of the Wall Street Journal, "that almost two-thirds of the people think there are quite a few crooks in Congress."

This is apparently based on the 60 percent in the poll who said that misuse of Government funds is a fairly common practice by Congressmen. I think what is at stake immediately is our collective reputation and ultimately the position of Congress in our system of government. Prof. Stephen Bailey of Syracuse University observed:

Public cynicism is not friendly to freedom. If Congress is to retain a position of strength in our federal system, it must retain the people's confidence.

Many of us deplore the declining influence of Congress. In my view, to win and retain the support of the people Congress must, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. Will Rogers, a long time ago, observed rather wryly that "Politicians, after all, are not over a year behind public opinion." I am afraid that Congress in reference to the whole issue of ethics is more than a year behind public opinion.

I am also a member of the House Committee on Administration. I must say honestly to you gentlemen I have great respect for the members of the House Administration Committee, and I believe that if this committee in its wisdom assigned the task of enforcing ethics on a subcommittee of House Administration, that committee would do a workmanlike and thorough job and a fair job. I do not recommend that course, however.

In spite of my great respect for this committee, I think we must face the fact that the public might well interpret the assignment of this task to the House Administration Committee as an effort to bury questions of ethics. I think we have to be very much aware and should have in the forefront of our minds what the public's reaction will be.

The House Administration Committee has had partial jurisdiction of some of the matters that have come to issue in recent weeks. I think in fairness to the House Administration Committee it can be said they did not have full jurisdiction and there was some question about how far they could go. So a resolution that expanded and clearly gave them the authority would doubtless result in somewhat different action on the part of House Administration. I do not think that a subcommittee of any existing committee should be assigned this job. In the first place, I think the committee should have equal party representation. Once again, this is not intended in any way to imply that the members of either party would fail to uphold their obligations as members of the committee. I do think that matters of conduct of our colleagues are peculiarly sensitive and they are inevitably sensitive to political implications.

I think that a committee which investigates various allegations against a Member should be immune from allegations of political bias of any nature. I might say if a committee controlled by the majority party was examining allegations against a member of the majority party, and they determined that the allegations were not true and cleared our colleague of the charges, it would be much better if the committee were on a nonpartisan basis with equal representation. There could be no allegation that the chairman or any of the members were proceeding on the basis of party affiliation.

Finally, since the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee has been limited, I think assignment to them of this task, even

with a broader resolution, would be subject to misinterpretation by the public. Perhaps the strongest reason for a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct in preference to other alternatives is that the establishment of such a select committee would clearly indicate that the House is serious about dealing with the problem of maintaining the highest standards of ethics.

Somebody said a while back that we need a symbolic gesture, and that the establishment of the House Ethics Committee would be such a symbolic gesture. I think we need more than that. I think we need a dramatic affirmative act by the House of Representatives. I might say that I think the House Ethics Committee, if established, or the subcommittee of House Administration, if that is the decision of this committee, should have authority that is prospective in nature as far as enforcement of ethics and standards is concerned. In other words, they should not look back and try to impose a new code of ethics on past performance. But I think in doing that, this committee should be very careful that it does not deprive the investigating committee of the right to investigate violations of House rules, House regulations, and the law in the past.

After all, we have just been through this process as far as Mr. Powell is concerned, and if allegations were made by someone that a sitting Member had violated the law or violated specific House rules, I think the Ethics Committee should have authority to investigate that matter and make recommendations to the House, as did the Select Committee on Mr. Powell.

I think the Ethics Committee should be formed with a very broad jurisdiction, but its authority should be to recommend action to the House. I would hope that it could enter into such fields as conflict of interest, of agency and contract influence, the writing of a detailed code of standards and conduct, employment of relatives by Members, the terms under which this would be proper, political contributions, and other matters. Where the House Ethics Committee, if that is the committee that is set up, makes recommendations that belong in the jurisdiction of another committee, I would suggest those recommendations be referred to that committee. In effect, the House Ethics Committee could be an advocate before a committee that had proper jurisdiction over matters that the Ethics Committee was recommending.

