being under oath and in writing and MenThers submitting it to the
committee. If you remember in the last days of the last session of
Congress, I am not perhaps the most belligerent Member of Congress
available to carry on this kind of fight, but with the assistance of some
stalwart men on both sides of the aisle, we were able to make a case,
but we were under heavy attack from people who said this was an
immolation committee and something to destroy Members of Congress
and all kinds of protection should be set up to keep down this abuse,
and, of course, there is no Member of Congress probably that has said
-I will put it this way. As far as I am concerned, if I go back on
this committee, I don't know whether I would or not, I have never
said an adverse thing about any Member of Congress either privately
or publicly and I am certainly not anxious to see anybody hurt.
All I want to do is help raise the standards of Congress analogous
to the grievance committee and the bar, known by its anonymity, not
publicity. It is known by its effort to prevent rather than its penal-
ization of individuals.
So I think these provisions are entirely unnecessary and I would
welcome them being stricken by the Rules Committee if it wants to
do so, because I think it is a weakness I think it would be good to
strike it, but if it makes some of the apprehensive Members of Con-
gress happier, well, it is a rule which we could live with and we are
not anxious to do anything but help, not to hurt.
Mr. MARTIN. Well, one other question, Mr. Bennett, in regard to
protection of the Members of the Congress themselves.
The resolution reported by the Rules Committee last fall required
a two-thirds vote, two-thirds of the total membership, eight of the
1~ members, for a report or a censure of a Member to the House.
Now, as I read your resolution, it would require a simple majority ~
Mr. BENNETT. That is true only because the House itself in work-
ing its will on this bill did this. You see, in other words, this resolu-
tion you have before you today has had only one thing done to it
other than what the House did to it last fall.
The only thing done to it is to allow resolutions of censorship to be
presented in proper cases for action by the House of Representatives.
That was the only thing added. It was my thought and the commit-
tee's though that the House had worked its feeling about what the
House had decided.
As far as I am concerned, and I guess as far as the other members
are concerned, the two-third requirement is not unusual. I said re-
peatedly in the hearings of this committee I hoped this committee
could be a unanimous committee; I hoped that, there is no rule about
that.
I hope we can do that. I served under Mr. Vinson for many years
in the Armed Services Committee. That was his rule-we did not
bring out things unless they came out unanimously. Of course, you
cannot always do that, but you can have that as a goal, so I think two-
thirds would not be a difficult thing to live with at all.
PAGENO="0024"
20 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Mr. MARTIN. As I recall, the Rules Committee in suggesting that
amendment last year, sought to safeguard the rights of the Members
themselves.
Mr. BENNETT. That would be thoroughly acceptable to me. It
would be acceptable to myself anti I think it. would be to the commit-
tee as a whole.. The onfv reason it is the other way is because this
resolution before you today is 100 percent the sane resolution the
Blouse passed with the single tiny exception of inserting the ability to
recommend censure in proper cases.
Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boiling?
Mr. BOLLING. Tha.nk you, Mr. Chairman.
Mlr. Bennett, at the bottom of page 2 of your resolution, the para-
graph that begins-it is under section (b) -
The select committee shall have power to make an investigation of any violation
by a Member, officer. employee of the House of standards of conduct established
by the House of Representatives by law or resolution. including those standards
provided as title 18, United States Code, and in the concurrent resolution passed
July 11, 1958.
I would like to be reminded what was in that concurrent resolution.
Mr. BENNETT. That is the "Code of Ethics for Government Service."
Mr. BOLLING. And that includes the Coi~gress? Do you have a copy
of that around?
Mr. BENNETT. It is in the report of the committee. I usually carry
a wallet-sized one in my wallet, but I don't have my wallet with me.
IMIr. BOLLING. I was asking this because of something in the colloquy
between the chairman and Mr. Bennett. anti I think it is worth read-
ing this "Code of Ethics for Government. Service":
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty
to persons, party or Government department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws and legal regulations of the United States
and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance
of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting
tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges
to anyone. whether for remuneration or not; and never accept. for himself or his
family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by
reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
0. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office. since a
Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public
duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly,
which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental
duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of
governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
The thing that worries me today, as it did then. about this code of
ethics for Government service is, first. its vagueness-because it really
is, as I understand it, a reacloption of the Ten Commanchnents with a
little addenda; and, second, the effectiveness it may or may not have
had since its adoption.
PAGENO="0025"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 21
Now, I am sort of curious as to what would happen, having studied
this matter somewhat carefully, if there was an attempt to do as this
section says, make an investigation of any violation by a Member,
officer, employee of the House, particularly in connection with "loyalty
to the highest moral principles above loyalty to persons, party, or
Government department." That is what this says and that is what
this would do in this resolution; is that correct?
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
Mr. BOLLING. I was curious about that.
Mr. BENNETT. Let me say this. This illustrates the difficulty of
coming out with a code of ethics, because this code of ethics was
drafted by about 40 or 50 Members of Congress and this was in 1949
or 1950. It took about from 1949 or 1950 to 1958 to get it passed, and
it was worked over by several sessions of Coiigress. Extensive hear-
ings were had on it, and commas put in, commas taken out, words
changed here and words changed there, and it is not an easy thing at
all to get a code of ethics for Government service or any other code of
ethics for anybody drafted, which has this implication to try to help
standards in the field other than statutory criminal law.
That is the reason when the chairman asked me about this, I said
to him that I am not very sanguine about-very optimistic about
drawing up codes of ethics.
This is not an easy thing to do at all, because when you have a code
of ethics, unless it is criminal law, you have admittedly said it is going
to be in a gray area and subject to all kinds of interpretations.
I know the chairman is looking at the clock. I would like to say one
thing about this c.ode of ethics. It has not been a useless thing. The
Civil Service Commission has many times referred to this as being a
very helpful thing in the executive branch of the Government, so it
has been a worthwhile thing. It has never been applied to the House
of Representatives, but if there is an objection to the vagueness of
this, that would be easily done by just striking that language relative
to resolutions and you could just say-just stop right there when it
says the standards established by the House of Representatives by
law.
That would be stopped at page 25 where it says "by law" and just
strike the rest of that sentence after "law." This is not a law, this is
just a resolution. it was passed by the House and the Senate, but it
was not a law. So you could strike that and there would be no great
harm done by that if you want to do that. I have no objection to doing
that.
I would think, however, the committee might want to think about the
possibility there might be a desire to leave some power of oversight in
this field and~ ~if~ you do not have some general provisions like this, you
would not have such oversight. But if you feel the committee might
be likely to go down all kinds of cul-de-sacs and do things it should not
do, it would be a simple thing just to strike all words after "by law,"
to strike out "or resolution including" and I don't think this would
impair the activities of the committee. And I would have no objection
to removing it if you want to remove it.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I have one comment I would like to
make.
75-196-07-------4
PAGENO="0026"
22 SELECT COMMITTEE OX STANDARDS AND CONDECT
The impression, I think, has been left in the record that there are
only two ways of establishing a committee with full jurisdiction awl
directing that committee to do certain things. One would be through
the Madden committee recommendations. and the other would be
through the establishment by resolution of a select or standing com-
inittee, much like Mr. Bennett's.
There is a third way, a simple way, and it does not take two-thirds
vote. All it would require would be a. resolution front the Rules Com-
mittee to amend rule XI, section 9, which establishes the Committee on
House Administration, and give it the same jurisdiction as was given
to the select committee. That then would be reenforced in the same
resolution by a directive to the Committee on House Administration
containing, I think, somewhat tightened-up language, virtually identi-
cal, to all the language which appears in Mr. Bennett's resolution,
starting with section 2 on line 11 of page 2, and proceeding as far as
and much as one wished to proceed.
This would be a resolution from the Rules Committee. It would be
privileged; it probably could be gotten to the floor faster than anything
else. It could be acted on and you would have a directive to the Com-
mittee on House Adntinistration which would be very clear and very
specific. In this resolution, the select committee is only authorized.
The third suggestion-the third possibility is for the Congress to direct
the House Administration Committee to take jurisdiction.
Mr. BENNETT. If I might briefly respond to this.
The only reason why I said it took a two-thirds vote is because an
opponent of this committee, the House select committee, who was try-
ing to frankly work up some way to defeat this committee, told me he
thought it would take a two-thirds vote.
I did not believe it myself; I felt if an enemy of the committee
said it took a. two-thirds vote, I figured it would. I must say in my main
testimony, I don't want to go back over this, due to the record of the
House Administration Committee over things it has had jurisdiction
over for years, and has been directed to operate in this field, in my
opinion giving this matter to the House Administration Committee
will be an affront to the American public, because I think they want
a full operating committee that will look into this matter fully and
come forth with recommendations and operate in a way they should.
The record as it was written by the very able Congressman from
Ohio is replete with illustrations of where this committee has known.
it not on1y knew but had administrative responsibility in this field,
it had ~o approve the checks, and the law was to the contrary awl
it approved the checks, so I don't think the American public is going
to take very happily to sweeping this under the rug.
Mr. BOLLING. I would make a comment tha.t the gentleman would
certainly have his right to an opinion, but I would submit., though I
have not firmly made up my mind on that, that I have been writimm g
about reforming Congress a good deal more than most, excepting the
chairman. .
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. As you can see, however, with this direc-
tive, you have a committee composed along partisan lines, whereas
the gentleman front Florida. is suggesting the creation of a select
bipartisan committee.
PAGENO="0027"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 23
Mr. BOLLING. I excepted the bipartisan nature of the committee
when it was up before last year; I happen to believe a certain element
of party responsibility and I think standards of conduct and ethics
are a matter of party responsibility, too.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment.
There are about a dozen resolutions from this committee down
on the floor that are to `be taken up and I am advised that, just as soon
as the 1-minute speeches `are over, the leadership will propose to
take those resolutions up, and practically every member of this com-
mittee has one of them.
Now~, what the Chair would like to ask the gentlemen of the com-
mittee is what the desire of `the committee is.
Now we have, as I pointed out earlier, a large number of resolutions
-and a substantial number of Members of Congress wl~o want `to be
heard -on these resolutions. Would the committee like to come back
after these resolutions are disposed of on the floor, or shall we meet
tomorrow, or what is the desire -of the committee?
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. -On `the record.
Let me point out further to the committee that we have resolutions
to be passed. I wonder if we could settle this in executive session
and notify the people.
All right, the committee will go into executive session.
(Whereupon, at 12 :10 p.m., the committee adjourned in order to
go into executive session.)
PAGENO="0028"
PAGENO="0029"
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDUCT
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CoMMIT11~E ON RULES,
Wa$hington, DII.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m., in room H-313,
the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
\~\Then the committee adjourned on yesterday, Mr. Bennett was tes-
tifyiug. We had reached Mr. O'Neill. So, Mr. Bennett, we will be
glad to hear from you further, and Mr. O'Neill may have some ques-
tions he wants to propound to you.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Bennett, 1 was mailed to my office three or four
copies of a newspaper article that referred to you. Do you have a
copy? Do you want to explain your thoughts with regard to the last
paragraph as to how far you would go if legislation of this type were
passed?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; I think I best state this by repeating what I
said yesterday, because it is rather brief on this article.
I would like to call attention to the Washington Star article of February 2,
widely circulated by some Members in an effort to show that the Committee
on Standards and Conduct should not be reconstituted.
A group of women reporters asked me to appear before them; and they inter-
viewed me. I quickly sensed that they felt this committee was being set up as
a "white wash" committee. I felt that such an impression on the press would
further unfairly damage the image of Congress with the public. In reply to a
question expressing disbelief that any Congressman would be willing to present
to the committee any matter at all for investigation, I replied that in a case
fully substantiated by competent evidence and reflecting on the Congress, it
was my belief that 90 percent or all Members would be willing to do so in a
serious case publicly reflecting on Congress.
The article gave the impression that 90 percent of Congress were waiting to
present existing charges against other Congressmen. No other article coming
from this well attended interview gave such an impression as far as I know.
Further, in answer to a question on how narrow or broad the fields of study
of new legislation mSight be, I replied they could cover "all matters of im-
propriety" covered by legislation that might be introduced and assigned to the
conimittee for study. The article as printed implied to many readers that the
committee would have power to investigate charges under legislation not yet
enacted. This is clearly untrue because the proposed bill would not allow any
case to be investigated unless it were based on a statute or resolution previ-
ously passed by the House; and then only under the additional safeguards set
up in the proposed bill before you.
So I didn't say what this newspaper report has given the impression
to some people that I did say. As I pointed out, the things that I
25
PAGENO="0030"
26 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDLTT
have said, which are well shown by the record, including what I said
when I first opened the meeting the day after the committee was
created, and I stated at the first hearings of the committee last year-
I am reading from the minutes of October 20, 1966. what I said-and
this was approved by the committee, "I do not think a man's private
life is detrimental to the House. No one is perfect, and if he P'~-
vately has weaknesses, it should not be something that should be before
this committee as it would not reflect upon the House."
