CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 45 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The committee has before it some 40 resolutions. These, House Resolution 18 and about 39 others, deal with the subject of setting up a select committee to set up a standard of ethics, honesty, conduct of the office of Members of Congress and House employees. It will be recalled that last year the House did set up such a resolution which was headed by the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bennett, and that committee functioned for some month or two and made a report. For some reason there seems to be a great interest in this subject right now and, hence, the large number of resolutions that have been introduced. Mr. Bennett has reintroduced his resolution, No. 18, and I think it would be well for the committee to hear from Mr. Bennett as chairman of that committee in just a moment. If the time permits and the desires of the members exist, we will hear from other members who have had similar or unsimilar resolutions. Mr. Pepper, before we hear from Mr. Bennett, I understand that you have another commitment and if you would like to make a brief statement, you may go ahead. STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. PEPPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am on the Powell committee which is meeting now and absented myself to come here because of my deep interest in the subject that is before this committee. I have before me the Gallup poll of February 5 which appeared in the Washington Post, or rather the Gallup poll which appeared in the Washington Post of February 5. It said the big headline is "Majority Favor Ouster of Powell, Fund Misuse Is Believed Common." Then the first two paragraphs: PRINCETON, N.J., February 4.—A majority of Americans believes Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Democrat, New York, should not be permitted to keep his seat in the House of Representatives, according to a Gallup survey completed within the last few days. The survey also showed that almost the same number think that misuse of Government funds, one of the charges made against Powell, is fairly common among Congressmen And then the last question propounded in that Gallup inquiry is the following: Representative Powell is charged with misuse of Government funds for personal reasons. Just your own feeling or impression, do you think the misuse of Government funds by Congressmen is fairly common or not? The results based on the total sample: Yes, fairly common, 60 percent; no, 21 percent; no opinion, 19 percent. Now, having sat on the Powell committee and heard the testimony, I think I can say and I think when the report of this committee is disclosed, that there has been no instance in the history of this country where there has been such shocking misconduct, officially, as there has been on the part of Mr. Powell. I hope the House next week will deal either very severely with Mr. Powell or expel him from the body. However, I don't think it is fair to say that any other Member of Congress has been guilty of comparable conduct. At least I have not heard of it or read about it. However, this is this opinion among the people and I think that the only way that we can dispel that opinion is to have a standing committee where there will be some sort of a generally accepted code of ethics and propriety to be observed on the part of the Members of this House and we all have our opinions about the propriety of such a thing for the other House. In fact, there is a Rules Committee or a specially set up ethics committee that is functioning in the other House, which is informed and conducting inquiries. That standing committee would be in constant existence, so if anybody had any complaints that he presented to the committee, I think there should be safeguards. It should be under oath if it is submitted by a citizen, but if a Member of the Congress or a Member of the House had any complaint or any question or any matter of suspicion on that he thought should be given consideration by a standing committee, that material could be properly brought to the attention of such a committee and proper inquiry. No doubt most of the cases would be disposed of without there ever being public hearings and just the very fact that there was such a committee would tend to discourage indiscretions or in many instances carelessness on the part of Members which may well be construed as acts of impropriety by the public. Frankly, I think we have waited too long in order to set up such a committee and that it is imperative that we do so as soon as we can. Now, I personally subscribe to the resolution offered by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bennett. I did last session and had the honor to report that resolution from this committee to the floor. I think we have a better understanding of the whole subject now than we had last year when the matter came to the attention of the House. Mr. Bennett has been offering this resolution or one of similar character, I think perhaps 14 years. So far as I have observed I believe he is senior in the number of Representatives who are now Members of the House who have been constantly trying to get something like this established as a standing committee of the House. He is here today to be heard; as I said, I introduced the same resolution as that offered by Mr. Bennett because I subscribe to it in principle and generally in form, although details of improvement may be suggested. Why, of course, I am sure that he, and certainly, I would be agreeable to their consideration. Mr. Bennett is here today, he is accompanied by two of my other distinguished colleagues from Florida, Mr. Fascell and Mr. Gibbons, all of whom subscribe to these principles and are here to be heard before the committee. I am sorry that I will not be able to be here to hear them, but I just did want to make that preliminary statement in view of the fact that I shall have to be absent probably during these hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett, we will be pleased to hear from you. