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. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

The CHAIRMAN. 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 resume your seat we will proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 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 known about which have been of the character to bring discredit on the 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 from 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 that, of course, is covered by law, that is a violation of law. But it seemed to me that if there were an ethics committee, if there is an employee who is being required to kick back by some employer, that would be the place where the criticism would anonymously, or otherwise, go.

In other words, they would know whom to go to if they were being pressured by some employer about a kickback.

In the Ames and 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 mobilier, which was considered as an attempt to bribe them to give aid to legislation for railroad 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 great many people that that was going on, and in the absence of some kind of a committee to report to it might have been difficult to bring it out into the open.

Of course, there was a case in the Senate where a Member of the Senate got appointed to the staff of the committee 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, and 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.

We do have legislation in the conflict-of-interest field that was developed, I believe, in 1961, where we cannot represent any client before 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 investigate, 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 before 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 especially in the Senate before the regular ethics committee was constituted.

But a case like the Baker case would not normally, as I understand it, have come before your committee because he was drawing his Senate 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 selling 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

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, a violation of the law. Now, as 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 you 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. Bolling used yesterday-professional conduct, which I think is a descriptive term and 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 under 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. Burleson.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bush, you have been around here a good while. We have to hear another committee here, and we have to go to the floor most any moment; that is, some members of this committee do. How long is your statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE BUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 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 statement, I will submit it to the committee and have it made a part of the record; that would be agreeable with me. It simply endorses the proposal for a select committee and goes a little beyond that on 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.

(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 resolution 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 Committee, just as House Resolution 18 does, but it requires the committee to recommend a code of ethics by August 31 of this year. My bill also requires certain disclosure 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.

now.

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 I don't think it is a question of what you or I want. I think the issue iswhat 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 Representative 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 HOUSE 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 reconstituted so that it can continue the work I consider to be so important to the statute, and ultimately, to the effectiveness, of the U.S. House of Representatives. All would agree, I think, that the recent action by the House to exclude a Member-elect for misconduct does not represent the conclusion of our responsibility. Rather, that action requires us to face the need for a definitive statement 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 development of reasonable criteria and standards, but, also, and equally important, the establishment of a standing committee to deal with such matters.

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 unfounded 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 saidand 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 permanent 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 branch of the Government fulfills its assigned responsibilities 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 corporatetype 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 instrument 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 allegations of misconduct.

I do not pose as an expert on how this problem can be 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, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, 6TH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE HOUSE RULES 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.