But, of course, despite that statement, it is clear that the statue
would not allow the committee to look into anything that was not
approved by the House in law.
So I don't know what tile purpose of writing the article that way
was, and I talked to tile reporter about it tile clay after it came out.
It was sort of paradoxical because I also talked to a member of tile
committee about it and told him how distressed I was. It is my
understanding he then proceeded to send it to many Members of
Congress despite the fact it was not, I told him, a. portrayal of my
thoughts at all.
Tile law requires that tile committee would be restricted, it would
have 110 discretion at all to set up standards and pass on standards
for Members of Congress. It only has tile authority to bring in die
Congress Staildiards which would have to be enacted by the House or
if it is going to be a law, by the House aild Senate and approved by
tile President.
Only thereafter would it he able to take any action with regard to
any c.ensureship that would be brought forth by the committee.
Mr. O'NEILL. WTith regard to the case that. is on hand at the present
time, which most of this all stems from, the Constitution says, of
course, you have to be 25, you have to live in the congressional district
of the State, tile question of residence amid tile question of citizenship.
7 years a citizen. How about tile fact of tile private life, of tile gell-
tieman. that. he had flaunted tile courts in his own area? Do you think
that would have been a matter for this committee?
Mr. BENNETT. No. The law constituting the committee would pro-
hibit it.
Mr. O'NEILL. You have no idea of changmg the basic concepts of
tile Constitution?
Mr. BENNETT. Not a particle. 1 don't have the idea-not only I
don't have tile idea, but I think if anybody has a lingering doubt
about it. they shouldi cilailge tile statute to make it clear. I don't see
110w it could be clearer.
Tile CI-IAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett. you keep referring to the statute.
I'Vhat statute are you referring to? Do I get. the impression you are
talking about this resolution?
Mr. BENNETT. I am saying that if this law is passed. whic1~ I am
asking to be passedi, that tile conimittee in tile field of censureship
could only consider censuring a Member under tile safeguards that
are set up if the Member had violated a statute whicil had been ellac.tedl
prior t.o the deed done by tile Member.
The CnAIR~rAx. You have reference then to existing law and ilot to
this proposed legislation?
Mr. BENNErF. I have reference ill this narrow respect only to exist-
ing law, not t.o tile proposed legislation. The proposed legislation does
not set up any standlardis at. all.
PAGENO="0031"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 27
Mr. O'NEILL. On page 3, line 7. "No investigations may be made-"
~\`\Til1 you clearly state the effects of that sentence so that we can write
it into the record here?
Mr. BENNETT. I am now reading what has been referred to:
No investigation may be made with reference to any complaint of a violation
occurring prior to the establishment of the standards of conduct involved.
After such investigation, the Select Committee may recommend to the House
appropriate resolutions of censure for its consideration and action thereon.
Now, if this legislation is not amended in any respect, passed just
as it is, the effect of this would be that a Member violating any law
after it was enacted-these are laws in the past now we are talking
about-could be brought up for censure for violation of that law or
resolution. Now, there was some criticism yesterday in the hearing
about the breadth and the vagueness of the existing code of ethics.
That would, of course, be a standard.
However, I take no personal umbrage with this and if the members
of the Rules Committee would want to strike that rather general state-
ment of the code of ethics and just leave it to just law that had been
passed by both the House and Senate, and approved by the President,
this would not seriously affect the actions of the committee at all.
If they would desire to do that in view of all the apprehension
people have raised about the vagueness of this, it might be a good
thing to do. That would mean that you would strike on line 25, after
the word "law," down to the period.
Hr. O'NEILL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta..
Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, Mr. Bennett, that I introduced a similar resolution
with few differences from House Resolution 18. In view of some of
the answers that you have given us, and particularly the answer to the
question by the gentleman from Massachusetts just a minute ago, I
am a little bit in the dark as to what this committe is going to do. I
hope you are not boxing yourself in to the extent that you are only
going to investigate violations of law.
As I view it. if you are only going to investigate violations of law,
there is no need for this committee's existence. Because, if a Member
is violating the law, there is ample authority now to prosec~ite the
individual, Would you agree with me?
He is not exempt as a. Member of Congress from prosecution for
such action.
Mr. BENNETT. No, I think the only additional value then to the
committee would be whether they could bring in improvements of law.
Plus the fact.that I do think there is some reluctance-although I may
be inaccurate in this, this is just a feeling on my part, and I can't sub-
stantiate it-I believe there is some reluctance in the regular legal
procedures of the Department of Justice and in the States as well, to
bring Members of the House before their bar for the simple reason
they think we handle those things ourselves. But, of course, there is
a provision even under the law that was passed in the last days of the
last session which says that the committee can bring violations of the
law to the attention of the courts and prosecuting authorities, and
that was what was recommended by the joint committee.
However, the Senate committee is much broader. It does not re-
strict itself that way. I think there is a value even as suggested by
PAGENO="0032"
28 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Mr. Boiling yesterday to leave out that provision just. mentioned on
line 25, I think the committee would still serve a useful purpose. I
must admit I think it serves a less useful purpose.
Mr. LATTA. Let me say I am interested in the creation of a commit-
tee that will have authority to investigate, acts of Members of Con-
gress which bring disgrace on this body. whether it is by statute. or
otherwise. Let me give you an example of an individual who. through
his personal conduct, disgraces the Congress. Let us assume this indi-
vidual is a father; he does not support his family. He runs around
with about 10 different women. This has become public knowledge;
it is spread across the papers. He does not pay his debts; he has filed
bankruptcy many times; he is a drunkard; he goes through the Halls
of this Congress in drunken fashion; uses loud and boisterous lan-
guage in the Halls of the Congress, and so forth. but he. is not do-
lating any law that you can put. your finger on perhaps other than in
being loud and disorderly.
Lnless you can pinpoint that this man is violating a statute. even
though this mdiviclual, in my humble judgment, would be bringing
disgrace on this Congress, your committee would not have the author-
ity to get in and say, "Listen, you are bringing disgrace on the Con-
gress. Unless you do something about your personal conduct, we are
going to censure you."
Now, as I interpret what you said yesterday, and what. you said
this morning, if you create this committee, cut out all powers that I
think rightfully should be granted it. you are not going to be able
to do that. But this individual would be bringing disgrace on the
Congress.
Do you want to comment on this?
Mr. BEXNETT. I certainly believe that the way in which you and I
introduced this resolution and the select committee recommendledi is
the proper procedure but it would certainly be preferable to have
some committee make some step forward than to have no committee.
Very strong elements are opposing any committee in this field or
at least urging that a committee be constituted which will not be a
separate committee on a nonpartisan basis, a full committee to look
into these matters. Being a practical man. I want. to make some step
forward. I am not saying that I prefer deleting it. I certainly do
not prefer deleting it. I think the dieletion of it closes all possibility
of looking into things that perhaps shouldi be lookedi into in extreme
cases.
I think only in extreme cases. But there has been so much agita-
tion among Members of Congress and despite the fact that. every
Member of Congress knows what it is to be in the busy life we have,
inaccurately portra.yedl in the press-aitci I am not. trying to blame
the press, because it is partly our fault, I guess-despite that.. there
seems to be a desire to take the press over and above what the man
actually sajdi on the floor and in hearings and this sort. of thing.
Plus other thinas. they are making it quite a job to get ally kind of
committee born here.
Mr. LATTA. Let us take what you saidi here: you are interested in
getting something. I am not particularly mterestedl in just getting
something. I want to see a. resolution be reportedi from the Rules
PAGENO="0033"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 29
Committee and be adopted on the floor, creating an ethics committee
that has some power. I don't want to just see some headlines come
out that the Congress has created an Ethics Committee that does not
have any powers.
Now, we well know that. this resolution that we have before us today
is not the same resolution that was passed by the last Congress, because
item B, under section 2, was stricken by the Hays amendment, and
by adopting that Hays amendment we took all powers to investigate
away from the Select Committee on Ethics.
But the general public thought that your committee had those
powers. It is very difficult to try to operate. Now, you have been
criticized by Mr. Hays, the very individual that offered the amend-
ment for not doing something in 2 months.
I can refer to his remarks here of yesterday. It seems to me that
you are just asking for more trouble and more criticism, not only by
Mr. Hays and other individuals who are opposed to the creation of
this committee, but by the general public, when you come before the
Rules Committee here this morning and say that you want something
rather than nothing. I think you ought to be taking a strong position
and say that you are for the creation of the committee that will do
the job.
Mr. BENNETT. That last statement I can certainly buy. I am in
favor of the last. I am also in favor of the former, if that is all I can
get, because I do think that there is some value in setting up a corn-
mittee that would have the powers, even with the powers that we dis-
cussed a moment ago. I can see how you feel about it. I am disturbed
that apparently some Members of Congress who feel that any Member
of Congress, and particularly myself, who certainly has never opened
his mouth in derogation of any individual at any time, would be
thought to be a person that would do any witch hunting or snooping or
anything like that. After all, I am 56 years of age. I have been in
Congress 19 years. Nobody has yet pointed out any time when I have
ever done anything like that. And I don't enjoy the stumbling of any
of my brethren. I would hope that this committee, as I said yesterday,
would be a committee that would be characterized by preventing rather
than by penalization.
But if this is the opinion that my brothers have in Congress of me,
then I would say it would be better if someone else were chairman of
the committee. I have already offered not to be a member of the corn-
mittee, if that is a stumbling block for this committee, because this
committee is an important idea, it should go forward, there should not
be personalities.
it ought to be on the basis of having a standing committee, if pos-
sible. There certainly ought to be a full committee devoting all its
time to the field of ethics, improving standards. It ought to be a non-
partisan committee and it ought to be done in an important manner
so that this country will know that it. is going to be given real attention
to. I would much prefer it had all the things in it that are in this
resolution before us today and I hope the committee will bring this
out.
Mr. LATTA. Let me. say, Mr. Bennett, that I am not one of those and
I have not heard anybody say it, that feel that you would be too tough
PAGENO="0034"
30 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
in this case. I have not heard it. I think you would make an excellent.
chairman, one who would do the job that has to be done. But I feel von
have to have the power to do the job that is expected of you and y'our
committee. If you take all of the powers away from your committees
other than the fact that you are going to investiga~te violations of
statutes, I think you are not accomplishing anything.
Mr. BENNETT. YOU may well be right.
Mr. LATTA. Because there are other means to getting at individ-
uals-by criminal prosecution, not just through an ethics committee.
If the general public thinks that this committeeS as I have already in-
dicated, has powers that it does not have, it is a reflection on the com-
mittee when it does not perform. I am certain you don't want any
reflection cast. on the committee. I also refer to this item in the Star
on the matter of conflict of interest.
Now, from what you said, I don't know of any statutes against con-
fficts of interest, are there?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, there are. The report shows some specifically
relating to Members of Congress. It is a sort of piecemeal proposition.
Apparently, something happened in history and they passed a law.
Mr. LArvA. Let. me give you an example-
Mr. BENNETT. It is not a broad statute. There are several piece-
meal sta.tutes.
Mr. LATTA. I am an attorney, so let me take a case involving an
attorney who is a member of a law firm. Let us assume that somebody
goes to a member of this firm and wants to get a piece of legislation
passed by the Congress and a Member of the Congress, a member of
this firm, happened to be on a committee or even chairman of a com-
mittee. He has nothing to do with this, but lie is a member of the firm
that is being paid. This legislation comes out of the legislative com-
mittee and it is passed by the Congress. Is there any legislation on
the books on such conflict of interest?
Mr. BENNETT. I don't think there is such a statute.
Mr. LArvA. You say that. you would be willing to restrict this to
matters involving violations of statute~ is that right?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes. but von see this committee would he re.con~meid-
ing after studying. Meml~ers of Congress would have an opportunity
to be heard. WTe would have hearings on proposals to enact new laws
of this nature. After those laws were enacted. after they were enacted.
if then a Member of Congress, after the enactment of the law, violated
that law, then von could go in for censureship. but only after the en-
actment. of the law. He could be brought in under a law enacted subse-
quently as a result of bringing it. before the committee of the House,
debate, and assecl by the House and Senate and be s~gnedl by the
President. He. would have to dlo the act after the new law was passed.
Mr. LATTA. If your committee, though, would have some charges
brought, say, by another Member, or by another constituent in the
process outlined here, through an affidavit, being properly signed, sent
to a Member, and so forth, and lie refers it, you really could not in-
vestigate that other than to investigate it for the purpose of makmg
recommendations.
Mr. BENNETT. Well, if they left in the code of ethics for Govern-
ment service, then you could, provided that was enacted before the
misbehavior.
PAGENO="0035"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 31
Mr. LATTA. What I have reference to is the fact that you have of-
fered to delete these things other than the matters dealing with the
statute.
