PAGENO="0001"
GO1T~ DOLL
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H. Res. 18
And Similar Measures
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
AND CONDUCT
MARCH 7, 8, 14 AND 15, 1967
Part 3
Printed. forthe use of the Committee on Rules
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
L 75406 WASHINGTON: 1967
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITJ~EE ON. RULES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
WILLIAM M. COLMER, Mississippi, Chairman
RAY J. MADDEN, Indiana H. ALLEN SMITH, California
JAMES J. DELANEY, New York JOHN B'. ANDERSON, Illinois
RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska
THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Ja., Massachusetts JAMES H. QUILLEN, Tennessee
B. F. SISK, California DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio
JOHN YOUNG, Texas.
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida
SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii
WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, Tennessee
LAPRIE C. BATTLE. - Counsel
MARY SPENCER FORREST, Jssistant Counsel
ROBERT D. HYN~S, Jr., Minority Counsel
II
PAGENO="0003"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. John Dellenback, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon 75
Hon. Morris K. TJdall, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arizona 82
Hon. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland 85
Hon. Charles E. Goodell, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York 89
Hon. Omar Burleson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas 103, 138
Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Connecticut 120
Hon. Thomas B. Curtis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri 121
Hon. Ogden R. Reid, a* Representative in Congress from the State of New
York 133
Hon. George Bush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas~ 140
Hon. Frank E. Evans, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Colorado 143
Hon. Gilbert Gude, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Maryland 145
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois 141
Hon. Sam M. Gibbons, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida -
Hon. Seymour Halpern, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York 145
Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan 146
Hon. William A. Steiger, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Wisconsin 147
Hon. George A. Goodling, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania 148
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDUCT
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1967
HOUSE oi~ REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 11 :45 n.m., pursuant to recess, in room H-313,
the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.
STATEMENT OP HON. JOHN DELLENBACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OREGON
Mr. DETJLENBACK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am Congressman
John Dellenback from Oregon. I am appearing this morning as an
individual and also as a representative `of approximately 46 of my
fellow Republican freshmen C~mgressmen. This `is my first term in
the Congress and I must confess that I feel a certain reasonable amount
of trepidation in giving my first congressional testimony before a~
committee as senior and as critically important to the whole legislative
prpcess as the House Rules Committee.
`The accumulated years of congressional service on the part of the
members of thi's committee makes my approximately 2 months of serv-
ice appear as brief as `in truth they are.
And yet in part it is this very newness to the congressional scene
that is a principal reason for my appearing before you this morning.
I realize from my own period of service in our `Oregon Legi'slature
that, after one has spent a number of years in such service, one sees and
understands the detailed operation `of such a body `as this much mpre
t'horoughly than when he first commences service.
Yet there were times in my last term in the Oregon House of Repre-
sentatives that the thoughts which the newcomers to such body com-
municated to th'e rest of us were most helpful in causing me to recall
attitudes that I had had as a freshman State legislator, and, more
importantly, that reflected very clearly the outside view of the legis-
lative process and of the legislature.
`So it `is that, in coming before you a's I do as a freshman, my per-
spective is in many ways more that of the average citizen of this
Nation than it is that `of the experienced Federal legislator.
And I `say to you as forcefully and urgently as I can that the
prevailing view in the section of `the Nation from which I come, and
apparently in many other sections as well, is one of serious question
75
PAGENO="0006"
76 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
about this Congress of ours. In the minds of the rank and file of our
citizens, we who serve in the Congress and the Congress itself are on
trial.
It is critically important that not only our true and and actual
conduct be above reproach, but that. this fact be clearly demonstrated
to the average citizen in a maimer that will wipe from his mind any
lingering concern or question and leave, him in a mood to acrept as
the action of dedicated men and women the laws we write and the ac-
tions we take as their representatives, The action of a very few Mem-
bers of this Congre.ss have raised doubts in the minds of many of our
average citizens.
In my brief time of service here I have already become convinced
that any fair analysis of the Congress would clearly demonstrate. that,
with relatively few exceptions, our Members are able, sincere. honest~
and hardworking people who are involved in this business of Govern~
ment because of what they have to give rather than beacuse. of what
they might possibly get.
I am personally convinced, and our group of freshman Republicans
is convinced, that the creation of a meaningful Standards and Ethics
Committee, with capacity to set and enforce standards of conduct. for
all of us, is action which the average citizen of America will under-
stand and strongly approve. If the Congress fails to take this action
at this time, we are deeply concerned that such inaction will be mis-
interpreted by many of the citizens of our areas and quite probably
of yours.
The other day on the floor of the House, as part. of the special order
in which some 20 members of our group spoke. I read the following
statement. in which 46 members of our group have now joined:
We newly elected Republican Congressmen feel certain that the Congress of
the United States-possibly with a few rare exceptions-is composed of men
and women who are honest, dedicated and prepared 1)0th to preach and to prac-
tice adherence to a code of high personal morality and conduct.
We feel strongly that no duly elected individual member of Congress should
be singled out from our midst to be judged against any special standard against
which we are not all ready and willing to be judged.
In an effort to cause these feelings to take solid form, a number of us have
earlier in this session introduced, or are today introducing or supporting. bills
and resolutions looking to these goals.
In order to demonstrate to the people of the Inited States in a clear and con-
vincing manner the fact that these feelings are not ours alone, but are also the
feelings of the entire Congress. we urge the entire Congress. and particularly
the Members thereof sitting in positions of leadership in this Congress as Mem-
bers of the majority Democratic Party, to insist upon immediate study of and ac-
tion upon proposed changes in House Rules and in statutes that will incorporate
these feelings as part of such rules and statutes. We intend to push as hard as
we are able toward the earliest possible attainment of these goals.
Forty-six signatories, from Oreg'on and lVashingt.on in the West-
to Connecticut in the East; from Alaska to the North-to Texas and
Florida to the South.
The House has now acted on the matter of Adam Clayton Powell.
The second point I make on behalf of our group of new Congressmen
is to urge as strong'ly as I can that. particularly in view of House action
in the Powell case. it. is vital that~ we demonstrate that we are not sin-
gling out one particular individual for special judgment. hut rather
that our action in this case is part of a consistent. program and pattern.
PAGENO="0007"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 77
Surely this is what it was intended to be in the action taken on the
floor. The fairness and fundamental justice of the action taken by the
House `will be judged by our demonstrating clearly that this was not
the application of a special set of standards to one selected individual,
*but rather that it was action based on a finding that a particular indi-
vidual had failed to meet the code of conduct expected of `all of us.
It is of extreme importance that we demonstrate this fact to the
people of America `by acting swiftly and decisively in the establish-
ment of this special committee `on standards and ethics. We are already
slow with such action. Our people will very much approve the estab-
lishment of this committee. Immediate `action `looking to its creation
is imperative.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would add a few words other than the
prepared statement I have already read.
Among the pieces of legislation that `were introduced the `other d'ay
were pieces `of legislation `and changes in rules looking to the creation
of this sort of a committee and our group's unanimous stand `with such
a proposal.
We urge as strongly as `we possibly can that you not, in effect, let this
thing drag on `as you study the question of whether there should be
such a committee created `so that, in effect, the idea dies and we would
urge there be immediate action on this one point.
T'he legislation and change in rules proposed the other day by in-
dividuals of our group `went into other questions. `The question of
nepotism, and the group varies as to whether there should be outlawing
`of nepotism or merely disclosure of nepotism. T'hey went into the
question of assets. T'here were those that said what should be dis-
closed, `but the specifics here are also subject to variation.
I don't come On behalf of our entire group to push any one of these
proposals in the area of nepotism and disclosure, `but to push `as strongly
as I can, and this group can, the moving ahead with a meaningful
committee that will get int'o these specifics, conduct analysis and couple
the thinking of experienced members with the fresh thinking of some
new members in moving forward and seeing what `ought to be done.
I sat through prior hearings of this committee and one of the
questions that was dwelt upon at some length was `whether this should
be a permanent committee. I think the chairman raised this question.
Or should this be a temporary committee.
I defer' to your judgment in this regard, but my feeling is ultimately
this should `be a permanent committee. Whether you get to this im-
mediately, or over a transitional period, is something which you gentle-
men know a great deal more about than I.
The question of whether this should be a new committee or placed
in the hands of the present House committee is one I also heard a great
deal of questioning of prior witnesses on.
On this I would urge you create a new committee. This is in no
wise because the present House Committee on Administration could
not study this. They `possibly could and would do this particular
thing. But if a portion of the reason for the creation of this com-
mittee is to demonstrate, as clearly and unequivocally as this House
can, t'hat we attach a high degree of urgency and high degree of im-
portance to `this particular study at this particular time, I think t'he
message would `come across to our people much more clearly if this
PAGENO="0008"
78 SELECT CO~41\ilTTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT
were a special committee created at this particular time for this pur-
pose than it ever would come across by saying we already have a com-
mittee and we will ask this committee to do a certain study.
I would urge again that I do speak to you as a freshman and I
don't mean to be presumptuous in doing so. I speak for a. group of
freshmen and for a group that stand strongly and vigorously behind
the urgency of this appeal.
This is our Congress in a sense, but it is a Congress that belongs to
the people and the people have some serious questions about this
whole situation of congressiona.l conduct.
In my opinion, much of their feeling is unfotrnded and yet this
does not detract from the fact that the feeling is there and the obliga-
tion is here in Congress to act in such a way that there is no doubt
left in their minds.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your time and
attention.
Mr. PEPPER. I think we can all agree that the first statement of
the gentleman was excellent. You started off very well.
Mr. DELLE~ACK. Thank you, Mr. Pepper.
The CHAIRMAN. I yield to you, Mr. Pepper. to compliment the
gentleman. I had intended to do that myself so I associate myself
with your remarks.
Mr. P1~IPER. Well, I will withdraw mine and associate with you.
The CHAIRMAN. I also wanted to ask you a. few questions.
First, I understand you are speaking for a group, I believe you said
of the minority, the Republicans?
Mr. DELLENBAOK. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. But that you do not necessarily urge all of the
provisions that are in the resolution that your group has introduced?
Mr. DELLENBACK. There is actually a series of proposals. Actually,
I tried to make a distinction between the points upon whic:h our group
stood solidly and unanimously and a series of other point.s on which
there was, without doubt., some difference of opinion.
I tried to disassociate my stand as a representative of the group
from my stand as an individual by making clear that over the range
there was a series of questions and very possibly, at this early stage
on certain specific questions I touched on, possibly a variation of
opinion.
I am not authorized to speak for the group on what we should do
about nepotism or disclosure because there is a variation of prelimi-
nary attitude on this. But I speak for the group in urging this com-
mittee to act on forming this proposed ethics committee.
The CHAIRMAN. That was my observation. If I got the gist of
your testimony, it was for the urging of action to be taken and to he.
taken as speedily as possible consistent wit.h getting something that
would be meaningful; is that correct?
Mr. DELLENBAOK. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, I, of course, cannot speak for this committee.
I can only speak for one individual member of it and that is myself.
I don't think there is any disagreement with the gentleman on that
subject, on that phase of the subject.
I think the committee recognizes the situation that exists and the
committee wants to report some l~nd of a resolution that would be
meaningful.
PAGENO="0009"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 79
Now, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a very large number
of these resolutions introduced. There have been quite a few Mem-
bers who have said that they want to be heard on the resolution, or
on their resolutions, and this committee feels that it should hear all
of those who want to be heard. If I have any policy as far as this
committee is concerned, it is that any Member of Congress who wants
to be heard on this or any other matter that comes before the com-
mittee should have the opportunity to present his views.
I don't think there has been any disposition to dillydally with this
or postpone it. I think that something will come out of this com-
mittee.
The only question involved is what is the best thing to come out of
it and there is, as you know, a considerable variance about how it
should be handled.
The thing that bothers me about expediting the adoption of a
meaningful resolution is whether it should be a resolution consisting
of our statements and further study, or whether `there should be some
resolution reported with teeth, to use that common expression, and
get through with it rather than having further study.
I think we all know what the problem is. And so far as I am con-
cerned, I don't care whether it is a select committee or the rules are
amended to give some standing committee jurisdiction. I do think
that whatever is reported should be of a permanent nature rather than
just a select committee that would expire.
Thank you for listening to my remarks.
Mr. DELLENBAOK. I commend the chairman for a series of points.
One, I think your demonstrated intention that this committee will not
move too quickly but will listen to the other Members of Congress who
wish to testify on this. I appreciate your listening to me this morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman agree with me that hasty and
precipitous action would not obtain the best result?
Mr. DELLENEACK. I am sure hasty and precipitous action can directly
lead to improper results, but I do at the same time urge as strongly
as I can-on this I know I speak for about 50 of us-that we would
urge you and the members of this committee to move on this with all
the haste you can bring to bear on it so there is a meaningful action
taken at the earliest possible date.
If we study this in too great depth, I think the rest of this first
session of this 90th Congress could `be used on it and I think this would
be a serious mistake.
Mr. MADDEN. I want to commend the gentleman for his statement,
but don't you think that, if a committee like this is created, we ought
to include in these resolutions and recommend to the `Congress that
they go into what I think is one of the most unethical practices,
creates more scandal, influences more Members-that is this outlandish
practice that in late years has expanded to where Congressmen and
Senators have campaign fund's that they spend as high as $3 million
or $4 million.
`One Congressman spent $~50,000. Whether he spent it, or whether
certain influences who wanted to have his ear if he were elected spent
it for him, don't you think that has unethical overtones for the Con-
gress when a man comes in with those obligations?
75-196----67---~---2
PAGENO="0010"
80 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Don't you think in all sincerity and honesty the Congress should
go into that angle of fabulous campaign donations and expenditures
on the part of a. Congressman or a Senator?
I think it was only about 25 or 30 years ago a Senator came in here
from Pennsylvania by the name of Vayer. I think they ousted him
from the Senate and I think he spent almost. $100,000. That is chicken-
feed to what some of these Senators and, of course, prorated Congress-
men, spend in a campaign.
Don't you think if we are going into ethics that is one thing this
committee ought to go into? The people making some of these
fabulous, inexcusable, scandalous, donations to candidates for public
legislative offices are expecting something in return or they wouldn't
make it.
I would like your opinion on it.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I have heard the gentleman express himself as
he did again this morning very eloquently on that. point, that I do
feel could be a point of serious concern.
On analogy, if I may swiftly touch on it, in my last two terms-
iMir. MADDEN. I would just like your opinion on my question.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I think it is possible that by trying to bring too
much into one study-
Mr. MADDEN. We a.re going into ethics, and I think this is the big-
gest cloud over this Congress. There is a gentleman at the end of the
table, Senator Pepper from Florida. I was down there some years
ago and I could hardly see anything but. billboards for his opponent,
and newspaper ads. I heard friends of Senator Pepper then say,
"My God, it is estimated they are spending $1 million to beat Claude
Pepper."
What year was that, Claude?
Mr.PEPPER. 1950.
Mr. MADDEN. If we are going into ethics, I think we should go into
those donations. V\Te had an example of that in Senator Douglas'
campaign last fall.
Let us go into this and try to give all these American young people
who would like to come t.o Congress and the Senate an opportunity to
come to Congress, but they cannot come unless Congress does some-
thing about these fabulous campaign expendlitures. The ordinary
American has not got a cha.nce to come to Congress as a Representa-
tive of the House or Senate if these moneyed interests, these people
with special legislation they want t.o protect or introduce and have
the money to donate, are working against him. I think we should go
into that along with other things.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I can see there is a series of t.hings~
Mr. MADDEN. I want you to answer that. Would you think the
committee should go into that problem which I think is a scandal?
Mr. DELLENBACK. I think the committee should go into anything
that is considered to be scandalous on the part of Members of Con-
gress.
Mr. MADDEN. I want your opinion.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I think it is an area. of operation.
Mr. MADDEN. Don't you think it is a. mandatory area of operation?
Mr. DELLENEACK. If the committee is created to have a~
Mr. MADDEN. Do you recommend it?
PAGENO="0011"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 81
Mr. DELLENBACK.' I would feel the committee could well go into this
but I would not see the committee hang up on any one area.
Mr. MADDEN. Do you think there would be too much opposition in
Congress and the Senate if we included it?
Mr. DELLENBACK. I think the committee-
Mr. MADDEN. You can answer this yes or no and I would like to
have you with me. You made a very nice statement and I approve of
it.
Mr. DELLENBACK. Well, what I am saying-
Mr. MADDEN. You are not with me. How many Republican mem-
bers met in this agreement to file this resolution?
Mr. DELLENBACK. About 50.
Mr. MADDEN. Was this scandalous method of winning elections by
fabulous campaign contributions brought up?
Mr. DELLENBACK. No, sir; this was not a point discussed.
Mr. MADDEN. No further questions.
Mr. DELLENBACK. That is the reason I am not. authorized to speak
for them on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions.
Mr. LATTA. Let. me, by way of entering this little colloquy between
these two gentlemen, point out there already is a committee called
House Administration empowered by the rules of this great body to
get. into this matter.
Mr. MADDEN. Will you yield?
Mr. LATTA. No, I won't yield. I will read the rule:
Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice President, or Members
of Congress using corrupt practices-
This would come under corrupt practices-
in buying elections.
Federal elections generally. It might. just be such that there are 50
Members of Congress that read this before they had their meeting and
that is probably one of the reasons they didn't bring it up.
There is already the House Administration Committee to get into
this. If the committee is derelict in its dtit.ies, ierhaps we should
amend the House rules and put this ~ in a new committee.
If the House did that, there would be no question of who would
handle it.
Would you favor the select. committee taking over that?
Mr. DELLENBAC'K. If this deals with standards of conduct by the
Members and this has not been done and the committee in its wisdom
felt the power should be given to this committee, I don't quarrel with
any decision of the committee. But. I don't know the areas at this
point into which the committee should go.
The `broad grant of authority I think the average American is look-
ing for, is a group established in this Congress that will really look
at this matter, so that we are not. singling out particular Members but
are talking about standards for our actions which we are all expected
to adhere to.
I think' at the present time there are a great many of our people who
are not convinced that the Congress today has demonstrated a willing-
ness to police itself.
PAGENO="0012"
82 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDIJCT
What I am pleading for is that we come out of this Congress with
early action that will set up a group that can and will say "these are
standards to which all Members must adhere" so we know in advance
and don't cx post facto everything.
This is an area of rules-I read this one to which you make par-
ticular reference-there should be some investigation and either the
group charged with this responsibility should move forward with it
or, if they are not doing so, you Irnow the rules that should be changed
better than I do.
But I would be very reluctant to see action in any one given area
get in the way and block the early establishment of a committee that
can really investigate and come up with broad standards of conduct
to which we should all adhere.
Mr. LATTA. I am glad you clarified this point because I didn't want
you going out of this room with the statement that sonic 50 Members
of Congress were not doing something about corrupt methods of
practice.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I appreciate your further questions on this, sir.
Mr. MADDEN. Will you yield?
Mr. LATTA. I yield.
Mr. MADDEN. The House Committee on Administration was in on
ethics in the Powell case. If they have jurisdiction in that, a.nd the
gentleman thinks they should take the ethics away from that coimnit-
tee, don't you think we should take the problem of this fabulous, dis-
honest, malicious multimillion dollars being spent to get Congressmen
and Senators elected away from their committee and put it in this
gentleman's committee?
Mr. LATTA. I want to point out to the gentleman that Mr. Hayes,
(chairman of a subcommittee of that committee, did not have the au-
thority to get into the matter of ethics under the House rules.
Mr. MADDEN. If that is true, they have not begim anything on it, so
let us take it and put it in under this ethics committee and I am satis-
fied something would be done.
Would you go along with it?
Mr. LATTA. I would, if you are asking me.
Mr. DELLENBACK. I am merely distinguishing, but I want the job
done.
Mr. MADDEN. You and I agree on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OP HON. MORRIS K. UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE m
CONG~RESS PROM THE STATE OP ARIZONA
Mr. TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, this committee has heard much on this
subject and I won't take time at this hour to rehash a lot of things that
have already been said.
If you give me your attention for 3½ minutes, I can say what I want.
I have a learned statement. Its author thinks it is brilliant. If I
have your permission, I will just make three or four points.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Are you offering to include it in the
record?
Mr. TIDALL. Yes, sir.
PAGENO="0013"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 83
(The statement follows:)
SPA~E~iNT OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL
Mr. Ohairman. I wish to associate myself this morning with the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett). I feel very strongly that
the House of Representatives has a responsibility to pursue the matter of ethical.
standards for its Members, and I believe H. Res. 18, of which my own H. Re~s. 102;
is a companion resolution, is the vehicle best suited at this time to accomplish.
this end.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I played a part in the debate on January 10'
relating to the seating of a Member accused of violating ethical standards of.:
this body. Because the temper of the country and the Congress. demanded..
action, that Member was denied his seat. However, the fact is that the House
has no operative and enforceable set of ethical standards, and except for the
most flagrant and celebrated case of unethical behavior, there is no way that the
House can enforce even the most minimal standards of conduct on the part of
its Members.
Mr. Chairman, the eyes of the country are on the Congress today. I have
received hundreds of letter from all over the nation commenting on the Powell
case. A great many of these letters have made this point: "All right, you have
punished Congressman Powell. Now what are you going to do about others, who
may have abused their public trust?"
This is a serious ques.tion, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we can afford to
ignore it. To do so would be to convince many of the detractors of the Congress
and of the House of Representatives that the action of last month was, in fact,
racially motivated. And it would leave many wondering if the gentleman from
New York was not, in fact, a scapegoat for the larger sins of the Congress as a
whole.
Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest, as many do, that this House i.s full of crooks
and thieves. On the contrary, I believe' nearly all of my colleagues are men of
the highest moral and ethical character. What I do not want is' for us to relax
in this conviction and titus leave our honorable colleagues open for the charge
that they want to sweep the whole matter of ethics under the rug.
The proposal you are considering this morning is a modest one. It would
simply continue the Select Committee on Standards and Ethics established by
the 89th Congress, with one important change. That change would permit the
select committee to investigate specific charges against specific Members and
recommend action. I think this change is absolutely necessary if the committee
is to do the job our many constituents would expect it to do.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one more point. Before
Congress convened in January, a great many people misread the temper of tile
country. One of those who failed to read that temper accurately was the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Powell). I think some of our own leaders failed
to take note of this sentiment. The result was a sequence of actions wholly un-
expected by many knowledgeable people only a few days earlier.
Mr. Chairman, my point is that the temper of the country, reflected in those
actions in January, is still with us. It won't go away. I think it would be
tragic to misread that sentiment again. The people of this nation have become
aware, or at least more aware than before, that their servants in the Congress
can do wrong. And they want to see the Congress put an end at least to the
more flagrant abuses which may be going on.
The resolution you are considering this morning can be an important first
step toward establishment of standards for the guidance of Members. I am
confident that if your committee decides to re-establish the Select Committee
on Standards and Ethics, meaningful progress will be made to establish sucil
standards and clear the good name of the House as a whole.
I strongly urge that H. Res. 18 be favorably reported.
Mr. TJDALL. Every day we hear statements on the House floor that
Congress is asking for better policing of its Members conduct. One
of the big reasons is we refuse to face our problems and meet the needs
of modern times and take care of such things as congressional ethics.
I took a small role in this Powell case and I have a covenant with
the people I represent and a lot of other people who say, "You are
singling out Powell."
PAGENO="0014"
84 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I say I am not, and this is why I am here today to see that we
follow through with meaningful action on ethics. The cold, hard fact
is, nothing would have been done about the Powell case had the House
been left to itself without the outcry and the press pointing its finger
at the Congress and the public asking for action.
