discussed it today. That presumption ought not to be there. It is not the husband that controls, whether it is legally or directly or indirectly. We ought not to lay that burden in there; but let's face it, they are in the fishbowl with us. All of our children, our wives, have suffered. It has got nothing to do with whether or not they have separate control of their income. The fact is they are part of our family. But we have to eliminate that unfortunate presumption that exists. That is about all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Florida does it on a percentage, a net worth of percentage of liabilities, a percentage of assets, identification of sources of income. If we could ever eventually get into elimination of questionable areas like conflicts of interest by having some process where I can get cleared of the question mark before somebody else attacks me on it, that would be ideal, too.

Mr. FLOWERS. I thank the gentleman. I have no questions. Mr. Danielson?

Mr. DANIELSON. No questions, thank you.

Mr. FLOWERS. We have one other member of the House here. We certainly want to recognize our distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Ambro. Would you come forward? We do not want to miss you. We are going to have to adjourn until tomorrow after this because this subcommittee has the bill that is up, and we are running kind of short.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JEROME A. AMBRO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. AMBRO. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I ask that my statement be made part of the record.

Mr. FLOWERS. Without objection, we would be delighted.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jerome A. Ambro follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JEROME A. AMBRO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The federal government is presently suffering from a severe lack of credibility with the American people. Events of recent months and years have eroded public trust in government to such an extent that people have lost a good deal of confidence in the American political process, as evidenced by the extremely low voter turnout in the 1974 election. Recent polls indicate that the public agrees with statements that too many political leaders are "just out for their own personal financial gain." One of the top priorities of this Congress must be the restoration of integrity in government.

One integral part of any program to restore faith in the soundness of our governmental institutions must be tougher financial disclosure laws. When a Congressman votes, a bureaucrat makes a ruling, or, indeed, when any member of the federal government takes any action whatsoever, it is imperative that the public believe that such action has been taken in the public interest and not for the personal gain of the individual taking the action. Our present financial disclosure laws are a highly inadequate patchwork of regulations which cannot prevent conflict of interest and does not foster confidence in our government.

The inconsistency of this mosaic of regulations is underlined by the fact that there presently exist 67 different statutes concerning financial disclosure. Each executive agency, from the American Battle Monuments Commission through the National Capital Housing Authority to the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home has its own special financial disclosure rules, as do the House and the Senate. In cases such as this, simplicity can be a great virtue. It increases enforceability, it decreases paperwork, and, perhaps most importantly, it increases public understanding and thereby increases public trust. Thus, even if

our present financial disclosure laws were sufficient to do the job of preventing conflict of interest, the great need for uniformity would, in itself, mandate reform.

Unfortunately, besides being incomprehensible, our present laws are wholly inadequate. Despite the existence of 67 different sets of regulations, some top officials including the President, the Vice-President, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, are completely excluded from any financial disclosure requirements. For many other government officials, disclosure requirements are extremely limited. High level officials in the executive branch, for example, are required to make confidential disclosures, but not public disclosures. According to the General Accounting Office, these confidential disclosures are often not filed or, if filed, not adequately reviewed. For Members of the House of Representatives, to take another example, there is absolutely no requirement to disclose, either publicly or confidentially, any stock holdings. If a Representative were to vote, for example, for deregulation of oil prices, the public would have no way of knowing whether or not that Representative had a financial interest in one of the major oil companies. In the Senate, the program is not that the disclosure requirements are inadequate, as they are in the House. Instead, the problem is that all financial information disclosed by Senators remains confidential with the minor exception of an accounting of campaign contributions and honoraria. Any other information they provide remains permanently sealed without ever being reviewed by anybody unless the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct votes otherwise in the context of an investigation. Thus, the present disclosure rules for the Senate are somewhat paradoxical in that they were supposedly designed to help weed out conflict of interest yet the information they provide for cannot even be examined unless a conflict case has already been brought to the Standards and Conduct Committee. It is obvious that more stringent laws are desperately needed, for all branches of government.

It is often argued that strict financial disclosure laws impinge on the privacy of public officials. My response to that is that public service is an honor which is accompanied by tremendous responsibilities of public trust. As public officials, we have the extraordinary obligation to prove that our decisions are in no way tainted by consideration of personal profit. I have little doubt that the enactment of this legislation will vindicate, not malign, the integrity of the vast majority of public officials, but such vindication is necessary in light of the public's lack of confidence in our public figures.