Mr. BENNETT. It is the greatest reason, the only reason, really, why
I think the code of ethics should be left in because it is the only thing
that has any breadth to it at all.
Mr. LATTA. If you are talking about ethics, I think you should be
talking about ethical conduct. I have not read until yesterday the
code adopted for civil service employees some years ago, but if you are
talking about ethics, I think ethics are ethics, and everybody ought
to be required to abide by them.
If we are going to create an ethics committee, I think it ought to
be involved with ethics. I don't think it ought to be necessarily in-
volved with violations of statutes. If somebody is bringing disgrace
on the Congress regardless of whether he is violating the statute, I
think that it is the duty of this committee if it is formed to do some-
thing about it.
Mr. BENNETT. I do have great doubt in my mind why a fine group
of men, as all the House of Representatives, should have any appre-
hension about unfair or snooping or witch-hunt type of activities in
the private lives of anybody when most of us have a direct analogy
in our own background.
Most of us were lawyers before we came here. I stopped practicing
law when I came here in 1949, but most of us have this background
and we have a grievance committee or ethics committee in the law.
I don't think there is any lawyer in this country that would say this
is not a good thing to have.
They have not expressed concern over the fact that the committee
would do something that is improper. I don't know anyone that has
a feeling like that. I think we ought to do this in the context of
reality. After all, the Senate passed one with very broad powers,
even, I guess, the power of recommending to impeach; all kinds of
recommendations could be possible; expulsion and things of that type
are possible under the Senate thing and nobody has had grave con-
cern about that. It is like going into the dentist chair-the appre-
hension is many times much worse than the reality.
Mr. LATTA. Have you seen a copy of the Senate resolution creat-
ing this committee?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. LATTA. The powers given to them?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; I have a copy. The major difference between
this and that was set out in my testimony yesterday. The major dif-
ference is section 2(a) (2). It has the power to "recommend to the
Senate by report or resolution by a majority vote of the full committee
disciplinary action to be taken with respect to such violations which
the select committee shall determine after according to the individuals
concerned due notice and opportunity for hearing to have occurred."
That certainly is very broad power, much broader than this little
resolution we. have brought forth here. I don't think there. is any
ground for all this apprehension on the part of Members of Congress.
There is nobody in this room that does not love the institution of Con-
gress and does not want to help everybody to make it strong and make
our country strong. Nobody in Congress differs with that objective.
The apprehension I think is entirely unfounded.
PAGENO="0036"
32 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDuCT
Mr. LArPA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young, do you have any questions?
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions at this time.
Thank you.
The ~HAfliMAN. Mr. Matsunaga?
Mr. MATSUXAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beimett*, you stated in your prepared statement that you felt
that the women reporters whom you talked with felt that the forma-
tion of this committee was to be nothing but a whitewash. If this be
the feeling among reporters and they are the ones who tend to for-
mulate public opimon, would it not be better not to form this com-
mittee?
iMir. BENNETT. Well, I paid the penalty with this newspaper story~
of antagonizing many Members of Congress, but I assure you I did
not antagonize the public. Perhaps if you look at this thina- both
ways, you will see that maybe it was a good thing that. I tried to re-
assure the press and reassure the public that this was not going to be
a whitewashing proposition. I will be very frank with you. I don't
know whether I will be appointed chairman or not. but if I ant ap-
pointed chairman, I don't think anybody will get the impression that
the committee would be a whitewashing committee, but. rather, that
it would be a committee which would try to raise the standards by
prevention, if possible, and in extreme cases seriously reflecting on
Congerss, with competent evidence, properly presented. that censure-
ship would be recommended. But it would be very carefully done
to see that nobody is unduly hurt.
Mr. MATSUXAGA. You feel that a committee even without the powers
that you originally asked for would still be considered as not a white-
wash committee?
Mr. BENNETT. I think many people in the public would get the im-
pression if the provisions are stricken with regard to the code of
ethics for Government service, if tha.t is stricken. I think many people
in the public would come to the conclusion that it was a whitewashing
contrnittee.
I, myself, have not come to this conclusion because I think we would
have tools with which we could do some good. But if Congress is so
apprehensive that they would not. want to go into that. that is up to
them. I think they will pay a price, for it. I think as between that
and doing nothing, it is better to do that and the public image would
be better to do that than it would be to do nothing.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Now, referring to page 2 of the resolution, line
19, beginning at line 19, "to report violations, by a malority vote of
the select committee, of any law to the proper Federal and State
authorities."
By this is it intended that a committee or designated member of
the committee shall be the complainant?
Mr. BENNETT. Of course, this was written on the floor of the House,
you realize. This was iiot the resolution which I introduced last year.
What we are doing here is bringing to you a simple package-very
simple. It is exactly what the House of Representatives requested
last time, andl enacted with the simple exception of addling sectTon
2 (b'~, which is line 22; that is all that is added over what Congress
did last time.
PAGENO="0037"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 33
Mr. MATSUNAGA. My question is, in your opinion, does this mean
that the committee or a member of the committee designated by the
committee shall become a complainant?
Mr. BENNETT. I would think that it would not be that the member
or that the committee would become complainant. I think it means
in cases brought to the attention of the committee of violation of law,
the committee could in whatever manner it thought best transfer this
to the regular prosecuting authorities. It might merely buck it with
a buck slip, "It has come to our attention,"-"For your interest,"-
"After extensive hearings, we have come to the conclusion there seems
to be some ground for considering that this ought to be looked into
by the Justice Department."
There are all kinds of variations it might take. This is not language
which I wrote. This is language written on the floor of the 1-louse last
fail.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. In your opinion, would this subsection provide also
for a recommendation on the part of the committee to the State or Fed-
eral authorities?
Mr. BENNETT. I don't think it would be precluded. I don't know
that the committee is going to want to spend all its time, if it is going
to be handled fully by the Justice Department, and go into extensive
hearings on something that is going to have to be handled by the proc-
esses of law. Even if the committee is not very busy, I don't know
that would be a very profitable pursuit.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Don't you think then we ought to spell out that
the committee shall make such recommendations as it deems proper?
Mr. BENNETT. I have some question in my mind as to whether or
not when you are going to hand the thing over to the Justice Depart-
ment, you ought to prejudge a man by making a preliminary court
proceeding or semicourt proceeding in this committee. I think it
would be very questionable in my mind whether that would be a proper
procedure. That man is going to be tried by ordinary procedures in
court. For some preliminary body to half-judge him, it seems to me,
is rather questionable.
It seems to me he has his rights under the courts. I doubt that would
be a sound thing to do.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. By recommendation, Mr. Bennett, I meant that
an investigation should be had by the Federal or State authority, not
that he should be convicted or be set free. That, of course, we know
we cannot do.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, but there are all different kinds of recommenda-
tions. If they merely recommend that they look into it, of course, 1
would agree with you 100 percent. If you painted him with an awfully
dark brush and then say you recommend it be looked into, you have
prejudiced it.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Isn't it only after we have half-judged the matter
that we would report it to the Federal or State authorities to begin
with?
Mr. BENNETT. Not necessarily. I didn't draw this provision.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Even if you did not draw it, you are now the
author of this resolution.
Mr. BENNETT. If you want to start to establish some legislative
history-of course, this is the danger of establishing law by legislative
PAGENO="0038"
34 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND C0NDtCT
history, because I don't have the full committee. It seems to me some
jurisdiction ought to be left in the committee to do somethin~. I
think one of the things it might do is study this and come out with
a good answer instead of being imposed on by my frail intellect, at this
pomt to make legislative history which may be something we have to
live with at our regret.
I personally feel that any recommendation coming forth from this
committee regarding violations of law ought. to be carefully couched
in words which do not prejudge the man.
Mr. O'NEILL. I don't think it prejudges the case. There is plenty
of precedent up here on the Hill for turning the ifies over to the
Justice Department.
Mr. BENNETT. Turning them over, yes. I am talking about writing
recommendations and saying front all we can tell he did X, Y, and Z,
something like this. There are all different ways of recommending.
If we gave the impression by our recommendation that we had pre-
judged the man and feel it is just a formality to convict him, I don't
think that is fair to the man. He has not had all the regular proce-
dures of constitutional courts. That is my opinion.
Of course, it is just my personal opinion. I can't speak for some-
thing today that does not exist at the moment. I do think the corn-
ntittee ought to be allowed to discuss at least such trivia when it gets
into existence.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As a lawyer, you know. and as a lawyer, I know.
that we can refer matters which we have already prejudged for recoin-
mendation that the State or Federal authorities so judge. My ques-
tion pertained merely to recommendation whether or not the Federal
or State authorities ought to look into the matter.
Mr. BENNETT. In the first place, I would say it should be clear
that the committee should not report anything to the Department of
Justice unless it is going to recontmend that they look into it. I don't
see any point sending anything to the Department of Justice if we
are not going to recommend that they look into it.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. The language here is "to report violations." Now
it does not imply by the language as I see it here that we recommend
that the authorities look into the matter. Sure, they can say, "We
received the report," sure.
Mr. BENNETT. I certainly agree with you that we should report
and recomntend that the matter be looked into in any case that we
report at all.
Mr~ MATSUNAGA. No further questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madden.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Bennett, did you ever find any angle connected
with ethics and so on regarding some of these fabulous campaign con-
tributions to Montbers of Congress audi the Senate audI so on. p~1'tic-
ularly froth souices that have legislation pending in the Congress?
Now that is an angle that I think probably should be given some real
consideration. I know of cases right in my State where certain can-
didates `h'a~e admitted spending around $90,000 to $100,000 for a con-
gressional job through `donations and otherwise. A lot of these dona-
tions are front sources, people, companies, organizations, that have
legislation pending. `
Don't you think that would be a matter that should be gone mto
from the standpoint of ethics? It has been reported in Chicago that
PAGENO="0039"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 35
over $3 million was spent to defeat `Senator Douglas in this last eke-
tion in Illinois. I saw in the New York Times where Governor
Rockefeller admitted he spent $41/2 million to get the governorship.
I think some of Tom Dewey's friends said it was nearer $14 million.
Now we know of the money that is being spent on elections. This
thing has gotten beyond all bounds of judgment and commonsense
as far as representative government is concerned, where millions are
spent to elect Senators and Governors.
As far as Congress is concerned, that has been going on for quite a
while. We have a case where a Member of Congress, who happens
to be a member of a party organization, received a check for $350,000
from a banquet down in Texas some years ago. The newspapers made
so 1nuch rhubarb about it. I don't know what happened to the check,
but those are things about which something should be done or the
situation is going to be generating into a case where a man of ordinary
means cannot be elected to Congress, can't be elected to the Senate.
You are talking about ethics. The American Medical Association,
and this is no secret. The newspapers listed the names of candidates
for Congress and what they received from the AMA. Some received
as high as $5,000, some $2,500 in my State when medical legislation
was pending in Congress. So I think if you are going to get into
ethics, unless something can be done on the fabulous expenditures to
be elected to Congress and that includes the Presidency, too, where
it is going to take multimillions for a person to come to the Senate of
the United States, and that has already been demonstrated, a poor
fellow who has qualifications who wants to represent the common
people, who doesn't have sources of money to get campaign funds
is lost.
That thing happened in Illinois this year. It. happened in your
State a few years ago where multimillions of dollars were spent to
defeat a Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. It costs a million dollars for anybody to complete a
statewide contested campaign in the State of Florida today in my
opinion.
Mr. MADDEN. Wherever there is a hot conflict, wherever there is
interest involved, there should be something done as far as ethics is
concerned to limit `campaign expenses so that. a man of ordinary means
and a man representing the public that cannot accumulate multimil-
lions to donate to a candidate can afford to run. There is something
that has to be done about that, because it is getting worse every year.
Mr. MARTIN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
* Mr~ MARTIN. I understand that the gentleman was the chairman on
the House side of the Joint Reorganization Committeeof the Congress.
What were the recommendations of his committee in this regard?
Mr. MADDEN. We made recommendations `on lobbying. That will
correct some of that.
Mr. MARTIN. Did you do anything in regard to what you are men-
tioning?
Mr. MADDEN. The bill will be in the House in a few weeks. We will
be glad to get an amendment from you on that.
Mr. MARTIN. But your committee did not make a recommendation
on that?
PAGENO="0040"
36 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Mr. MADDEN. They did on the lobbying angle.
Mr. MARTIN. I mean what you are talking about.
Mr. MADDEN. I think that would be a good thing for you to bring
up. I will make an amendment if you will help me.
Mr. LATTA. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
Mr. LATTA. I quite agree with the gentleman on these campaign
contributions. Sometimes, apparently. they do become a little nil-
ethical. The amount that has been spent in some congressional races
since I have been in Congress are just out of this world. I remember
a case a couple of years ago where a Member from New York State
was alleged to have spent $250,000 to defeat a sitting Member. The
attention of Congress was called to this matter, and they did absolutely
nothing about it-nothing. So I think if this committee is formed,
that would be a good area for them to examine more.