I am satisfied no meaningful action would have been taken against
Powell without this outcry from the public and press. I think we can
curb this and prevent such cases as the Powell case front happening
and we need not have ex post facto rules.
I introduced a companion bill a.nd I commend the 46 freshmen for
all they have done. They have a red-hot issue and as far as I am
concerned this is going to be a bipartisan group. If my party is
smart, we will get behind this, too.
I think we can prevent this sort of thing because the public is
demanding action.
I cannot see the fears here about Members being harassed by such
a committee; personalities are not important.
Of course, we have lawyers and judges here in whom everyone has
confidence they could handle this committee The bar association
is particularly apt. These things worked for years and nobody claims
the lawyers are harassed by the bar. They are a shield to protect the
innocent, not just. a. sword to punish the guilty.
I expect man-v of you have a newspaper editor back home making
charges against, your Mentbers. I think it would be useful to have a
connnittee. and submit these charges to the committee and have it
cleared up. I think there is strong sentiment here and in the House
now to get some action on this question.
As the chairman said, the main problem is which route do you go,
and I want to corn e clown strongly on the side of a~ new committee.
bipartisan committee, a select. committee, and I think we should get
the -very best people.
Perhaps the resolution could provide in appointing the members
of this new select committee the. Speaker shall select at least some from
the standing committee on House legislation so you would have a
strong cross-pollination and cross-benefit of the expertise and back-
ground some of these people have on this select committee.
Sometimes it isn't too important what on do as how von do it.
While I have great admiration for Mr. Haves and others, what ap-
pears to be necessary is a select committee as the resolution provides
or.
I am proud to serve in this institution and thank vou~ I hope 1
didn't run too much over my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Mir. Anderson?
Mr. ANDERSON `of Illinois. Do you think your resolution has any
weakness, as I believe it does, when it says the complaint should he in
writing and under oath. made by or submitted to a Member of the
House. which. in turn, would submit it to the committee?
Mr. TJDALL. This troubles me, but I think it is necessary that we
~bould submit it in this fashion. So many people think this will h~ a
~oving committee, snooping into Members' affairs on the instigation
of a crackpot back home. We know some Member will take the lead
and make such a complaint when necessary. So while I might prefer
as a purist and theorist not to have such a. recommendation. I think it
is necessary and I support it.
Time CT~AIR~rAx. Thank you, Mr. TJdall.
Mr. Mathias.
PAGENO="0015"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 85
STATEMENT OP HON. CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, 3R., A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM, THE STATE OP MARYLAND
Mr. MATHIAS. I will try to proceed with the same dispatch and same
force as Mr. Udall.
If I may, I have a statement prepared which I would like to submit
for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
(The statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES MoO. MATHIAS, JR., REPRESENTATIVE OF MARYLAND,
SIXTH DISTRICT
Mr. Chairman, when you opened these hearings two weeks ago, you observed
that the question of Congressional ethics had particular topical interest. I trust
that this interest has not waned now that the immediate topic is behind us.
Rather, I think that our difficult experience last week emphasized the urgent need
for us to establish `a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, such as would
be created under my resolution, H. Res. 204. I hope that in time this panel would
become a standing Committee of the House.
This House has two important responsibilities which, in my judgment, are
not now being met. Fh'st, we should encourage public confidence in the in-
tegrity of `the Congress, by exercising `that degree of self-control and self-dis-
cipline which the people expect from their elected representatives. Second,
we should insure that, when questions are raised or allegations of misconduct
are made, all Members of the House will receive fair and equal treatment.
Neither of these objectives can be reached by delay and hesitation, by dodging the
issues, or by improvising procedures when public outcries occasionally make
some dramatic action unavoidable.
Our present concern with Congressional conduct is a product of this century
and the conditions which now prevail. The public's expectations have risen
tremendously since the days in 1833 when Daniel Webster reminded Nicholas
Biddle, the Philadelphia banker, that "my retainer has not been renewed, or re-
freshed as usual." Where such tangible ties between legislators and special in-
terests were once accepted as a matter of course, they are now cause for public
speculation, suspicion and mistrust.
Second, the business of Congress has expanded to embrace nearly every field
of American activity. There are unlimited temptations-not simply for blatant
corruption, but for subtle exertions of influence in countless' grey areas. Our
legislative business has become so complex that the press and the public can no
longer keep up with everything we do. Of course a few flagrant and spectacular
cases of misconduct do come to the attention of the electorate. But generally
our conduct is insulated from public scrutiny. We know that most of us are
honest all the time, and that all of us are honest most of the time. But the
confidence of the public may diminish, unless we give clear, visible evidence
that we, individually and as a body, intend to discipline ourselves.
Our previous efforts to define and enforce ethical standards have not been
consistent or energetic enough. Although the Congress did enact a Code of
Ethics for Covernment Service on July 11, 1958, without House debate or a
dissenting tote, some Members of Congress and most of our constituents have
never heard of it. Yet many of its provisions are extremely relevant to last
week's experience-such as item 3, that any person in government service should
"give a.full day's labor for a full day's pay," and item 9, that he should "expose
corruption wherever discovered."
Mr. Chairman, we have applied this Code of Ethics to every Federal employee,
including the' `most humble and least privileged. We should be willing to con-
form to it ourselves. Yesterday I went back to the Congressional Record to see
whether, in passing the resolution establishing this Code, the Congress gave clear'
indications that it was intended to apply to Members as well as to everycne else
in public service. I found, unfortunately, that the Code was passed by t° 85th
Congress by unanimous consent, and that it was sandwiched between action on a
bill to benefit Council Bluffs, Iowa, and a bill to authorize a program of research
in `fish farming. `My question was answered only by the resolution itself, which
:states
PAGENO="0016"
86 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
"It is the sense of the Congress that the following code of ethics should be
adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders."
Mr. Chairman, we should do better than this. It is time-and past time-for
us to establish a bipartisan Committee, not only to develop language and en-
forcement procedures for a comprehensive, more detailed code of ethics and
conduct, but also to investigate-according to regular rules-any complaints.
accusations or grievances brought to the Committee's attention. My bill would
set up such a Committee, with meaningful powers and sufficient safeguards.
including the proviso that the Committee could look into charges against any
Member, officer or employee of the House only when such charges had been made
or referred to the Committee by a Member of the House.
I would hope that the Members appointed to this Committee would represent
a broad range of standing committees, and would include eminent Members well
informed about House salary and travel regulations, and about questions of law
and constitutionality. I hope that this panel would be a vigorous one, and
would recommend to the House such definite and progressive steps as requiring
each Member and certain employees to file with the Committee or another ap-
propriate office a copy of their annual Federal income tax returns and an annual
statement of assets. I am prepared to recommend such an advance as soon as
the Select Committee has been created and chosen.
In conclusion, I would note that being a Member of Congress has been trans-
formed from a seasonal occupation to a full-time job-the primary assignment
of all of us and the only active position held by most of us. Just as medical
associations and bar associations have grievance committees, so should we police
ourselves, and take all appropriate steps to guarantee the integrity of our branch
of the public service. I do not fear or anticipate recklessness, self-righteousness
or invasions of personal privacy by a Select Committee-but I do fear the loss
of public trust which has already begun, because we have so long delayed meeting
our obligations to ourselves and to the nation.
Mr. IMIATHIAS. As the chairman noted when these hearings began.
there wa.s a certain topical subject. which ma-v have stimulated some. of
the interest. Although that. topic. is behind us for the. moment, we
ought not to let the impetus die down.
It seems there are two questions here that. have to be resolved. One
is the confidence of the public in this institution and the other is the fair
and equal treatment that. should be accorded to every Member of Con-
gress when he comes under any scrutiny. I think that is the. job before
us, to accomplish those two purposes.
In doing it I think we have to shake ourselves clear of the past. A
lot of water has gone over the darn since Daniel Webster could put in
writing in a letter to Nichola.s Biddle that, "My retainer has not been
renewed or refreshed as usual."
The public expects more of us than tha.t today.
I think the nature of the congressional job has changed in the last
few years. Our activities a-re broader. We deal in areas of mediation
in the executive branch in a much broader way than our predecessors
ever did. There are a lot of opportunities for exertion of influenc.e
today which I don't think the yardstick of the past is adequate to
measure.
I think most of us are honest all of the time and all of us are honest
most of the time, but I don't think the public knows it.
Now we made some efforts, somewhat symbolically, I think. The
day after the Powell debates, I was walking through the cella.r of the
House Office Building and picked this up out of the ash can. That is
a fact, that is where I got it.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you identify it?
Mr. MATHIAS. It is the Code of Ethics enacte.d by the Congress in
1958 without debate or a dissenting vote.
PAGENO="0017"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 87
I think Dick Bolling mentioned the other day such things as "Give
a full day's labor for a full day's pay," and I think that is relevant to
what is before us.
If we apply this Code of Ethics to every humble and lowly Federal
employee, we ought to be willing to apply it to ourselves and yet to my
knowledge we didn't mention it.
It was the sense of Congress as stated in the preamble at the time
this code was adopted that it should be adhered to by all Government
employees.
I merely bring thi.s up to illustrate that we have to be a little more
energetic than we have been.
I am for a bipartisan committee. I think it ought to in time be-
come a standing committee. I think it ought to have plenary powers
to look into travel matters and I would urge that once it is selected
and chosen that it seek the further authority, after consideration as
to how this will be handled, to require disclosure, whether to the com-
mittee or the public. I would like to see a little discussion and debate
on this but I think disclosure power is a thing the committee should
have.
Membership in the Congress is a full-time job and for most of us it
is the only active position we hold. Medical and bar associations have
all come to the practice of having grievance committees and I think
we have come to it. I am sure you gentlemen will give it very serious
and sympathetic consideration.
Let me just add one word to the previous statement. I am sorry Mr.
Madden is not here because I was intrigued by the question he asked
Mr. Dellenback-would he think the corrupt practice question should
be within the purview or jurisdiction of this committee.
I do not, sir. I think the campaign or corrupt practice, whatever
the word you want to use to describe it, is a problem of very great pro-
portions for this country. But it is a problem which comprehends the
Presidency and the other bodies and I would not like to see the cam-
paign practice problem dealt with only by this House or Congress.
It is a national problem and a separate problem, although related,
but a separate problem than the problem in the House.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. The reference by members of this com-
mittee, the specific reference to the concurrent resolution in 1958, per-
haps that should be stricken.
What is your feeling on that?
Mr. MATHIAS. I would suppose that the select committee when
chosen, if it roughly conforms to the language of the resolution, would
probably have other language that would apply.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. We can dispense with the incorporation
by reference to this code that you have?
Mr. MATHIAS. I think so.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. It would be incorporated as part of the
standards?
Mr. MATmA5. The resolution antedated our chance to put it into
practice when we did it.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything further?
Mr. Matsunaga?
75-196-67---3
PAGENO="0018"
88 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am a. little confused. You say we dispensed with
the Code of Ethics for Congress. but we still have, it. in effect for G-ov-
ernment employees?
Mr. MATHIAS. Maybe dispensed is not the proper verb to have used.
We didn't very vigorously wave it around and enforce it., but it is still
in force as far as Government service is concerned. I think that is our
problem.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. It has been proposed here by some of the advocates
of the resolution creating the select committee that we do away with
double standards. Now. if Federa.l employees are presently required to
abide by the Code of Ethics, don't. you feel that Members of Congress
ought to comply with the code?
Mr. MATHIAS. Absolutely.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. And yet if you study the code. it is so broad, so
ambiguous that it really sets no standard of conduct. Don't you agree
as a lawyer?
Mr. MATHIAS. I think it needs some refinement. That is why I
didn't object to the suggestion made by the gentleman froni Illinois
that the reference to it might be stricken from the resolution and that
a new code, in light of our experience with this, inight be developed
which is more practical.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Don't you think at the. same time we should make
it ~ppiicable to Federal employees as well, to do away with double
standards?
Mr. MATHIAS. I certainly agree that whatever code is adopted, it
should be applied across the board insofar as there are no practical
objections to it. Either this should be applied to us and all other
Federal employees or we should have a new one which should apply to
everyone.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mathias.
The committee will go into executive session.
(.At 12 :35 p.m., the committee adjourned, to go into executive
session.)
PAGENO="0019"
~REATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDUCT
WED~ESDAY, MARCH 8, 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Coi~uIIrrEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 11 a.m, in room H-313,
he Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee),
)I~esiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
The committee will resume hearings this morning on House Resolu-
ion 18 and allied resolutions which I understand now have increased
o about 75. The counsel advises me I am in error. It is around 100.
Mr. Goodell, the committee will be pleased to hear from you.
TATEMENT OP HON. CHARLES E. `GOODELL, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS PROM~ THE STATE OP NEW YORK
Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues. I am
~ere today as a spokesman for the Republican leadership. I would
sk, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution of the House Republican
)ohcy committee adopted February 8, with reference to a Select
i~ommittee on Standards and Conduct be made a part of the record,
f that is an order.
I am here more importantly, however, as a Member of Congress
cho reveres this institution. I have great respect for the membership
f this House. I think I can state unabashedly I have never been
ssociated with an aggregate of men and women for whom I have
aore respect. Tinder those nircumstances, I think it is a painful
nd difficult task to talk about the problem of ethics and misconduct
a our ranks.
I think all of us have dealt with the problem in recent weeks with a
:reat deal of anguish. But having such pride in the House `of Rep-
esentatives, I feel it incumbent upon me, and I think it is incumbent
n the membership, to take action.
Recently, a poll indicated that 88 percent of the citizens of this
ountry were aware of the affairs of our colleague, Mr. Powell. An-
ther poll disclosed that 60 percent of the people consider misuse of
~overnment funds as a fairly common practice by Congressmen. I
hink this reflects a crisis of confidence in the Congress which we can-
ot ignore. We cannot satisfy ourselves with the defense that the
ublic is wrong in its judgment of the Congress. I think we must
ace the unpleasant fact., as bluntly pointed out in the recent editorial
89
PAGENO="0020"
90 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
of the Wall Street Journal, "that aimost two-thirds of the peipli
think there are quite a few crooks in Congress."
This is apparently based on the 60 percent iii the poll who sa.id tha:
misuse of Government funds is a fairly common practice by Congress
men. I think what is at stake immediately is our collective reputatiol
and ultimately the position of Congress in our system of government
Prof. Stephen Bailey of Syracuse University observed:
Public cynicism is not friendly to freedom. If Congress is to retain a positioi
of strength in our federal system, it must retain the peoples confidence.
Many of us deplore the declining influence of Congress. In rn~
view, to win and retain the support of the people Congress must, lik~
Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. Will Rogers. a long time ago
observed rather wryly that "Politicians, after all, are not over a yeai
behind public opinion." I am afraid that Congress in reference t
the whole issue of ethics is more than a year behind public, opinion.
I am also a member of the House Committee on Administration. I
must say honestly to you gentlemen I have great respect for the mem
bers of the House Administration Committee, and I believe that i:
this committee in its wisdom assigned the task of enforcing ethics oi
a subcommittee of House Administration, that committee would do
`workmanlike and thorough job and a. fair job. I do not recommem
that course, however.
In spite of my great respect. for this committee. I think we mus'
face the fact that the public might. well interpret the assigmnent 0:
this t.ask to the House Administration Committee as an effort to bur'~
questions of ethics. I think we have, to be very much aware am
should have in the forefront. of our minds what the public's reactiom
will be.
The House Administration Committee has had partial jurisdlic.t.io~
of some of the matters that have come to issue in recent weeks. I thinl
in fairness to the House Administration Committee it can be said the~
did not have full jurisdiction and there was some question about ho~
far they could go. So a resolution that expanded and clearly gav~
them the authority would doubtless result. in somewhat different actiom
on the part of House Administration. I do not think that a subcom
mittee of any existing committee should be assigned this job. In th
first place, I think the committee should have equal party representa
tion. Once again, this is not intended in any way to imply that th
menThers of either part3~ would fa.il to uphold their obligations a
members of the committee. I do think that matters of conduct of ou
colleagues are peculiarly sensitive and they are inevitably sensitive t
political implications.
I think that a committee which investigates various allegation
against a Member should be immi.rne from allegations of political bia
of any, nature. I might sa.y if a committee controlled by the majorit~
party was examining allegations against a member of the majorit;
pai~y, and they determined that the allegations were not true am
cleared our colleague of the charges, it would be. much better if th
committee were on a nonpartisan basis with equal represent.at.ior
There could `be no allegation that the chairman or any of the member
were proceeding on the basis of party affiliation.
Finally, since the jurisdiction of the House Administration Corn
mittee has been limited, I think assignment to them of t.his task, eve:
PAGENO="0021"
SELECT CO]~EN~1ITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDuCT 91
with a broader resolution, would be subject to misinterpretation by the
Dublic. Perhaps the strongest reason for a Select Committee on
standards and Conduct in preference to other alternatives is that the
~stablishment of such a select committee would clearly indicate that
bhe House is serious about dealing with the problem of maintaining
Lhe highest standards of ethics.
Somebody said a while back that we need a symbolic gesture, and
that the establishment of the House Ethics Committee would be such
a symbolic gesture. I think we need more than that. I think we need
a dramatic affirmative act by the House of Representatives. I might
say that I think the House Ethics Committee, if established, or the
subcommittee of House Administration, if that is the decision of this
committee, should have authority that is prospective in nature as far
as enforcement of ethics and standards is concerned. In other words,
they should not look back and try to impose a new code of ethics on past
performance. But I think in doing that, this committee should be
very careful that it does not deprive the investigating committee of
the right to investigate violations of House rules, House regulations,
and the law in the past.
After all, we have just been through this process as far as Mr. Powell
is concerned, and if allegations were made by someone that a sitting
Member had violated the law or violated specific House rules, I think
the Ethics Committee should have authority to investigate that matter
and make recommendations to the House, as did the Select Committee
on Mr.. Powell.
I think the Ethics Committee should be formed with a very broad.
jurisdiction, but its authority should be to recommend action to the
House. I would hope that it could enter into such fields as conflict
of interest, of agency and contract influence, the writing of a detailed
code of standards and conduct, employment of relatives by Members,
the terms under which this would be proper, political contributions,
and other matters. Where the House Ethics Committee, if that is the
committee that is set up, makes recommendations that belong in the
jurisdiction of another committee, I would suggest those recommenda-
tions be referred to that committee. In effect, the House Ethics Com-
mittee could `be an advocate before a committee that had proper juris-
diction over matters that the Ethics Committee was recommending.
I think it is even possible .over a period of time that an Ethics Coin-
mittee could evolve to a stature where they could render advisory
opinions for Congressmen. I do not think this would be advisable at
the outset. We should test the waters and move forward gradually
with reference to this question.
I think it would be helpful to many Members when there was a
marginal situa'tion `with which they were faced if they could get `an
advisory opinion from an official unit of the House of Representatives.
I would like to make one other plea in conclusion. This last fall,
as a member of the Education and Labor `Committee, I went to Brazil
for 2 weeks. I went with one staff member of the committee. In that
2-week period, I interviewed and talked to 121 Brazilians individually.
I started at 8 o'clock in the morning and `went until late at night.
I had other meetings. I met with time President-elect, with cane
workers, slum dwellers, `educators, and so forth. It was the most
educational experience I `have ever had in my life. I want to say
PAGENO="0022"
¶92 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND COND1CT
to this committee that I think one of the unforttmate situations th~
has developed because of a problem of lack of proper control ove
foreign travel is that we are not doing enough legitimate investigatio:
of programs that we are funding overseas. I have great respect fo
the members `of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I say to yo
gentlemen the money we are spending in foreign aid and the Allianc
for Progress is primarily in fields of education and poverty and agri
culture and other area*s whose jurisdiction and expertise falls in othe
committees in this Congress. where members of those committees cai
go and be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of our aid program:
and making suggestions for improvement. I think that this Congres
should reach the point where we make this kind of travel availabh
to all our Members under circumnstammces of full disclosure and requir
ing a report, a full report in detail, of money expended and recoin
menda.tions made and itinerary, perhaps.
I think this is perfectly feasible. In a.ny event, I think the faci
that a Congressman today travels overseas on legitimate purposes ai
considerable political hazard is another indication of the problem WE
have in not having standards of conduct and not having clear rtile~
of the road by which we can all proceed with confidence and knowing
that we will not be subject to unjustified criticism. I urge upon t.h
committee the a.doption of the resolution before you to create a Select
Committee on Standards of Conduct. I thank you. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. G-oodell. If I may, just briefly, I
should like to say you have done your usual excellent job in testifying
before this committee.
Mr. G-OODELL. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. You favor the select committee over the pronosal
of the matter being taken up and handled by the Committee on House
Adntinistration. What about the permanence of this committee. Mr.
G-oodell? I do not think I heard ~ou comment On that. Do you not
feel that whatever is clone, whatever comes out of this committee.
should be 111)011 the basis of some permanency? I repeat what I have
`stated here before, that we have no assurance whatever that the 91st
Congress is going to be composed of any more ethical or more honor-
able men than the 90th Congress; therefore, whatever is done should
be done upon a permanent basis. I ant not quarreling with the gentle-
man's conclusions or his recommendations. I certainly agree that. this
thing should be and must be bipartisan. if it is possible to make it so.
human nature being what it is. What. about time permanency of it?
I would like to hear the gentleman's reaction to that.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairmnan. believing as I do in the. idea of an
ethics committee, I certainly would believe in making it. permnaiient.
If this committee in its wisdom determines that it will set. up a stand-
ing committee comparable to the proposa.l for a. select committee. I
think this would be very appropriate. Obviously, no committee is
really permanent in that each Congress must reenact the rules and
set up its committees all over again. I would only make one reserva-
tion with reference to making the committee permanent. If we make
it permanent, I would hope it would be with the understanding tha.t
that does not mean that it is fixed a.nd unchangeable. I think we
should learn by experience and if changes in the jurisdiction or the
PAGENO="0023"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT 93
powers of this committee are indicated, that we would move to make
those changes in subsequent Congresses or in this Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I agree with the gentleman that none
of them are sacrosanct. They can be changed. This committee can be
and has been changed in the past. That certainly does not bother me.
But the gentleman would favor that.
Mr. GOODELL. I would favor it, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Goodell, how do you think the mem-
bers of the committee should be selected?
Mr. GOODELL. I believe that the logical means of selection would be
by the Speaker and the minority leader.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. There has been some mention that in the
case of other standing committees of the House the members are
selected in the case of Democrats by the Democrats on the Ways and
Means Committee, and we on the Republican side of the aisle have a
committee on committees that makes these assignments.
Mr. GOODELL. I would say first of all I do not think that matter
should be treated in the resolution beyond saying appointment by the
Speaker and the minority leader. If the Democratic Party and the
Speaker determined they preferred to have this choice made by the
Ways and Means members of the Democratic side and the minority
leader determined it should be made by the Repulican committee on
committees, I would leave this to their discretion. I would say this
is a matter of the rules of the Democratic caucus, as I understand it,
in the House, and the Republican conference, and can be changed by
the Republicans or Democrats without consulting each other.
I would leave it that way.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madden?
Mr. MADDEN. I want to commend the gentleman from New York
for his statement. I particularly want to emphasize, if I remember
right, that you were the first witness who has come before this com-
mittee since we have been holding these hearings who has really
touched on what I think probably would purify ethics and the Gov-
ernment more than anything else. That is when you mentioned cam-
paign contributions. When we look back at what has gone on in each
election, year by year, we see that these fabulous amounts that are
being spent by candidates for Congress and the Senate are growing
and growing and growing. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a very
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania about 25 or 30 years ago who
was barred from the Senate because he spent around $100,000 to be
elected to the Senate in the State of Pennsylvania. My gracious, that
is just a bag of peanuts compared to what is being spent by candidates
for the Senate-not all of them, but a vast majority. In my State I
know of one instance about 8 or 10 years ago when there was something
over a million spent. I mentioned several other instances which I will
not repeat now, but that, to my mind, is one thing that this committee
should go into, and it could be emphasized that it is one of the things
it will go into. It costs the taxpayers a lot of money when a per-
manent committee is organized. That means an office force. It means
an administrative assistant, maybe two or three of them.