I think it is even possible over a period of time that an Ethics Committee could evolve to a stature where they could render advisory opinions for Congressmen. I do not think this would be advisable at the outset. We should test the waters and move forward gradually with reference to this question.

I think it would be helpful to many Members when there was a marginal situation with which they were faced if they could get an advisory opinion from an official unit of the House of Representatives.

I would like to make one other plea in conclusion. This last fall, as a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I went to Brazil for 2 weeks. I went with one staff member of the committee. In that 2-week period, I interviewed and talked to 121 Brazilians individually. I started at 8 o'clock in the morning and went until late at night. I had other meetings. I met with the President-elect, with cane workers, slum dwellers, educators, and so forth. It was the most educational experience I have ever had in my life. I want to say

to this committee that I think one of the unfortunate situations that has developed because of a problem of lack of proper control over foreign travel is that we are not doing enough legitimate investigation of programs that we are funding overseas. I have great respect for the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I say to you gentlemen the money we are spending in foreign aid and the Alliance for Progress is primarily in fields of education and poverty and agriculture and other areas whose jurisdiction and expertise falls in other committees in this Congress, where members of those committees can go and be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of our aid programs and making suggestions for improvement. I think that this Congress should reach the point where we make this kind of travel available to all our Members under circumstances of full disclosure and requiring a report, a full report in detail, of money expended and recommendations made and itinerary, perhaps.

I think this is perfectly feasible. In any event, I think the fact that a Congressman today travels overseas on legitimate purposes at considerable political hazard is another indication of the problem we have in not having standards of conduct and not having clear rules of the road by which we can all proceed with confidence and knowing that we will not be subject to unjustified criticism. I urge upon the committee the adoption of the resolution before you to create à Select Committee on Standards of Conduct. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Goodell. If I may, just briefly, I should like to say you have done your usual excellent job in testifying before this committee.

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. You favor the select committee over the proposal of the matter being taken up and handled by the Committee on House Administration. What about the permanence of this committee, Mr. Goodell? I do not think I heard you comment on that. Do you not feel that whatever is done, whatever comes out of this committee, should be upon the basis of some permanency? I repeat what I have stated here before, that we have no assurance whatever that the 91st Congress is going to be composed of any more ethical or more honorable men than the 90th Congress; therefore, whatever is done should be done upon a permanent basis. I am not quarreling with the gentleman's conclusions or his recommendations. I certainly agree that this thing should be and must be bipartisan, if it is possible to make it so, human nature being what it is. What about the permanency of it? I would like to hear the gentleman's reaction to that."

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, believing as I do in the idea of an ethics committee, I certainly would believe in making it permanent. If this committee in its wisdom determines that it will set up a standing committee comparable to the proposal for a select committee, I think this would be very appropriate. Obviously, no committee is really permanent in that each Congress must reenact the rules and set up its committees all over again. I would only make one reservation with reference to making the committee permanent. If we make it permanent, I would hope it would be with the understanding that that does not mean that it is fixed and unchangeable. I think we should learn by experience and if changes in the jurisdiction or the

powers of this committee are indicated, that we would move to make those changes in subsequent Congresses or in this Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I agree with the gentleman that none of them are sacrosanct. They can be changed. This committee can be and has been changed in the past. That certainly does not bother me. But the gentleman would favor that.

Mr. GOODELL. I would favor it, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Goodell, how do you think the members of the committee should be selected?

Mr. GOODELL. I believe that the logical means of selection would be by the Speaker and the minority leader.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. There has been some mention that in the case of other standing committees of the House the members are selected in the case of Democrats by the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, and we on the Republican side of the aisle have a committee on committees that makes these assignments.