Mr. MADDEN. I think you are right.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further. Mr. :~iadde~i?
Mr. MADDEN. No, that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
~`ir. MADDEN. I might say this in comment.
You, Mr. Bennett, made a statement. in the begiiming that you had
a conference, a news conference, with women reporters. regarding
this.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes. They invited me. I did not ask them to have
this. I must say that I don't blame them at all. In the first place,
I speak very fast as a general rule, and in the second place, these were
not direct quotations. In the third place, after all I once was an AP
writer, myself. So I know that we all have our problems about every
business we have.
So, I am not blaming anybody.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Benne.tt.
Gentlemen, we have about 40 resolutions, the majority of which are
similar to the resolution of Mr. Bennett. There are quite a few Mem-
bers who want to be heard on this subject.. It is obvious that we are
not going to be able to finish this today. Although, in the interest of
good conduct of Members of Congress in both branches, we have met
on Washington's Birthday, in the hope that we. might get the truth.
We want to expedite this matter as much as possible. As I say. we
can't hear them all. Since the principal exponent of this type of
legislation has been heard, it might be well t.o hea.r from the othe.r dde,
so we might draw a picture in these first initial sessions of the
comimttee.
Mr. Hays, .1 understand you are not altogether happy with this
resolution. The committee will be glad to hear from you.
STATENENT OP HON. WAYNE L. HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OHIO
Mr. HAYS. Tha.nk you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I repre-
sent the other side, but I do have some views about it. I think I might.
best start out by sort of trying to defend myself and the House Admin-
istration Committee, which I apparently tried to do unsuccessfully
yesterday.
PAGENO="0041"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 37
I say "unsuccessfully," as a result of Mr. Latta's comments. I sat
here and heard Mr. Bennett distinctly say in answer to a question by
Mr. Boiling that if this matter were turned over to the House Admin-
istration Committee, with some strong recommendations, it would
be an affront to the American public.
Maybe I am a little too sensitive, even though I have a reputation
for a fairly thick skin.
Mr. Bennett also, in his testimony yesterday I distinctly recall, took
two different positions on the House Administration Committee.
First, that we didn't have any power, and, second, that we hadn't done
anything.
I am summing it up and paraphrasing. I can agree to a degree with
the first allegation that we didn't have much power. I can't agree
with the second, that we didn't do anything. He also was quoted in
the press as making a statement, I believe I heard him make it, that
he had been around here for 20 years and we had not done anything.
Now, it seems to me fair to ask, do you do something before there is
something to do just for the sake of doing something?
Let me put this in context a little bit. There was a comumittee on
contiacts established some 4 or more years ago. It came about be-
cause there were twO chairman who seemed to be using the contract
system of putting employees on the payroll, which is not putting them
on the payroll, but putting them under contract for a lmnp sum, to a
degree which no other chairmen were using.
One of them was contracting with a good many college professors.
I can understand this because this chairman thinks college professors
know everything, and if you would give them a contract to do a study,
you would get the right answers. The other chairman's contracts
were with advisers and most of them turned out to be 18- or 19-year-
old girls who did not come to Washington. By the very fact that this
contract subcommittee was created, these contracts ceased to be signed.
Now, under the law, the chairman of the House Administration
Committee was supposed to sign these contracts as he is supposed to
sign every single voucher. If he did nothing else, that is all he would
get done if he scrutinized, examined, investigated, checked out every
voucher on every contract. We didn't get any fanfare in the news-
papers. We didn't seek any. We sent out a letter saying from now
on all contracts would have to be justified before this subcommittee,
and they dropped down to nil. We have approved some contracts
in the cases where the Veterans' Committee, for example, needs a man
to work down in the Veterans' Administration, who is on retirement,
to do a special task on a special bill. If they hired him, he would have
to drop his pension, come in under salary, and then go back and try
to get his pension reinstated after the month or 6 weeks is up.
Sometimes they contracted a man for a thousand dollars, $1,500,
whatever length of time it took to do this. I point that out because
the committee did take action in this field when it became apparent
that there were abuses.
Now, there is a lot of conversation about the Powell hearing. I
want to say, Mr. Chairman and members, I didn't get any pleasure
out of being chairman of that investigation. I wanted to be a lawyer.
I am not one. I graduated from the university in the middle of the
depression and I never had the money to get back. But I suspect if
PAGENO="0042"
38 SELECT COM~'IITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I had had a law degree, I would not have been a prosecutor. I am
not the prosecutor type. I did not get pleasure seeing these witnesses
in here squirm around when they were confronted. to use the words
of one of them "with either telling the truth or `ratting' on the chair-
man."
Why do I bring this up, Mr. Chairman? Because Mr. Gibbons.
who is a member of the House Administration Committee, and the
author of one of these resolutions, first brought to the attention of
the House Administration Conunittee the fact that apparently here
were tickets being bought in the names of the staff which were being
used by other people.
Secondly, there were an inordinate number of employees on the staff
of that committee.
Mr. Chairman, the House Administration Committee votes money
for these committees. Yesterday we voted in the subcommittee STOO.-
000-and-some for the Government Operations Committee. That is a
lot of money. They have 55 regular employees, I tmderstand, from
the t.estimony yesterday. We haven't checked every one of those em
ployees out. Anyway, Mr. Gibbons brought the charges in late July
as I recall it~ and immediately within a matter of da.ys the chairman,
Mr. Burleson, had a group of GAO auditors going over all t.he vouch-
ers of the House of Representatives. And they were still going over
them on the first of December, or just about. finished. Now, I made
the remarks I made on the floor yesterday because Mr. Bennett said
we didn't do anytl~ing. I merely pointed out that we conducted tile
whole Powell investigation in the same amount of time that his com-
mittee, which wa.s to study this problem and come up with recoin-
mendations, had, and the one recommendation I understand they
came up with is, put us back ill business.
I would agree with Mr. Bennett that the field of ethics and a. code
of ethics is a. very difficult, thing. I would not castigate him for not
getting the job done ill 2 months or 3 months. but I didn't like the
inference that. the House Administration Committee had clone nothing.
I am not here seeking praise. Mr. Chairman. but I have had a good
many Members. 1)0th in writill~ and verbally, tell inc that they thou~hr
that'we, and I use the word ~`~e." because t could nor have done it~by
myself, Mr. Devine. from my State of Ohio. Mr. Dickinson. from
Alabama, Mr. Jones of Missouri, Mr. Xedzi. of Michigan. Mr. Wag-
gonner, of Louisiana, were all on that committee, and we caine out with
a unanimous report. We didn't do it in one afternoon. We had some
disagreements, but we resolved them. And we came out with recom-
* mendations.
There has not been anything developed by the ad hoc committee on
this matter that we didn't develop except they were alile to get Mrs.
Powell up here. We were not. I don't know whether you Members
consider it pertinent and appropriate or whether you would like to
know or not, but we did a lot of things to get Mrs. Powell up here.
She came out. of this hearing before time ad hoc committee as something
of a. heroine. I don't quite concur in that judgment. In the first place,
time Secret Service went. to Puerto R.ico early in the gante in August
and saidi, in effect, and I will have to parapitrase this and make it brief,
I have it all in writing, "Mrs. Powell, if you in fact did not authorize
your husband to sign your checks, if you in fact did not. give him
PAGENO="0043"
SELECT COM~'IITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 39
power of attorney, and you will make an affidavit to that effect, we
are prepared to write you a check now for some $30,000 which you
should have got, which he appropriated, and we will undertake,"
under some law or another, which I can't cite because I don't have it
in front of me, "to recover this from Mr. Powell."
Now, the report in effect and in a couple of sentences said this, and
Mrs. Powell's reply was, "Wait until my lawyers meet Adam's lawyers
and s~e what he is going to do for me." She didn't answer the subpena
and her statement before the radio out here and the press that she only
had a matter of hours' notice is not true, because the record shows that
we received service on the subpena several days before she first did not
show up, and in three other instances, we gave her alternative dates and
that was a matter of hours or a day or two because time was running
out.
But she was advised that we could not bring her up because when the
Congress expired, our power to punish expired with it, because, as you
know, you can't punish a person for contempt of the 89th Congress in
the 90th Congress.
Another inter~sting little side play that the press seemed to have
missed about that is the fact that Mrs. Powell, as a result of our testi-
mony, brought out in the committee, immediately wrote a letter to the
Clerk and asked him to send her the November check which he did, and
the December check. She made a big deal out of the fact she had not
done any work and she wanted to be taken off the payroll, but when
it became obvious from the answer to the question, and I will tell you
what that was, that she could get. the checks, she wrote and got them,
but she still was not doing any work.
The question was to the assistant of the Clerk, "to whom do you
send the employee's check?" and he said, "To whom they designate."
We asked, "Did Mrs. Powell say to whom to send the check?" He
said, "\~Te have nothing on record from Mrs. Powell. We have a letter
from Mr. Powell saying to send them to his office." I asked the ques-
tion, "If she `wrote you a letter and said she wanted them, what would
you do?"
He said, "We `would send them to her." And in a couple of days,
they got the letter.
I merely point `that out to indicate that not everything that hap-
pened was accurately reported and perhaps in that case it was not
reported at all.
Now, Mr. Bennett made the point that we didn't take Mrs. Powell
off the payroll for a year and a `half. Gentlemen, this may surprise
the members of the press as well as you. I believe, and everybody on
the committee believes, that we didn't have any power to t'ake her off
the payroll-period.
So that is one of the things that I `think you ought to consider rec-
ommending, that the House Administration `Committee have this and
that it have certain powers.
Now, why did we take her off without the power? Because she was
in violation of a law which was passed by the House as a result of this
very case, but it didn't have any penalty. `We debated in the House
Administration Committee about what to do and the consensus was,
we will take her off and if she thinks or he think's we don't have the
power, let him go to court and find out whether we do `or not.
PAGENO="0044"
40 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDICT
Now, that is how she got off the payroll. So what. I am trying to say
here, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, without a prep a.recl statement, is that
the House Administration Committee is the committee which has the
responsibility for checking vouchers. We have tightened up our pro-
cedures. But let me point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that I believe
that Congressmen are us good or maybe a little bet.ter than the average
constituency which sends them here. Are we worse than the. boys we
appoint to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy?
They operate on tile honor system and occasionally jt. breaks down:
then something is clone and the matter is adjudicated and a few of
them get kicked out.
Tile House Administration Committee, because it could not. operate
any other way, Mr. Chairman, has operated on the honor system. \Ve
assumed that when a chairman sent over a voucher saying that this
service has been performed or that this person had worked or this trip
had been made on committee business, it had been made in that way.
Let me enlighten you a bit about these airline tickets-and we got. a
lot, of criticism about that. as a. committee. Do you reulize you can go
and buy, by check, by credit card, if you have one. or cash. clown here a
ticket in anybody's name and nobody asks you when you get on the
plaiie-yoii have all tra.veled-"Is this you ?"
If somebody at the airline counter knows you, they will say, "Have
a nice trip, Mr. Harris," "Have a nice trip, Mr. Coleman": but they
don't say, "This name is Jones here, what is your name, and produce
identification."
`\\Te had no knowledge this was going on until a member of that
committee brought a rumor to us that this was going on. Then we
didn't act precipitousl~~ and rush to the press. We brought in the
Vouchers and we had them audited. The only vouchers we asked any
questions about, Mr. Chairman, were vouchers which were made to
points on weekends for which nO per diem was asked. `We found after
proper a.uditmg that. we believed something was wrong and we had
hearings.
They were not television spectaculars and there were not photogra-
phers crawling around under the table photographing the witnesses
from all angles. I have been criticized because my name got in the
paper a.s a result of this. I don't guess the press was altogether happy,
but we gave tile witnesses the option of bemg heard in executive ses-
sion or public session. They all chose to be heard in executive session.
Exactly so nobody would say we were sweeping it. under the rug
or trying to cover it up, I appeared after each hearing before the
iress with a minority member, ranking minority member in most cases,
and tried to answer their questions as much as I could and as honestly
as I could. If I made a mistake there, well, I will argue about it.
There is one thing more I want to say and then I will submit to
questions. I am getting a little tired of some peoPle in Congress, not
many, and a great many out, saying, "Well, all Congressmen are pretty
bad and they all do this, why don't you investigate them ?"
I answered this to the press on numerous occasions. I saidL
I don't know or have not heard or no charge has been placed that any other
chairman was using tickets with somebody else's name on them. I don't know
or I have heard no charge made that any other Member had a person on the pay-
roll who was in fact not complying with the law of either being in tile District
of Columbia or in his ow-n State and if such is brought to our attention. w-e will
look into it.