PAGENO="0024"
94 SELECT CON~tITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I think if we are going to organize this Ethics Committee. we should
get into this. I was at the Veterans of Foreign Wars banquet. last
night and there were 45 youngsters. Every year the Veterans of For-
eign Wars gives a prize in every State in the Union to t.he youngster
who can write the best essay on Americanism and government.
When I saw these youngsters lined up there last night, the thought
struck me that they would probably never come to the Senat.e of the
United States to represent their State or the Congress unless they can
get some influences with plenty of money to finance them. In order
to come to the Senate or House of Representatives they probably will
need to be financed as much as if they went into a. major business.
That applies to the Governor's job, too, but we have nothing to do with
that. I want to commend you for mentioning that you would like, to
go into these campaign contributions because that. pertains to ethics and
real representative government more than any other one thing. Unless
action is taken by the Senate and the House, it is going to get worse
and worse as the years go by. They are start.ing right now. You can
hardly pick up the paper but there is some big drive on for a $500
dinner or a $1,000 dinner to get money for the next campaign.
That means you have to be pretty close to the boys up there who
can throw money around like you would confetti or you are not going
to come to Congress, or you are not going to come to the. Senate. Cer-
tainly that is one of the greatest tasks that this committee should un-
dertake-and it will pertain more to ethics, I think, than any other
one thing-it will purify our Government in the future. If we do
not do it, there won't be many years before you will have to be a. frie.nd
of multimillionaires or superduper big business, or these foundations
that do not pay any taxes at all-you will have to be t.ied up pretty
close to them-or you will not be in the Senate or the Congress. I
want to commend the gentlema.n for his statement.
That is all.
Mr. PEPPER. Would the gentleman yield for a. question?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
Mr. PEPPER. I thoroughly agree wit.h what the a.ble gentleman has
said. What disturbs me is that the public no longer seems to be of-
fended by a.ny amount of money that is spent in a. campaign. Nobody
pays any attention to it. If you win, it doesn't make any difference
how much money you spend, apparently.
Mr. MADDEN. I do not know. The money seems to pop out from
all directions when a campaign gets rolling. I know in my district
there were 90-some-odd thousand spent 2 years ago. It was almost
impossible for me to buy billboards or radio t.ime, and workers were
out lambasting me on propaganda. I really do not~ know how I sur-
vived. I think I must have an exceptionally smart and intelligent
electorate in my district.. I am not speaking boastfully on that, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. GOODELL. I might comment, and I think it is a little bit off the
subject, I have for some time been a very strong advocate of election
reform legislation. I am very proud that Mr. Ashmore a.nd I a.re now
cosponsoring a strong election reform bill that came out of our sub-
committee last summer unanimously. I would hope that the Congress
would take this first step in the next year or two in this Congress. I
think more does need to be done than is included in that. bill. I ntight
PAGENO="0025"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 95
say it does provide full disclosure so that the public would have the
facts prior to the election, which is one protection that should be had
here.
Mr. MADDEN. All they have to do is to go back to the last election.
They do not have to wait for the next one. The next will be worse
than the last one.
Mr. GOODELL. Now the public hears factually what is spent 2 or 3
weeks after the election when the report is filed. Our bill would
require prior filing and have some teeth in it. I would hope that this
Ethics Committee would go into that kind of question further and
conceivably recommend legislation to the House Administration Com-
mittee and give it some push-good strong legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bolling.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take the time of the
committee to do this, but I want to furnish a target for some of the
Brothers. Why would it not be equally as satisfactory as to set up a
select committee to change clause 9 of rule 11 which deals with the
Committee on House Administration, change the title of that com-
mittee to the Committee on Professional Standards and House Ad-
ministration, to broaden its jurisdiction by adding at the end of the
present Paragraphs (n) and (o) which reads, "Standards of Profes-
sional Conduct and Ethics for Members, Officers and Employees of
the House of Representatives, (p) reporting to the proper federal
authorities allegations of violations of any federal law by members,
officers and employees of the House of Representatives, acting in these
capacities." and Section 2, "The Committee on Professional Standards
and House Administration is hereby directed within 90 days of the
adoption of this resolution to recommend to the House such additional
laws, rules and regulations as it deems necessary to insure proper
conduct and standards of ethics for members, officers, and employees
of the House of Representatives"-and this is the paragraph that I
consider to be crucial-and I might say before I read it that I am the
person who made the motion to report the Bennett Resolution out in
the last Congress, so that my interest in the problem is of long standing.
The thing that has disturbed me increasingly as I have listened to
the testimony, and I believe everybody that has appeared here has
testified in good conscience and sincerely, everybody seems to ignore
one fundamental thing, as I did last fall or last summer, and that is
that we propose to set up procedures which are half baked at best and
I propose in my proposal, in addition to saying that within 90 days
they must come up with a report, that they come up not only with a
report of laws, rules, and regulations additional as are deemed neces-
sary, but with the necessary procedures, including procedural safe-
guards to enforce those laws, rules, and regulations. The thing that
has disturbed me increasingly as I have sat here and listened, with
all due deference to all the witnesses, I have yet to find procedural
safeguards that I think are essential in the conduct of such a
committee.
What would be wrong with doing it the way I have suggested?
Mr. GOODELL. As I indicated at the outset, serving on the House
Administration Committee, and knowing and respecting the members
of that committee, I would not be in a position to say that you would
not have an effective instrument to enforce ethics if we put it in that
75-196-67-~--4
PAGENO="0026"
96 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
committee. I think it might end up accomplishing the same purpose.
I would prefer and would recommend that we have a select oi~ a
permanent standing committee independent of the House Administra-
tion Committee for several reasons. One reason is that, although
there are many justifications as to why the House Administration
Committee has not. acted in the past in terms of jurisdiction and other
problems, I think sending it to the House Achninistration Committee
would be a move that could be and probably would be. mismterpreted.
Second, I think the Ethics Committee or the permanent standing com-
mittee should have equal party representation which would be difficult
in a subcommittee of House Administration. With reference to your
suggestion that there .be a time limit of 90 days for a committee to
come back with specific recommendations, that has considerable merit
and should be considered by this committee and by the House. I think
this, however, could be done by whichever agency you re.fer this juris-
diction to, whether it is the House Administration Subcommittee or a
select or permanent committee on ethics. I would not say. in other
words, that the 90-day requirement is an argument for or against
jurisdiction in either place.
Mr. BOLLING. I would like to comment briefly on two points that
you make. I believe that this committee, as all other committees,
should be controlled by a partisan majority. I happen to believe,
and this is not necessarily a popular thing to say, that the responsi-
bihty for ethical failures primarily lies with the majority party. I
think it is unquestionably everybody's concern, but. I believe in party
responsibility to the point where I think clearly t.hat the majority
should have and take the responsibility.
Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. BOLLING. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentlema.n agree that if you ever want to
take something effectively away from the America.n people just make
it bipartisan. Then they cannot do anything a.bout it. If it. is a
partisan situation, it is a fixed responsibility.
Mr. BOLLING. The gentleman and I see the thing together. I agree
with this. I think they can then fix responsibility.
I will repeat again I think the Democrats are responsible for the
ethical problems of the House of Representatives just as the Republi-
cans were in the 80th Congress and the 83d Congress: just as we all
are, individually. There is one other point that. seems to me important.
I cannot find any reason to believe that the American public is going
to exonerate us or not on how we title our committee. I think what
,we do is going to count. Tha.t is the reason for the 90 days, because I
think that this will have a more effective impact in getting something
done and done promptly than setting up two dozen select committees.
So, frankly, I can hardly see where it ma.ke.s really any difference
except to encmnber us with one more committee.
Mr. GOODELL. I respect the gentleman's argument. I respectfully
clisa.gree with him. I think the matter of party responsibilit~- is a
valid argument to make. I think. however. that in this area. most
importantly, we should have the appearance and the reality of non-
partisanship. We talk about bipartisanship. I would distinguish it
from nonpartisanship. I think this should be an unpartisan com-
mittee. As a practical matter, I think equal representation will give
PAGENO="0027"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 97
the appearance to the public of what it is. I think in dealing with
our colleagues we will be unpartisan, because all of us respect very
dearly the rights of a Member of Congress.
I think it is important to have the appearance of nonpartisanship.
I repeat once again, I think referring this to a subcommittee that is a
part of the great Committee on House Administration will be misin-
terpreted. The House Administration Committee in some respects,
unjustly, for the last 4 or 5 years has taken a great deal of abuse in
the newspapers and the news media. I think we ought to make a clean
start and set up a strong committee that is independent and can make
its own rules and is subject to none of the problems of the past as far
as public interpretation is concerned. I do agree very strongly with
the gentleman that any act we take, if it is a mere gesture, whatever
the name we put on the committee, it will not do the job. The com-
mittee will be judged and the action of Congress here will be judged
on what that committee does. I hope very strongly whatever com-
mittee is set up will take firm and early action and we'll have some
code of ethics and we'll have some other recommendations from that
committee in a short time.
Mr. BOLLING. I do not propose, by the way, to set up a subcommit-
tee. My proposal goes to the full committee.
Mr. GOODELL. You would have the entire House Administration
Committee?
Mr. BOLLING. I think the subject is of sufficient importance.
Mr. GOODELL. I had not realized that is what you were recommend-
ing. I think that has merit over a subcommittee.
Mr. BOLLING. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta?
Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my words of commendation to you for the wonderful
job you have done. I think it is an outstanding job and one of the
best presentations we have had on the subject.
Mr. GOODEIJL. Thank you.
Mr. LATTA. Also let me take this opportunity as one of those 100
Members of Congress who have introduced resolutions to respectfully
disagree with my good friend from Missouri when he calls these pro-
posals half baked. I don't consider them as such.
Mr. BOLLING. Fully baked.
Mr. LATTA. That is some concession. Let me ask you this: You
mentioned at the outset that you are appearing here this morning in
behalf of the Republican leadership. If I read my mail correctly, the
Republican policy committee has adopted a resolution endorsing the
creation of a Select Committee on Ethics. To your knowledge, has
the Democratic leadership taken any position on this matter?
Mr. GOODELL. I am not aware that it has; no. I hope this would be
made a part of the record, this resolution of the House Republican
policy committee, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the
record.
PAGENO="0028"
~98 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
(The resolution follows:)
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate establishment of
a select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
This Committee should be composed of twelve Members divided evenly between
the Majority and Minority parties. It should be empowered to recommend rules
and regulations that it deems necessary to ensure proper standards of conduct
by Members and by officers and employees of the House. It should have the
authority to investigate alleged breaches of conduct, recommend appropriate
action and report violations of law to the proper Federal and State authorities.
In the closing hours of the 89th Congress. a select Committee on Standards and
Conduct was established. This was an important first step. Now, without
further delay, this Committee should be reestablished.
Over the past few years, a handful of highly publicized allegations of miscon-
duct against a few Members of Congress and a few employees have cast a dark
cloud of doubt over the entire Congress. As long as this House does not have
an effective body that can investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct. the
American people will continue to have serious questions regarding the integrity
of the Members and their ability or willingness to ferret out those who are guilty
of misconduct. Moreover, until such time as a Committee on Standards and
Conduct is created and a code of ethics and standards of conduct are established,
proceedings that are brought against an individual or a Member may be subject
to attack on the basis that they are "witch hunts" or politically inspired.
Justice for those accused as well as the ever mounting public demand for the
highest standards of personal conduct makes imperative the immediate establish-
ment of an effective `Committee on Standards and Conduct. We urge the Demo-
cratic Leadership to schedule this legislation without further delay.
Mr. LATTA. Speaking `about the matter of the makeup of this com-
mittee, whether it should be partisan, bipartisan, nonpartisan. et cetera,
you are probably familiar with the fact that the Senate Ethics Coin-
mittee is composed of three members from each party. Have you had
occasion to look into the operation of this committee as to how it has
operated with this makeup?
Mr. GOODELL. I certainly am not. qualified as an analyst of the op-
eration of that committee. I do think that. their precedent. is good in
terms of the impression and the appearance of nonpartisanship. To
my knowledge this committee has operated on the Senate side in a. non-
partisan fashion.
Mr. LATTA. The fact that it is a nonpartisan committee has not:
hampered its workings in the Senate to your Irnowledge, has it?
Mr. GOODELL. No. I would certainly not expect the equal provi-
sion `of this kind of committee to hamper it in any way. I would
expect the members would proceed apart. from partisanship in this type.
of matter.
Mr. LATTA. lYe have had testimony in this committee on the point
that perhaps we should only investigate violations of statutes. Von
would certainly not limit the scope of any committee to that. extent.?
Mr. GOODELL. No. I tried to make the point that in setting up this
committee we should make it clear that they can look back and in-
vestigate allegations of clear House rules, regulations, or law, by
Members. After all, this was established and the Members of the
Congress should know what the laws and rule.s and regulations of the
House are.
In terms of a.ny new standards of ethics. areas that can be marginal
and subject to interpretation. I think the jurisdiction of the committee
should be prospective only.
PAGENO="0029"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT 99
Mr. LATTA. There have been some fears expressed around these Halls
that perhaps this committee would become a witch-hunting committee,
investigating everything under the sun. You do not have any doubts
about this committee, do you? Do you believe it would act
responsibly?
Mr. GOODELL. I have no concern about that at this point. I must
say that I think if the committee trended in that direction the Mem-
bers of the House would take action to control it rather quickly. Per-
haps the greatest danger is the opposite danger, that they will be a
little bit too chary about entering into investigations of their
colleagues.
Mr. LATTA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. O'Neill, do you have any questions?
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Goodell, I want to concur with my colleagues; I
believe you have made an excellent presentation, as you usually do. It
is apparent to me that the Republican Party has made this a political
issue from the outset of the day that 40 freshmen got on the floor. By
all of their action and maneuvering, and by the policy committee so
stating, they have put this in the realm of politics. That is my
opinion. First of all, I would like to ask you this: The Senate has
had a committee. What do you believe it has accomplished?
Mr. GOODELL. As I said at the outset, in answer to Mr. Latta, I do
not qualify as an analyst on how the Senate has handled its problems.
I have not looked into the matter of violations or alleged violations
there. I think it might be worth while for this committee to inquire
of the Senate to see how they feel their committee has worked out.
To my knowledge, and my knowledge is limited to hearsay discussions
with some Senators and to what I read in the newspapers, the commit-
tee could stand some improvement on the Senate side.
Mr. O'NEILL. Getting into the realm of ethics concerning elections, is.
there anything ethically different in a committee going out and raising
a million dollars and giving its members ten, fifteen, twenty-five
thousand dollars, as opposed to an individual Member of Congress
running his own affair and raising $20,000?
Mr. GOODELL. You say is there a difference?
Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, ethically is there a difference? One would be
subject to investigation by this committee, apparently the other would
be under the umbrella of an organization that went out and raised a
million dollars.
Mr. GOODELL. Tinder my proposal and Mr. Ashmore's proposal for
election reform, there would be no distinction. They would both be
subject to reports. They would both be subject to investigation. I
think that is the wny it should be. I do not think there is a difference.
I think there is a grave question involved here of how much the Con-
gress can limit the right of a citizen to contribute to a party or can-
clida.te of his choice. My own feeling is that. the strongest protection
you have is full and open and timely disclosure. I think there are
some other procedures and regulations that Congress cou'd enact and
I have recommended those. If I might say further with reference to
the question of partisanship, this is a matter of definition.
One of our colleagues on your side of the aisle apparently yesterday
said he thought it was a good political issue for the Republicans and
the Democrats shall join in. I do not view this as partisanship. I
PAGENO="0030"
100 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
do not view the act of the Republican policy committee because we
take a strong position on an issue as converting that into partisanship.
I wonder where you can draw the line between party responsibility
and partisanship. I think both parties and the Members of Congress
in both parties have an obligation to take a. position on this matter.
Because the Republicans took the strong position they did doesn't. con-
vert it into a partisan issue. It will be the lack of action on the
Democrats' part that would convert it into a. partisan issue.
Mr. O'NEILL. Let me ask you this: What do you think the line and
cry would be against this committee if it went and made an investiga-
tion of either the committee to reelect the Democratic Congress or the
committee to elect Republican Members, like your committee that.
raised a million dollars the other day. What. do you think the feeling
of the people would be if you `attempted an investigation of that type'?
Mr. GOODELL. I would not expect this committee to just go off in all
directions investigating everything. I think the safeguards are fairly
well stated in the Bennett resolution. I would expect them to recom-
mend changes in the law or in the. rules of the House or to make
opinions on standards of conduct that. they felt. were proper.
I would not expect them to go investigating ftmdraising dinners of
that nature. I do not think they would consider that. in their immedli-
ate responsibility.
Mr. O'NEILL. There has been considerable talk here about elections
and funds concerning elections. The individual who would try to
run his own fundraising party, or a. group of his friends, who would
run such a party for him, would be investigated; while if a. political
party like the Republican organiza.tion, runs a. party, the candidate
is under an umbrella of protection.
Mr. GOODELL. I think this is in the jurisdiction of the House Com-
mittee on Ethics and would be a matter for them to make reconiinenda-
tions for changes in the law. Here again I would make the point
that their jurisdiction in terms of new laws or new standards of con-
duct should be prospective-or in the future. I would not expect them
to go out and investigate things of that nature if they were not viola-
tions of law or violations of the clear rules and regulations of the
House.
They would then have the obligation of recommending changes in
the law or in our rules, or perhaps adoption of very specific rules of
conduct in this House that would cover this.
Mr. O'NEILL. Let. me ask you one more question. With regards to
the patronage of this committee, the chairman of the committee will
be a real powerful man.
Under the procedure which we have here, the chairman authorizes
the ranking minority member to pick his man and he (the chairnian)
then picks t.he balance of `the staff himself. The chairman will be a
tremendously~ powerful man. By a mere wink at. his chief counsel lie
can cause an investigation of A or B and possibly destroy him. In
view of that fact, how do you think the patronage ought, to be handled?
Mr. GOODELL. 1 think the committee itself should make its decision
on this matter. I would hope it would he a nonpartisan staff. I
would hope that the Republican ranking meniber would be consulted
by the Democratic chairman and that they would procede jointly in
PAGENO="0031"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 101
the hiring of staff and see to it that it was not "patronage." It would
be the highest caliber of professional people.
Mr. O'NEILL. Then you would recommend, or would it be your
belief, that the chairman himself would not have that power, but
whoever he recommended would be put to a vote of the committee
itself and they would judge his qualifications.
Mr. GOODELL. That is what I would strongly prefer. The House
Administration Committee in adopting resolutions-I was on the
Subcommittee on Accounts that heard from each committee asking
for its money for staff and other operations-normally places the
money in the hands of the chairman. The House rules require the
chairman of the committee to sign the various papers necessary for
expenditure of money. I presume that would apply in this case, but
I would hope as a practical matter it would be nonpartisan.
Mr. O'NEILL. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Before~ we go any further, I would like to make
the observation that we have a couple of resolutions on the floor to be
handled by members of this committee. It is obvious that we are not
going to be able to conclude the hearings on this matter today, plus
the fact that I have a commitment myself at 12 :30. I wonder what
the pleasure of the committee is. Can we finish with Mr. Goodell in
a few minutes? If not, we could go over and have Mr. Goodell come
back.
Mr. ANDERSON. Could the Chair inform us at this point how many
requests he has from Members who wish to testify, in addition to Mr.
Goodell?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, at this point we have Mr. Burleson, Mr. Gib-
bons, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Reid, Mr. Gude, and Mr. Riegle. I do not know
whether there will be any others who want to be heard.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment with reference to the
time and procedure, if we have commitments shortly, I would suggest
that, if it is possible, Mr. Goodell came back. I would like to examine
Mr. Goodell at no great length but there are some questions that have
been raised, in view of the fact he is speaking for the Republican
leadership, that I would like to question him on. If he could return,
I would appreciate it. I hesitate to limit myself to a short time because
there are some matters I would like to discuss with him.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Under the circumstances, and without
objection, the committee will resume the rearings on Tuesday.
(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was recessed to reconvene
on Tuesday, March 14, 1967.)
PAGENO="0032"
PAGENO="0033"
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDUCT
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Wa$hington, D.C.
The committee met at 10:40 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room H-313,
the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
I am sure I express the sentiment of the committee when I say
we are all happy and delighted that our friend, the gentleman on my
left, Mr. Smith, is back among the living and with us.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will resume hearings on House Res-
olution 18 and allied resolutions, and the committee will hear Mr.
Burleson, the chairman of the House Administration Committee,
first this morning. We will get his views.
Mr. Burleson, the committee will be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OP HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS
Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as you wish me to be. I shall leave
it up to you to determine how much discussion is desired. I know
you have a great deal of testimony on this subject. I have an idea
much of it is repetitious.
Probably you have heard quite a few verbal essays on what we need
in the House of Representatives to conduct ourselves in the public
sight, at least in a way to protect what apparently is an unfavorable
image which more recent events have created over the country.
I come before you as objective as I ever was on anything. I do
not feel strongly about who or what committee is assigned jurisdiction.
I do feel strongly about what is meant to be done. Ethics is a very
generic term, as you know. It could mean all things to all people,
in a broad sort of way.
I am not too sure just what you have in mind, or what anybody
else has in mind. On the floor the other day when we were asking
for funds for operation of the House Administration Committee,
this subject arose and led to considerable exploration. Does ethics
mean a delvii~g into an individual Member of Congress' personal con-
duct ? This was the only line which made very much publicity. I
repeat here what I said in the debate last week.
103
75-196-----G7----5
PAGENO="0034"
104 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
If it means looking into what a Member does, after 5 o'clock-
whether he is taking a drink, playing poker, or whatever is meant
by uitbecoming conduct, I just want no part of it, and I cannot con-
ceive that is what we are really talking about although it seems to
be some people's idea we should so police ourselves.
It seems to me it is like children, or men without. responsibility.
I have always felt that a man who comes to this Congress came here
with a heavy respect from the people who sent him here. and that
until he proves otherwise by obvious misconduct, his good character
and integrity should be assumed.
Speaker Sam R.a.yburn used to say--and it always impressed me very
much-that a. man who came here, if he did not have integrity and if
he did not maintain the respect of his colleagues, he is not going to stay
very long.
Mr. Chairman, you have been here many Tears. You have seen
many Members come and go. lYe are the severest critics of our own
and soon learn about our colleagues. It is not. particularly a conscious
effort that we judge. one another but by daily associations we reach
imclerstanding. "I-low can you formalize honesty and integrity?"-
this was the subject of a column by Carl Rowan the other day. It. is
the heart and the fundamental question involved.
There a.re some other things about this whole question. which I
assume we a.re going to have to decide some time. or other. I assume
specific legislation would be required on such matters as conflict of
interest, nepotism, and to what degree, but ethics. good conduct, and
so forth, is not clearly defineable.
Maybe we could measure the degree of conflict of interest by con-
sa.nguimt as we could relatives on the. payroll. Should we purge
ourselves on certain legislation-walk down and disqualify ourselve.s
on having a. conflict, of interest? Again it seems to me it. has got to be
up to the individual.