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, would it be entirely irreg ular to ask the gentleman to answer one brief question, because he may be the only member of the Powell committee to testify before the group? I think it is pertinent. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I concur in your statement and I appreciate your statement, but I have this question: As a member of the ad hoc Powell committee do you feel that the investigation of the Powell matter could have been conducted more expeditiously and the committee could have worked its will more easily and in a better fashion if there had been in existence a select committee such as the one proposed by the Bennett resolution, which had already promulgated a set of standards of conduct so that the committee would have had fixed guidelines by which to proceed? Mr. PEPPER. I am pleased to answer my distinguished friend from Illinois very strongly in the affirmative. The committee determined to limit its investigation of Mr. Powell's alleged official misconduct to the beginning of January 1961. I think that's when he became chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, but this course of conduct which has been the subject of the committee's inquiry and was the subject of the House is concernedhad been going on for several years and building up, getting worse and worse the cumulative effect of it. If there had been a standing committee it may well be that the man himself would have been spared the tragedy of his case as it now appears and the Congress would have been spared the embarrassment of having to deal with a Member who has been here 23 years, as this committee is called upon by the direction of the House is going to have to do. So, I think that the existence of this committee will do a great deal to keep these cases from building up into causes celebres, as it were. Of course, they are there all the time. As soon as the whispers begin to get around and reports begin to circulate, why, either somebody could be called in to have a talk with them and say we have had complaints about your committee and we thought you ought to be informed about these complaints and so-and-so and so-and-so. It maybe could be squelched right there by proper, tactful cooperation between maybe the leadership and such a committee as that. Mr. ANDERSON. As a watchdog committee? Mr. PEPPER. That's right. It would have a deterrent effect and also an ameliorative effect. Mr. O'NEILL. Senator, there is one thing that bothers me. A man could be brought before a committee because of innuendoes and whispers. The mere fact that a Member of Congress has been brought before that committee could leak out to the press and get home; it would ruin him. I agree with your statement. I think we ought to be careful on those we are going to bring before the committee. You should not bring a man before a committee because of a whisper. Mr. PEPPER. I'm glad my able friend from Massachusetts gave me an opportunity to correct a wrong impression. What I meant was that there not be any public hearing. I meant if reports kept coming to the committee, that such things as Mr. Powell was doing, for example, were occurring, that it might well be that the chairman of that committee, or the committee, in some informal way could just sit down in his office and have a talk with him and "I say, think you ought to know that these reports have been coming and we have investigated sufficiently to find apparently there is some basis for them," and give the man an opportunity to save himself and to correct the practices. But I agree with you that the utmost of circumspection and discretion should be exercised not to embarrass a member and not to let rampant hearsay or evil people who want to destroy a Member come in with reports unless they are properly authenticated by oath. All these safeguards will undoubtedly have to be work out, but that is a problem in administration. We must, of course, protect the innocent. We are not going to allow the innocent to be pilloried here by that, but that will all have to be worked out, I think, in the details of the administration of the committee, and I am glad you gave me an opportunity. I did not mean upon every whisper that a man should be brought before the committee. I thought maybe when they were well enough substantiated, that they should become a part of the official concern of the committee, then it might well be that the chairman or somebody, or the chairman and the Speaker, in the utmost of secrecy should just have a talk with the chairman and tell him, "We want you to know these reports have come in which we have found to be prima facie, creditable, and we thought you ought to know about." Mr. ANDERSON. I knew you would want to correct that statement. Mr. LATTA. It is not often that we get a chance to quiz a member of this committee. Let me just say that I have agreed with what you had to say up to the point when you mentioned that had we had this committee in existence for these 23 years, maybe Mr. Powell would not be in the "embarrassing end" position that he finds himself today. How do you come to that conclusion? Do you mean it would have been such a deterrent to this man that he would not have done all these things he is charged with doing? |