PAGENO="0045"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 41
It is pretty easy to malign Congress. A newspaper article which
Mr. Bennett now disavows said one of the things he was going to look
into is nepotism. That is a dirty word. But there is no law against
employing a relative. As a matter of fact, and I just happened to see
Mr. Reid here and I mean nothing personal about it, and I was not
thinking of the newspaper he was formerly connected with, but the
newspaper in my district and the New York Times, to name one, are
family businesses. I see nothing wrong with it.
The people who have owned the New York Times for years have
trained their sons or their sons-in-law, or some other relatives to run
that paper and that is all right with me. I have a chain of papers
in my State in which the family, there are four brothers, every one of
them edits a paper, and now the sons and grandsons are moving into
t'he business.
We haven't done anything about nepotism, Mr. Chairman, because
there is no law against it. It did happen in Mr. Powell's case that the
employee who was not working happened to be legally his wife, but it
was not because it was nepotism. It was because she was not com-
plying with the law of either being in New York or in Washington,
D.C., that we took her from the payroll.
There are a lot of other things that I could say in defense of this
committee, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to drag this out.
I do think that however you handle this, there should *be some
safeguards written in. I don't think, as Mr. Pepper said yesterday,
and then retracted, that when there is a whisper there should be an
investigation, because, as I said on the floor, Mr. Latta said my amend-
ment changed it, I don't know whether he also remembers that it was
a vote of 25 to 1 showing how the Members were worried about it,
that if you were to set up a committee which could entertain charges
without them being sw-orn and by rumor or by unsigned letter or even
by signed letter, that you would be setting up a self-immolation bill,
those are my words, for Congressmen, because I have had personal
experience of a nobody being paid $50 to make charges against me
which later were w-ithdrawn before they would have been thrown out.
I know that Congressman are fair game. I remember a column
that was written about me, and maybe I am stupid for bringing this
up, but, as I have said before, any trip I have taken my name has
been on the ticket, and if anyone went with me, their name was
either on the ticket or on the manifest. I remember a column that.
was written by a columnist, nOW deceased, castigating me for taking
Mr. Petinard along as one of a volunteer staff to the NATO meet-
ing. That same columnist's father-in-law, who is also deceased,
was a Senator, and I have seen this columnist all over Europe travel-
ing in Embassy cars and living in the Ambassador's residence. But
that was not wrong; he was a reporter.
Well, I have been pretty serious. In a. lighter vein, I had a lady
write to me from my district the other day saying, "I haven't seen
this gentleman's column lately. Where can I get in touch with him?"
I said, "Knowing him as I did, the best place I would think to try
for the late so-and-so would be 1-lell."
There are a lot more things I could say in defense of the House
Administration Committee, Mr. Chairman, but I will submit to your
questions.
PAGENO="0046"
42 SELECT COM~'lITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The CHAIRMAN. Mr~ Hays, thank you for your statement and your
forthrightness. You usually are forthright. I would be interested
in what suggestion or recommendation you have to make. to this coin-
mittee as to what it should do about this resolution or these. resolutions.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very specific. The House Ad-
ministration Committee has set up a Subcommittee on Ethics and
Contracts. It could have any other name. We have asked for ~5O.OOO
which the Subcommittee on Accounts unanimously granted yester-
clay and I asssume the full comntittee will, and I doubt if the. House
will turn it down.
I would think, and I a.in forthright and I ant bhuit and my character
does act as an abrasive on some people., I will join Mr. Bennett if they
think I am too abrasive. I am not seeking t.o be chairman of this sub-
committee. I will be glad for the chairman to appoint anyone else
that he cares to. But I would think the prope.r thing, since the House
Administration Committee is supposed to check these vouchers and we
have adopt~t eight rules that this investigatory sube.ommittee recom-
mended, which I think will tighten it up to the point that this cannot
happen again, that this committee order the House Administration
Committee, if it feels like ordering it or suggest or recommend or how-
ever they do it, that we do set up this committee, that we proceed to
draw up some rules and regulations.
If that code of ethics which Mr. Bolling read yesterday is not. about
the vaguest thing for anybody to try t.o enforce, then I will give up.
And let the Members know specifically what. is expected of them.
If this is done, the connnittee with this money is prepared to make a
study and to conte into the House and to the Rules Committee with
specific recommendations, have the House vote on them and to enforce
them. That is my recontmenda.tion.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Tha.nk you, Mr. Hays. I don't and I am
sure the committee does not, regard these hearings as constituting any
actua.l or implied criticism of your subcommittee or the House Ad-
ministration Committee.
Mr. HAYS. If I may interrupt you, I did not mean to leave that im-
pression, but there was sonte critic.isnt of our committee front the
pre~7ious witness and some implied criticism which I am sure Mr. Latta
and I will thrash out when he gets down to impaling me here.
Mr. AxDIRsox of Illinois. The question I have is this: I think what
you have just described to the chairman is fine a.s far as it goes, to
perhaps broaden and clarify the jurisdiction of the House Administra-
tion Committee in this rea.lnt of ethics, particularly as it relates to pay-
rolls a.nd expenditures from the House contingent fund.
As you know only too well, in all of the furor that has erupted
around Mr. Powell, a great part of that deals not merely with airline
ticke.ts or with the employntent of his wife and some of these other
things involving a.udits of House funds. but. is his contemptuous at-
tit.ude with respect to certain orders of the New York courts of last
resort.
You would not contend, I ta.ke it. that any recommendations that
would be drawn up by this subcommittee pertaining to ethics would be
broad enough to take in matters of that kind which would tend to re-
~ect on tile integrity of the whole House?
PAGENO="0047"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 43
Mr. HAYS. I will say to the gentleman that any order of regula-
tions that could `be brought up by any committee, select, permanent, or
House Administration Committee, could be just as effective in the
House Administration Committee if the House adopted them as cOm-
ing from any other committee.
Now, I think we might get into a philosophical discussion here as to
whether or not the House wants to lay down regulations about how
it handles a. case like the one you mentioned, but at the moment in my
opinion either the House Administration Committee or the select
committee which would be set up here would be or would have the
power, lacking a definitive action of the House, to go into that.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I take it you agreed, that rule XI, clause
9, the subparagraph that deals with the Committee on House A~minis-
tration, as presently written, does not contain that broad jurisdiction?
Mr. HAYS. That is right.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. You would have to amend the rules of
the House?
Mr. HAYS. That is why we are talking about the resolution here. I
don't think anybody has the broad jurisdiction at the moment.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Not even including this new subcommit-
tee that you have described?
Mr. HAYS. No. What we propose to do is to study this matter and
come into the House and ask for some rules and for some guidance.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. There is also the question that most of
the resolutions that we have before us refer to a~ bipartisan select com-
mittee which would be composed of six members of the majority and
six of the minority. I believe that the subcommittee which you
chaired, the subcomn'iittee of the House Administration Committee,
has 5-to-3 ratio.
Mr. HAYS. At the n'ioment, it would be constituted four and three,
which is about as close as you can get in a majority and minority
situation. But I would say to the gentleman that there are argu-
ments-I don't like the word "bipartisan"-well, I don't mind the
word "bipartisan," but I think Mr. Bennett used on a couple of
occasions the word "nonpartisan." There is no such thing around
here. We are all fish or fowl, we are all Republicans or Democrats.
We are not nonpartisan. There can be a philosophical argument
about whether you have a balanced committee in this case.
But I would like to point out one thing to you. We came out with
a unanimously agreed report. I would ask you before you make any
judgment, to ask the men on your side whether they felt that they had
every opportunity to cross-examine, every opportunity to make their
views felt, and every opportunity to do whatever they thought they
ought to do.
In addition, yesterday, in the subcommittee, when the money was
voted, Mr. Divine said would they have the right to have minority
employees? Nobody was prepared to answer, because the committee
has not definitely beeii set up. I said:
Well, the chairman has told me that he wants me to chair this. If I do, the
minority can hire whomever they please within reason. Certainly not more
employees than the majority have. But if they feel they have to have a
minority counsel and minority clerk, I have no objection in any way, shape, or
form.
PAGENO="0048"
44 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I still am not clear about. the $50,000
appropriation that you are going to request. What will be the scope
of the investigation that you will make? Do you contemplate that
you will come back with recommendations for the formulation of a
code of conduct, ethics ?
Mr. Hxys. Exactly.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Broa.der than the one that. would merely
relate to employees of the House or expenditures front the House
contingent fund?
Mr. HAYs. We would envision making a study of this and coming
back with whatever was thought would do the job and it would refer
to employees and Members.
Now, let me say this: the resolution asks for the money for the
House Administration Committee. We have an understanding that
if this is not. enough, we will come back. But one portion of this
money, perhaps about $12,000, or maybe $15,000, I donUt know the
act a.ntount, will go to hire and additional permanent auditor for the
full committee to watch these vouchers as they come in, because one
of the rules that we had set forth is that. these committee chairmen
shall report monthly on the travel made by their members and staff
and we will not. pay the bill to the airlines or railroads or whomever
until we get that report and we. intend to circulate it among every
member of the committee so that nobody on the committee can say.
"1~\Tell, the chairman was doing this, and we didn't. know about it."
That is one of the reforms that came out of this hearing, and cite of
the things that we see we have to do.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Just let. nie say in conclusion, Mr. Chair-
man, I certainly applaud the committee for revising its procedures
and for suggesting changes that will result in a tightening of pro-
cedures as they relate to the audit.ing of House. funds. I am still
disturbed by the fact that I can't see where the mandate of the com-
mittee would be broad enough to cover some of these other violations
that have been unearthed in the Powell case that go beyond just
employees of the House.
Mr. HAYS. That is what I am saying. that this committee, if you
should decide to handle it. that way, should mandate the committee
just the same as apparently you are going to mandate a select com-
mittee, if you set it up. Apparently, you are not going to take these
resolutions as I gather front the questions exactly as they are.
So if you are going to write a mandate, I ant saying we would like
to be mandated. If we don't. think it is enough, we will come back and
tell you so with proposedl legislation. But the thing that bothers me
and irritated me yesterday was the fact that as I said, we were accused
on the one hand of not doing anything.
On the other hand, the sta.tentent. was made that. we didn't. have the
power to do it.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CITAIRMAN. Mr. O'Neill, do you have any questions?
Mr. O'NEILL. Section 2, Mr. Hays, says:
To recommend to the House by report or resolution such additional rules or
regulations as the select committee shall determine to be necessary or desirable
to insure proper standards.
PAGENO="0049"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 45
Is there any committee that has that authority at the present time,
to make a recommendation? Does your House committee have it?
Mr. HAYS. I would say we do have that authority. As a result of
this hearing, we have had, we have already incorporated eight rules
which we believe we can do on our own without further power. We
propose to probably come in with some more requests or a request for
some specific legislation. But again I will plead the same thing,. that
Mr. Bennett pleaded yesterday, that we didn't have much time after
this thing came up and the time we did have we spent in trying to
find out whether this was fact or fancy.
Mr. O'NEILL. But this is to recommend to the House.
Mr. HAYS. That is right.
Mr. O'NEILL. You are making rules for yourselves, for your com-
mittee to follow with regard to that. But don't you have any right
to make recommendatiops to the House on specific legislation on
matters of this type?
Mr. HAYS. Yes. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
Mr. O'NEILL. This would be a sort of duplication.
Mr. HAYS. It would seem to me so.
Mr. O'NmLL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martin, do you have any questions?
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Hays, you stated that you were reluctant in your
position as chairman of this subcommittee in December that went
into this Powell case, to be in the position of a prosecuting attorney.
But yet you are here, I gather from your testimony, want.ing it set
up within the jurisdiction of your committee, and I assume under your
chairmanship, a subcommittee, so that this puts you in the same posi-
tion that you have stated you are reluctant to assume.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Martin, I don't envision it that way at all, if I may
say so. Yet me tell you a little incident that happened. One of our
legal counsel was cross-examining a witness. I leaned over and whis-
pered to him that I would like him to ask him so-and-so. He
whispered back, "Let us have a little recess, I want to talk to you
about this."
So we declared a recess, and sent the witness out.
He said:
Mr. Hays, you are not an attorney, and you perhaps don't understand that we
iiever ask any question that we don't know what the answer is in a courtroom.
I said:
Well, Mr. Attorney, you are not in a courtroom. That is exactly why I want to
ask the question, and why I am going to ask the question when the witness comes
back, because I want to know, and I don't know the answer.
I .don't envisage this committee as being a prosecutor, sir. I en-
vision it as being a factfinding committee.
Now, one of the big disputes we had in drawing up our report is,
should we recommend to the Department of Justice that they prose-
cute?
I took the position, which seems to be the same position that Mr.
Bennett took, that we should not recommend prosecution. But under
the law and under a bill that I sponsored some years ago, three times it
passed the House before we got the Senate to take it up, the so-called
PAGENO="0050"
46 SELECT COM1\'IITTEE OX STANDARDS AND COXDIJCT
Depository Library Act says that every department of Govermnent
and every Cabinet member gets a copy of every congressional report.
