STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 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 MCC. 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. First, we should encourage public confidence in the integrity of the Congress, by exercising that degree of self-control and self-discipline 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 refreshed as usual." Where such tangible ties between legislators and special interests 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 Ethies for Government Service on July 11, 1958, without House debate or a dissenting vote, 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 conform 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 everyone else in public service. I found, unfortunately, that the Code was passed by the 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: "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 enforcement 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 appropriate 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 transformed 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. MATHIAS. As the chairman noted when these hearings began, there was a certain topical subject which may 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 Congress 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 dam since Daniel Webster could put in writing in a letter to Nicholas Biddle that, "My retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual." The public expects more of us than that today. I think the nature of the congressional job has changed in the last few years. Our activities are 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 influence 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 cellar 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 enacted by the Congress in 1958 without debate or a dissenting vote. 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 this 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 become 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 committee 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 proportions for this country. But it is a problem which comprehends the Presidency and the other bodies and I would not like to see the campaign 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 committee, the specific reference to the concurrent resolution in 1958, perhaps 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. MATHIAS. The resolution antedated our chance to put it into practice when we did it. The CHAIRMAN. Anything further? Mr. Matsunaga? 75-196-67—3 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 Government 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 Federal 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 from Illinois that the reference to it might be stricken from the resolution and that a new code, in light of our experience with this, might be developed which is more practical. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Don't you think at the same time we should make it applicable 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.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 11 a.m, in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee), presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The committee will resume hearings this morning on House Resolution 18 and allied resolutions which I understand now have increased to 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. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GOODELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues. I am here today as a spokesman for the Republican leadership. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution of the House Republican policy committee adopted February 8, with reference to a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct be made a part of the record, if that is an order. I am here more importantly, however, as a Member of Congress who reveres this institution. I have great respect for the membership of this House. I think I can state unabashedly I have never been associated with an aggregate of men and women for whom I have more respect. Under those circumstances, I think it is a painful and difficult task to talk about the problem of ethics and misconduct in our ranks. I think all of us have dealt with the problem in recent weeks with a great deal of anguish. But having such pride in the House of Representatives, I feel it incumbent upon me, and I think it is incumbent on the membership, to take action. Recently, a poll indicated that 88 percent of the citizens of this country were aware of the affairs of our colleague, Mr. Powell. Another poll disclosed that 60 percent of the people consider misuse of Government funds as a fairly common practice by Congressmen. I think this reflects a crisis of confidence in the Congress which we cannot ignore. We cannot satisfy ourselves with the defense that the public is wrong in its judgment of the Congress. I think we must face the unpleasant fact, as bluntly pointed out in the recent editorial 89 |