My personal interest in attaining the goal of full financial disclosure is not new. During my 15 year tenure as a local government official in Suffolk County in the State of New York, I was confronted with the problem of dealing with the potential conflict of interest resulting from the existence of large tracts of undeveloped land ripe for speculation. All that was needed to begin the development process were the proper zoning ordinances. The vast amounts of money to be made developing such land has, on Long Island, often been the source of strong temptation for those involved in making the zoning laws, and, therefore, the source of the most corruption in government. My response to this problem as Supervisor of the Town of Huntington-a municipality of over 215,000 people was to institute one of the toughest financial disclosure laws in New York State, the first of its kind on the local level. Included in its provisions were requirements for the indication of a bottom line net worth and for a statement of participation in all real estate transactions. As a member of the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors from 1968-1970 (the County's legislative body) I authored the first stringent Ethics Code on that level-with provisions similar to those adopted in Huntington. Similarly strict requirements, as set forth in the bill under consideration here, can go a long way toward increasing both the integrity of government and the public's confidence in that integrity.

This bill, the Financial Disclosure Act, has much to commend it. It will, if passed, finally give us comprehensive and uniform financial disclosure requirements for all individuals holding middle and upper level posts in the federal government as well as for all candidates for such posts. It is very important that candidates are included in addition to incumbents because one prevalent objection to financial disclosure laws has been that political opponents could use the information revealed by incumbents in financial statements without being required to reveal similar information themselves. In addition, the bill clearly enumerates exactly what information is required, and its requirements neglect no permanent information. Finally, by insisting on public disclosure of all information, this bill represents a large step away from the recent past and toward the open society that freedom requires.

To sum up, this bill has two major purposes. The first purpose, very simply stated, is to prevent conflict of interest. By placing the financial records of our public officials in full public view, we are enlisting the help of the citizenry and the ever-vigilant press in our effort to guard against the use of public office for private gain. They can serve as watchdogs, sure to bark at any hint of impropriety. This would be a vast improvement over the present situation in which many officials disclose no financial information while many others disclose information that is never viewed by anybody. Passage of this bill would greatly reduce the danger of conflict of interest within our government.

The second goal of this legislation is to restore confidence in our governmental processes. After the tragedy of the Watergate scandals, the people understandably question the integrity of our government. Our public officials are sometimes perceived as individuals working primarily for personal gain rather than for the public good. For a democracy to survive, it must have the support and confidence of the people. This bill represents a step toward the restoration of that support and confidence. It tells the people that we are concerned about corruption, and it tells them that we intend to take positive action to prevent corruption. It is a message that the people are very anxious to hear.

Mr. AMBRO. I just want to make a couple of points. We did this at a local level, the first municipality in the State that did it when I was there to do it, 200,000 people, 1,200 employees, and the usual arguments about invasion of privacy and second class citizenry prevailed. The only thing that happened after we did it--the worst problem was that most people suffered from less, not more, and they were embarrassed by their filings as a result of that.

One other point taken from what was said earlier. We tried to develop a form. At the time I was both the chief administrative officer and also the chairman of the legislative body so that I had a bit of control over the situation. The form was written by lawyers at least five times. It was so weighted with ibids and asterisks that nobody understood it. Some sort of oversight should prevail over the forms that develop because they could be horrendous as you heard earlier. I think we simplified it to the point where I did insert something in the record. It was horrendous to try and shift it to this situation here as well, but we tried to develop that kind of a form. I think it can be done.

I think the bill is essential for all of the reasons that we have heard which are reiterated here independently. But all our language and rhetoric seems to be the same. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambro.

Any questions?

[No response.]

Mr. FLOWERS. Thanks very much. We will reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 29, 1976.]

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1976

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Walter Flowers [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Flowers, Danielson, Mazzoli, Pattison, Moorhead, and Kindness.

Also present: William P. Shattuck, counsel; Jay T. Turnipseed, assistant counsel; and Alan F. Coffey, Jr., associate counsel.

Mr. FLOWERS. We will continue our hearings on the financial disclosure bills, H.R. 3249 and companion bills. We have, carrying over from yesterday-and I want to apologize to our dear friend for not working him in yesterday, but I think he understands the problems-our fellow colleague, an old friend from another committee, Ken Hechler. Ken, we are delighted to have you this morning, and we will receive your testimony first.

TESTIMONY OF HON. KEN HECHLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be on the right wing of the GAO.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HECHLER. I ask consent my entire statement be incorporated, and I will summarize.

Mr. FLOWERS. Without objection.

Mr. HECHLER. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3249, I urge this committee to take favorable action on some form of financial disclosure legislation. The present regulations and practices are chaotic and inconsistent, and many Members of Congress, including myself, have thoroughly and publicly disclosed their financial holdings.

Now, it is all very well to moralize and state that a person in public life should not enjoy the luxury of privacy, but when we do disclose our assets, many of those in public life are looked upon as engaging in some form of financial "streaking"

[Laughter.]

Mr. HECHLER [continuing]. The public kind of gawks, and cynics kind of point out that these financial streakers are being a little self

(45)

78-698-76