Under that law, we send a copy of our hearings down to the Justice
Department., but I didn't think we were a prosecuting body and I don't
think we ought to be put in the position of recommending prosecution.
I am not a lawyer, as I told you, but I think I can understand a little
bit about what goes on around here.
I think if we did that, it could very well be upset by the Supreme
Court on the ground that the thing was preudicecl before it. ever went.
to trial. I don't know, but they have handed down to me. as a layman,
some peculiar decisions. I didn't want to be put. in that position.
Mr. MARTIN. You have stated that you changed t.he name of this
subcommittee.
Mr. HAYS. WTe created it.. We didn't change t.he name. It was the
Subcommittee on Contracts. We broadened it and called it the Sub-
committee on Ethics and Contracts.
Mr. MARTIN. Under the rules of the House, your committee is pri-
marily responsible for auditing?
Mr. HAYS. That may be true, but we were also castigated in the
press because we didn't do anything about these matters. So we
thought we would try to do so. I think, sir, as I have said before.
that before we can become very effective in any conunittee we are
going to have some kind of mandate from the House laying down some
ground rules.
Mr. MARTIN. I assume from your testimony that you are opposed to
setting tip a select subcommittee. Do you oppose this because you
feel it is within the jurisdiction of your committee?
Mr. HAYS. I do, sir. I think it is within the jurisdiction of our coin-
mittee. I think it would be plowing the same ground over. I don't
think a hypothetical Congressman who is a lush and a drunk anti a
few other things that Mr. Lat.ta described that. exist-
Mr. LATTA. Did I leave any out?
Mr. HAYS. I didn't think you did. But if such a person did exist,
I think we would be conting within the violation of some of the
things that the House Administration Committee has jurisdiction
over.
Mr. MARTIN. One other question. About the poll recently taken
concerning the feelings of the public over congressional misconduct
and the conduct of Mr. Powell, a.s brought out by your hearings and
others, do you think that the temper of the people in the United States
would go along with assigning this problem to a present committee of
the House rather than setting up a new committee? Don't you think
that it would be more effective as far as our public relations are con-
cerned with the people to create a new committee?
Mr. HAYS. I don't necessarily think that.. I have about 5,000 let.-
ters in my office that came addressed to me as a resi~lt of t.he hearings
we had. I haven't read them all. I had my staff go over them. I
think there are about 11 that are critical. The others are all laudatory
or commendatory or some of each. Some saying we did a good job as
far as we went. Some people said we ought. to have built. a gallows in
front anti hanged him. You can't satisfy everybody all t.he time.
Maybe I am a little vain, but I sort. of thought that that contmittee
PAGENO="0051"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 47
did a fairly objective job and created a pretty good image for the
Congress.
I can't quite buy Mr. Bennett's statement that assigning further
matters of this kind to that committee would be an affront to the
American people.
Mr. MARTIN. My mail indicates the opposite. They feel that we
should set up a completely new committee in this area of ethics and
standards of conduct, with broad powers to check into this entire field.
So my mail evidently is a little different from what you have
received.
Mr. HAYS. I haven't had a single letter saying we should set up a
separate committee.
Mr. MARTIN. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Matsunaga?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is your view that the proposed select committee is not necessary,
that it would be duplication?
Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. It has been proposed by one member of the com-
mittee, I think, that one way of accomplishing the intended purpose
would be to put section 2, beginning on page 2, as powers granted to
the House Administration Committee. Has any proposal in writing
been made to that effect by way of a resolution?
Mr. HAYS. I know of none for certain, Mr. Matsunaga. I under-
stand one member of this committee has a substitute resolution pre-
pared. He told me this but I did not see a copy of it, which would do
that very thing.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. What is your view, that this would accomplish
what is intended by this resolution?
Mr. HAYS. Yes, that is my view. You can get in personalities and
it has been said that referring it to us would be sweeping it under the
rug. I can't quite see how anybody can in good conscience say that
when we did not sweep the Powell matter under the rug. We could
not have had any hearings. That would have been the easy way out.
I again say to you, gentlemen, that this was not an easy task and
it was not a pleasant task and it was not one that I think that anyone
would want. It was a necessary task as I viewed it and as the subcom-
mittee viewed it, and we did it.
Mr. MAT5UNAGA. No further questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta, do you have any questions?
Mr. LATTA. Just a couple, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say first of all, Wayne, that I join all these Members around
this table in commending you and your subcommittee for the tremen-
dous job that you did in the very short time that you had on this
Powell matter.
1 think, as you have indicated, that if the committee had not taken
the steps that it did when it did, this mess would really have gotten
out of hand and we would not have had the ad hoc committee
established. . .
You have answered today a couple of questions that I had in my
mind as to why your committee should not have the authority that
you are requesting.
PAGENO="0052"
48 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
No. 1 was that I have read the rules of the House, and I could not
see the word "ethics" found anyplace under your Committee. on House
Admimstration's jurisclictmn. You have indicated today that we
would have to amend the rules of the House so that von could go for-
ward with this committee. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. FlAYS. Yes, I think so.
Mr. LATTA. The action then by your subcommittee in c.reating this
new Committee on Conduct and Ethics actually was outside the rules
of the House?
Mr. HAYS. Well, what we intended to do there, Mr. Lat.ta. which I
maybe have not made clear, was to study this matter and come in with
a proposal for legislation to do whatever the subcommittee and full
committee thinks is necessary. And to give the committee whatever
powers it does not already have.
Now, as you well know, as I outlined in the case of Mr. Powell, we
assumed some powers and we were not. challenged. I would think it
would be a. brave Clerk of the House of Representatives, indeed. who
would issue a. check t.o anybody when he was ordered by the House
Administration Committee not to, even though I can't find anywhere
in the law or the rules or the statutes that says we can do this.
Mr. LATTA. Also, then in answer to a. quest.ion by the gentleman
from Nebraska, you indicated that you did not. favor the creation of
a new committee because your committee had jurisdiction in this area.
From what you have just said that is not quit.e correct, is it?
Mr. HAYS. Our committee has whate.ver jurisdiction is in the area.
We a.re charged with doing certain things. A lot of people say it is
an auditing committee. It is more than that.. In the first place.. we
give these committees their funds. As I tried to explain, we sort. of
run the thing around here on an honor system basis, and in one in-
stance, tha.t didn't work. I think maybe I might speak to one thing
here that has not been spoken to.
Can you imagine any other Congressman in this body who could
have clone t.he things that the press reported lie did, that they allege
Mr. Powell did, a.nd gotten reelected?
Mr. LATTA. I cannot.
Mr. hAYs. This is a peculiarly special ca.se. I think your constitu-
ency acts as a sort of ethics committee. too. You have to go before
your constituents a.nd if your area. is anything like. mine, you have to
face some unfounded charges, whispers, rumors, and this big ethics
committee out there in my clist.rict make up their minds about this.
Mr. LATTA. Apparently, in this case, from all we read in the press,
if the House does not seat this individual, his constituency will reelect
him. His constituency, if this is true, is different from the ones that
you represent and the one that I represent in Ohio. We would not be
back under the circumstances.
Mr. HAYS. I have been charged with a number of t.hings. Nobody
has been able to prove it. I think if t.hey cUd, I would have trouble
with my constituency in getting ba.ck here.
Mr. LATTA. In coming to t.his matter that I mentioned, Mr. Bemiet.t
was testifying a.bout your amendment.. You did offer the amendment
in the House on October 19, which took awa.y the investigative powers
of this select committee. Is that not true?
Mr. HAYS. That is right.
PAGENO="0053"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 49
Mr. LATTA. That is what I have reference to.
Mr. HAYS. I mean no derogation of this committee, but many mem-
bers of this Rules Committee said that thing was reported out hastily.
You remember it was called back once and an amendment was pre-
sented. When it was presented to the House in the form it was in, a
great overwhelming majority of the House was troubled by the loose-
ness of the legislation. That is why my amendment prevailed. I don't
have any superpowers to get the House to go along with me. I did
point out it was a loosely drawn thing. I said then and I say now that
this matter needs careful study. I am a great believer that the Con-
stitution was right when it prohibited ex post facto laws. I don't
think that Members should be brought to book for something that they
thought was perfectly legitimate when they were doing it, that some
ethics committee later on decides was unethical.
Let me give you an example in my own case. I own a farm. I have
owned a farm for about 14 or 15 of the 18 years I have been here. I
am on my 19th year. I have never taken any kind of agricultural pay-
ment, lime or soil bank, for not planting, or what have you. Not be-
cause my farm was not eligible, but because I thought that somebody
rightly or wrongly could say that fellow is down in Washington
voting for these programs and then profiting by them.
I regretted I didn't a time or two because it would have been very
helpful. Let me say I am not holding myself up as any paragon of
virtue. I am just pointing out that I would hate, and I would not
think any committee would, but I would hate for an ethics committee
to come in and say it is unethical for a Member to own a farm and
then call me in and try me for it afterward.
If they had said it was unethical to own one, I guess I would either
have to make a decision about selling the farm or resigning from
Congress. That is one of the things that was bothering me when
I offered this amendment. There were many others.
Mr. LATTA. It bothers you if we create the select committee. What
would bother you if we gave you the authority that you apparently
need in your committee to do the same thing?
Mr. HAYS. I would say right off that we would not want any author-
ity for any ex post facto legislation and we would not want anything
that we might come in and say we thought ought to be made unethical
or illegal that anybody would be called in to account for it before
it became a law. Afterward, yes.
Mr. LATTA. A lot of these things Mr. Powell has been charged with
took place prior to the 90th Congress.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Latta, that is true. I don't know the constitutional
implication of this. I didn't duck being on the special committee.
I told the Speaker I thought it ought to be composed of lawyers who
understood constitutional law. But if you remember we did all of
our investigation and wrote our report and had it presented in public,
publicized, before the 89th died. I don't know whether many of you
know this or not, but a quorum of the House Administration Com-
mittee, this committee that won't do anything, came all the way into
Washington on the morning of the 3d of January, 17 of them, I be-
lieve, and received the report of the subcommittee, examined it, dis-
cussed it, and approved it before noon on the third, before we went
out of business.
PAGENO="0054"
50 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Please don't try to get me into a. position of saying what. the 90th
Congress ought to do about this, because that was what we have, the
ad hoc committee to make the recommendations for. .1 don't know.
Mr. LATTA. Now, another question you raisecL I think, when this
matter was being debated on the floor for consideration of a special
committee on the 19th of October last. was the question of this com-
mittee not having any rules or regulations to follow. You raise that.
again today. If we gave your committee this power, would you have
any rules or regulations or guidelines to go by?
Mr. HAYS. V\Te already have some in existence. I would assume we
would establish whatever we thought was necessary. When we went
into the Powell investigation, we did establish rules and regulations
to go by. One was that the meetings would be held in either executive
or pubhc session as to witnesses requested.
Another was that all the witnesses would be sworn and would testify
under oath.
Three, a rule that I don't think the press reported very much. We
didn't call these people in. Again we didn't act as prosecutors and
say, "Where were you on the 17th of May 1966 ?" We notified them
in writing and in prehearing conferences with the attorneys of what
questions they would be asked relative to travel.
We told them that their names were on tickets bearing a certain date
and they were alleged, according to these t.ickets, to have traveled to
New York, Miami, Chicago, whatever it was.
"If you have a diary or anything else., that will be helpful to you
to answer the question, whether in fact you did take the trip or didn't,
you bring it along, because we are trying to get at the truth."
I don't know if that has been done here before or not, but we thought
it was objective and fair.
Mr. LATTA. Are these the rules and regulations you had in mind
when you were raising objections to the creation of the select commit-
tee?
Mr. HAYS. Those were some of them. The ex post facto was an-
other. The main thing that bothered me, I didn't want the committee
to dra.w up a vague set of ethics a.nd resolut.ions. I commend you read
the ones that Mr. Bennett got the Congress to adopt. I don't know
how many times he got before our committee and asked us to get them
printed for which I later got castiga.ted, but they are pretty vague.
I don't know how you go about enforcing them. If I have anything
to do with them, they will be much more specific and people will know
pretty surely tha.t they are either in violation of them or not.
Mr. LATTA. I think that is a good statement. Congressmen should
know something about them, know whether or not they are violating
the rules.
Mr. HAYS. There is one of them you can't quarrel very much with.
Do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I am for that a
thousand percent.
How do you enforce it? Do you go around each Member's office
and set up a time card system? I have had a. little going over in the
press. I made the statement-you know, some of the press in sonte of
these interviews were saying, "Well, there are plenty of people on the
Hill that don't do any work and what do you have to say about that."
I said, "Gentlemen, I have always felt that the people who work tip on
PAGENO="0055"
`SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 51
the Hill work harder than they do anywhere else, in town." I said,
"Frankly, I have walked through a good many of these agencies down-
town and I have felt `tempted to paraphrase Churchill and say as far
as Government employees in general are concerned, never have so many
done so little work for so much money."