Should Members who have a farm or a ranch not vote on farm legis-
lation? Should he disqualify himself or. as it was related the other
day, he has an interest, in some financial institution and a bill comes
out of the Committee on Banking and Currency. should he clisqualif
himself on a conflict of interest.?
It is hard to define. and again it. seems to me it. is a matter of mdi-
vidija.l conscience. Now. as to what committee this task should be.
assigned-if we are going to have it who should be given the responsi-
bility and the commensurate authority?
I repeat. that. I am objective about. it. In conversation a. few minutes
ago in the chairman's office I mentioned to someone, somewhat. face-
tiously, tha.t maybe it. is a compromise to leave, it. right here in this
committee. Maybe you should take charge of this issue. You have
charge of rules, and conduct relates to rules and the decormn of the
House.
Now, if a special committee is set up. call it the Ethics Committee
or whatever you may call it. again what. i~ its scope. what. is it for?
If it. is for the watchdog over the handling of money. then the House
Administration has certain responsibilities which we expect. to con-
tinue but some clarifying on that is needed. It. is a little vague in
places as to what our authority and responsibility is. I can find a.
grea.t. deal more responsibility than authority.
PAGENO="0035"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 105
Again referring to Mr. Rayburn, we were in the Speaker's lobby,
and a certain matter was up-it does not matter what-but it had
been a little embarrassing to me. I thought it was clever on my part to
say to Mr. Rayburn-I will not repeat the exact language-but the
essence of it was that I did not mind being a goat, if there was author-
ity to go along with it, but I sure hated to be one and not have the
authority.
As I say, I thought it was clever. He didn't.
But there is a great area in the responsibility in the House Admirns-.
tration Committee that is a little difficult to find spelled out iii the rules
and in the law. Regardless of what you may do with this resolution,
what direction it may take, and where it goes and to what committee,
I think the House Administration Committee needs some clarifica-
tion as to the responsibility of that committee. A long time ago I
sought certain changes and amendments but it had little interest until
things go wrong.
It has always been assumed that when a Member certifies that a
person is on his payroll, and what their salaries are, their activities,
and so forth, you take that at face value. The same is true of a
committee chairman.
That was the case in the matter of Mr. Powell. There has been
criticism that the House Administration Committee should have halted
the illegal practices flow revealed in this case and we did but it was
after the fact. We had no way of going behind these activities to
prevent their happening.
You do not catch credit cards and telephone charges until 60 days
after charges. We have no such thing as a preaudit. We now pro-
pose that we have a preaudit, and that we hire an expert for that pur-
pose in the committee.
We have tried to operate very modestly with a small staff, and we
have had no investigators to go behind these things to determine what
was right and what was wrong even if there was clear authority-I
think the staff of this committee is very good-we send claims back to
committees every day. I do not believe I am exaggerating in saying
that every day there is some question to explain something. We have
always done that.
Then, if the chairman of that committee makes a satisfactory expla-
nation of it, it is approved. It always has been, it is the practice, and
I think a good one, that when it is certified by the chairman of a com-
mittee I think you have a right to think it is justified.
However, clarification is needed if a proper job is to be done. We
can have a more thorough examination, a preaudit of the accounts
before it even gets into disbursing, and have a great deal more thor-
oughness. Even if it is necessary to go into a committee to inquire
about it, maybe we should do that.
There should be a distinction, too, in the authority between com-
mittees and that of the Member's office. As you know, committee
operations, all these investigations, are financed from the contingent
fund. The House Administration has authority over the contingent
fund of the House. We pay the bills.
It is different in a Member's office. Your offices, your clerk hire and
all the things you are allowed to run your office, does not come out of
the contingent fund.
PAGENO="0036"
106 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The House Administration Committee has nothing to do ~vitli it.
The nearest thing to do with it is paragraph 9, section C, of rule 11,
which says:
Powers and Duties of Committees: All proposed legislation, messages, peti-
tions, memorial and other matters related to the subject listed under the standing
committees named below shall be referred to such committees respectively.
Now, the Committee on House Administration ha.s certain authority
for employment of persons by the House, including clerks for mem-
bers and committees and reporters of debates. We have always as-
sumed that House Administration was limited in its authority to the
numbers of persons you can employ in your office and a ceiling on the
salary you may pay any one individual. That is by statute. It is
not a rule.
This is what we acted on in instructing the Clerk to drop Mrs.
Powell off the payroll last fall. I am not too sure we had the authority
to do it, but we proceeded on the basis, "If you don't like it, sue us."
Incidentally he is. [Laughter.]
That is what we did, and this is the allthority on which we acted.
I have some doubt whether it is substantial enough. I think it should
be clarified. I use this as an example-and incidentally it is a favorite
of some of our news people and colunmists, and particularly Mr.
Pearson, and Herblock cartoons, to miss this distinction entirely.
I would like to come to this committee when definite language is
formulated to get a clarification of the rules and the authority on
these matters. It is necessary if circumstances as are involved in the
Powell case are to be met. The press has said that nothing was done
in the Powell case until we had to do it. We were looking into his
actions and operations beginning probably as long as 2 years ago try-
ing to find some handles to take hold of. The Clerk of the House was
asked if he could remove Mrs. Powell from the payroll. The Clerk
rightfully said, "I cannot go behind a Member's certification on what
a member of his staff is doing." The law says that an employee must
work in the Members office in the district, or in his Washington office
or in the State.
Of course, it does not say whether that person has to be there 365
days out of the year, or 1 day. He can be there any time a.nd probably
meet the statutory requirement. The reason behind the provision "in
the State" is because a great many Members in cities share offices.
There are a number who have arrangements where offices are in a Fed-
eral building, and a number of Members in a State with their districts
contiguous have offices in the building, and therefore a person would
not be in the district, but rather within the State.
That was the first statute we approved 2 years, or 2,i/~ years ago in
1964 in August as I recall. Later I brought a resolution to the floor
which placed a penalty on this language, a year in jail and a. $5,000
fine. We did not pass it.
There is no penalty. This arises now in t.he case of a recovery of
funds in the case of Mr. Powell in the opinion of the General Account-
ing Office.
We took it up with the General Accounting Office in a two-page
letter. They said about the same thing. Finally, and I think this
PAGENO="0037"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 107
might be interesting to you, about this time `ast year we asked the
Secret Service in Puerto Rico to check on this individual to see how
long she had been there and what she was doing.
They interviewed her and she told them the truth. She was living
in Puerto Rico and not doing anything. We tried to find some
handles and take hold of this thing, and not rush in with an accusa-
tion without any foundation having been built before.
Finally, when we did find a place to start, that is when the Hays
Committee started early last fall, and finally got itself in operation
and, as you know, produced the report on which the Select Committee
then acted.
In all of these things, we have `operated pretty much in the dark
and with vagueness of authority, which should be clarified.
Just this other thing, Mr. Chairman. By having the responsibility
of administering expenditures from the contingent fund, any other
committee assigned to see that "ethics" was practiced would have to
come to the House Administration Committee for its information
regarding the use of funds. At least it would if it involved funds
appropriated from the contingent fund.
If this committee assumed the responsibility of ethics, we would
have to furnish you our records, which would be perfectly all right,
but it would be a duplication.
Now, if it is a matter of personal conduct, then funds would not
be involved necessarily, but certainly the tightest control should be
exercised in the use of public money, how it is spent, and to see that
it is used correctly and honestly.
Th&t is what ethics means to me, that is what fair conduct means
to me. Any other committee having anything to do with contingent
funds is going to have to come to the House Administration Com-
mittee for its records, because that is where they are, unless you tell
us to let somebody else assume these functions.
As I say, I think I am objective about this thing. I am not cam-
paigning for the job because I do not particularly want it, but just
in reason it seems to me the case is as I have tried to describe.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anything further I can add. I
will certainly respond as best I can to questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Burleson, I am sure the committee is
indebted to you for your statement, and for clarifying some of the
finer points of the duties of your committee and your jurisdiction.
I am going to be very brief here as far as I am concerned. Of
course, you are aware of the fact that there is some criticism of your
committee-that you should have been more alert, that you should have
locked the door before the horse got out. What is it that your com-
mittee should have in the way of additional authority and jurisdiction,
assuming for the moment that your conunittee is chosen to handle this
matter?
Mr. Bum~EsON. I think under the present arrangement, Mr. Chair-
man, we need additional authority to be able to question the chairman
of a committee, if this is what we want to do, more closely about the
expenditures, preauthority for travel, prior authority for expenditures
above a certain sum other than, we will say, supplies, pencils and paper
and such which the chairman is not going to know anything about in
the committee anyway. He has got to depend on people who do that,
PAGENO="0038"
108 SELECT C01\4I4ITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
and we have a lot of dedicated people around here. I have no criticism
about it.
The matter of credit cards, expenditures that are going to show up,
as I said, a couple of months later with no way of really knowing
~whether they were justified or not-all of this if you think about it will
reflect on the chairman of the committee.
Are we the ones to say t.ha.t a trip to the west coast is justified by
staff people or some investigation, or are we going as we have here-
tofore done, depend on what the committee as a committee and the
chairman of that committee thinks is necessary.
If we are to do otherwise, we would have to have some clarifying
authority. I use that as an example. If we are to look at a. Member's
office to see how many employees he has a.nd to see if a body goes with
a name `on the payroll, then we have got to have somebody to go around
and ask questions.
Mr. YoUNG. They come around now and check on the typewriters.
Mr. BrnI~soN. Congressman Young, if I went into your office. a.nd
said, "Where is J. Jones? You have her on the payroll." I think I
know what you would tell me, a.nd you should.
Mr. YOUNG. I have no comment.
Mr. BURLESON. I think I know, and that is the way I would feel. It
seems to me that we just should not get real excit.ed because there is a
rat in the barn and, as we say out in the West., to burn down the barn
to get rid of the ra.t is proved not to be the best method.
We are in an emotional period somewhat. and sensitive to what the
press is saying and these letters we get. and the attack on the Congress
as an institution. That is the bad part of it.. It. is really sad. That is
the only way I can put it., with so many people feeling that Congress
as an institution is just no good.
I have had a few Members send me letters they receive from their
constituents-of course I get enough of them-wanting to know what
`they say. I got a letter this morning enclosing a letter from a con-
stituent. In effect it said, "You are a rotten bunch of bums down there
in Washington." It said, "Look this fellow over in the Senate, look at
him, and look what you have in the House. Here are a couple. a.nd
the rest of you must be that way." It is bad.
The CHATR~rAN. Mr. Burleson. I think I have demonstrated here
that personally I think this is largely a matter for one's constituency.
I do not see how you can spell out. everything. You cannot legislate
morals and ethics. Yet, I am sure that the gentleman agrees wit.h
me that t.here is some room for improvement in preventing a.nd in
punishing for t.hese errors, really criminal errors, that are committed.
In the final analysis, the people pretty well get the type of repre-
sentation they want. If a bad egg is elected to Congress people sooner
or later find it out and get rid of him. There may he exceptions to
that, but I think it would he rather rare.
I repeat. I think this committee, having original jurisdiction in this
matter, has got to do something about it. There are over a. hi.mdred
resolutions pending here that. have been introchiceci by various Mem-
bers. We have gotten down to the point, now of a. conflict between
jurisdictions, although I am not attributing any eagerness to the
gentleman to acquire these additional duties if additional duties it ma.y
be.
PAGENO="0039"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 109
* Jurisdictional questions are important when there is a conflict. I
hope this will not provoke anything but sometimes I am a little
apprehensive that we are getting to the point where we are also getting
maybe a little partisanship in this thing. I make that observation for
this reason: I just want to go on the record again in spite of the
fact that there may be some differences of opinion, that if the effort
of this committee is to be successful, it has got to be of a permanent
nature and it has always got to be on a bipartisan basis.
In this field there is no room for partisanship. There are good eggs
and there are bad eggs in both parties. I agree with the gentleman
that the good eggs for outnumber the bad ones.
Thank you, Mr. Burleson. Are there any questions of Mr. Burleson ?
Mr. SMITh. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Delaney?
Mr. DELANEY. Like yourself, I find it* is very difficult to dot every
"I" and cross every "T." I have employees here who have relatives on
their payroll, and the relatives do a good job. In some cases a
Member marries a secretary and she continues to work.
I have In mind another Member who has a daughter who works for
the committee. She works there day in and day out and not only
does a good job, but has a knowledge of everything that happens in
the district because she happened to be brought up in the district.
That would work a hardship on the other side, and if you are going
to be absolutely rigid, you might bar everybody within a certain degree
of relationship. I think that would be unfair in many instances.
A great number of the Members of Congress are attorneys. If they
have a conflict of interest it would be difficult. With a sizable estate
you have got to deal with Internal Revenue. Appearing before an
agency, is that a conflict .of interest? And if you want to carry it to
the ultimate, a man from a farm area is certainly affected by legislation
dealing with farmers and subsidies, which would bar him on voting
under those circumstances, and you could carry this on until almost
everyone is included.
People connected with power: Would a person be a tool of the util-
ities if he voted for a power yardstick, or against it., one way or the
other? It is a difficult thii'~g, and I do not know how we can deal with
this because there is no such thing as exact justice.
You have to rely a little bit upon the judgment of the Member. The
more we delve into this the n'iore it becomes apparent that this is not
a good time. When we are publicly and emotionally upset at the
moment, and maybe depressed, and I know very often you can do in
haste what you later regret.
It is a difficult proposition. We all agree something should be done,
but just how, and who will do the job? I am sure this committee
has no desire to take on ethics as part of their duties, as was suggested
here today.
We have differences with every committee of the House. We have
had a conflict here in one of the committees, Banking and Currency,
where they are coming to us for relief. There are complaints on
nearly every standing committee of the House at one time or another.
We have organized, and have a standing committee, because someone
happens to be chairman of that committee and cannot control the corn-
PAGENO="0040"
110 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONI)UCT
mittee and the members are up for relief. Should we abolish that corn-
imttee and form a select committee?
My understanding of a select committee was only when there was
conflict between two committees would a select committee be made.
Then that select committee could recommend legislation. They could
merely come up with their ftnclings and give them to the appropriate
committee for whatever action they see fit to take.
So there are so many questions here, and no yardstick. lYe have
got to do the best we can under the circmnstances. and to me it repre-
sents a rather unusual and difficult, question.
I can understand very well how your committee acted. `You were
tied clown, had certain restrictions, and I Irnow how people react when
they read the newspapers. Every one of my people back home, when
they read about the salaries a certain woman was getting outside the
mainland, would say, "Why am I not on the payroll? Even my wife
who answers the phone from 7 :30 in the morning until 11 :30 at night..
For 20 years she has been doing this. I never knew such a thing
existed."
Certainly most political people never knew such a thing existed. It
is a. difficult thing. I do not know just how best t.o handile it, but I
am not one of those who feel that it has to be done t.his exact moment
and done in haste, because whatever we do I hope has a degree of
permanency.
are not meeting every situation as it arises.
Mr. BURLESON. And, too, Mr. Delaney, if I may interrupt, this
reorganization bill is coming over from the other body. There have
been changes. I do not know how that would affect the situation, but
it is bound to, to some degree, and it. might be well until we know how
far reaching that is, and how it applies to our operation here before
we jump off into something here we are not sure about.
Then, too, if I may add, going beyond what will be the rules and the
law and the mechanics which would enable an investigation to be con-
ducted on certain charges made against a. Member. I do not know
how many of you remember, but a few years ago there was an article
by one of Mr. Pearson's men, Jack Anderson, entitled "Congress-
men Who Cheat," or something like that.
I was wrapped up in a part. of one of them. It declared that we had
an expedient action at. one time, an elections contest case-I will not
bore you with the details of that-but. it was known on both sides, the
leadership on the committee. I think Mr. LeCompte. of Iowa. was
ranking member.
Well, to shortcut it, we were c.ritic.ized. `You may recall that Mr.
Anderson wanted to testify before the committee. and we accepted
the challenge, which we should not have clone, but nevertheless lie came
up with a lot of papers. He wa.s sworn, and he was asked in the begin-
ning if he had direct knowledge, personal knowledge of the charges
he was a.bout to present, and he sa.id, "I have proof of it."
I asked him, "Do you have personal knowledge?" and this goes
beyond, I thought, and still think, certainly the relationship between
the newsma.n and his source of information.
But the point. is lie admitted that. what lie was about to present was
hearsay, and under the. rule of best evidence I said. ~This committee
will not permit hearsay evidence," and we adjourned the sessioii. That
is all there wa.s to it.
PAGENO="0041"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT 111
1~Te were not asking him to reveal his sources of information, but to
have the individual who had firsthand knowledge-who purportedly
advised him of the violation or misconduct of Members in handling
certain funds and conflicts of interest.
One Member, and I do not think he is here now, who was accused of
buying some property near here and selling it back to the Government
when we were clearing this area near the Capitol. You remember
some of that.
* The point, again, I am making is that aside from the authorization
that a committee may have, whether it is House Administration or a
select committee or Rules Committee, or whatever it is, as to how that
is applied, how it is conducted judiciously, is a highly important thing
in this whole business, it seems to me.
It is not just a matter of who has the responsibility, and so forth. It
is how it is done.
* The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, do you have any questions?
Mr. ANDERSON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was attending
another meeting. I did not hear the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bolling?
Mr. BOLLING. You were here the other day when I outlined a pro-
posal that I think might be an answer. Do you want me to repeat it?
Mr. BURLESON. I think I was here part of the time.
Mr. BOLLING. I would like to get your reaction to this proposal,
which in effect is to change the name of House Administration to the
Committee on Professional Standards. That makes pretty clear what
we are talking about.
We are talking about professional standards, not personal standards,
and then to expand the jurisdiction of the committee so that at least
initially there would be no question of the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee to do what in my resolution I propose the committee do.
Obviously, while I talk about the full committee-I mean the full
committee, but it could operate through a subcommittee. The main
thing is to remember that "The Committee on Professional Standards
and House Administration shall, within ninety days of the date of
adoption of this resolution, recommend to the House such additional
laws, rules, regulations, including necessary procedures for enforce-
ment as it deems necessary to insure proper standards of professional
conduct for members, officers and employees of the House."
As I have said before, I am the person who first made the motion
to move the Bennett resolution out last August. I have been thinking
of this, and have become extraordinarily concerned about what I con-
sider the looseness of the language of the resolutions I have seen,
including the Bennett resolution.
There is no use belaboring the fact, but the Bennett resolution
would get us involved in some things that are pious hopes, that resolu-
tion we voted for in 1958, which is now binding, I guess, on everybody.
But the thing that really disturbed me is that none of these resolu-
tions specify, No. 1, the timing for at least initial action and, No. 2,
they do not specify outlining clearly the procedures to enforce.
The reason I take this approach is that, for example, we have laws
on the statute books today which are so patently unenforceable that
nobody ever thinks of trying to enforce them.
PAGENO="0042"
112 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
For example, take the Corrupt Practices Act, which indicates how
much a Member can spend in a political campaign. I do not know
how many Members there are that do not evade that by having politi-
cal committees so that they do not spend anything.
But it is an illustration of a law that is unenforceable, and therefore
it has no force and effect.
Mr. PEPPER. Is it not $5,000 under the law?
Mr. BOLLING. I believe that is correct, and I am interested in those
who run a hotly contested congressional campaign on $5,000. I would
like to meet some of them. But the point is, this would give to a
standing committee which already has a substantial amount of po~ver
in the area a specific responsibility and at the same time mandate them
to come back to the House with whatever proposals they think are
good, and how to enforce them.
Do you have any reaction to that?
Mr. BURLESON. I would react favorably to that. I do not know
that there is too much in the name, but my personal choice would be
to turn the title around-House Administration and Professional
Conduct.
Mr. BOLLING. I do not like that.
Mr. BURLESON. As I said, I do not know that that would so so
determining, but since House Administration has such a. broad re-
sponsibility in personnel matters and all this conglomerate operation
around here, including policy and printing aiid all of these things we
do, I think it would be better if it were turned around.
But the idea I respond very favorably to.
Mr. BOLLING. Contrary to some of the views that. have been ex-
pressed, I believe it is possible to come up with additional and helpful
professional standards. Not being a lawyer, I have been looking
over what they call canons of the law, canons of ethics, and I find
them impressive. They are well thought out.
I believe what we do is a profession, and I do not. see why we
cannot develop standards for ourselves as a profession.
I gather from a few Members who are lawyers that it would be
helpful if they could find out. what they should do with their relation-
ship with a law firm or a particular case.
I think it would be helpful, with the conflict, of interest as foggy as
it is, to know what you are really supposed to do.
Mr. BURLESON. I agree.
Mr. BOLLING. I think a whole variety of things could be spelled out
that frankly would be helpful to Members, and not harmful. Thank
you.
Mr. QUILLEN~. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOLLING. I have yielded.
The CHAIR~I.~x. You have the floor. Mr. Quillen.
Mr. QuiLntx. Mr. Boiling, getting back to your proposal for House
Administration and Professional Ethics, or whatever the title might
be; with regard to the partisan situation, have you given any thought
to the subcommittee, whether it should be equally divided between Re-
publicans and Democrats?
Mr. BURLESON. I would have not the slightest objection for it to be
evenly divided. As a matter of fact, we have clone tha.t for a sub-
PAGENO="0043"
SELECT COMMITTER ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 113
committee-five on either side. It is a 14-to-il ratio in the full
committee.
Mr. BOLLING. I will ask the gentleman to yield. I would repeat my
objection. I think the majority party ought to take the responsibility
by having a majority.
Mr. BURLE5ON. The committee we call a Subcommittee on Con-
tracts was created to find methods to tighten up. You see, committees
are permitted so many employees, clerical and professional staff and
so forth, and they have got a limit on the number.
However, the chairman of the committee can decide he needs special
advisers and special investigators. He comes in with a contract with
an individual, 6 months, a year, and that contract must be approved
by the Committee on House Administration.
* Many of these things come in. There are some abuses in them,
I think. I think some of them are not necessary, because there are
just some people who like to employ a lot of people.
The committee had some other duties, but we particularly called
it a Contract Subcommittee, and this is the committee we assigned the
duty to last fall to look into the Powell matter. This is the committee
we would expand, which we have already, on an equal number in the
subcommittee, five on either side, to handle these matters.
These things we already have a responsibility for. We want to get
a tighter check on it, to have, as I say, a preaudit and some other things
needed to tighten up. We think we are going to have to come to your
committee for a rule to clarify and tighten up some of these operations.
I repeat, I have not a bit of objection to the subcommittee being
equally divided and, mind you again that the ratio of the full com-
mittee is 11 to 14.
Mr. QUILLEN. The resolution under consideration here and all other
resolutions which I have read equally divide the membership between
the two parties. I thought that clarification coming from the chair-
man of House administration would be helpful.
I have been concerned about how matters of misconduct could be
reported. The resolution 1 introduced stipulated that charges must
he made in person.
I feel that back in the district charges could be made under oath;
that anyone could go to a notary and make his statement under oath.
The newspapers would air it before it aetually gets to the committee,
and damage might be done before action is taken.
Some precautionary measure should be embraced in any resolution,
in my opinion.
Mr. BURLESON. I agree absolutely. I gave an example a little bit
ago how, if these things are spread out, the man is convicted when
his name appears. It harms a great many people. Then he must
prove his innocence, and he will never prove it politically.
Mr. QUILLEN. The ranking minority member of this committee
asked me to handle the rule when this matter was debated in the last
Congress, and I handled it with Claude Pepper on the other side.
The temper of Congress was not right for the resolution as it was
presented, and it needs to be clarified and worked out.
At the beginning of this session, I introduced immediately a
resolution which I thought would clarify the provision somewhat.
All I have read, require an equal number of members from both
parties.
