Mr. PEPPER. These things have been disclosed through the years. It was in the press when Mrs. Powell was here, 5 years being on her husband's payroll, she never got but two checks. Probably somebody would have found out about it prior to the end of 5 years and the amount would not have built up to such an amount as it is and this erroneous airplane travel where the chairman and one or more members of the committee traveled under assumed names, that is built up now to where it is quite a sum of money.

The scope of it would certainly not have reached, it seems to me, the proportions that it has today if there had been some committee that was authorized to have taken jurisdiction, but in this case it had to wait until an aroused country and an aroused House finally determined to do something about it and appointed a special committee. All these years a lot of these practices have been going on and there wasn't anybody to do anything about them.

Mr. LATTA. One further question: Say you had this meeting you referred to and you call this individual in. You have gotten these reports. Take this case of Adam Clayton Powell, suppose this committee, the creation of which I favor as you know-suppose you call him in and he takes the fifth like he did. What are you going to do in that case?

Mr. PEPPER. That's up to the committee. I want to make it clear I was speaking for Mr. Bennett, Mr. Fascell, and Mr. Gibbons. I was giving my own ideas how the chairman might operate the committee. That seemed to me to be a proper thing.

In the case you put, the chairman would never have said anything to the Member unless he had conducted a quiet investigation and found that there was a prima facie justification for the criticisms that had been made.

Now then, if the Member scorns the factual and the kindly, cooperative inquiry from the committee, why then, if the case justifies it, the committee will have to decide whether to hold a public hearing and take the normal procedures of redress.

Mr. LATTA. Then if this committee does find that he has done these things like having people illegally on his payroll, outside the country, and so forth, would you think that this select committee ought to just tap his wrist and say, "You put the money back, that's all we are going to do to you"?

Mr. PEPPER. The resolution, the language, will provide the things that the committee may do.

Now, that is up to this committee to approve or not to approve and up to the House to decide whether this is the authority that the committee should have or not. I think it is a matter that should be given a lot of care, as my friend here from Massachusetts points out. We have to be careful to avoid abuse, to avoid extremism and that sort of thing.

But the committee would certainly have authority to hold a public hearing and to make recommendations in cases which it appeared justified affirmative action on the part of the committee just as this special committee is doing right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Might I say, Mr. Chairman, before we get away from this point

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I hope that your committee will be careful to emphasize that the reprehensible aspect of padding the payroll is in padding the payroll, whether it be with relatives or nonrelatives. A lot of people around here-obviously I have none or I wouldn't be speaking like this but there are a lot of people that have some relatives on the payroll that work hard and do good jobs.

It is very unfair to penalize them, but padding the payroll is wrong. It doesn't make any difference whether you do it with a relative or not. Mr. PEPPER. That is the reason I say that a standing committee like this would be a protection to Members. Well, a Member could say, for example, before a standing committee, "My relative is on my payroll. I ask this committee to make an investigation to see whether or not it is a padded payroll or whether service is being rendered." It would be a protection to the Member who observed the proprieties as well as the means of punishment for the one who does it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Bennett, if there is anything left for you to say. [Laughter.]

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, as usual, very eloquent.

Before I get into the formal part of my presentation and relative to what has just been said, it seems to me that it would be a good suggestion, if I am on the committee next time, I would expect to recommend that it be set up as a first matter of business that a resolution be passed that no matter should be considered as under investigation by this committee until after the passage of a motion by the committee expressly stating that the matter is under consideration.

This would keep somebody from writing in to the committee and branding a person on the theory that they were under investigation by the committee and I think it would be a very proper thing to do so. It could not be used in that manner.

Of course, this could be done right now. Anybody can write a letter to the Speaker or the President and say he is under investigation, but I think this would be a good thing to do to forestall anything like that.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in behalf of House Resolution 18 unanimously recommended by the House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, which had a short life-from October 19, 1966, to January 3, 1967.

The House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was directed by Congress to recommend to the House "such additional rules or regulations as the select committee shall determine to be necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the House and by officers or employees of the House."

In its report to Congress (H. Rept. 2338, 89th Cong., 2d sess.), the committee asked that the committee be reconstituted because there

was not sufficient time in the closing months of 1966 to make such recommendations and because such efforts should be made while Congress is in session so that the full membership of the House could be available for comments, recommendations, and hearings.

The only new power asked, over what the committee had in 1966, would be the power to make an investigation and recommend censure on a violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House, of a standard of conduct which had been established by the House by law or resolution previous to the act complained of.

The comparable Senate committee now operating has, incidentally, much broader powers than are requested here, as it is not restricted to recommending resolutions of censure, but is authorized in broad terms to recommend "disciplinary action to be taken" (sec. 2(a) (2), S. Res. 338, 88th Cong.).

It is believed that the ability to at least recommend resolutions of censure in a proper case is necessary for three reasons: First, to effectively handle any such matter that may arise; second, to help the committee in getting the attention and assistance of the whole membership of the House in drafting workable and practical rules; and third, to reassure the public that any improper conduct that may arise will be adequately and promptly looked into.

I would like to call attention to the Washington Star article of February 2, widely circulated by some Members in an effort to show that the Commitee on Standards and Conduct should not be reconstituted. A group of women reporters asked me to appear before them, and they interviewed me. I quickly sensed that they felt this committee was being set up as a "whitewash" committee. I felt that such an impression on the press would further unfairly damage the image of Congress with the public.