But how do you enforce this?
Mr. LATrA. If a new Select Committee on Ethics and Conduct is
created by the House, do you firmly believe that they could not come
up with rules and regulations that would be to the satisfaction of
Members of the House?
Mr. HAYs. No.
Mr. LATTA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CI-IAIm~1AN. Mr. Hays, if I understand you correctly, you think
that there is a necessity for something to be done or some additional
laws, precautions to be taken-I don't like the word "guidelines"-
that would tighten up the situation?
In other words, there is a demand for something to be done but
that you think that it should be done through a standing committee
rather than as a select committee?
Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. I hope I don't overstate you.
Mr. HAYS. No; you are exactly right.. I think, Mr. Chairman,
that we have already done about 90 percent of the things that need to
be done in the recommendations and rules that we have put through,
outside of the Members' private lives. I don't know how far the
Congress wants to go in that.
Mr. Bennett says he does not want to go at all, and I am in accord
with that. I think the rules that we have already set up as to audit-
ing procedures, payment of vouchers, and so forth, will make it abso-
lutely impossible for anybody to do what was done in this case,
because they have to send a record in before we pay the bill, and if
the travel seems out of line or any member of the committee says it
is out of line, we are not going to pay the bill until we look into it.
Before, it was pretty much a matter of pro forma business.
Mr. LATTA. I have one further question.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Latta..
Mr. LATTA. This pertains to the duties of your committee, not
just the ethics business. Do these chairmen have the power, if they
want `to just sign a voucher or whatever needs to be signed, to take
off to go to San Francisco, to Seattle, or any place else and say "Well, I
am going on business," any time they want to?
Mr. HAYS. Certainly. You and I and the rest of us gave it to
them. We gave to the Operations Committee $725,000 over and
above their statutory amount. You know the law says they can
have four professional and I believe it is six stenographic employees.
Anything over that, they have to get special permission for. We
have given them $725,000 to hire extra people and to take trips or
do whatever they want within their area of jurisdiction.
I don't see any way, short of what we have done which now requires
a monthly report, if you don't trust the committee chairmen to see
that he sits on this. Now, you know that the practice varies among
committees. The Committee on Foreign Affairs of which I have
the honor to be a member, and chairman of one of its subcommittees,
PAGENO="0056"
52 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
is chaired by my good friend and yours, and my good persoiial friend
and neighbor, Dr. Morgan. If I recall correctly, the Foreign Affairs
Committee, which has jurisdiction over aid, over State Department
personnel, and foreign operations, foreign buildings, USIA, and
to some degree, if anybody does, over the other agency, which I will
not mention by name because they are not supposed to exist, although
they have gotten in the press, we spent $147,000 in the last 2 years.
Maybe we could be accused of not doing our job. But you are
in a bind there. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on State Depart-
ment Personnel for Foreign Operations, including foreign buildings.
If I did the job of oversight the way it. ought. to be done, I would be
out of the country 10 months of the year.
You can imagine what my friends from the press would say if I
were out of town 1 month out of the year.
The CnAn~IAN. Thank you, Mr. Hays.
The committee will go into executive session for a moment.
(Whereupon, at 12 :30 p.m., the committee went into executive
session.)
PAGENO="0057"
APPENDIX
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE `CATHERINE MAY, FOURTH DISTRICT OF WASH-
INGTON ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 71
Mr. Chairman and my distinguished `colleagues, I wish to go on record in
support of the pending resolutions before the Committee on Rules which would
re-establish a Select Committee of the House of Representatives to be known
as the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
My `bill, H. Res. 71, was introduced the opening day of the new Congress,
January 10, 1067.
Mr. Chairman, pithlic office is a public trust, and I am `sure that most Mem-
bers `of Congress recognize this by maintaining `the `highest standards of per-
sonal conduct. They recognize that the office `a public servant `holds belongs
not to that individual but to the nation or state, a's the case may be.
One `of `the greatest concerns which we all share is the damage done to `the
public image of the Congress by the questionable practices, intentional or not
intentional, of a few. These actions `o'f the few `have, quite understandably,
resulted in a great public indignation, and if we neglect what I consider `to' be
the real problem-a need to tigh'ten `up Congressional standards and procedures
out of which abuse of public office tends to grow-the public would have the
right to be even more indignant.
A committee similar `to the one proposed in the pending resolutions was
created in the wanthg `days of the last Congress and I was privileged to have
been appointed to serve on that Select Committee. It was recognized, how-
ever, that the creation o'f that Select Committee came so late in the year that
time was insufficient to carry out its responsibilities.
I h'ave high `hopes, Mr. Chairman, that this new legislation to create a Select
Committee on Standards `and Conduct `will meet with `s'wif't approval.
STATEMENT OF HON. G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FIRST DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to take the occasion of this meeting of
the House Rules Committee to reaffirm my wholehearted support of the current
move `to establish a permanent "Select Committee on Standards and Conduct" of
Members of the United States House of Representatives.
In the opening days of the 00th Congress, I introduced a measure, House Res-
olution 197, which is now before this Committee, calling for the establishment of
such a select committee in `thi's Session of Congress. I personally believe that
the urgency in this m'atter cannot be over-emphasized. Unfavorable allegations
and disclosures in recent months involving certain Members of Congress have
only added to the general public's growing disillusionment with Congress. The
American taxpayers have an inherent right `to expect and demand the most ex-
emplary standards from their elected representatives at the highest level of
government. The aims and goals of such a select committee, as I visualize them,
would be of a preventive, rather than a punitive nature. I concur with my col-
league, the Honorable Charles E. Bennett, in his contention that any part of the
House Administration Committee, because of its partisan complexion, could not
properly function in this critical area. I urge your expeditious consideration of
this vital matter.
53
PAGENO="0058"
54 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDtTCT
STATEMENT BY HON. HORACE R. KORNEGAY, SIXTH DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, it is a distinct honor for me
to have the opportunity and the privilege of presenting a statement to this Com-
mittee in regard to the matter now before you.
I am grateful to you for your courtesy in allowing me to present my views
and I shall ask your indulgence for only a brief period to offer some of my ob-
servations on the most important subject any of us in the 90th Congress now
face: the public image and the character of the Congress and the self respect
of those of us privileged to serve in the Congress.
The reputation and the respect for the Congress and its members have suf-
fered a reversal in the court of last resort, public opinion, and we are all now
on probation in the eyes of the American public.
A much celebrated case of one particular elected Member of Congress has re-
flected to the discredit of every single member of the House of Representatives-
and to every good public servant, everywhere. The public opinion polls-and
certainly the correspondence that you and I receive-bear out the low- esteem
now held for as individual members and the great body w-e have the honor to
serve in.
The American public has been shocked by public revelations concerning the ap-
parent lack of ethics and morality in some areas of our Government including
the Congress.
The American public wants and deserves a Congress composed of ii~dividuals
whose conduct is both ethically and morally proper. I also subscribe to that
philosophy for it is my opinion that those of us in the Congress who are respon-
sible for passing upon laws that we all must follow should be as clean in our own
personal conduct as Ceasar's wife.
Therefore, I ask you to give your usual considerate attention to House Resolu-
tion 64, which I have introduced, and I commend this measure to you for your
deliberation. H. Res. 64 is similar to H. Res. 18, offered by the Gentleman from
Florida (The Honorable Charles B. Bennett) who has worked long and tirelessly
in this endeavor, and to several other resolutions now pending before you.
Passage of legislation, such as H. Res. 64 w-hicli bears my name. or of similar~
legislation, would help restore the confidence of the American public in the Con-
gress. Establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct in the
House of Representatives is the very minimum the public expects of its elected
representatives. The Congress enacted a Code of Ethics in 1058. but the code
needs enforcement authority. The 89th Congress enacted legislatioa setting up
such a committee, but gave it a short span of life, which died with the formation
of the current Congress. It is my fervent hope and my humble plea to you
on this Committee that this Congress will make this committee permanent and
give it the tools it needs to do the job that is long behind schedule.
Again, I thank you for your time and your courtesy.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
TVaslungton, D.C., February 20, 1967.
Hon. WILLL&M M. COLMER.
Cha inn an, house Committee on Rules,
The Capitol.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: I regret that previous commitments prevent me from
appearing before the Rules Committee on Tuesday. February 21, 1967 at which
time the Committee will hold a hearing on all bills to establish a House Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct. I request that this letter be made a part
of the record `of that hearing.
On February 15, 1967 I introduced H. Res. 255 to establish a House Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct. This legislation is identical to resolu-
tions introduced by Congressman Charles E. Bennett and other Members of
Congress. In my view, it is vital that this legislation be approved by your Com-
mittee and enacted by the House of Representatives. Although a Select Com-
mittee on Standards and Conduct was established pursuant to H. Res. 1013 in the
89th Congress, it never really had time to commence its assigned task.
Legislation establishing standards of conduct for Members of Congress and
employees of the Congress is long overdue. Disclosures cf questionable actions
by some Members of Congress and congressional employees during the past sev-
PAGENO="0059"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 55
eral years have seriously undermined public confidence in the integrity of the
Congress and those who serve in it.
We in Congress apply a very strict standard of conduct to the executive branch
in an effort to avoid possible conflicts of interest. We certainly should do no
less to avoid conflicts of interest within the Oongress.
I would hope that one of the first tasks of a Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct would be to recommend to the House of Representatives a code
of ethics with enforcement provisions that would ensure compliance.
I urge the Committee on Rules to give prompt and favorable consideration
to the resolutions to establish a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
Sincerely,
RICHARD L. OTTINGER,
Member of Congress.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
* Washington, D.C., February 16, 1967.
Hon. WILLIAM M. COLMER,
Chairman, Rules Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On January 10, 1967, I introduced House Resolution 55,
which has been referred to your Committee. This Resolution would create a
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
I respectfully request that top priority consideration be given this resolution.
It is important, I feel, that Congress now establish definitive standards of con-
duct and provide safeguards against their abuse. We must assure the people
throughout the country that their trust will not be violated.
I would hope that the Standards and Conduct Committee could be made a
permanent committee by including it under Rule 11 of the House of Representa-
tives.
Your kind cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, DANTE B. FAS0ELI,
Member of Congress.
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN B. S. JOHNNY WALKER, IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE REso-
LUTION 154
Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to appear here today before this
Committee, and I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the other distin-
guished Members for this opportunity. I would like to apprise you of my opin-
ion regarding the establishment of a House Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct.
I have just returned from a brief visit to my home state of New Mexico. The
three most frequent topics of conversation were Vietnam war, taxes, and Con-
gressional behavior and ethics.
We Congressmen are the victims of what sociologists call "stereotyping." If
we were asked to describe ourselves, we would probably give the description
generally reserved for boy scouts-decent, hardworking, loyal, honest, etc. How-
ever, if we asked the general public to describe us, I fear we would get an
answer which would more closely describe a cartoon character-inept, dishon-
่st, loud-mouthed, opportunistic, etc.
About one out of every 400,000 people in this nation is a U.S. Representative
at any given time, and I believe we are truly a representation of the entire
population.
We are neither all virtuous, all the time, nor all totally lacking in virtue, all
the time. Naturally, we would say we are more often than not doing what is
best for our country.
In order to be most effective, we must have the respect and confidence of the
people we represent.
Stereotypes are usaully grossly unfair and inaccurate. But there is an ap-
parent need or desire on the part of people generally to neatly categorize and
label nationalities, races, religions, professions, sections and a multitude of other
items.
Fortunately, stereotypes can be changed. But it is a slow and laborious
process.
PAGENO="0060"
56 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I believe a move is long overdue on the part of Congress to start chipping
away at a belief that is both tmfair and untrue and which has been in the mak-
ing for more than 150 years.
Recent adverse comments by our constituents and in the news media are not
something new. Congress has had during its history frequent crises, during
which a Member or group of Members have been accused of wrongdoing.
Some of the charges made were true and some were based on emotionalism
and some were of a more dubious nature. I do not intend to recount the history
of this legislative body. Suffice it to say that we are all more or less familiar
with the subject.
The resolution calling for establishment of a Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct is a good start toward the goal of giving the American people a
picture of Congress which is closer to the truth.
Since we are the only ones authorized to take action against our own Mem-
bers, it seems to me that it makes sense to have a bipartisan committee, which
I hope will act in a non-partisan manner, to investigate allegations of wrong-
doing and more important, to make recommendations to prevent actions which
will sully the name of Congress.
At the present time, it seems to take a great deal of public outrage to force
Congress to act upon such allegations. It is my hope that such a committee
as is suggested will take the lead and initiate corrective measures before the
public makes a demand.
Even the creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct will
be criticized by some. No doubt, in creating this committee, we are admitting
that it is needed. I don't think we should be afraid to make such an admission.
I thank the Chairman and the distinguished Members of this committee for
giving their attention to this very important subject and for giving me this
opportunity to express my views.