PAGENO="0044"
114 SELECT COMMIT'fEE' ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk?
Mr. SI5K. Mr. Chairman, following along the line that Mr. Boiling
questioned you on a moment ago, Mr. Burleson, with reference to a
proposal to change the rules or to broaden the jurisdiction and even
going to the point of changing the name., for example, of the com-
mittee on which you serve as the distinguished chairman, also keeping
in mind the statement made by the gentleman from Tennessee Mr.
Quillen, regarding the partisan aspect of this, because this has been
one of the things that we have been confronted with that we attempted
to, let us say, resolve in this situation, or let us say some of us who
have desired to keep this in an existing standing committee, and I
happen to be one of those who favors using your committee or some
present standing committee rather than creating a select coimnittee.
I was wondering if you would comment on any problems that could
be visualized assuming for discussion purposes tha.t we came out with
some resolution in which a subcommittee of your committee on a
strictly bipartisan basis, in line with Mr. Quillen's comments, would
be made somewhat autonomous in that this subcommittee of the House
Administration Committee would have the sole jurisdiction and
authority as to those questions pertaining to standards of professional
conduct and that the recommendations of that subcommittee could
be considered as final for purpose~s of reporting to the floor.
Do you follow the point I am making?
Mr. BimLESOX. I follow you, Mr. Sisk. We had a discussion of
that, but under the rules I frai~kly do not see how the subcommittee
could be autonomous and be a subcommittee, of any committee..
They still would have to report on ally legislation to the parent
committee.
I would hardly see how the full committee-
Mr. YOUNG. May I interrupt you?
The ratio is almost even. It is more even than the ratio of this
cornimttee.
Mr. BURLESON. It is 11 to 14. But I do not Imow of any mechanics
that would permit it, Mr. Sisk.
Mr. SI5K. That is the reason I asked the question whether there are
any precedents that you Irnow of, because I have certainly not found
any specific precedents in which a subcommittee as part. of a. standing
committee could be totally autonomous. I am not altogether sure that
the rules could be amended in this area..
Of course, I had in mind that it would be autonomous only from the
standpoint of this one particular subject and, as I say. I am at a. loss
as to just how it may be done.
However, this is something that seems to me might be considered. I
did not know whether or not you or any members of your committee
had given this any thought in view of the fact of your recent state-
ment, I believe last week, that this subcommittee, as far as I under-
sta.nd it, ha.s been more or less delegated to hancile problems of this
kind and is now a. five-to-five committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. SIsK. I will be glad to.
The CHAIRMAN. I have had some interest in this same particular
question that has been raised. I would just like to observe that this
PAGENO="0045"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCP 115
committee is a committee of original jurisdiction in that matter, and
if the committee and the House saw fit to amend the rules to do just
what the gentleman from California has suggested might be done, and
hopes would be done-if I am not putting words in his mouth-I think
it could be done.
It would be a little precedent breaking possibly, but I certainly
think this committee has the authority to recommend in an appropriate
resolution such procedure, and that there would be nothing that would
prohibit it if the House saw fit to do it.
I just throw that in for what it is worth. Thank you.
Mr. SIsK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, I suppose we
could do anything we wanted to insofar as rules are concerned. In
this instance Tt would seem to me to be, as you say, precedent breaking
and rather awkward.
1 would not have any particular objection to the committee being
divorced from the parent committee, but I would not agree that the
full committee should have or be responsible for the subcommittee's
actions. If there is responsibility there should also be authority.
The CHAIRMAN. What it would amount to would be the setting up
a committee within a committee with certain specific jurisdictions, and
it would certainly obviate the setting up of another standing com-
mittee. When we get into that I would just like to point out that
this committee in its cramped quarters here tried some time ago to
get additional space around here because we are too crowded.
Incidentally, we do not have filing room here now for all of the
resolutions that have been introduced on this question, and I found
there was no space available except I finally found a room over in the
basement of the Rayburn Building where we could function as best we
could, far divorced from this committee room.
There are questions of distance and convenience. I do not care to
belabor that any further at this point.
Mr. Latta?
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I would like for just a couple of seconds
to go back and explore this change that was made in your committee
after this matter of the ethics committee creation as a separate com-
mittee arose, and ask you if you had it to do over would you be a part
of creating a committee well knowning that you did not have the juris-
diction to create that subcommittee, Mr. Burleson?
Mr. BURLESON. Let me understand you. On the Subcommittee on
Contracts-
Mr. LATTA. Bight.
Mr. BURLESON. If we expanded the subcommittee in anticipation
that your committee would grant this additional duty to the House
administration?
Mr. LATTA. Yes.
Mr. BURLESON. Probably not, by making it bipartisan or nonpar-
tisan, probably not.
On the other hand, it has a practical aspect in the responsibility we
already have. As I said, we expect to set up this preaudit operation, we
are in the process of that now, and some other reforms which would
expand its activity-not its authority, but activity-that we have
not heretofore done.
PAGENO="0046"
116 SELECT C0~ITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
By doing that, I think it is consistent with the work we already have.
Mr. LATrA. This raised a lot of eyebrows. and mine, were among
them. Wayne Hays testified, and you agree with what. he said. that
yOU did not have the authority to create an ethics subcomimttee.
Now, after the fact you have come to this committee. If you are
going to attempt to do the job you have to get additiona.l authority.
It seems to me you have the cart before the horse and I would hope in
the future as these things arise that we get the horse before the cart.
Actually, as a. member of this committee I felt a. little bit slighted
that you did not come before the committee. and say. "We need new
authority."
Mr. BtrRLESON. I would say we could create as many subcommittees
in our committee as we wanted, without. coming to this committee.
Mr. LAm. This is on the matter of ethics. You agree you need.
the additional authority.
Mr. BUELESON. If you want us todo the complete job.
Mr. LAm. That is the point I am trying to get across. You lack
the authority to act which you need if your new subc.oirnnittee is to be
effective.
Mr. BUELESON. That is part of it, and also the ~5O,OOO tha.t was asked
for the operation. That is true. I was asked that question the other
day in the appropriation of the money to the committee.
\~\Te would not need that much money unless we do get this authority
we would not expend it if we do not.
As I said, I am completely objective about this. I just say this. that
from a practical standpoint with the responsibility our committee al-
ready has this added responsibility, with clarity, should be given it.
I do not mean to be facetious about it, either, but I would say this:
*With the responsibility we already have, another committee set up, an
ad hoc or special committee, will have to come to the House Admin-
istration `Committee for its informat.ion on expencliture.s from the con-
tingent. fund. That just follows. It would have to. Tha.t is the only
place it is.
As I say, it is a practical matter, but I see nothing inconsistent, with
our having established t.his corn.mit.tee as we didi. As it relate.s to this
authority here, I see nothing inconsistent at all about. our taking this
action.
We could dissolve it if we find we did not need to do this additional
duty, or we could drop it back to the three and four, as I think it was
constituted, rather than five.
Mr. LATrA. Leading to the next statement, you have undoubtedly
read, as I have, accounts that have been written saying this was merely
an effort to head off the creation of a sepa.rate committee on ethics.
If we support your action the press will probably write that the
Rules Committee went along with the idea. not to create an ethics
committee.
Now, getting to this matter of five and five on the subcommittee.
Mr. BunLEsoN. If I may interrupt you there, I am just assuming
we are going to have one somewhere, and we `ought to get ready for
it.
Mr. LATTA. I assume that is right.
Getting to this five and five distribution, which I think is commencla.-
ble. In answer to the question from the gentleman from California.
PAGENO="0047"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 117
you should not set it up as a conference committee, so you have a sub-
committee of five and five operating under a~ partisan committee of
14 and 11.
Let us assume that the five and five came out with a report on a given
case and the partisan committee of 14 to 11 decided not to pursue the
matter. Then where do you go from there?
Mr. BURLESON. I would say that the full committee, if it turned
down a recommendation of the subcommittee, would be like any other
resolution, they just would not have one.
Mr. LATTA. Assuming this was done on a partisan basis, and this is
hypothetical, you are defeating the purpose of setting up your five
and five subcommittee in the first place.
Mr. BURLESON. That could follow. It would be, but I do not know.
That is the nearest way I would know to approach it, nonpartisan.
Mr. LATTA. Have you given any thought to making this entire Com-
mittee on House Administration a bipartisan committee with expanded
powers, because your committee does get into matters that in my opin-
ion should be bipartisan.
Mr. BURLESON. Of course not. It is like any other standing Com-
mittee of the House. Maybe there have at times seeped in some parti-
san angles in the 1-louse Administration Committee, but most of it is
of such nature that there is no room for partisanism, or very little of it.
1,~\Te have had at times, I suppose, in election contests, where senti-
ments have shown up, of a partisan nature one way or the other, but
the men who are on the Subcommittee on Elections are all lawyers and
I think in the vast majority of cases an attorney can look at these things
a little more objectively and possibly without partisanism than maybe
those who are not.
But I have never seen that occur, and I believe that those who served
on the committee on the other side-I believe Mr. Lipscomb would
agree with this statement, as well as others I have experience with on
the cormnittee.
We have discussed the matter of staffing because the minority has
been insisting on staff to be identified as minority and majority. We
have an individual in the committee designated who has contact for
the minority who will have the answers to their inquiries.
* The committee is on a 14 to 11 basis, which on a 25-man committee
is usually 10 and 15.
Mr. LATTA. One further question. You indicated that your com-
mittee was criticized in the Powell case for not moving quickly enough
to get Mrs. Powell off the payroll, and you admitted that you ques-
tioned whether you had the authority to do it but went ahead and did
it, and I commend you for it.
The question arises in my mind, since you knew that Corrine Huff
was doing the same thing, out of the country and not in conformance
*with the regulations of the House that she work either in the district or
in the State, why did you not remove her?
Mr. BURLESON. She had been here in the offices, as I understand it,
until she went fishiiig, and that was only the latter part of the year.
But as far as I know, and I think it is pretty common knowledge, this
Miss Huff was here on the committee staff, or his office committee.
PAGENO="0048"
118 SELECT CO~TTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I think she was committee staff. Whether she did anything or not
is something else, but at least she was physically present, which met
the statute.
Mr. LATTA. From what I read, she went fishing and she was still on
the payroll up until very recently, until Mr. Pepper's committee got
into this thing. My question is, when you found out she has gone fish-
ing, and I put that in quotes, why did you not do something about
that?
Mr. BURLESON. \Vell, it may have been a long fishing trip. [Laugh-
ter.]
But the statute says the employee shall be in the Member~s office
here in Washington or in his district or in the State.
So if she were here 1 day she could meet the statutory requirement,
technically speaking.
Mr. LATTA. You mean 1 da.y during a month would qualify?
Mr. BURLESON. As far as the law is concerned, it does. and our atten-
tion was called to that by the General Accounting Office when we made
inquiry as to the reimbursement of these ftmcls.
But it did meet the statute. IVe assume technically, if she walked
in the door 1 day a. month, or 1 day a. year. it technically meets the
requirement.
Mr. LATTA. Have you given any thought to tightening that up?
Mr. BURLESON. Yes, we have. I introduced this resolution that
would carry a penalty. Under the present statute there is no penalty.
~Te should make a penalty for a violation. I think that should be a
part of any reform legislation.
The CIURMAN. Mr. O'Neill?
Mr. O'NEILL. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young?
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Burleson. one thing that worries
me a grea.t dea.l is tha.t it seems to me if this committee, and if the
I-louse in turn, places the authority and re.sponsibility with your com-
mittee, which obviously you are not seeking, and that is understand-
able, I am just afraid that your committee will have taken on an
enormous responsibility, one that no committee in this Congress has
ever faced before.
Ever since we have been having these hearings we have seen your
committee maligned, either in the press or out of tile press. by state-
inents that tile committee either cannot or will not do its job. putting
an X on you before you ever start.
I do not know how you go about doing all these things. and my
frank opinion is that I think this business of the corruption of Con-
gress is grossly overrrated.
I think first of all you may be seeking something that is not neces-
sarily there, and secondly, it has been brought out clearly arolmd this
table here by the testimony and by the questions, the great task of set-
ting up a. code of conduct that, in effect, is a. keeper of a man's consci-
ence which is tile difficulty.
So I think it would be the most courageous tiling in the world and,
if you can, do something with it. I sa.id the other day. and I am not
going to belabor tile pomt, that the quickest way to take something
away from the American people is to make it bipartisan. If the House
PAGENO="0049"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 119
wanted to sweep this under the rug, it would make a bipartisan com-
mittee to deal with it.
Then you would have no partisan responsibility for it. If this is
as great a problem throughout the country, and I am satisfied it is,
then it should be such an issue that Presidents rise and fall on, Con-
gresses rise and fall on, something that the American people can get
to, if they want to.
They are not going to do it with a bipartisan thing, because if you
vote one party out and the other in you have more of the same. We
have seen that in foreign aid.
I think under your plan you have sort of a compromise that might
meet both ends and your subcommittee being a nonpartisan committee
will act sort of as a trial court, and then your main committee, the
parent committee, being a partisan committee, will still have to as-
sume partisan responsibility for what it passes on to the House.
So we might be accomplishing both of these things. My disposi-
tion now, for many reasons, is to go ahead and establish this authority
and responsibility with certain injunctions for your committee to
follow.
We can create a special committee by the snap of a finger if we
desire to do it, and we can do that at any time. My present disposition
s to do that, and I just wish you a great deal of luck in what you are
taking on.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BIJRLESON. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment briefly, this is
something we would have to consider eventually, and maybe now: If
it is the judgment of this committee that this matter should be placed
in the House Administration Committee, we should be given a period
of time, to come up with guidelines to define our intentions. Members
of Congress should present their ideas as to what limitations should
be placed around this thing and how to close some ends and build some
fences and say, "This is the area in which you operate."
I think it is along the lines, John, that you are talking about. Let
us not have the gates wide open permitting all sorts of tangents.
If we have the time to hear every Member of Congress who wants
to come before that committee, with their ideas as to what should be
done, what limitations, what authori'ty, and measure of control, and
all this sort of thing, and then come back to your committee for what-
ever change in the rules is necessary.
The cHAIRMAN. I would like to make an observation. We are corn-
mitted, and the committee agreed to hear the Ways and Means Com-
mittee this morning.
We are perfectly willing to stay here, or we can go ahead as we are
proceeding to do. It is what you want to do, but I am just going to
suggest that if there is going to be further extensive questioning of
this witness that possibly we had better cease this particular opera-
tion now and hear this other bill and then come back tomorrow.
The Chair is very much in hopes that we can wind up these hearings
tomorrow on the Ethics Committee.
Mr. Pepper, did you have some questions?
Mr. PEPPER. I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, but in view of
the desire to hear the Ways and Means Committee here, and other
witnesses, I will defer until tomorrow. I think that would be best.
PAGENO="0050"
120 SELECT CO~IIT~FEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The CHAIRMAN. \\T0 would like to have the chairman of the House
Administration Committee bac.k again, and that. goes for you. too. Mr.
G-oodell, as we had not finished with you yet.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, due to the death of a good friend an~
campaign manager, I will be at his firneral tomorrow and will not be
here. But I will be back, if you do not finish tomorrow, at your
convenience.
The CHAIRMAN. We hope to finish tomorrow. We understand your
problem.
Mr. Burleson, we will excuse you.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee proceeded to the
consideration of other business.)
(The following was submitted for the record:)
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. MESKU~L BEFORE THE HOUsE CoMMrrv~
ON RULES
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to testify before your distinguished
committee and compliment the Committee on moving so swiftly to act on pro-
posals to create a Select Committee on Standards and Ethics.
I am the sponsor of H. Res. 160, similar in most respects to the legislation now
before you. It is different in two respects. how-ever, in that it incorporates
features which I strongly urge the Committee to include in any bill it reports
to the House.
My bill, like the others, continues the Select Committee on Standards and
Ethics and gives it the assignment of drafting both a Code of Ethics for Members
of the House, and the machinery for enforcing it. My bill has a deadline of
December 31, 1961, for these tasks to be completed and reported to the House.
I think this deadline is more than ample, but nonetheless needed. to assure the
country that we intend to take prompt action.
Secondly, my bill would give to the Select Committee the specific power to
recommend either censure or expulsion of any Member found in violation of the
Code and the censure or discharge of any employee of the House found in viola-
tion of the Code.
This specific power is not provided in the other bills I have seen relating to
this area.
In addition, I wish to second the proposal made earlier by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bennett) that the Standards and Ethics Committee be made a
permanent, standing Committee of the House. This problem of ethics in the
Congress will always be with us and it is only good sense to provide permanent
machinery for dealing with it.
There is no doubt that this machinery is needed. Allegations concerning a
few Members and a few employees during recent years have cast a cloud of
suspicion over all Members and employees. It is a poisonous cloud which erodes
public trust in the country's elected representatives as surely as air pollution
corrodes everything it touches. We all see the suspicion reflected in the press,
radio and television commentary. We hear it from our constituents. Only
Congress can remove this cloud from itself. Let us do so promptly.
PAGENO="0051"
CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND
CONDUCT
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1967
HousE or REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RUIJES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 10 :44 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room H-313,
the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Curtis, the committee will be glad to hear from you on House
Resolution 18, or whatever other version you care to talk about.
STATEMENT OP HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE II~
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MISSOURI
Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say that I am
here as the ranking House Republican of the Joint Committee on
Organization of Congress, which I emphasize is one of these bipartisan
committees that someone suggested never produce any results.
It is composed to six Members of the House, three Republicans and
three Democrats, and six Members of the Senate, three Democrats and
three Republicans.
This committee has, as you know, issued a unanimous report and
we have what I would like to call the Monroney-Madden-Curtis bill.
It includes every member of, the committee. We have all introduced
this bill.
In this bill one of the features, of course, is the establishment of an
ethics committee, and this was the subject `of `considerable study of
this committee over a period of a couple of years. I am very happy to
see Mr. Madden is in judgment on our own handiwork here, and
I am happy to be here to support his position on it, or, rather, the
committee's position and the position in the bill that this should be
a new, independent, and permanent committee.
We talked about, of course, the possibility of using some of our
existing structure, whether it be the House Administration `Committee
or whatever, although I will say the House Administration Committee
was the most logical if we were to use any of our structure.
I would like to say this, that this committee would immediately' have,
the function of establishing a code of ethics. This is one of our great
needs because, indeed, who can say what the ethics are, `and on these
questions of ethics, what is ethical and what is not, we need some
certainty.
121
PAGENO="0052"
122 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
I would suggest, too, that any code of ethics over a period of years.
needs changing, no matter how well it is conceived when it is first set up.
Experience shows in certain areas it needs to be changed.
Second, and I was pleased to be present during some of the testimony
to hear the questioning of Mr. Boiling and his statement, there is
need to have the mechanism, practical mechanism, to enforce the code
once it is established.
Then let me interject a third thing, which is part. of this mechanism.
and also calls attention lo one of the great wealmesses in the present
congressional structure on ethics and a whole lot of othe.r things.
It is the fact that we do not have an independent audit of the con-
gressional books. GAO does not audit the congressional expendi-
tures. The GAO should audit the congressiona.l books. They a.re an
arm of the Congress, but nonetheless they are an independent orga-
nization by structure, inasmuch as the Comptroller Genera.l is ap-
pointed for 14 years.
This would serve the function of an independent audit. I think
whatever is done that this ought to be done just. as quickly as possible.
Why it has not been done over the years is just inconceivable. It is the
only large institution in the country, Congress. that does not have
independent audit of its books.
The executive department, of course, does.
This has led, I think, to a great deal of, let us say the misunder-
standing, perhaps, of how money is spent in the Congress, whether it
is spent by the individual Congressman as part of his office allowances
or part of the money that is allotted him, the stationery fund. or the
manner in which the committees speiid their money. or the manner in
which counterpart funds are spent., and so on.
So I would urge that this third aspect be incorporated into this.
Now, we could wait, of course, but I would not urge tha.t. we wait, for
the Monroney bill, the Monroney-Ma.dden-Curtis bill, to reach the
floor. That bill has been referred, of course, to this Conirnittee on
Rules and in my judgment rightly so, if I may comment.
We had hoped that originally that bill would go directly to t.he floor
of the House under a. rule granted by the Rules Committee, but there
were so many amendments put on that bill in the Senate which our
committee, of course, did not consider a.nd the House has never had
an opportunity to consider, that I think very properly the Parlia-
mentarian sent it here, to t.his committee.
This is not true, of course, of this specific area on ethics: here I
would think it would be very wise under the circumstances for this
conimittee to report out the bill, and I would urge the bill that. would
create a permanent committee-not a. select committee that the gentle-
man from Florida, Mr. Bennett., is talking about. I would hope the
nile for debate would be broad enough, of course, so that amendments
to this could be considered on the floor and that we move as promptly
as we can on this.
I think this is exceedingly serious. The integrity of the Congress
under the present climate is very much involved.
Mr. MADDEN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cnm'is. Yes.
Mr. MADDEN. You referred to the amendments offered on this in
the Senate. I think tha.t 99 percent of those amendments we.re per-
taining to the Senate's procedures.
PAGENO="0053"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 123
Mr. CURTIS. I think a great deal of them are. I do not know that
it is 99 percent, but some of them were. According to the Parliamen-
tarian some bore on House matters.
At least that is the basis for his ruling, and I have always felt that
this was a proper thing, when a bill came over from the Senate with
iiongermane material or material that a House legislative committee
Ihad never had an opportunity to zero in on, that proper procedure did
indicate that it should come into the Rules Committee for the Rules
Committee to determine whether this material was of such a nature
that it should be referred back to the legislative committee for study.
In this instance, of course, the Rules Committee is the legislative
committee to look into this.
I would hope, though, that the Rules Committee would tend to
limit themselves to the area of these kinds of amendments rather than
to reduplicate the work that we tried to do and hopefully we did do
over a period of 2 years. Because, if the Rules Committee attempted
to do that, I am afraid we would never have seen the Monroney-
J\/Iadden-Curtis bill this year.
Mr. MADDEN. I think the procedure over there in the Senate, al-
though it was on the floor for 3 weeks, about, was interrupted con-
`stantly, and the major part of the amendments adopted over there
were from one Senator, who had about 50 amendments, and I do not
think there were more than one or two of his amendments adopted.
Mr. CURTIS. Yes. Now, if I could discuss some of the substance of
this issue as I see it, and why, at least I as a member of this committee
felt that you needed a separate and permanent committee.
First, I have jotted down five areas that bear on this question of
ethics. One is elections themselves. Here, very clearly, the House
Administration Committee has a lot of expertise and has been in this
area for some time, but notably they have never really developed a
code of ethics in respect to elections.
I think they could as far as elections are concerned, the ethics part
of elections could be handled by the House Administration Committee.
But it then moves into the area of financing of elections, and this
gets somewhat out of the normal jurisdiction of the House Adminis-
tration Committee. It moves on over into a second item that we have
to establish a code of ethics on; namely, ethics in relation to lobbyists,
*and how Congressmen relate. themselves to them. This involves this
question of how do lobbyist groups-and this is a proper thing in my
judgment-how do. they contribute campaign funds in a proper way,
and what would be improper.
This is one of the areas where we need the ethics spelled out, because
a lot of us know there is a gray area here. We would like to conform
to what is a considered judgment of the correct ethics, but no one
really knows what these ethics should be.
So when we get into this lobbying relationship, I think we move
out of the `area of the House Administration's expertise in the past.
`They have had little dealing with this a.spect.
Note what we have in the Monroney-Madden-CurtlS bill respecting
tightening up procedures a~s far as the lobbyists themselves are con-
cerned. To my regret, we did not zero in on the question of relation-
ships of Congressmen to procedures' of lobbyists, particularly in this
financing thing, but in our studies and discussions we certainly did
PAGENO="0054"
* 124 SELECT COMMITTEE' ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
contemplate and did discuss the fac.t that an ethics committee would
be concerned about this. This would be one of the areas that there.
would be developing ethics.