Mr. GOODELL. I would say first of all I do not think that matter should be treated in the resolution beyond saying appointment by the Speaker and the minority leader. If the Democratic Party and the Speaker determined they preferred to have this choice made by the Ways and Means members of the Democratic side and the minority leader determined it should be made by the Repulican committee on committees, I would leave this to their discretion. I would say this is a matter of the rules of the Democratic caucus, as I understand it, in the House, and the Republican conference, and can be changed by the Republicans or Democrats without consulting each other.

I would leave it that way.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madden?

Mr. MADDEN. I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his statement. I particularly want to emphasize, if I remember right, that you were the first witness who has come before this committee since we have been holding these hearings who has really touched on what I think probably would purify ethics and the Government more than anything else. That is when you mentioned campaign contributions. When we look back at what has gone on in each election, year by year, we see that these fabulous amounts that are being spent by candidates for Congress and the Senate are growing and growing and growing. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a very distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania about 25 or 30 years ago who was barred from the Senate because he spent around $100,000 to be elected to the Senate in the State of Pennsylvania. My gracious, that is just a bag of peanuts compared to what is being spent by candidates for the Senate-not all of them, but a vast majority. In my State I know of one instance about 8 or 10 years ago when there was something over a million spent. I mentioned several other instances which I will not repeat now, but that, to my mind, is one thing that this committee should go into, and it could be emphasized that it is one of the things it will go into. It costs the taxpayers a lot of money when a permanent committee is organized. That means an office force. It means an administrative assistant, maybe two or three of them.

I think if we are going to organize this Ethics Committee we should get into this. I was at the Veterans of Foreign Wars banquet last night and there were 45 youngsters. Every year the Veterans of Foreign Wars gives a prize in every State in the Union to the youngster who can write the best essay on Americanism and government.

When I saw these youngsters lined up there last night, the thought struck me that they would probably never come to the Senate of the United States to represent their State or the Congress unless they can get some influences with plenty of money to finance them. In order to come to the Senate or House of Representatives they probably will need to be financed as much as if they went into a major business. That applies to the Governor's job, too, but we have nothing to do with that. I want to commend you for mentioning that you would like to go into these campaign contributions because that pertains to ethics and real representative government more than any other one thing. Unless action is taken by the Senate and the House, it is going to get worse and worse as the years go by. They are starting right now. You can hardly pick up the paper but there is some big drive on for a $500 dinner or a $1,000 dinner to get money for the next campaign.

That means you have to be pretty close to the boys up there who can throw money around like you would confetti or you are not going to come to Congress, or you are not going to come to the Senate. Certainly that is one of the greatest tasks that this committee should undertake and it will pertain more to ethics, I think, than any other one thing-it will purify our Government in the future. If we do not do it, there won't be many years before you will have to be a friend of multimillionaires or superduper big business, or these foundations that do not pay any taxes at all-you will have to be tied up pretty close to them-or you will not be in the Senate or the Congress. I want to commend the gentleman for his statement.

That is all.

Mr. PEPPER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. PEPPER. I thoroughly agree with what the able gentleman has said. What disturbs me is that the public no longer seems to be offended by any amount of money that is spent in a campaign. Nobody pays any attention to it. If you win, it doesn't make any difference how much money you spend, apparently.

Mr. MADDEN. I do not know. The money seems to pop out from all directions when a campaign gets rolling. I know in my district there were 90-some-odd thousand spent 2 years ago. It was almost impossible for me to buy billboards or radio time, and workers were out lambasting me on propaganda. I really do not know how I survived. I think I must have an exceptionally smart and intelligent electorate in my district. I am not speaking boastfully on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODELL. I might comment, and I think it is a little bit off the subject, I have for some time been a very strong advocate of election reform legislation. I am very proud that Mr. Ashmore and I are now cosponsoring a strong election reform bill that came out of our subcommittee last summer unanimously. I would hope that the Congress would take this first step in the next year or two in this Congress. I think more does need to be done than is included in that bill. I might