STATEMENT OF HoN. SILvIo 0. CONTE, ON HorsE REs0LtTI0N 43
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this distinguished committee for affording me
the opportunity to present my views on the very important legislative proposals
now under consideration, namely the establishment of a Select Committee on
Standards and Conduct in the House of Representatives.
As we have learned with striking force in the past few months, this issue is
one of the most important to come before the 90th Congress.
I introduced House Resolution 43 on the first day of the present session in
the belief that the establishment of such a Select Committee could no longer be
ignored. Events of that day have only confirmed and strengthened my own
convictions on this point.
Under the provisions of House Resolution 43, the Select Committee would be
given pow-er to investigate alleged violations of established standards of conduct
by a member or employee. Such standards, in turn, would be established by
the House independently, or at the recommendation of the Select Committee.
Most importantly, any allegations of misconduct or violation of the standards
of the House would have to be submitted to the Select Committee in the form of
a complaint, either in writing or orally under oath, made by or submitted to a
Member of the House.
The Select Committee would then undertake an investigation in accordance
with the complaint and subsequently make recommendations to the House for
possible resolutions of censure for its consideration and action.
I might remind the distinguished Committee that I had sought on several
occasions during our debates in the matter concerning Adam Clayton Powell on
the first day of the present session to introduce an appropriate amendment to the
rules of the House. At first I sought to reestablish the Select Committee, and
later to set up a Standing Committee on Standards and Conduct.
Because of the parliamentary procedure,s under which we conducted our debates
that day, I w-as not given the opportunity to present either of these amendments.
I subsequently redrafted my proposal and introduced it as House Resolution 43.
It was clear to many in the House in the previous Congress that such a Select
Committee wa~s necessary, primarily to solidify an ethical and moral code based
on the solemn oath each of us takes as members of the House of Representatives.
It was deemed necessary as a means of establishing uniformly accepted and
understood standar~s to govern our own conduct and to evaluate the conduct of
PAGENO="0061"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 57
our colleagues. It was advocated as a means to reaffirm public confidence in our
elected officials and in the Congress of the United States.
Within the last several months, serious allegations concerning ethical mis-
conduct have been voiced against a member of this House, and a member of the
other body.
In the ensuing publicity, much concern has been voiced in the press and among
the public over the conduct of all our Members and of the salaried employees of
the Congress, of the ethical foundation and moral commitment of the Congress
as a whole. The public, hearing the charges and weighing them against our
reluctanec to act on them for so long, has not been entirely without justification
in voicing those anxieties and doubts.
There is no question that the great majority of us who are honored and privi-
leged to serve in this great body, do so under the strictest self-imposed moral code.
We do so quietly and without notoriety, because that is, as it should be, the
normal and accepted standard. That is the rule rather than the exception.
When exceptions do occur and they reach the public eye, as indeed they all will
sooner or later, the shock and dismay is such as to create a major national issue,
a virtual crisis of confidence.
It behooves us in this body therefore, as duly elected representatives of the
citizens of th~s country and as solemnly charged Members of Congress, to take
every feasible step to remove the unjust stigma that attaches as a result of the
misconduct of a single colleague or employee. In short, it is high time we estab-
lished principles which will serve as a guide for all members of this body and its
staff and employees and upon which swift and fair action can be based in answer
to formally presented charges.
Establishment of a bipartisan committee, acting on an accepted code of ethics,
and having full investigative powers, will serve not only to uphold the integrity
and prestige of the House of Representatives, but will also provide the means to
confirm or, most importantly, immediately deny the veracity of any charge or
allegation brought any Member or employee.
In this sense, such a Select Committee, functioning within the guidelines sug-
gested in House Resolution 43, would serve primarily as a safeguard against
unjust and unfounded allegations that might be suggested from time to time
and which, through character assassination, misinterpretation, and untruth, can
wreck the career of the most gifted and distinguished public servant.
If a Member or employee is accused of wrongdoing, either by the press or by
his political enemy, he need only rely on the Select Committee to give the lie to
the accusation. If the charge prove true, then the Committee is empowered to act
accordingly, for the good of the House and the good of the country.
I respectfully urge the distinguished Committee on Rules to consider favorably
House Resolution 43 for the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards
and Conduct and to report favorably thereon to the House so that it might be
approved and such a Select Committee be established as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DANIEL E. BUTTON, ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 18
The much and overly publicized case of a single Congressman whose conduct
has been so overt as to attract public scrutiny and to obligate his Colleagues to
inquire into it, naturally has raised innumerable questions in the minds of almost
all Americans. These questions, and their implications, are reflected in many
letters from my own constiuents, who have been asking about the Congressional
basis for disciplining Mr. Powell and also about the suspicions and rumors of
misbehavior elsewhere, perhaps widespread.
I believe that the public deserves reasonable answers to such inquiries. I be-
lieve that the time has come when further delays in enacting a realistic and work-
able code of ethics will have several adverse and undesirable effects.
First, to discipline Representative Powell (in fact, even to consider the question
of disciplining him) without providing the rationale for doing so, and prospec-
tively doing so in the case of allegations against any other Member, will un-
mistakably leave many people of goodwill with the distinct impression that he
was improperly and unfairly singled out for punishment, perhaps because of his
race. To permit this thought to take shape would be to do a grave disservice tO
the credibility and honor of the Congress. I cannot believe that it is the will of
PAGENO="0062"
58 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND COND1TCT
Congress that such an unjustified and discreditable policy or practice could pre-
vail in this House.
Second, such failure w-ould seem to be avoiding the very well-intentioned ques-
tions put to individual Members by their constituents w-ho somewhat fearfully
seem to be asking for a forthright and believable refutation of scandalous rumors
about misconduct of some or even many Members.
None of this is new to any Member of the House. even to those newly seated
Members such as I who find ourselves appaled at the prospect of having this
Hous eneedlessly and sadly compromised in actuality or in a general impression.
The House of Representatives can do justice to itself. its Members. Congress-
man Pow-ell, and not least to all Americans. by adopting forthwith a viable Code
by which w-e can all be judged and which can be impartially and equitably admin-
*istered by an appropriate committee.
I have introduced H. Res. 223 w-hich deals with this need, and I speak on behalf
of it and similar legislation to accomplish the purpose.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAMIJEL S. STRATTON, OF NEW YORK
Mr. Stratton, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the efforts to reestablish the
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and have introduced legislation,
H. Res. 220, for this purpose. I commend our colleague from Florida. Mr. Ben-
nett, for the leadership he has taken in behalf of this legislation.
I have been convinced for some time that a separate Committee should be es-
tablished to develop standards for the conduct of Members and investigate
reported violations in a calm and consistent maimer. The committee should
have as its sole purpose this important and delicate task so that it remains free
from any other involvement as a Committee.
I believe the integrity of Congress and the confidence of the American public
in their elected representatives is at stake. We cannot postpone exercising this
responsibility any further.
Recent developments have demonstrated a need both for established standards
of conduct and an established method of investigating reported irregularities.
But this must be done on the basis of an established machinery, not on an ad-hoc
or hit and miss basis. To help prevent unfortunate situations from developing
and to deal with them before they so seriously threaten the public confidence in
this foremost legislative body in the world. we should take this action without
delay.
By establishing this Select Committee on Standards and Conduct these difficult
matters can be handled in a way that will not impugn the integrity of Members
wrongly accused but at the same time will deal effectively with violations that
are clearly not in keeping with standards that should be adhered to by Members
of the House.
I strongly urge the Committee to favorably report this legislation.
STATEMENT BY Hox. RICHARD T. HANNA
Mr. Chairman. I think we all know that House consideration of the legislation
now being heard by the Rules Committee is long overdue. I am sure I'm not
alone when I express my pleasure at the Rules Committee's early consideration
of this housecleaning measure.
Democratic institutions by definition must find their foundations in the confi-
dence of the people they represent. When an institution no longer commands
the respect of the people it serves it should no longer play a meaningful role in
the affairs of the society that created it.
While Congress is still a long way from total institutional alienation from the
people it serves, we are, however, in the grips of a severe crisis of confidence.
For example, a recent survey by Parade Magazine tadicated that on a credibility
scale of 10 of the people ranked Congressmen at level eight, one step above car
salesmen.
The unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Adam ~layton Powell affair
have pointed up our poor public image. Few issues in recent memory have pro-
PAGENO="0063"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 59
duced the flood of mail as has the Powell incident. With rare exception, the
tone of the mail has indicated that the Congress is on trial.
Had we been willing to face the issue of House conduct and ethics in the
past the Powell issue possibly would not have been raised in the context in
which we must consider it today. Adam Powell would long ago have been
punished for his blatant misconduct.
The Committee has the chance to take that all important first step forward
insuring that Powells of the future will not put the institution of Congress on
trial everytime we consider a Member's conduct. We are on trial today. We
have been judging a man on arbitrary one-time standards. Because we have
been lax in the past, there are no precedents or rules to proceed on, and how
we account for ourselves will be carefully and closely scrutinized by the public.
While I cannot condone the actions of Powell, neither can I condone Congress'
past unwillingness to create standards and subject itself to periodic review.
Ironically, Adam Powell may well be `the spark that produces a Congressional
code of standards and ethics.
If we are to expect and merit our constituents' confidence, it is absolutely
necessary that they have faith in our integrity. We hold an important public
trust. *We have been chosen by our respective communities to make the decisions
on the public affairs of the day. If this trust is only offered in a cynical accept-
ance of expected corruption, the fabric of the institution can only deteriorate.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Committee and `the Congress to take a step
toward closing the present confidence gap. I am asking that in your delibera-
tions you consider recommending a Select Committee that Will have both the
support and respect of the American people as well as the Congress. I am
asking that you produce a mechanism that will have meaning and teeth. I am
asking that Congress show the Nation that it has enough faith in itself to
command the faith and confide~e of the Nation it serves.
To fail to act during this Congress on the question of conduct and ethics would
to this great institution represent a most damaging setback.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLOTTE T. REID, 15TH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, IN SUPPORT
OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 162
I appreciate this opportunity to submit a statement in behalf of House Resolu-
tion 162, which I introduced in the House of Representatives on January 19,
1967, to establish a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
As provided in my bill, such a Select Committee would have a bipartisan
membership, consisting of six Majority and six Minority members to be ap-
pointed by the speaker. It shall be the duty of the Committee to recommend
to the House appropriate rules and regulations to insure proper standards of
conduct by Members of the House, and by officers or employees of the House,
in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities.
Furthermore, the Committee would have the authority to report violations, by a
majority vote, of any law to the proper Federal and State authorities.
Such a Select Committee would also have the power to investigate any viola-
tion by Members, officers, or employees of the House of any standards of conduct
established by the House of Representatives or already in effect. This investi-
gation would be made upon receipt by the Committee of a complaint, in writing
and under oath, made by or submitted to a Member of the House and transmitted
to the Committee by such Member. Upon the completion of such investigation,
the Committee may recommend to the House appropriate resolutions of censure
for its consideration and action thereon.
I am immensely pleased that the Committee on Rules is considering this
legislation so early during this Session. ~rtainly there is widespread interest
throughout the country in the question of ethics and credibility in government,
and I feel it is most essential that public confidence in the integrity of the
Congress be maintained at the highest possible level. After all, a Representa-
tive in Congress has the unique role of providing the most direct link between
the people and their Government-and if our people lose confidence in the ob-
jectives and goals of those they elect to public office because of a few- highly
PAGENO="0064"
60 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
publicized improprieties, then our system of representative government is im-
pugned and endangered.
I personally am confident that the great majority of our legislators already
observe standards of personal and professional conduct far beyond reproach but
nevertheless feel that an established Select Committee such as is under con-
sideration today is preferable to the necessity of appointing an ad hoc committee
to judge charges of improper or illegal activities by any Member w-henever they
arise, infrequent as these charges may be. We cannot escape the fact that
under the Constitution the House has the specific responsibility of judging the
qualifications of any Member to sit in this body-and by the same token, I be-
lieve we have the corresponding responsibility for insisting upon the highest
standards of conduct in the exercise of their official duties after they are seated.
Unless we do this, we find ourselves in the position of demanding higher stand-
ards from others in government than from the people's representatives them-
selves-and under these circumstances, public indignation is readily under-
standable. In my judgment, standards of conduct for those in government should
apply equally to the Executive and Legislative Branches-and the very existence
of a Select Committee on Conduct and Standards would have a salutary effect
on the public image of Congress. If this public image is deteriorating, as some
contend, then we who serve in this body have only ourselves to blame for the
lack of remedial action.
Properly constituted and administered, a Select Committee would make it
clear to the American public that we in the House of Representatives do not
condone unethical conduct or double standards for our membership. I am hope-
ful that the Committee on Rules will take prompt and favorable action on this
legislation so that a Select Committee can be established during the 90th
Congress.
0