Now, a third area., the use of Government money. whether it be the
committees of Congress using money, or whether it. is the use of money
of t.he Congressman's personal staff.
Here, again, I think `the House Administration Committee, of course,
has developed some expertise and t.o a large degree can handle this.
a.nd yet here is the area where you get into things like counterpart
funds which I think has been so loose over a period of years that it is
just a very, very bad situation and needs a new and deep look-see.
The House Administration Committee has had the opportunity to
have develope.d some codes of ethics here and has not. `This is not to
sa.y tha.t I am trying to cast any personal blame. It is only conunent
on a fact, and an area that needs c.o~tsidera.ble study to again find out,
well, what should the proper sta.ndards be.
Then I come to an area which is one of our most serious areas of
ethics for Congressmen, which the House Administration Committee
does not deal with, and really to get them into this kind of business
I think would really divert their efforts from what are the. big areas
that they presently have jurisdiction over.
I am referring to conflict of interest., the relationship of a Congress-
man who, in my judgment ought to be part of his community-if he
is a lawyer, I think that it is perfectly proper that he do pract.ice law.
If he is an insurance salesman, or whatever, but. t.here is no question
of the areas of possible conflict of interest, that arise, whether a man
is in the real estate business or whatever.
Again, here is an area. where most all Congressmen would like to
abide by a good code of ethics if one had been developed. We have
none, no way to guide us to say what should we be doing and what
should we not be doing.
This is an area. that I think would require an independent coin-
mitt.ee, and is a subject matter with which the House Administration
Committee has not dealt in the past.
The fifth area, the House Administration Committee. itself refused
to go further in it last year. This is the a.rea of party financing.
political party financing, apart from the financing the individual
Congressmen's campaigns. The presidential fund, or as has been
properly raised here, as I heard, the method of the Republican con-
gressiona.l campaign committee having these dinners to raise funds.
This, as we all know, ties into lobbying. There is not any question
this is one of the major areas where you go to try to raise funds. It
tends t.o be from those people who have an intere.st in what Congress
is doing clown here. But. the House Administration Committee at
the time last year when the presidential fund campaia'n issue rightly
came into their jurisdiction, or the subject. was brought in throuath a
different kind of investigation. Then the House Administration Cont-
mittee refused to go into the subject matter and to develop it further.
or to broaden it, and I think t.hey probably were right.
I would have liked to have seen them really zero in and come out
with wha.t kind of standards should be established in this area, but
I am only pointing up arguments that I think indicate the need for an
independent committee.
PAGENO="0055"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 125
Now let me go to the permanency aspect. Once this committee has
done this great work, which I think, is going to take them a couple
of years, to develop these codes of ethics, and I hope you will put
guidelines in, the mechanisms to enforce the code. of ethics, and I
would hope we would include in here the mclel?endeflt autht of the
GAO.
Once it has done this, it still is going t.o have a function which will
require not a large staff-in fact., it would require a pretty small staff-
but it would be needed. constantly. I think the best comparison that
comes to my mind and the one that I am familiar `with is the grievance
committee of the bar. association. I served on our St.. Louis Bar
Grievance Committee for many yea.rs. Incidentally, I was also a
member of the Missouri Board of Law Examiners, where we . got int.o
this area of ethics constantly.
The need for every profession to have a grievance committee or the
technique to handle grievances is just basic. There are only two pro-
fessions that I know of that do not have permanent grievance com-
mittees. We in politics are in one of the professions. The other pro-
fession is the news media.
I have been urging for years that the news media start getting a
grievance committee so that people who think that they have received
unfair or unprofessional treatment have a place to record their griev-
ance.
My experience of years in the St. Louis bar is this: it turns out that
well over 90 percent of the complaints that are received by a grievance
committee prove to be unfounded, or really are misunderstandings on
the part of the complainant, and sometimes on the part of the profes-
sional person who is involved.
This function of a grievance committee is all plus. It helps the pro-
fession, it helps the public that thinks that it has a grievance. There
are less than 10 percent of the cases, again drawing on my experience
in the grievance committee, that turn out to have something that is a
little more than a misunderstanding.
But even of those, I would say 9 percent of those turn out not to be
serious matters; but just talking-them-over kind of thing sets whoever
was in error back on the right track.
It is less than 1 percent that get into the area where I think that
possibly other actions are required, either where we had to issue a
warning, which we would do. That would be the penalty in this 1
percent I am talking about.
Only in the unusual cases would you resort to disbarment. They
are most unusual. But the fact that you have a permanent committee
whose sole purpose is to. handle these matters actually cuts down on
the number of complaints. Really the committee was run by a small
staff under the direction of lawyers. This serves an amazing func-
tion of keeping the reputation of the profession high in the eyes of the
people. I think this is why I basically argue the need to make this
committee separate and permanent.
The first 2 years of its operation probably you would have to give
them a rather larger staff because they are going to be in the business,
the difficult business of trying to spell out the codes of ethics in these
various areas, build up the mechanisms to enforce the codes and then
when that is done I think that you probably would contemplate some-
PAGENO="0056"
126 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTTCT
thing that would be a relatively small operation that would ftnd that
the bulk of its work was clearing up misunderstandings.
The public would know where they could register a grievance. We
in Congress who felt one of our colleagues was in error and we did not
want to make "a Federal case" out of it could pass the word around
over to the grievance committee and maybe, again, it would be a mis-
understanding, but these kinds of things could be clarified.
Well, I think those are the point.s I wanted to make. and I want to
thank the committee for the opportunity to present these views.
The CHA~MAN. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
You have been articulate and you have done your homework. I
just want to make this observation before we go into the questioning.
Bearing in mind that we want to hea.r every Member of Congre.ss who
wants to be heard on `this bill and all other bills for that matter, we
had hoped that we could wind up this hearing today.
Now, we are going to have to give Mr. Aspinall some time today.
There is an urgent request that we hear him on a matter out. of his
comtnittee~ and therefore this may continue on at the will of the
committee.
Ask as many questions as you like, but bear in mind if we are gonig
to wind this thing up today-well, use your own judgment.. I am
going to take some of my own medicine, but I want to ask Mr. Curtis,
had you given any thought-you are recommending a permanent
standing committee-have you given any thought to t.wo things, bear-
ing in mind that you and I share certain views about economy and
running the Government as economically as possible and the Congress.
of course, being part of the Government. the cost of setting up a stand-
ing committee?
That is No. 1, a.nd No. 2, Where are. we going to find space around
here? We have got so many committees and 50 many subcoinnitttees
and subdivisions of committees. Where will we find room for a stand-
ing committee?
Mr. CURTIs. My response to tha.t is this. Indeed I have thought
`about it. Let me suggest tha.t whatever you spent, a hundred times
over, merely to get on top of the misuse of counterpart funds would
save considerable sums of money. And in an indirect. way there would
be further vast savings t.o t.he Government.. I am not. unaware that
some of the loosenesses of handling the counterpart fimds has been
deliberate; I say deliberate, intentional on the part. of some in the.
State Department-because it is through this 1~nd of operation that
I would suggest tha.t some of the vot.es are obtained which results in
`Congress failing to look a.t foreign aid with an objective eye.
I am one who has favored the. theory of foreign aid, but have argued
for years that we ought to be at a level of below a billion dollars in-
stead of around three t.o four.
I am just giving a big figure in here. in sizes of billions. in order to
illustrate that. I am probably understating the case when I say that
money properly spent to look into the use of counterpart firndls-and
I do not. think this would require much-would produce great sav-
ings. This would be. part of put.ting the GAO accoimting system over
the congressional books, just to have an independent auit. but GAO
would have to have a place to report, a.nd this coimnittee. could be one
place to report.
PAGENO="0057"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 127
The cost of that is infinitesimal. Likewise, cleaning up a lot of
things around here would make them more efficient, which a commit-
tee of this nature could do. This would again be a moneysaver. It
is the clean house that is the efficient house.
I am not one who objects to spending money if I know how it is
being spent.
The CHAIRMAN. I gave the demonstration of that to start with.
The other thing is the space thing, and I should give you an oppor-
tunity to answer that if you want to take the time, but I just wanted,
to point out that that is a physical situation.
Mr. `CURTIS. Someone said when they built the Pentagon Building
how were they going to fill it, and some of the comments were the same
when Congress built the Rayburn Building. how is Congress going
to fill it.
That is the trouble with bureaucracy, and of ourselves with the bu-
reaucratic habit. We can always fill it, but `believe me, there `are plenty
of areas where space is `availa~ble.
I know in my own `committee, Ways and Means-I hate to confess
on it, but I know areas `that we have that are not fully used. I have no
worry about space-
The `CHAIRMAN. I do not want to burden the record with repetition,.
`but this committee has been trying to find `a li'ttle additional space and
had to go `to the basement.
Mr. l~uRTIs. Well, let me suggest that `we need to establish some
priorities on this, and I would `be glad `to appear `before the House
A'dministration Committee some time and go into this, but let me go
into the real guts `of it.
This is not a lecture. T'his grievance committee or this ethics com-
mittee is an `absolute essential, and the longer the `Congress goes with-
out establishing one and understanding the essentiality of it, the more.
trouble `we are going to be in. So my answer is, this is number one
priority, and I would even say let the great Ways and Means Commit-
tee make room for them if that is what is necessary.
But the public would rightly laugh in our faces if we said the reason~
we did not want `to establish an ethics committee was `because we could,
not figure out where the space was after we s~nd-w'hat wa's it, `a
hundred million or so on this stone monument, the Rayburn Building.
The `CHAIRMAN. I hope the gentleman is not putting words in my
mouth that we should not establish one. It was the approach to it.
Mr. `Cuirns. We must always consider cost, `but costs are an infln-
i'tesimal problem here.
The CHAIRMAN. The Madden-Curtis-Monroney bill, you have con-
sidered this matter?
Mr. CURTIS. Yes; and we have a unanimous recommendation.
The `CHAIRMAN. And you think this coinniittee should ac't on the
present situation?
Mr. CURTIS. Yes; I `do.
The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to get that straight.
Mr. cURTIS. Yes; I `do.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smit'h?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to violate your request for
brevity. Inasmuch as we have had hearings that have been trans-
cribed, and I have not been here because of a `heart attack, I would not
PAGENO="0058"
128 SELECT CO~ThiIUTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
want them to be completed without ma.kin~ some comments. lest my
constituents feel I am not sufficiently interested in the. subject..
I got back yesterday, a.nd I would like to make a. couple of ohse.ria-
tions, having read the printed hearings and reached some conclusions.
The CHAIRMAN. All right..
Mr. SMITH. I rea.d all the resolutions and the hearings, and I read
the other types of resolutions a.nd heard conirnents regarding granting
new authority to House Administration and the Monroney-Madden-
Curtis bills, S-355, Mr. Madden's bill, 2594, I believe it was, and I
think yours is 2595, Mr. Curtis.
I have talked t.o a number of Members and a number have, called me
during this time. I have come to a few conclusions that I would like
to place in the record.
I think the least desirable and the least efficient way to handle this
problem would be to set up a select committee. I can see a number of
objections to that, and I will set those forth when we get into executive
session.
I think that if we give authority to House Administration, they will
do a good job. There is some criticism heard from Members that it
has not had any authority or directions in this area. I believe this
is true as the rules now stand.
I am inclined to think, by the same token. that it has a lot of
business now and might be policing themselves. So I have come to
the conclusion that we should set up a standing committee. I think
we should take our time.
I have heard some criticism that our c.oimnittee has been slow in
acting. I do not think tha.t is true. I commend each and every one
of you for the time you have put in in following the usual course of
letting every Member come up a.nd have his complete say.
I do not think this is something that had to be done last week. It
is something we have to work out and insure tha.t it works out fairly
for every Member.
I believe on the basis of a. standing committee, the staff itself could
be thoroughly investigated; they will have to be investigated so that
we will not have a staff member who will steal records and ~ive them
to the press, which might include a comnpletel~ false accusation made
by a fictitious individual with a fictitious address :3 weeks before elec-
tion. This could be damaging to all of us; we. must prevent it.
I do not think we are a bunch of crooks. Some of these resolutions
I have read seem to say we have a bunch of crooks here. I do feel
that if we tentatively decide in an executive session that we should
appoint a subcommittee to sit down with the Speaker, the majority
leader and the minority leader, and get the advice of the Parliamen-
tarian on the language, let this committee study what is drafted. and
come up with a. resolut.ion, we would have coiitrol of the. ian~uage
creating the standing committee.
Tentatively, my conclusions are that if we have a. standing committee
on professional conduct and standards with the Democratic Party as
the majority party, their senior man would be. the chairman. elected
by their committee on committees and their membership, and on the
minority side, our committee on committees would be able to get to-
gether and every State where there is a Republican Member would
have a say on whom they felt were the. most qualified Members to sit
on this committee.
PAGENO="0059"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 129
I apologize for taking the time, but as I say, Mr. Chairman, I have
been gone and I wanted the record to show that I am interested in
~thi's important subject, and I am going to try to do everything I can
do to work it out and on a bipartisan basis.
I do not think this should be partisan where we go to the floor of
the House.
As you mentioned yesterday, the responsibility is here, and I think
everybody on this committee will do the best he can to work it out
fairly and equitably, so that we can have standards for the Members,
known to them and to the public.
With that, I will stop and be quiet until the hearings are over.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to observe, in spite of the
gentleman's modesty and his apparent, as far as the record is con-
cerned, inability to participate in all of these hearings, that the Chair
happens to know that the gentleman is very much interested, and has
kept in touch with the Chair about developments as they went along.
Mr. Madden, any questions?
Mr. MADDEN. Well, in a followup to the suggestion of our distin-
guished chairman on brevity and terminating the meetings, I think
that our good friend from California stated some very outstanding
facts that I think the committee should give real consideration to,
and to carry out the chairman's recommendation of brevity I think, on
account of the absence of the distinguished gentleman from California
on account of sickness, that I will yield my time to him if he wants to
say something further.
Mr. SMITH. Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Madden.
Mr. MADDEN. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson?
Mr. ANDERSON. I, too, shall be brief.
I take it, in the recommendations of the Monroney-Madden--Curtis
bill and the recommendations that you are making here today, Mr.
Curtis, that you are not proposing that this standing committee would
erode or eat away the existing judisdiction of the House Administra-
tion Committee.
You do `think that there is plenty of work for them still in the area
of auditing the contingent fund of the House with respect to payroll
matters and other matters under its jurisdiction, and this standing com-
mittee, which you recommend, would take on new responsibilities
which are alien to the present jurisdiction of the House Administra-
tion Committee and would go into areas, such as conflict of interest
and the creation of a professional code `of conduct and related matters.
Is that substantially it?
Mr. CURTIS. Yes; the gentleman has stated it accurately. I want
the House Administration Committee to continue on. This is work
that would have to `be-they would be using a lot of the work that the
House Administration Committee did. They might even refer back
a case to the House Administration Committee for further information
and so pn.
But the gentleman has stated quite accurately. I would not look
upon this as taking anything from House Administration.
Mr. ANDERSON. That i's all.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Martin?
Mr. MARTIN. No questions.
PAGENO="0060"
130 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk?
Mr. SIsK. I was intrigued by your comments, Mr. Curtis, in ref-
erence to calling the committee a grievance committee, and I might say
I can see some real benefit in considering that aspect of such a com~
mittee.
I want to join my good friend from California, Mr. Smith. in some
of the comments he made, because I think they were very excellent. I,
too, want to say that I have had some. indication-I was called by some
member of the press a day or so ago who wanted to imow who was
holding up this resolution. Nobody is holding up this resolution.
This particular member apparently did not Irnow anything about
what wa.s going on. He seemed to think that the 110 resolutions we
had here were all identical. Well, of course there are resolutions
of a broad variety of approaches.
One, for example, calls for the crea.tion of a 15-member committee
in which you would have seven public members appointed by the Presi-
dent, and then of course there are a nu1nber of them calling for a. joint
committee of House a.nd Senate, as I am sure my friend from Missouri
knows.
There are others which go in the direction of having a. committee that
would hold hearings and develop a code of ethics and report. back to the
House, some within 90 days, some within 1 year, et cetera., and then go
out of existence and the House would approve t.he recommendations.
Others a.re similar to the Bennett resolution, which go to the point of
being the committee that would be the so-called watchdog of Congress.
So this thing is a serious matter, a.nd I do not think that anyone is
holding it up. I think we have a serious responsibility, and I particu-
larly appreciated the comments by the gentleman from California. on
this.
Getting back to your comments on the. grievance angle. a.nd I simply
wanted to, because the gentleman mentioned that. the.re are only two
professions that apparently have gotten by so fa.r without. them, and
that is those of us in political life and the press~
Mr. CURTIS. News media.
Mr. SIsK. News media, let us put it that wa.y.
I agree with you, because that covers the whole scope. Let me ask
the gentleman if he would visualize a situation in the way of a. griev-
ance committee such a.s may exist in the legal profession or others,
where, for exa.mple, a Member of Congress was being maligned, let
us say.
Unfortunately, the news media, have among its members a few muck-
rakers who seem to have not. much else to do except to attempt to cle-
stroy some individual, apparently in some cases because of some per-
sonal dislikes,
\Voijld the gentleman visualize that. some Member of Congress mig'ht
at some time find himself in a position, because of some wild accusa-
tions made against him, that he might. want to come to the committee
and request consideration?
Mr. CURTIs. The gentleman has made a very fine point. Taking it
affirmatively, a. good grievance committee.. audi this is true in the bar,
where you have a client who for one reason or a.nother does not like
what you have done a.nd you sa.y, "Well. why don't you take this to a
grievance committee?"
PAGENO="0061"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 131
It is a proper way of handling something like that. Someone who
has been accused of something, if there is a standing grievance commit-
tee that has a fine reputation, can refer the matter to it, this is an im-
mediate way to get the thing clarified, and from the affirmative stand-
point. This is the way I look at it. This is a great thing, and I point
up again that 90 percent of the complaints that we used to receive in
the St. Louis Bar Grievance Committee turned out to be misunder-
standings.
Let me say in behalf of the news media: I think 90 percent of the
complaints we constantly hear, and I make them, against the news
media turn out to be misunderstandings.
Mr. SI5K. I agree.
Mr. CURTIS. it is an advantageous thing to have this kind of thing.
I think any profession, and I regard the news media as a high and
fine and a very difficult profession, has to have something like this
if it is really going to move and perform its functions in a responsible
and professional manner.
Mr. SIsK. As I said, the gentleman brought out what I feel is a
rather intriguing aside here which I admit I had not given much
attention to, and I do not think it has been discussed in committee,
that actually this could be a two-way street in which a member, because
of, let us say, the unusual incident of being maligned rather in a
malicious way, might find it convenient to appeal to the committee
to set t.he record straight, because all of us, and I agree with the gentle-
man, I think a very substantial percentage, 90-plus percent, of the
press is clean.
Unfortunately, we have got some lemons in there, as you have every-
where else, and they let personalities get away with their judgment.
As I say, I think this is an intriguing thought to examine as we dig
in this further, but I did cite the differences in these resolutions to
indicate that this committee does have a very heavy obligation here
as to what we finally bring to the floor.
Mr. CURTIS. May I comment on this?
I would certainly urge this committee to take the time necessary to
do a workmanlike job, and I will do everything I can to help. Of
course, I do thing this is urgent; but on the other hand I felt this has
been urgent for at least the past 10 years, and I have seen the mistakes
made when a committee, any committee or any group, acts under the
whip of eñi~rgency.
It is much more important, and I do not need to say it to this group
of distinguished men, that you should take your time to do a thorough
job.
Mr. SIsK. Th.at is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Quillen?
Mr. QUILLEN. ~o questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young?
Mr: YOUNG. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pepper?
Mr. PEPPER. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Matsunaga?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I have one question. Did the joint committee
consider the establishment of committees based purely on party lines?
We have had some comments here that maybe we ought to make it
PAGENO="0062"
132 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
bipartisan, or the other political party might take it out on the inem-
ber of the other political party.
What about the creation of a committee strictly on party lines?
Let the Republicans ta.ke care of their rats and the Democrats take
care of our rats.
Mr. CURTIs. We did not consider that. We did recommend it be a
bipartisan committee because in discussing our point, ethics should
never be a matter of partisan differences.
This is something that all of us in public life should share, and it
gains this advantage. I heard Mr. Young's comment about bipartisan
outfits never getting anything done, and I was going to comment, the
Madden-Monroney committee is completely bipartisan, in other words
six Democrats and six Republicans.
I think we did produce something; maybe not as much as I would
have liked. I thought your points were well ta.ken Mr. Young. hut
this is an area that I would argue with you that serves well to be on a
bipartisan basis to get this element.
Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will yield, the committee has not
reached the final finish line yet. Maybe it will be the exception.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. The only reason I bring this point up is that dur-
ing the hearings we have had overtones of some apprehension that this
might develop into an instrument for partisanship.
Mr. CURTIS. Let me say I think it will not, particularly if it is a
bipartisan approach. I think the only way one party can take the
partisan approach is if the other party refuses to move, forward.
If both the Repithlican and Democratic parties' leadership moves
forward to meet the problems in the field of ethics, t.hen there is no
issue, but if one lags-
Mr. MATSUNAGA. You do not think this idea. is a. good one, to have
two separate committees?
Mr. CURTIS. No, because I do not think ethics in politics should be
a partisan issue, and it can only become one if one of the parties lets
it be by inaction on its part. I again emphasize. it ca.n be such, but
shouldn't be. I am really worried about this: If neither of the political
parties moves forward in this area.
This is a very serious time in our history. in my judgment. where-
neither of the two political parties might move forward in this fin--
portant area.
I am very serious about this, and we had better start thinking a bjt.
whether the leadership in both the Democratic and Republican parties
fail to move forward in an adequate way to meet this problem.
If they do not, I do not know what is going to occur. All I Imow is.
tha.t somebody has got to grab t.he ball here, but this could not-
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Then we will be at the mercy of an even greater~
ethic.s committee, our constituents.
Mr. CURTIS. And this goes back to the news media. If the. news~
media do not adequately report. and they have, not reported the debate
which oc~urrecl in the Powell case. and have permitted the word to get
back to Harlem that this was a. racial issue and that. the debate. was
the result of panic and not deliberation, yes, we can have a. constituency-
respond in an ina.dequate way.
The responsibility in representative government, in reporting to the
people is twofold: On our shoulders first., we are the people's repre--
sentatives, but it is also on the news media..
PAGENO="0063"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 133
If the Congressmen fail to talk and speak up, of course we cannot
blame the news media for not reporting, but when they do speak up,
then the news media-and as I look at you here, you people may report,
but who on the cutting desk, the editor's desk, cuts it out? When you
get onto television and they cut it on the floor and it is not viewed?
And when you report it for the wire services and it never goes out on
the wires? The net result is there. And the net result is there on this
issue, the Powell case.
I have seen a shameful example of news reporting here. And if
the constituency, mine and elsewhere, does not get the true message,.
what happened-not drawing your conclusions, but what happened
then the constituency cannot judge well. For example, the New York
Times had a full page and a long part on a. back page, reporting the
debate in the Powell case and not one word that I said in the 4 minutes
that was granted to me to debate the position on the floor was re-
ported. Yet I was the one who offered the resolution which was
adopted.
The Washington Post, and so on, not one word. Plenty was said
about Mr. Celler's expressed views, and other points of view. Not one
word, though, by, or aibout, the arguments advanced by the person who
offered the resolution that prevailed. When you have this kind of in-
adequate reporting, believe me we are in serious difficulty, and we are
in serious difficulty in my judgment, very, very serious.
