In any undertaking involving human beings there will always be questions regarding 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 OF HON. FRANK E. EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 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 country 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 (COLORADO) 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 misunderstanding 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, friendship, 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 government expense, the great pressure on most Congressmen to return to their Districts as frequently as possible often produces offers of free transportation. Free transportation 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 departments 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.

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 speaking 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 reason, I believe it would be most helpful for a standard of conduct to be proposed to govern all Representatives regarding honorariums.

Many problems arise in regard to the former business or occupation of a Congressman 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 Congress to understand that will guide members away from any possible conflict in interest while serving as a Congressman.

While I do not subscribe to the necessity of all members of Congress filing a financial statement with the Congress each year, I do believe it would be reasonable 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 regard, 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 wisest course of action for the House to take would be a provision in our Codes of Ethics against the hiring of members of our own immediate family to work anywhere on our own staffs.

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN 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 which 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 throughout 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 congressional ethics or whether 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 would be proper to have a special subcommittee of the House Administration Committee charged with original responsibility and jurisdiction for grievances against Congressmen. I believe such subcommittee should be represented equally by both parties so that in its job of fact-finding and making of recommendations to the full committee there would be an absence of partisanship. The subcommittee's recommendations would be accepted, with or without amendments, or rejected. If accepted in any form by the full committee, 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 will have a majority in the House Administration Committee and in the House of Representatives itself and, therefore, party responsibility may attach to any final decisions made.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gude?

STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT GUDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GUDE. I have submitted a statement, and have seen the due deliberation with which you all are pursuing this problem. I have submitted a statement, and I would like to just mention several aspects of it. Whatever is done, adequate funds must be provided for a permanent professional staff which is certainly necessary for a truly effective committee, where backup research can assure that partisan and personal vendettas do not influence the committee.

Without this, the commitee would just be a front, and I believe it is significant 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 congressional concern, that standards of conduct should apply to all Members 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 believe the credibility of the House of Representatives is at stake. I think it should be a bipartisan committee.

(His statement 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 would 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 professional 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 committee outside of the existing committee structure.

3. The very act of creating such a committee would be a symbol of Congressional concern that standards of conduct should apply to all members of Congress. There is a pressing need for speedy approval of this resolution; the credibility of the House 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 by 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 number of bills and resolutions which would have required the establishment of an Ethics Committee.

In the second session of the 89th Congress, such a Select Committee was created, 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 significant 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 unfounded, 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 issueand the growing public cynicism about the congress and its conduct is due to what 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 national 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.

Second, 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 committee. 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 essential that the committee be composed of 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 responsibility of policing ethical behavior in the House. I disagree. One reason for disagreeing is 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, irrespective of which party may be in the majority. Mr. Powell'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 subcommittee chairman-who by definition are members of the majority party in

the House-it seems unsound to expect that same majority to have the policing responsibility over the use of this discretionary power.

Number two: A permanent ethics committee offers a clear advantage of avoiding the existing committee structure. If an existing standing committee, or subcommittee, is given the ethics responsibility for the House, then the chairman of that committee or sub-committee would be in the impossible position of having to police himself—I speak in reference, of course, to the great discretionary power which accrues to committee and sub-committee chairmen. The soundest approach would be to select for membership on a permanent 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 must have complete flexibility to act and, as such, I think it needs to be completely free of any relationship to the existing committee structure, which, as in the case of Mr. Powell, often gives rise to questions of abuse of power and unethical behavior.

Number 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 more important question comes before the House than questions 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 member of the House, Mr. Celler, who also serves as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is partial evidence of great care the House took in probing a question on a member's ethical conduct.

In recognition of the graveness of an ethics inquiry and its importance to the general public, I believe we need an independent ethics eommitteeconcerned 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 not considered as just one of many duties and functions of a standing sub-committee, or for that matter, a full committee. This matter is too important. The matter of congressional ethics, and personal violations of these ethics, ought to be the sole responsibility of a full committee-which can devote its entire attention to this vital matter.

Number four: A fourth advantage, is that the U.S. Senate has already taken this needed step. I think we are no less a body and ought not to make the mistake of according this problem less importance than the Senate accords it. To attempt to pre-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 judging one member of congress by the actions of another member. A House ethics committee will be as effective or ineffective as we make it.

Number five: A fifth advantage to the establishment 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 public-rightly 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 and 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 party lines, party traditions, and traditions of this body. Because of the importance of this subject to our election process and our governmental process, I submit this statement in favor of establishing an Ethics Committee in the Congress.

There are two areas that I think are most significant in this matter and which I would like to discuss briefly.

The first is the matter of the public disclosure of a member's financial status. It is my feeling that such disclosure is important if we are to be able to ade