In reply to a question expressing disbelief that any Congressman would be willing to present to the committee any matter at all for investigation, I replied that in a case fully substantiated by competent evidence and reflecting on the Congress, it was my belief that 90 percent or all Members would be willing to do so in a serious case publicly reflecting on Congress.

The article gave the impression that 90 percent of Congress was waiting to present existing charges against other Congressmen. No other article coming from this well-attended interview gave such an impression as far as I know.

Further, in answer to a question on how narrow or broad the fields of study of new legislation might be, I replied they could cover "all matters of impropriety" covered by legislation that might be introduced and assigned to the committee for study. The article as printed implied to many readers that the committee would have power to investigate charges under legislation not yet enacted. This is clearly untrue because the proposed bill would not allow any case to be investigated unless it were based on a statute or resolution previously passed by the House; and then only under the additional safeguards set up in the proposed bill before you.

As I stated in the first hearing of the committee last year (and ap

proved by the full committee); and I am reading from the minutes of the committee of October 20, 1966, what I said:

I do not think a man's private life is detrimental to the House. No one is perfect; and if he privately has weaknesses, it should not be something that should be before this committee, as it would not reflect upon the House.

Inaccurate press reports, only as far as I know, and opponents of the committee, have alarmed some members; but the record of actual statements and actions of the committee and its chairman give no grounds for any fear of "witch hunts" or snooping of any kind.

In fact, two complaints were received by the committee during the adjournment (based on the committee's ability to look into violations of criminal law); and in both, the chairman refused jurisdiction because the complaints were not in writing and under oath, as the statutory history of the act required. Moreover, the full committee would have to decide such matters, within the statute which empowers it; and clearly the legislative history as well as the terms of the statute rule out any abuses of the committee in such matters.

Such an investigation could be made only upon receipt by the select committee of a complaint based on competent evidence in writing and under oath, made by or submitted to a Member of the House and transmitted to the select committee by a Member. Even when so formally presented, the committee would have discretionary power not to act on the matter if it appeared to be trivial or otherwise improper. No such resolution would be effective unless approved by the House.

I would think there would be very few complaints about the conduct of Members of the House, but if a serious case, reflecting publicly on the House, were substantiated by competent evidence, it is my opinion that 90 percent, or perhaps all Members, would be willing to submit it for consideration.

The committee would not be a snooping commitee looking into the private lives of Members. But serious charges, fully substantiated, reflecting on the U.S. House of Representatives, would or should be looked into. Moreover, the committee would devote its efforts to preventing, rather than penalizing and publicity.

The main purpose of this committee is to help improve the standards of the House of Representatives and also the public confidence therein.

The public image of Congress demands that the House establish a full, working, thoughtful committee working solely in the field of standards and conduct. Sixty percent of those answering a recent Gallup poll said they believe the misuse of Government funds by Congressmen is fairly common. Of course, we know that such abuses are, in fact, not common, but we have seen a number of such damaging polls showing the people's lack of faith in the integrity of Congress.

There is a need for a vehicle in the House to achieve and maintain the highest possible standards by statute and enforcement thereof. This can only be done after thorough study by a committee whose primary interests are in the field of ethics.

The House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct has wide support and adequate precdent for its reestablishment in the 90th Congress. It was the Rules Committee which brought the resolution

to the floor in the 89th Congress and gave the select committee its first opportunity to help lift and maintain the standards of the House. This was the first time in history that the House of Representatives ever had such a committee. Prior to that the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was established. A House committee has been recommended by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.

There are over, or at least in the House, 40 resolutions before the committee which call for a House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.

Mr. Chairman, I must add to this positive statement in support of reestablishing the House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, some comments concerning the recent action by the House Administration Committee. A Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts was set up by the House Administration Committee apparently to kill the committee which I am supporting today before your committee supporting along with dozens of other House Members. I am not competent to look into the motives of this move, announced to the press as an action to "obviate" the broader House Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.

However, I do believe that neither a subcommittee of the House Administration Committee nor the mother, its full committee, is in a position to do what the public has a right to demand and is demanding. In the first place, that committee has only jurisdiction in the field of House accounts and Federal elections matters.

According to the rules of the House of Representatives (rule XI specifically), the Committee on House Administration can look into matters dealing only with elections, accounts, and other housekeeping matters. There is one section of the rules which says the committee can look into "measures relating to the election of the President, Vice President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal elections generally." The phrase "corrupt practices" in this section relates directly to elections, and cannot be construed to deal with general congressional ethics. The positioning of this phrase in the midst of provisions relating solely to elections is clear evidence of the legislative intent to restrict this phrase to election matters.

Also, I may say the legislative history in the background of how the House Administration Committee was set up shows this as well and the way in which they got their authority from the previous Elections Committee. Moreover, even aside from that, a long line of court decisions so restricts it. The only interpretation this phrase has ever had deals with elections.

The jurisdiction which the House Administration Committee does have is broad with regard to the expenditure of House funds, and I would assume for instance, that bills relating to nepotism in the House would continue to be handled by the House Administration Committee while ones of general application throughout the entire Federal employment would continue to go to the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

Mr. Chairman, one of the main purposes of the House Committee on Standards and Conduct would be to reassure the public that matters