If anyone reviewing the record of that debate thought that there
were racial tones in it, let them say so. Anyone reviewing that debath
and thinking that it was not conducted on a high level of discussing
issues, let them say so.
Regretably we have had Members of Congress make statements to
the effect that this was a hysterical kind of debate, and that this had
racial overtones, and I have got the news clippings of their statements,,
too. This was a considered debate and racism was not in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything further?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Reid, the committee will be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OP OGDEN ~ REID, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK
Mr. RrnD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very appreciative of the opportunity and privilege of testify-
ing before your committee. I will be very brief, because I know
Chairman Aspinall and members of his distinguished committee are
here and I am not unmindful of your injunction.
Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say that I also have had the good for-
tune to attend not a few of these hearings of the Rules Committee,
and I would like to commend you and the members of this committee
for the thoughtfulness, the diligence, and the time that you have given
to this very important subject..
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is imperative that the Congress
act decisively and with dispatch to restore public confidence in the
integrity of the Congress.
PAGENO="0064"
134 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDT~CT
I think all of us are not unaware that we have enacted comprehen-
sive conflict-of-interest provisions to apply to the executive branch
and yet have not seen fit to test our own conduct by comparable stand-
ards.
The public is not unaware that by Executive order each officer and
employee of the executive arm is subject to a. comprehensive code of
conduct. Yet we have not seen fit to enact a code to govern our own
conduct, nor that of the officers and employees of the legislative branch.
The public is not unaware that the major officers of the executive
branch are obliged to make disclosure of their thia.ncia.l associations.
Yet we have not seen fit to require that for ourselves.
As members of the committee are aware. I introduced three bills
at the beginning of this Congress, and others going back to preceding
Congresses. House Resolution 87, House Concurrent. Resolution 42.
and H.R.. 1162 have been introduced this year.
Since the introduction of those bills, Mr. Chairman, and in t.he light
of some of the testimony tha.t I have heard here, I do have a few brief
additional thoughts, some new thoughts on the subject.
First, I feel very strongly that there should be a. permanent and
preferably a joint committee, a standing committee to deal with
congressional ethics.
I think that it is important that this committee be empowered to
ta.ke significant action and have powers of enforcement. and be able
to receive complaints, properly verified, from any citizen.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I think it is inipera.tive that we consider, and
I seriously hope that this great Rules Committee will consider, a
strong full disclosure bill, quite a.side front what action you may take
with regard t.o a separate ethics committee.
I am introducing today a unified package of six bills which I
hope will be given some consideration and will sketch the perimeters of
a broad approach. I am sure that they are going to require very
careful consideration, but first I would urge a bill providling for full
disclosure of income, gifts, real estate holdings. creditors. business
enterprises in which Mentbers own stocks, bonds, or other securities.
Third, the establishment of a. perntanent House-Senate committee
on ethics and conduct.
Fourth, the formation of a comprehensive code of ethics for Con-
gress including rigorous conflict-of-interest provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is some concern in the Congress and
in America generally that concern over the formulation of an ethics
committee may result in action on disclosure legislation being de-
ferred, possibly unnecessarily, or indeed totally sidet.racked.
I believe that full disclosure is the. niost effective vehicle for ~ua.rd-
ing a.gainst conflicts of interest in G-overmnent service. The refusal
to act decisively and with dispatc.h would constitute, I thi.uk, a serious
dereliction of our public trust.
I think that in terms of conflict-of-interest legislation that the type
of rule that should be set would hold that it is indefensible to have a
double standard. I think it is indefensible not to make clear tha.t any
Member of this body, or of the Senate, must uphold standards similar
to those which we insist that the executive ntaintain.
I would hope the committee would consider a. broad conflict-of-
interest standard which would a.pply to all Members, prohibiting
PAGENO="0065"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT 135
them from participating in matters in which official duties have, or
could have, a direct and predictable effect upon a private interest, as
distinct from a public interest.
I also would urge consideration, and I know that this is something
of a broad gaged approach, that Senators, Representatives, and em-
ployees of the Congress earning more than $15,000 a year would file
public statements revealing gifts, real estate holdings, creditors, and
business enterprises in which they own stocks, bonds, or other securi-
ties, or are otherwise associated.
In the case of Members of Congress, these statements would also
be published in hometown newspapers. A complete statement of in-
come, I believe, including dividends and interest, could be filed with
a joint committee charged with enforcing the code of ethics.
I think, further, an~ American citizen or Member, officer, or em-
ployee of Congress must be able to file charges of misconduct with a
joint committee, and hopefully there would be counsel to such com-
mittee that would be independent, an individual who has distinguished
himself in public service.
I think the principle here is that every American should be insured
a sound forum for presenting allegations of misconduct of a serious
nature.
In `a still broader aspect, Mr. Chairman, I think what we must he
concerned with is the right of any American to run for public office,
regardless of his financial means, and I hope serious consideration will
be given to election reform.
I think this is basic to ethics, and I think it is basic to the broader
ethic that any American can serve.
Second, once a Member is elected, I would have much hope that he
would be in a position to devote virtually full time to that office, and
in one of the bills I am introducing today I would provide for in-
creased allowances, where I think Members of Congress have not had
adequate allowances, and in addition I would encourage an increase
in salary.
I think a reasonable amount, something on the order of $50,000,
would help insure that no Member of the Congress would have to
rely unduly on outside income.
I have had some privilege in serving in other areas, both in our
Government and in private life, and I feel very strongly that we have
no more important business before the Nation and this Congress. I
think it is vital that the Members of this Congress have adequate
salaries so that they can fairly discharge and devote their energies to
the good of the Nation.
By way of summary, Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee in its
wisdom will report out a bill providing for a separate and standing
committee, preferably a joint committee of the House and Senate, but
in any event a House committee.
Second, I `hope this bill will provide clear conflict-of-interest pro-
visions.
Third, I hope this committee will in addition, in its wisdom, decide
to work out a reasonable and sound full-disclosure bill. I think this
will go as much as anything to the heart of the problem. Again, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for your courtesy.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
PAGENO="0066"
136 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDtCT
Are there any questions of Mr. Reid?
Mr. Sisk?
Mr. SisK. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wants to move
along, and I know my good friend, the chairman of the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, is waiting, but I did want to examine
one aspect again because I think this seems rather serious to me that
in the consideration of what we do that. we do not. create. a. Frankenstein
that will literally become a. self-perpetuating body.
In the final analysis, our constituents, the right of those. 400,000 or
500,000 people to elect their Representative, and to elect the man they
want to elect, from whatever walk of life, is very important.
For example, going into the matter of disclosure, and I have not
fully made up my mind on it, I have some reservations on it. For
example, a Member of Congress came to me just the other day and was
talking to me about it, a. man whose name I will not mention.
He said to me, "In my opinion full disclosure would put. me in a very
tough position.'
I said, "What do you mean?"
He said, "I am a poor man. I do not have a thing in the world but
my salary. I would be open target for every lobbyist in the country
because of the temptations they might feel, because I ant struggling
trying to ntake ends nteet."
I differentiate a little bit between appointive jobs vis-a-vis a man
who can be seat.ed in a. body only by the votes of his constituents. And
we are the only body that is in this position, because even the. Seitate,
a Senator has beeii appointed mider a certain set of circumstances.
A House Member has to be elected by his constituents. I would
be a little concerned about some of the things that the distinguished
gentleman from New York proposes in hoping that we consider the
fact in the final analysis, where we are not moving so far in this field
that we are taking away the right of constituents to make their own
determinations, and whether we like exactly the type of business he
is in or the fact that he continues that business, or how much or how
little money he has wouldi become more important., anti that we in the
final analysis would become the determining fa.ctor as to who would
represent these people rather than themselves.
I only bring this out as a. matter of concern that I think this com-
mittee has to be concerned with. and certainly the Congress. in how
far we are going to go in things like disclos~ire. thing~ like~ conflict
of interest, and matters of these kinds, because. I am somewhat
concerned.
I would like to have the gentle~nan's comment on this aspect. of it.
* Mr. REID. Yes, I think it is a thoughtful question. and an excellent
one. Very simply, I believe if we could have election law reform, in-
cluding the possibility of contributions being tax deductible, so that
there would be a nmnber of contributors and no one would rely on
the fat cats, I think the clay would come when any American could
run for office.
I think Mr. Madidien has been persuasive anti eloquent on this point.
Once a Member is here, I think pay and allowances should be ade-
quate to the job. There are some Members of Congress who are
undler some difficulty financially, whether it is because they maintain a
second residence or travel back to their constituency to keep in contact.
PAGENO="0067"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 137
I think we should provide adequate salaries, and I hope that that
would relieve some of the pressure on individuals, where that exists.
I think full disclosure could be worked out so that it is fair, and
the man would be greatly respected by the American people. I think
that the very fact that anyone willing to serve would say that, in
essence, "I ame prepared to put the facts of my life on the record,
with some circumspection," is desirable. Some of this materials I have
presented in the bill would be held by a joint committee, confidentially.
It could be released by the committee, but would be held confidential in
Part.
I think there are ways of protecting certain matters that should be
confidential, but I think the principle of full disclosure, saying that he
is willing to have basic facts before his constituency and the Nation
would remove suspicions that could exist, and some of it is largely
unfounded; but to say it does not exist would be unfounded.
Mr. SIsK. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pepper?
Mr. PEPPER. I want to commend the gentleman on the very excellent
statement he has prepared. I am strongly in favor of setting up a
special committee to deal with this matter of ethics, because I think
this matter of money and political campaigns today, so far as the
public interest is concerned, is the overshadowing matter in the public
interest in this country.
It is not only the demand for money to run a campaign that is
likely to be successful, but the callousness in late years on the part
of the public on how much you spend. I know of campaigns that
cost a million or two dollars, and if you tried to unseat the man who
spent it you would not get anywhere with the people.
I conducted a campaign once for a man. I got him into the State
senate, and it was 20 years before he got anywhere else.
There is a legitimate demand for the spending of money-radio,
television and news coverage and that sort of thing. You have got to
be a rich man not only to be in public life, but to stay in it, so I com-
mend you on putting emphasis on that thing.
Mr. REID. I thank the distinguished* gentleman from Florida, and
I think America could make it plain-
Mr. MADDEN. Could I ask this: I want to commend the gentleman
for the statement. I was reading in the paper-and I think the news
media might help us on this-you always read about a Congressman
retiring on a big pension. I think they should eliminate that word
"pension," because a Congressman pays in every month on that so-
called pension.
It is not a pension, it is a retirement, and I think that the news
media could help us on that score, because so many people think the
Government is just turning this money over to a Congressman when
he retires or is defeated, and it is not a pension at. all, it is something
he purchased, and he is entitled to it.
Mr. LATTA. Would the gentleman yield there?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
Mr. LATTA. The amount should be put iii the record; I think it is
$184 a month.
Mr. MADDEN. Yes; but nine out of 10 constituents in the country
think it is something the Government is giving Congressmen or Sen-
PAGENO="0068"
138 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
ators when they retire. As a matter of fact, they are purchasing it.
It is retirement. That is all it is.
That is all I have.
Mr. REm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The C~m~L&N. Mr. Gibbons?
(There was no response.)
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burleson, I do not think we finished with you
the other day. I think there were questions that members of the
committee wanted to propound to you, and if you would restune your
seat we will proceed.
STATEMENT OP HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS
Mr. BURLESON. I have nothing else. to present. Mr. Chairman. I
present myself for any further interrogation.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pepper?
Mr. PEPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There were a few matters that I wanted to call to the. attention of
the able gentleman. You made a good statement, and we all have great
respect for you and your committee, but I was just thinking over some
of the cases that I have Imown about which have been of the character
to bring discredit on t.he Congress and the sort of thing that naturally
would be the subject of consideration by an ethics committee.
One was, there was a Member of the Congress who was convicted
a few years ago of kickbacks front his employees. As I understand it.
that was probably not in the regular routine something to come before
your committee. I do not know, but t.ha.t, of course, is covered by
law, that is a violation of law. But it seemed to nte that if t.here were
an ethics committee, if there is an employee who is being required
to kick back by some employer, that would be t.he place where the
criticism would anonymously, or otherwise, go.
In other words, they would Imow whont to go t.o if they were being
pressured by some entployer about a kickback.
In the Antes a.nd Smith cases of bribery, censured by the Senate
a good many years ago-or by the House-that was a case where these
men solicited their colleagues to buy stock at. a reduced price as part
of the credit mobihier, which was con.sidere.d as an attempt to bribe
them to give aid t.o legislation for ra.ilroa.d construction.
That would not come within the scope of your committee unless
we were to give express authority to the committee, but that sort. of
thing would have been whispered about. and would have become
knowledge to a grea.t ma.ny people that that. was going on, a.nd in the
absence of some kind of a contmittee to report. t.o it might have been
difficult to bring it out into the open.
Of course, t.here was a. c.ase in the Se.nate where. a. Member of the
Senate got a.ppointed to the staff of t.he contmittee. that was writing
tariff legislation a representative of the manufacturers' association of
his State, with whom he had a. close relationship.
Now, that kind of thing could happen here in the House., a.nd there
again that would not, as I understand it., that kind of a case would
not come to your committee unless it were given special jurisdiction..
PAGENO="0069"
SELECT COMIMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 139
We do have legislation in the conflict-of-interest field that was
developed, I believe, in 1961, where we cannot represent any client be-
fore an administrative agency of the Government, anything except the
court.
But at the same time there are border cases, like whether a Member
of the House who is a lawyer, for example, should handle a case, an
application for a bank charter or a savings and loan charter.
There are a number of cases that are borderline cases that may not
be covered literally by the language of the act.
What about the case that is going on in the other body now about
the alleged misuse of campaign contributions? It is only elections,
as I understand it, that your committee has authority to regulate or
observe whether a misuse of campaign funds occurs. I realize it might
properly be a subject for the Bureau of Internal Revenue to investi-
gate, but if a thing of this kind comes to be well known, or perhaps
notoriously known, it is a subject of embarrassment, and the ethics
`committee in the other body is now considering that.
But there is a glaring example that would not normally come be-
fore the House Administration Committee, as I understand it, if that
`committee did not have additional and general authority.
And we have the Baker case over in the Senate where they discovered
*that an employee of the Senate was engaged in notorious operations
leading to personal profit by him, the use of his power and contacts
there to make money on the side.
I realize if somebody had heard about these growing activities on
the part of this employee, they could have told his employer about it,
and no doubt he would have done something about it. But it finally
came to a committee for disclosure. I believe, that was set up es-
pecially in the Senate before the regular ethics committee was con-
stituted.
But a case like the Baker case would not normally, as I understand
it, have come before your committee because he was drawing his Sen-
:ate salary. It was these outside activities that came to be notorious.
And there was a case that came before the House where there was
an exclusion of a Member who was duly elected and an expulsion of
this Member, the Whittemore case in 1870, where a Member was found
guilty of selling appointments to one of the miltary academies.
I do not know whether that would come within the jurisdiction of
the Military Affairs or the Armed Services Committee, but if a report
like that got around, if somebody found out that a Member was sell-
ing appointments and they knew about the existence of a committee,
somebody at home could write back and say, "I just found out my
`son did not get this appointment because this representative had sold
it to a fellow who gave him $5,000 for it."
Mr. YOUNG. How much?
Mr. PEPPER. $3,000, whatever you want to say. "So my son did
not get it." But he would know there is a committee here to which
he could write. That would not normally come before your committee
would it?
All of the cases that I recall for the moment, or most of the cases
that I recall for the moment that have brought discredit on one of the
Houses, only one of them, and that is the Powell case, actually involved
the misuse of funds, which did come within the jurisdiction of your
PAGENO="0070"
140 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
able committee, the misuse of committee funds and the misuse of his
own clerk hire funds.
Would you agree that these cases that I have spoken of would
not normally, without general jurisdiction being given your committee,
have come before your committee?
Mr. BURLESON. I think I am historically correct that in 1858 the
first complete codification of the criminal statutes was made. That
came up to the time when a commission was formed by the President.
in 1909.
From 1909 to 1936, I do not believe there was a. complete codification.
but growing out of that. is title 18 of the Federal Statutes, which of
course a Member of Congress is subject to. just like any other citizen.
These situations, as you have cited here are, of course. ~t violation of
the law. Now, a.s I understand the things we are talking- about,
certainly a violation of anything under title 18 of the Federal Statutes
would be a violation of ethics. I think we could agree to that..
On the other hand, there may be many tributaries to this thing, so to
speak, that would be a violation of ethics which would not per se be a
violation of those offenses listed under title 18 of the Criminal Code.
So I agree with you that an outright violation such as the cases :cou
referred to, coming under title 18 of the Federal Code. and every
Member is subject. to it. But a. vehicle is needed to surface it. The
wording Mr. Boiling used yesterday-professional conduct. which I
think is a descriptive term a.nd a proper one.
So I think that in the matter of unbecoming conduct of a public
official, coming under ethics, or as a vehicle to violations nuclei- the
criminal statutes, would be a duty of such a. committee. as may be.
constituted.
It is not now. I agree on that part.
Mr. PEPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Burle.son.
Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The ChAIRMAN. Mr. Bush, you have been around here a good while.
\~Te have to hear another committee here, and we have to go to the
floor most a.ny moment; that is, some members of this committee. do.
How long is your statement?
STATEMENT OP HON. ~EORA+E BUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONG-RESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS
Mr. BUsH. Mr. Chairman. I could simply suggest that if it would
be agreeable to the committee, since it is similar to Mr. Reid~s state-
ment., I will submit it to the committee and have it made a nart of the
record; that would be agreeable with me. It. simply endorses the
proposal for a select. committee and goes a little beyond that 011 a bill
I have personally introduced, I recognize time is a real problem.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the distinguished gentleman's
statement will be incorporated in the record.
PAGENO="0071"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 141
(The document referred to follows:)
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE BUSH, SEVENTH DISTRICT TEXAS, BEFORE
HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE, REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Gentlemen, I am appearing on behalf of House Resolution 18, introduced by
the Honorable Charles Bennett. I realize that it oftentimes is presumptuous for
a freshman member to push hard for new legislation. But I strongly feel that the
field of ethics goes way beyond seniority, party politics, or regional differences.
Mr. Bennett's resolu.tion is a sound one in my opinion as it proposes a Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct. I feel we must have a committee formed.
for~ this specific purpose because no matter how good the intentions of any other
committee are, the fact remains that only a Select Committee will devote its full
time and energies, to the problem, and only a Select Committee will assure the
public we are taking a new and forthright look at the problem. In fact, I would
like to see us go even further than Mr. Bennett's resolution and. for that reason,
on February 27, I introduced House Resolution 279. It calls for a Select Com-
mittee, just as House Resolution 18 does, but it requires the committee to recom-
mend a code of ethics by August 31 of this year. My bill also requires certain dis-
closure provisions. It asks for specific disclosure of assets, liabilities, and sources
of income. It asks for revelation of relationships with lobbying organizations.
It requires disclosure of ownership in any concern whose right to conduct business
is regulated by the federal government. And it requires a full disclosure by the
member and spouse of their relatives on the Congressional payroll.
In the past, none of us felt that any of these provisions should be required of
us as members. But I don't think our feelings are of paramount importance right
now. I don't think it is a question of what you or I want. I think the issue is-.
what do the American people want? And I am convinced that they want a full
and accurate accounting by us-financially, kin-wise, and business-wise, and they
want to see a code of ethics adopted and enforcement provisions voted which
require us to live by this code.
I feel this is one area where we can give the American people what they desire.
I urge this committee to vote the resolution to the floor for action. Let us once
and for all show the public that our only obligation as a duly-elected Representa-
tive is to the people and to no one else.
Mr. BUSH. I am not familiar with your rules, but two other members
asked me to bring statements to be included in the record, if that will
be in order.
The CHAIRMAN. That is in order, and it is so ordered. You can
leave them with counsel.
(The documents referred to follow:)
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DONALD RUMSFELD SUBMITTED TO THE I-loUSE
COMMITTEE ON RULES IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 18, To CREATE A SELECT
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to present a statement
in support of the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
in the House of Representatives. It is my hope that the committee be recon-
stituted so that it can continue the work I consider to be so important to the
statute, and ultimately, to the effectiveness, of the 11.8. House of Representatives.
All would agree, I think, that the recent action by the House to exclude a
Member-elect for misconduct doe.s not represent the conclusion of our responsi-
bility. Rather, that action requires us to face the need for a definitive state-
ment of standards for the entire membership in this body, and should serve
as an incentive to the House to assure that a committee is established to deal
with such problems in the future. To accomplish this goal requires not only
the developlient of reasonable criteria and standards, but, also, and equally
important, the establishment of a standing committee to deal with such matters~
PAGENO="0072"
142 SELECT CO~iITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDIJCT
It is clearly the responsibility of the House to examine promptly and thoroughly
allegations of abuses by Members, officers, and employees of the House not only
to ensure that the established standards are honored, but, also. to disprove un-
founded allegations. Both functions are important if the House is to have
and maintain the respect of the American people. And this it must have if it
is to fulfill its important constitutional responsibilities.
The publicity attendant upon the recent exclusion proceedings in the House
of Representatives illustrates the problem which we face. Some have said-
and probably more have thought-that this body is rampant with corruption
and that politics is synonymous with wrongdoing. Certainly, this is not true.
And yet, by a hesitancy to act or a reluctance to deal with this question, we may
encourage public distrust. I believe this, in part. can be traced to an historical
neglect of procedural safeguards, rather than simply to apathy on the part of
the membership.
The crisis in public confidence with which we are faced must be met head-on
by the establishment of a per.manent investigative body to resolve allegations of
misconduct. If a Committee on Standards and Conduct should be approved
and recommended by the Committee on Rules, the Committee could begin to
develop a clear body of standards of conduct for the House and procedures to
assure that such criteria would be consistently and equitably applied, and that
such regulations would be subject to periodic review and updating.
The Constitution assigns an important role to each branch of our Federal
Government. Only if each brnnch of the Government fulfills its assigned responsi-
bilities well will the system stay in balance. The Judicial Branch. by its very
nature, can abide no deviation in ethics. The Executive Branch. by its corporate-
type structure and power pyramids has the machinery for dealing with violations.
The Legislative Branch is unique in the independent status of each of its elected
Members. It is from this relative independence of each Member that the
Congress draws much of its strength. Further, it is this independence of each
Members that makes the problem of ethics so sensitive and difficult to deal with.
However, if the Legislative Branch-the people's branch-fails, fails in any
way, the balance in our system of representative government is upset, and our
way of life is diminished by just that much.
If the Congress is to function responsively, as an efficient and effective instru-
ment of Government, it must have the support and respect of the people of this
Nation. Respect is earned, and we can have that respect only if we merit it.
The problem of ethics is a difficult and a personal one. but it is more important
than any one Member. And it is, I submit, urgent. I strongly recommend the
prompt establishment of an appropriate Committee on Ethics so the House can
get on with its job. Finding the best solutions to the problems facing the nation
is a big enough task that it will take the best of all of us-unhampered by the
difficulties of operating under a cloud of public distrust or by the necessity of
dealing with problems of unresolved allegationsof misconduct.
