Don't you think in all sincerity and honesty the Congress should go into that angle of fabulous campaign donations and expenditures on the part of a Congressman or a Senator? I think it was only about 25 or 30 years ago a Senator came in here from Pennsylvania by the name of Vayer. I think they ousted him from the Senate and I think he spent almost $100,000. That is chickenfeed to what some of these Senators and, of course, prorated Congressmen, spend in a campaign. Don't you think if we are going into ethics that is one thing this committee ought to go into? The people making some of these fabulous, inexcusable, scandalous, donations to candidates for public legislative offices are expecting something in return or they wouldn't make it. I would like your opinion on it. Mr. DELLENBACK. I have heard the gentleman express himself as he did again this morning very eloquently on that point that I do feel could be a point of serious concern. On analogy, if I may swiftly touch on it, in my last two termsMr. MADDEN. I would just like your opinion on my question. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think it is possible that by trying to bring too much into one study Mr. MADDEN. We are going into ethics, and I think this is the biggest cloud over this Congress. There is a gentleman at the end of the table, Senator Pepper from Florida. I was down there some years ago and I could hardly see anything but billboards for his opponent, and newspaper ads. I heard friends of Senator Pepper then say, "My God, it is estimated they are spending $1 million to beat Claude Pepper." What year was that, Claude? Mr. PEPPER. 1950. Mr. MADDEN. If we are going into ethics, I think we should go into those donations. We had an example of that in Senator Douglas' campaign last fall. Let us go into this and try to give all these American young people who would like to come to Congress and the Senate an opportunity to come to Congress, but they cannot come unless Congress does something about these fabulous campaign expenditures. The ordinary American has not got a chance to come to Congress as a Representative of the House or Senate if these moneyed interests, these people with special legislation they want to protect or introduce and have the money to donate, are working against him. I think we should go into that along with other things. Mr. DELLENBACK. I can see there is a series of things Mr. MADDEN. I want you to answer that. Would you think the committee should go into that problem which I think is a scandal? Mr. DELLENBACK. I think the committee should go into anything that is considered to be scandalous on the part of Members of Congress. Mr. MADDEN. I want your opinion. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think it is an area of operation. Mr. MADDEN. Don't you think it is a mandatory area of operation? Mr. DELLENBACK. I would feel the committee could well go into this but I would not see the committee hang up on any one area. Mr. MADDEN. Do you think there would be too much opposition in Congress and the Senate if we included it? Mr. DELLENBACK. I think the committee Mr. MADDEN. You can answer this yes or no and I would like to have you with me. You made a very nice statement and I approve of it. Mr. DELLENBACK. Well, what I am saying Mr. MADDEN. You are not with me. How many Republican members met in this agreement to file this resolution? Mr. DELLENBACK. About 50. Mr. MADDEN. Was this scandalous method of winning elections by fabulous campaign contributions brought up? Mr. DELLENBACK. No, sir; this was not a point discussed. Mr. MADDEN. No further questions. Mr. DELLENBACK. That is the reason I am not authorized to speak for them on that. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions. Mr. LATTA. Let me, by way of entering this little colloquy between these two gentlemen, point out there already is a committee called House Administration empowered by the rules of this great body to get into this matter. Mr. MADDEN. Will you yield? Mr. LATTA. No, I won't yield. I will read the rule: Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice President, or Members of Congress using corrupt practices This would come under corrupt practices in buying elections. Federal elections generally. It might just be such that there are 50 Members of Congress that read this before they had their meeting and that is probably one of the reasons they didn't bring it up. There is already the House Administration Committee to get into this. If the committee is derelict in its duties, perhaps we should amend the House rules and put this power in a new committee. If the House did that, there would be no question of who would handle it. Would you favor the select committee taking over that? Mr. DELLENBACK. If this deals with standards of conduct by the Members and this has not been done and the committee in its wisdom felt the power should be given to this committee, I don't quarrel with any decision of the committee. But I don't know the areas at this point into which the committee should go. The broad grant of authority I think the average American is looking for, is a group established in this Congress that will really look at this matter, so that we are not singling out particular Members but are talking about standards for our actions which we are all expected to adhere to. I think at the present time there are a great many of our people who are not convinced that the Congress today has demonstrated a willingness to police itself. What I am pleading for is that we come out of this Congress with early action that will set up a group that can and will say "these are standards to which all Members must adhere" so we know in advance and don't ex post facto everything. This is an area of rules-I read this one to which you make particular reference-there should be some investigation and either the group charged with this responsibility should move forward with it or, if they are not doing so, you know the rules that should be changed better than I do. But I would be very reluctant to see action in any one given area get in the way and block the early establishment of a committee that can really investigate and come up with broad standards of conduct to which we should all adhere. Mr. LATTA. I am glad you clarified this point because I didn't want you going out of this room with the statement that some 50 Members of Congress were not doing something about corrupt methods of practice. Mr. DELLENBACK. I appreciate your further questions on this, sir. Mr. MADDEN. Will you yield? Mr. LATTA. I yield. Mr. MADDEN. The House Committee on Administration was in on ethics in the Powell case. If they have jurisdiction in that, and the gentleman thinks they should take the ethics away from that committee, don't you think we should take the problem of this fabulous, dishonest, malicious multimillion dollars being spent to get Congressmen and Senators elected away from their committee and put it in this gentleman's committee? Mr. LATTA. I want to point out to the gentleman that Mr. Hayes, chairman of a subcommittee of that committee, did not have the authority to get into the matter of ethics under the House rules. Mr. MADDEN. If that is true, they have not begun anything on it, so let us take it and put it in under this ethics committee and I am satisfied something would be done. Would you go along with it? Mr. LATTA. I would, if you are asking me. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am merely distinguishing, but I want the job done. Mr. MADDEN. You and I agree on that. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, this committee has heard much on this subject and I won't take time at this hour to rehash a lot of things that have already been said. If you give me your attention for 312 minutes, I can say what I want. I have a learned statement. Its author thinks it is brilliant. If I have your permission, I will just make three or four points. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Are you offering to include it in the record? Mr. UDALL. Yes, sir. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself this morning with the resolution offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett). I feel very strongly that the House of Representatives has a responsibility to pursue the matter of ethical standards for its Members, and I believe H. Res. 18, of which my own H. Res. 102 is a companion resolution, is the vehicle best suited at this time to accomplish this end. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I played a part in the debate on January 10 relating to the seating of a Member accused of violating ethical standards of this body. Because the temper of the country and the Congress demanded action, that Member was denied his seat. However, the fact is that the House has no operative and enforceable set of ethical standards, and except for the most flagrant and celebrated case of unethical behavior, there is no way that the House can enforce even the most minimal standards of conduct on the part of its Members. case. Mr. Chairman, the eyes of the country are on the Congress today. I have received hundreds of letter from all over the nation commenting on the Powell A great many of these letters have made this point: "All right, you have punished Congressman Powell. Now what are you going to do about others who may have abused their public trust?" This is a serious question, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we can afford to ignore it. To do so would be to convince many of the detractors of the Congress and of the House of Representatives that the action of last month was, in fact, racially motivated. And it would leave many wondering if the gentleman from New York was not, in fact, a scapegoat for the larger sins of the Congress as a whole. Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest, as many do, that this House is full of crooks and thieves. On the contrary, I believe nearly all of my colleagues are men of the highest moral and ethical character. What I do not want is for us to relax in this conviction and thus leave our honorable colleagues open for the charge that they want to sweep the whole matter of ethics under the rug. The proposal you are considering this morning is a modest one. It would simply continue the Select Committee on Standards and Ethics established by the 89th Congress, with one important change. That change would permit the select committee to investigate specific charges against specific Members and recommend action. I think this change is absolutely necessary if the committee is to do the job our many constituents would expect it to do. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one more point. Before Congress convened in January, a great many people misread the temper of the country. One of those who failed to read that temper accurately was the gentleman from New York (Mr. Powell). I think some of our own leaders failed to take note of this sentiment. The result was a sequence of actions wholly unexpected by many knowledgeable people only a few days earlier. Mr. Chairman, my point is that the temper of the country, reflected in those actions in January, is still with us. It won't go away. I think it would be tragic to misread that sentiment again. The people of this nation have become aware, or at least more aware than before, that their servants in the Congress can do wrong. And they want to see the Congress put an end at least to the more flagrant abuses which may be going on. The resolution you are considering this morning can be an important first step toward establishment of standards for the guidance of Members. I am confident that if your committee decides to re-establish the Select Committee on Standards and Ethics, meaningful progress will be made to establish such standards and clear the good name of the House as a whole. I strongly urge that H. Res. 18 be favorably reported. Mr. UDALL. Every day we hear statements on the House floor that Congress is asking for better policing of its Members conduct. One of the big reasons is we refuse to face our problems and meet the needs of modern times and take care of such things as congressional ethics. I took a small role in this Powell case and I have a covenant with the people I represent and a lot of other people who say, "You are singling out Powell." I say I am not, and this is why I am here today to see that we follow through with meaningful action on ethics. The cold, hard fact is, nothing would have been done about the Powell case had the House been left to itself without the outcry and the press pointing its finger at the Congress and the public asking for action. I am satisfied no meaningful action would have been taken against Powell without this outcry from the public and press. I think we can curb this and prevent such cases as the Powell case from happening and we need not have ex post facto rules. I introduced a companion bill and I commend the 46 freshmen for all they have done. They have a red-hot issue and as far as I am concerned this is going to be a bipartisan group. If my party is smart, we will get behind this, too. I think we can prevent this sort of thing because the public is demanding action. I cannot see the fears here about Members being harassed by such a committee; personalities are not important. Of course, we have lawyers and judges here in whom everyone has confidence they could handle this committee. The bar association is particularly apt. These things worked for years and nobody claims the lawyers are harassed by the bar. They are a shield to protect the innocent, not just a sword to punish the guilty. I expect many of you have a newspaper editor back home making charges against your Members. I think it would be useful to have a committee and submit these charges to the committee and have it cleared up. I think there is strong sentiment here and in the House now to get some action on this question. As the chairman said, the main problem is which route do you go, and I want to come down strongly on the side of a new committee, bipartisan committee, a select committee, and I think we should get the very best people. Perhaps the resolution could provide in appointing the members of this new select committee the Speaker shall select at least some from the standing committee on House legislation so you would have a strong cross-pollination and cross-benefit of the expertise and background some of these people have on this select committee. Sometimes it isn't too important what you do as how you do it. While I have great admiration for Mr. Hayes and others, what appears to be necessary is a select committee as the resolution provides for. I am proud to serve in this institution and thank you. I hope I didn't run too much over my time. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Do you think your resolution has any weakness, as I believe it does, when it says the complaint should be in writing and under oath, made by or submitted to a Member of the House, which, in turn, would submit it to the committee? Mr. UDALL. This troubles me, but I think it is necessary that we should submit it in this fashion. So many people think this will be a roving committee, snooping into Members' affairs on the instigation of a crackpot back home. We know some Member will take the lead and make such a complaint when necessary. So while I might prefer as a purist and theorist not to have such a recommendation, I think it is necessary and I support it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Mr. Mathias. |