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 reported. 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 about, the arguments advanced by the person who offered the resolution that prevailed. When you have this kind of inadequate 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 debate 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 OF OGDEN R. REID, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very appreciative of the opportunity and privilege of testifying 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 fortune 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.

I think all of us are not unaware that we have enacted comprehensive conflict-of-interest provisions to apply to the executive branch and yet have not seen fit to test our own conduct by comparable standards.

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 financial 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 the light of some of the testimony that 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 take 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 imperative that we consider, and I seriously hope that this great Rules Committee will consider, a strong full disclosure bill, quite aside from what action you may take with regard to 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 providing for full disclosure of income, gifts, real estate holdings, creditors, business enterprises in which Members own stocks, bonds, or other securities. Third, the establishment of a permanent House-Senate committee on ethics and conduct.

Fourth, the formation of a comprehensive code of ethics for Congress 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 deferred, possibly unnecessarily, or indeed totally sidetracked.

I believe that full disclosure is the most effective vehicle for guarding against conflicts of interest in Government service. The refusal to act decisively and with dispatch would constitute, I think, 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 that any Member of this body, or of the Senate, must uphold standards similar to those which we insist that the executive maintain.

I would hope the committee would consider a broad conflict-ofinterest standard which would apply to all Members, prohibiting

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 employees 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 securities, or are otherwise associated.

In the case of Members of Congress, these statements would also be published in hometown newspapers. A complete statement of income, I believe, including dividends and interest, could be filed with a joint committee charged with enforcing the code of ethics.

I think, further, any American citizen or Member, officer, or employee of Congress must be able to file charges of misconduct with a joint committee, and hopefully there would be counsel to such committee 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 be 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 increased 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 provisions.

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.

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 am struggling trying to make ends meet."

I differentiate a little bit between appointive jobs vis-a-vis a man who can be seated in a body only by the votes of his constituents. And we are the only body that is in this position, because even the Senate, a Senator has been appointed under 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 would become more important, and that we in the final analysis would become the determining factor as to who would represent these people rather than themselves.

I only bring this out as a matter of concern that I think this committee has to be concerned with, and certainly the Congress, in how far we are going to go in things like disclosure, things like conflict of interest, and matters of these kinds, because I am somewhat concerned.

I would like to have the gentleman'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, including the possibility of contributions being tax deductible, so that there would be a number of contributors and no one would rely on the fat cats, I think the day would come when any American could run for office.

I think Mr. Madden has been persuasive and eloquent on this point. Once a Member is here, I think pay and allowances should be adequate to the job. There are some Members of Congress who are under some difficulty financially, whether it is because they maintain a second residence or travel back to their constituency to keep in contact.

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 commend 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 socalled 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 in 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