I do not pose as an expert on how this problem can l)e solved. The members
of your Committee have had long experience in dealing with problems relating
to House Organization. Further, I recognize the difficult problems which could
arise by a false step in this sensitive area. I know that you cannot legislate
goodness or expect perfection. For this reason. I am reluctant to set forth a
firm recommendation. Rather. I would merely express the hope. in closing, that
this Committee will act to show the people of this Nation that the House of
Representatives recognizes the need for standards of conduct and that we are
working to deal with this problem.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM M. GIBBoNs, LT.S. REPRESENTATIVE. 6TH Dism~ur OF mu
STATE OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE Ho~su Rui~s COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman, since this Committee has been holding hearings on legislation
to establish an Ethics Committee for the House of Representatives, I have heard
many witnesses present impressive testimony highlighting the need to establish
such a committee. Although I do not wish to present a detailed statement which,
in some respects. would duplicate previous testimony. I do want to express my
support for the establishment of a strong. independent Ethics Committee.
During the past few months, public attention has been focused on the question
of unethical behavior by Members of Congress. We all know that the misconduct
of any Member reflects discredit on all Members and undermines the public trust
in the integrity of our government.
PAGENO="0073"
SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 143
In any undertaking involving human beings there will always be questions re-
garding behavior. As long as these questions exist, there is a need to establish
an Ethics Committee to deal with the problem. I hope this Committee will give
prompt consideration to the ethics proposal, and I urge that it be approved
promptly.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand we have another witness.
Mr. Evans?
STATEMENT OP HON. PRANK E. EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE II~
CONGRESS PROM. THE STATE OP COLORADO
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I had indicated I would like to appear
before the committee, and I can reduce it to less than a minute.
The need for a lengthy statement on my part is mitigated by the
excellent testimony you have had here. I would like to subscribe to
the idea of a permanent standing committee on ethics, I think it is.
extremely important, not only for us but for the people of this coun-
try as a whole.
I am delighted to see the seriousness with which this committee is
ably addressing itself to this issue, and I think the whole country is
going to have a better understanding of our problems, which will in
turn benefit us by what you are doing now.
I would like to commend you, and I would like to ask for permission.
to file a statement in the record at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The document referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANK E. EVANS (C0L0RAIO) BEFORE THE RULES.
COMMITTEE ON THE MATTER OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have
granted all of us to appear before you on the question of Congressional ethics..
While I am a relatively new member of the Congress, I believe all Congressmen.
are in the same predicament when it comes to the understanding or misunder-
standing of our ethics by the general public.
I do not believe it is enough that our standards of conduct be high. I believe
it is essential that we do all we can to acquaint the general public and the news
media with what we believe to be proper standards of conduct so that those who
judge us will also have an understanding of our ethics and our reasons for them..
With these thoughts in mind, I would like to mention a few problem areas.
where I believe it is important for the members of the House to have a clear
understanding of proper conduct because of the frequency with which complaints
arise surrounding them.
From time to time all Congressmen are confronted with the problem of gifts.
of one sort or another. These gifts can range from cash to tangible property
having a wide variety of values. Such gifts can be given out of gratitude, friend-
ship, or with a thought to influence a Congressman. I believe it would be wise
to have a rule that Representatives should not receive gifts having a real or
intrinsic value exceeding $25.
Since Representatives are allowed only four trips home per year at govern-
ment expense, the great pressure on most Congressmen to return to their Districts
as frequently as possible often produces offers of free transportation. Free trans-
portation can come from political parties, interested individuals, special interest
groups, unions, or businesses having great interest in pending legislation.
While I do not have a satisfactory answer that could be written into a rule of
conduct, I am sure that this Committee or another committee could produce a
reasonable standard of conduct in regard to such "free" transportation.
Many times each month most Congressmen have dealings with various de-
partments and agencies of the Government such as the SBA, the ICC and the
FCC. Most frequently these contacts involve constituents having a particular
interest in the outcome of a question pending before such agency or department.
PAGENO="0074"
144 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDTJCT
I believe a proper standard of conduct in dealing with such departments and
agencies could go far in not only guiding each Representative, but also in advising
-the public-at-large that there are areas in which "political influence' should not
be brought to bear upon determinations requiring skill and judgment of the
personnel in such agencies and departments.
It is my understanding that some Congressmen accept honorariums for speak-
ing engagements in order to augment their income. Some feel this is a necessity
in view- of the costs of campaigning and of maintaining two homes. while others
may simply see this as a means of increasing their total income. Whatever the
Teason, I believe it w-ould be most helpful for a standard of conduct to be pro-
posed to govern all Representatives regarding honorariums.
i\Iany problems arise in regard to the former business or occupation of a Con-
gressman and his continuing interest in such business or occupation during the
-time that he serves in Congress. I believe that we should have a provision in
our Code of Ethics which will be easy for the public and the members of Con.-
gress to understand that w-ill guide members away from any possible conflict
in interest w-hile serving as a Congressman.
While I do not subscribe to the necessity of all members of Congress filing a
financial statement w-ith the Congress each year, I do believe it would be rea-
sonable to have a standard of conduct requiring all Congressmen who have
income produced by businesses that are federally regulated to file the appropriate
declaration.
The hiring of relatives by Congressmen has long been the subject of public
criticism. In this r.egard, I do not believe such hiring practices can be compared
-to a private business for in the Congress we are dealing with public funds when
we pay salaries to family members. Personally, I think the w-isest course of
action for the House to take would be a provision in our Codes of Ethics against
the hiring of members of our ow-n immediate family to work anywhere on our own
staffs.
E5TABLI5HMENT OF AF ETHICS COMMITTEE
The foregoing itemization is not intended to be complete. However, they
seemed to me to be some of the most troublesome areas in which I think both
members of Congress and the public need to have the confidence of knowing
-there is a standard of conduct agreed upon to which members of Congress are
expected to adhere.
I also hope that the House of Representatives will be able to devise a means
of disciplining its members so as to increase the public's confidence in us, as
members, and as a legislative body, with enforcement procedures w-hich would
-not fall prey to misuse politically or by the public or the press. While some
-people would be prone to misuse an Ethics Committee for sensationalism, news
stories, political advantage, and so forth, and while such misuse may well be
hard to prevent because of the great public interest in all claims of misdoings
-of Congressmen, it is my hope that a means can be devised for policing ourselves
similar to the Grievance Committee procedures of the bar associations through-
out this land.
There has been considerable discussion in regard to the question of whether or
not a special committee should be formed for the purpose of handling congres-
sional ethics or w-hether a standing committee or subcommittee should have such
responsibility. Having heard some of the testimony before this Committee. it
would be my feeling that it w-ould be proper to have a special subcommittee of the
House Administration Committee charged with original responsibility and juris-
diction for grievances against Congressmen. I believe such subcommittee should
be represented equally by both parties so that in its job of fact-finding and mak-
ing of recommendations to the full committee there would be an absence of par-
tisanship. The subcommittee's recommendations would be accepted. with or
w-ithout amendments, or rejected. If accepted in any form by the full commit-
tee. the full committee could then recommend action to the floor of the House
where the House would work its will. Obvously. whichever party has a majority
in Congress wifi have a majority in the House Administration Committee and
in the House of Representatives itself and, therefore, party responsibility may
uttach to any final decisions made.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. G-ude?
PAGENO="0075"
SELECT COMMIT~EE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 145
STATEMENT OP EON. GILBERT GlIDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM TEE STATE OP MARYLAND
Mr. GUDE. I have submitted a statement, and have `seen the due de-
liberation with which you all are pursuing `this problem. I have sub-
mitted a statement, and I would like to just mention severa.l aspects of
it.. Whatever.is done, adequate funds must be provided for a perma-
nent professional staff which is certainly necessary for a truly effective
committee, where backup research can `assure that partisan and per-
sonal vendettas do not influence the `committee.
Without this, the commi~tee w~ould just be a front., and I believe it is
significanit that the large number of resolutions introduced specifies
this problem `be dealth with by a select committee `structure. This
would make it possible for the `committee to concentrate exclusively on
matters of ethics and conduct and it would help insure its continuing
independence and impartiality.
The very act of creating such a committee would be a symbol `of con-
gressional `concern, thait `standards of conduct should apply t'o all Mem-
bers of `Congress.
There is a pressing need for speedy `approval of the resolutions such
as I have introduced, No. 286, and the other resolutions, because I be.-
lieve the credibility of the House `of Representatives is at stake. I
think it should be a bipartisan committee.
(His staitemenrt follows:)
TESTIMONY ON SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT' BEFORE HOUSE
RULES COMMITTEE BY HON. GILBERT GUDE
During my previous legislative work, I have devoted considerable effort to
the area of ethics and conflict of interest legislation. I am `testifying in support
of House resolution 286 which w-ould provide for a select committee on Standards
and Conduct. I would like to urge that the following aspects be kept carefully
in mind.
1. Adequate funds must be provided for a permanent professional staff, which
is the sine qua non of a truly effective ethics committee. Thorough back-up
research can insure that partisan and personal vendettas do not influence the
committee. Without adequate appropriations to provide for a permanent pro-
fessional staff, it would become nothing more than an elaborate front to fool
the public.
2. I believe that it is significant that the large number of resolutions which
have been introduced specifies that this problem be dealt with by a select com-
mittee outside of the existing committee structure.
3. The very act of creating such a committee would be a symbol of Congres-
sional concern that standards of conduct should apply to al members of Con-
gress. There is a pressing need for speedy approval of this resolution; the cred-
ibility of the Hopse of Representatives belief in equality is at stake.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gude.
(The following statements were submitted for the record:)
TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVE SEYMOUR. HALPERN
In this year of Adam Clayton Powell's arrogant disregard of the Congress and
the people he represented, the question of the establishment `of a Committee on
Standards and Conduct-in common parlance, an Ethics Committee-has become
a burning question throughout the land.
Mr. Powell asked for the action which was finally taken hy the Congress. Now,
the people of the United States are asking for immediate action by the Congress
to keep its house in order. They must get this action. It is their right.
Through the years I, and other members of the House, have introduced a num-
ber of bills and resolutions which would have required the establishment of an
Ethics Committee.
PAGENO="0076"
146 SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
In the second session of the 89th Congress, such a Select Committee was crc-
ated, but the Congress allowed this Committee to be stripped of investigatory
powers which must be one of the principal reasons for its existence.
At the close of last year, the Committee issued its final report showing signifi-
cant achievements, despite this basic lack of power. The report also asked that-
action be taken early in this session to reconstitute the Committee.
Representative Charles E. Bennett the gentleman from Florida who headed~
the Select Committee in the 89th Congress, introduced such a measure at the-
very start of this session. I also introduced a similar resolution calling for the
establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
Gentlemen, the prestige of the entire Congress is at stake. The people we serve-
have expressed doubts, and whether they are well founded or completely un-
founded, we must move speedily and decisively to end them.
This can be done only by the establishment of an Ethics Committee, armed
with the full powers it needs to establish rules of conduct. and to determine if
they are being followed, or where they are being circumvented.
I urge you to use the power of your Committee to make certain that the
people of the United States be given the assurance they need to maintain their
trust in their elected representatives.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.
I appear before the committee today to support the Bennett bill and to speak
in behalf of the people of the 7th District of Michigan in favor of a permanent
congressional committee on ethics.
The need for new initiative in the area of congressional ethics and objective
standards of personal conduct for congressmen is self-evident. While the case
of Mr. Powell has been in the spotlight, public opinion across the country is
nearly unanimous in its opinion that Mr. Powell. at the very worst. is only
symptomatic of a bigger problem. The integrity of congress is what is at issue-
and the growing public cynicism about the congress and its conduct is due to
wha~t has been our own ponderous inability to develop some tough, but fair,
objective standards of ethical behavior.
I am here testifying today because I believe this committee is handling the
most important issue before the House at this time. We've got to restore public
confidence in the congress, and that requires some real initiative.
I salute Mr. Bennett for his leadership in ethics reform and I believe that a
permanent committee on ethics is an absolutely essential first step.
In the face of growing public cynicism about the personal conduct of members
of congress. I believe that it is first in the -nat ~oiur1 interest that we act decisively
to restore what is left of our public respect. When serious doubt arises in the
public mind about our conduct here in congress, then our ability to provide the
very highest form of national leadership is eroded.
$econ-d, it is in our own self interest to act decisively to lift the standards of
congressional conduct well above the level of public doubt. Under the present
situation, the many suffer for the indiscretions and bad character of the few.
The respect and integrity of congress can only be strengthened by a forthright
step to establish a permanent ethics committee.
Let me now address the question of why we need a permanent ethics com-
mittee. What are its advantages? Number One: Is ethics above partisanship?
I think the answer is yes. So I think an ethics committee has to be constructed
on a basis that places it above partisanship. For this reason. I think it is essen-
tial that the committee be composed o~ an equal number of Republicans and
Democrats without reference to the partisan composition of the House.
Now, it has been argued that the majority party ought to have the respon-
sibility of policing ethical behavior in the House. I disagree. One reason for
disagreeing i~ that ethical behavior ought to be above party considerations. A
second consideration is that opportunity for abuse of privilege is greater when
a member belongs to the majority party in the House, irrespect.ive of which party
may be in the majority. Mr. Pow-ell's bad conduct was due, in part, to the fact
that he belonged to the majority party in the House and, as such, had special
discretionary power on the Education and Labor Committee. While the great
bulk of the discretionary power in the House accrues to committee and sub-
committee chairman-who by definition are members of the majority party in
PAGENO="0077"
SELECT COMMITTEE OX STAYDARDS AND CONDUCT 147
the Flouse-it ~eems unsound to expect that same majority to have the policing
responsil)iiity over the use of this discretionary i~~ver.
iVvniber two: A. permanent ethics coiniiiittee offers a (lear ndvaIitage of avoid-
ing the existing committee structure. If an existing standing committee. or sub-
cornniittee, is given the ethics responsil)ility for the House. then the chairmau
of that committee 01' sub-committee would be in the impossible position of hav-
ing to police himself-I speak in reference, of course, to the great discretionary
power w-hich accrues to comiuittee and sub-committee chairmen. The soundest
approach would be to select for membership on a pernmanent ethics committee,
members not presently in chairmanships elsewhere in the House. It also seems
advisable to have the chairmanship of a permanent ethics committee filled on a
rotating basis so that one man would not dominate in this position for a period
of years. An ethics committee umust hilve complete flexibility to act and, as such,
I think it needs to be completely free of any relationship to the existing com-
mittee structure, which, as in the case of Mr. Powell, often gives rise to ques-
tions of abuse of power and unethical behavior.
Xuinber three: A third advantage to a permanent ethics committee is that it
gives the question of ethical conduct front rank consideration by the congress.
In my judgment, no niore important question comes before the House than ques-
tions relating to the ethical conduct of House members. There is tremendous
public interest and concern about problems of this type. The Powell case is also
instructive on this point in that the House took great pains to assign its best
talent to the Powell select committee. The assignment of the most senior mem-
ber of the House, Mr. (i'eller. who also serves as the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, is partial evidence of great care the House took in probing a ques-
tion on a member's ethical conduct.
In recognition of the graveness of an ethics inquiry and its imiiportan~e
to the general public, I believe we need an indepcndcnt ethics committee-
concerned just with ethics. Not burdened by the need, as would be the case with
a sub-committee, to work through a full committee. And with ethics riot con-
sidered as just one of many duties amid functions of a standing sub-committee,
or for that matter, a full committee. This matter is too important. The mimatter
of congressional ethics, and personal violations of these ethics, ought to be the
sole responsibility of a full comnniittee-which cami devote its entire attention to
this vital matter.
Number foxr: A fourth advantage, is that the P.S. Senate has already taken
this needed step. I think we are no less a body amid ought. not to make the mistake
of according this problem less importance than the Senate accords it. To at-
tempt to ~)re-jUdge a House ethics committee on the basis of the record of the
Senate ethics committee, makes no sense. That would be as senseless as judg-
lug one member of congress by the actions of another member. A House ethics
committee will be as effective or ineffective as we make it.
Nuniher five: A fifth advantage to the estal)hishment of a permanent ethics
committee has to do with a restoration of public confidence in the integrity of
the House.
If we fail to act decisively in establishing a permanent ethics committee, I
believe the J)ublic-rightIy or wrongly-will View this as a whitewash, and as
an effort to give the ethics question back-burner treatment. Personally. I think
congress has little to hide and I think we will be a better, stronger body if the
question of ethical conduct is given maximum attention arid is fully exposed
to the white light of open public review.
STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM A. STEIGER, SIXTH DISTRICT, WISCONSIN
Mr. Chairman: As a freshman member of this great body, the Congress of the
United States, I hesitate to question or recommend changes in the functions
of this body. The subject we are examining today, however, that of ethics and
conduct, transcends l)arty lines, ~)arty traditions, and traditions of this body.
Because of the importance of this subject to our election proess and our gov-
ernmnental process, I submit this statemnemmt in favor of establishing an Ethics
Committee in the Congress.
There are two areas that I thiak am'e most significant in this mnatter and
which I would like to discuss briefly.
The first is the matter of the public dliselOslire of a member's financial status.
It is may feeling that such disclosure is important if we are to be able to ade-
PAGENO="0078"
148 SELECT CO~IMITTEE OX STANDARDS X~cD COYDUCT
qu:~t(1v ~tll(1y ~tlU(~ 111(1 if \V~ :~I'~ fl~ F) jiHi ~iv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TI hI~hI.
~(~ll( (11 U~ 1i1~e~ t'~ (1l1~~ Hill fiuiftll('i~11 i1~t(~t~. ~ ~ :~ ~ A~r~i ~
to tt1 1 ~ )tIl(F i)e( 1 1~ 1 1\V1111 11 1 ll~ ~y li~ v~ ~ ~i* (L :. T ~ ~ \V~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(~ii~ie~. (lulli \VHIIT ~1I;~1 ~iiid f ~ }:t~ ir:~i~h~ :L:u~ `~:n u* Yt~,
we inu~t~ a((~eI)t this If \V~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~1UipI)~(i r ~ ~ru(~y rh~ ~ff ~ :~I1(J ~ ~
the influen(e pec1l1ei~ ~ ii (`(~u~1(~~. W~ inu~ i eJi rile re~JILsiii1~y f : ulli
(1iS(~1()SUre with the ~(~1)W1sibi1ity that "wue~ with ~ur ~1~rin.
rJ~1~e secoi~cT I)~illt I~ that ii~ the esta1)1i~hInent of an ethi ~ ec)Inmirret~ 1 ~ ~
inherent in their (1l1fi(~, iii their exanhii~ati~n or the erhks cf memIer~ f
body, to examine tile expell(liture of Imlaimi funds or funds receiveIi fr
campaign purposes. I a order to carry out that function, this (i'l:~re~ mu
soon also consider the implementation of legislation i'e~ardin~ the dh lo~ur~
Of campaign expenditures. Present lan's are obViously inadeouare.
In establishing this ` a nat tee. U \vovor. lot a~ no: r~: rUt: ito f
fuiiclioiis, 111(1 perhaps nc f its prin:arv funotii:~. :~r i- rit'~ ::,j:::~l
of canilalirn eX1Onditur(~ they riute V erhiU st:id~tU. Iv
stren~then this poiiit I iecd nlv polio to :lr~ t~~0Lt ox::liI~v:: :
duct cii in the other Is ((lv in re~:ird to th oxienittute of can:iaU'it
one of its members.
Mr. (`hairaian, I think legislation of this kind is vitally lvii rtoiit. I re~ve
fully urge this committee to let fav rally ii cii ethi:s ri ~:l. I he vo htr
dined t\V() pl'O~ osals tO \Vh i('h I (all y ui' 1 ttention, H. Res. 2fT a iid hR. di
Tn hOt ii cases, you'll note, these I (l'(J osals all for st:irtin~ fresh tvjth the r:
of a sei ala! e coianiitteo for ha nd1in~ these matters, This ne\v, fre~h tirrerli
is. I ilti collviiiced, the 1 test means of approa ehiii~ this irollem.
I ani of the belief that 1111(11 offlo is a plillic trust. We mu~:.
\Voi'thy f that trust if \V0 ire to aiaii:1:tiil ui' strent~L. Cffe tI'OOc~s
Thank you for this jporruiiii~ 1 her icy views.
aTiTi:)Ii:vt SlitlIt fltI cv ~oy, (U cm A. I~e:L:vr
Mr. (ha irniaii : I li;iv' iiltr hued II. Ros. hI~ ri the C' n~res~, lerisiati~n
(lesimild to set up a Scl't (oinlnittee n Staiidards aiiil Conduct fIr the United
Sta tes House of ifepreselita tives.
It is lay firm I el of the t 1 Il(i'e should 1(0 a ~eja ~`a te (`o~ainittee esheliolly
clia rgeil \Vi ft tilt `es! II it lilt y f gi ia it! i illS liii 0 VOl 1 1 Hit `0 Mort 1 ot'~ li I
Provided with the :111111 city and facilities t a rry rut this respon Clility.
I (To hot fool that iii :issignno'nt f this nature an ll'Uel'ly 1110
be accohllnlodatel by itty existi:m (`oianiitteo lit tho He.e f R~ir~vviriv~
that has othei' areas f rospnsiiility tsoau~e tho d'hl':tt~ :a:urc c rh.
meld reluires the `lout roth it:tcitl 1 f a ~inUo (`
ttited toi' tills sde ot~e tive.
An es~s'ially est:itlt~liod Sole r (HlitltilttCo u St:iularrU cud
serve as a guai'di:tn (0(1' tic' 1tolltt'rCIil( of 11:' I~ru~~ f
haying power to recoiiinieiid ti the I-Ions' such rules and remiiatins lee:i.eJ
necessary to ihistire i l'Opei' sniiid:i rds f c nIuct ly nieiiil ers, to carry ut investi-
gatiolls on alleged breaches of (`Induct, ti ICC mnieiid ap~i'opl'iate censure pr
d'eedullgs on House Mciii hers, au (I to report Vi lath us (f :iIiy law t the Ii' 1 ~
a UtllOrities,
Such a Coniunittee would, Mr. Chaii'unan, serve two valual 10 (erViecs.
rective and the other li'eveiiti ye, hP i (n' thiiir, the (H (mitt dUe tvom 1 1(0 a 110
(~un'kly take `are (If th ~O `:1 ~ wlt(i'' thei'e w:t evirlrir ci u* f I (t.~l'e~t
authority and iji'i vilere~, ((vel' :tiid :11 ye Titls. ltwovc' 1° I" cit
would solve is a kind of heliniate fm' tit I-louse M'ut:o:'~::m.
away some of the confusi n and uireei'tatn:y tii~t sOittetimLes oxd:~
lators engulfed by a vast iittuitr if r'oittji'x issues itid
well as 11 great vmll'iety (f iitrri':tte t(ai'liament:try fumtcri us.
All of us know' that cast Mccii e~'s f (`mirress mel train tio iiUhe~: ~ratl
ards (If J)el'soulal coliduct : howevei', ill If tis 1111 cv, t( 0, that Mcmii t~'i's f (`(miri'ess
are llllfllllhl beitigs and, as such. al'' sti! qect t ( err (1'.
It is quite generally mlgu'ei'd. Mr. (`iimlil'iiiaui. that 5111' tyie If etlils unit
should be esl a! hushed dui'iiic this sesslI ii (If (`1 itmess. The 1ue~ti ci t ~ re
solved is what frIll this unit shlould take.
If it is going to To done, thou let it Is' (1 tie rUht. Ai:yrliiu~ l~ss :1cc 1 f'mhy
concentrated effol't toward cil:lrdiauHlt]I :11(1 cutIttite p cc
PAGENO="0079"
SELECT COMMITTEE *)N STANDARDS AND CONDUCT 149
lished separate Committee would, in my considered opinion, be a disservice to the
Members of the House of Representatives and a deception to the people.
Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate having the opportunity of presenting this
statement for the consideration of the Committee.
(Whereupon, at 12 :03 p.m., the committee proceeded to the con-
sideration of other business.)
PAGENO="0080"