do not view the act of the Republican policy committee because we take a strong position on an issue as converting that into partisanship. I wonder where you can draw the line between party responsibility and partisanship. I think both parties and the Members of Congress in both parties have an obligation to take a position on this matter. Because the Republicans took the strong position they did doesn't convert it into a partisan issue. It will be the lack of action on the Democrats' part that would convert it into a partisan issue.

Mr. O'NEILL. Let me ask you this: What do you think the hue and cry would be against this committee if it went and made an investigation of either the committee to reelect the Democratic Congress or the committee to elect Republican Members, like your committee that raised a million dollars the other day. What do you think the feeling of the people would be if you attempted an investigation of that type? Mr. GOODELL. I would not expect this committee to just go off in all directions investigating everything. I think the safeguards are fairly well stated in the Bennett resolution. I would expect them to recommend changes in the law or in the rules of the House or to make opinions on standards of conduct that they felt were proper.

I would not expect them to go investigating fundraising dinners of that nature. I do not think they would consider that in their immediate responsibility.

Mr. O'NEILL. There has been considerable talk here about elections and funds concerning elections. The individual who would try to run his own fundraising party, or a group of his friends, who would run such a party for him, would be investigated; while if a political party like the Republican organization, runs a party, the candidate is under an umbrella of protection.

Mr. GOODELL. I think this is in the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Ethics and would be a matter for them to make recommendations for changes in the law. Here again I would make the point that their jurisdiction in terms of new laws or new standards of conduct should be prospective or in the future. I would not expect them to go out and investigate things of that nature if they were not violations of law or violations of the clear rules and regulations of the House.

They would then have the obligation of recommending changes in the law or in our rules, or perhaps adoption of very specific rules of conduct in this House that would cover this.

Mr. O'NEILL. Let me ask you one more question. With regards to the patronage of this committee, the chairman of the committee will be a real powerful man.

Under the procedure which we have here, the chairman authorizes the ranking minority member to pick his man and he (the chairman) then picks the balance of the staff himself. The chairman will be a tremendously powerful man. By a mere wink at his chief counsel he can cause an investigation of A or B and possibly destroy him. In view of that fact, how do you think the patronage ought to be handled? Mr. GOODELL. I think the committee itself should make its decision on this matter. I would hope it would be a nonpartisan staff. I would hope that the Republican ranking member would be consulted by the Democratic chairman and that they would procede jointly in

the hiring of staff and see to it that it was not "patronage." It would be the highest caliber of professional people.

Mr. O'NEILL. Then you would recommend, or would it be your belief, that the chairman himself would not have that power, but whoever he recommended would be put to a vote of the committee itself and they would judge his qualifications.

Mr. GOODELL. That is what I would strongly prefer. The House Administration Committee in adopting resolutions-I was on the Subcommittee on Accounts that heard from each committee asking for its money for staff and other operations-normally places the money in the hands of the chairman. The House rules require the chairman of the committee to sign the various papers necessary for expenditure of money. I presume that would apply in this case, but I would hope as a practical matter it would be nonpartisan.

Mr. O'NEILL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we go any further, I would like to make the observation that we have a couple of resolutions on the floor to be handled by members of this committee. It is obvious that we are not going to be able to conclude the hearings on this matter today, plus the fact that I have a commitment myself at 12:30. I wonder what the pleasure of the committee is. Can we finish with Mr. Goodell in a few minutes? If not, we could go over and have Mr. Goodell come back.

Mr. ANDERSON. Could the Chair inform us at this point how many requests he has from Members who wish to testify, in addition to Mr. Goodell?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, at this point we have Mr. Burleson, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Reid, Mr. Gude, and Mr. Riegle. I do not know whether there will be any others who want to be heard.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment with reference to the time and procedure, if we have commitments shortly, I would suggest that, if it is possible, Mr. Goodell came back. I would like to examine Mr. Goodell at no great length but there are some questions that have been raised, in view of the fact he is speaking for the Republican leadership, that I would like to question him on. If he could return, I would appreciate it. I hesitate to limit myself to a short time because there are some matters I would like to discuss with him.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Under the circumstances, and without objection, the committee will resume the rearings on Tuesday.

(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was recessed to reconvene on Tuesday, March 14, 1967.)

CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND

CONDUCT

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:40 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I am sure I express the sentiment of the committee when I say we are all happy and delighted that our friend, the gentleman on my left, Mr. Smith, is back among the living and with us.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will resume hearings on House Resolution 18 and allied resolutions, and the committee will hear Mr. Burleson, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, first this morning. We will get his views.

Mr. Burleson, the committee will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as you wish me to be. I shall leave it up to you to determine how much discussion is desired. I know you have a great deal of testimony on this subject. I have an idea much of it is repetitious.

Probably you have heard quite a few verbal essays on what we need in the House of Representatives to conduct ourselves in the public sight, at least in a way to protect what apparently is an unfavorable image which more recent events have created over the country.

I come before you as objective as I ever was on anything. I do not feel strongly about who or what committee is assigned jurisdiction. I do feel strongly about what is meant to be done. Ethics is a very generic term, as you know. It could mean all things to all people, in a broad sort of way.

I am not too sure just what you have in mind, or what anybody else has in mind. On the floor the other day when we were asking for funds for operation of the House Administration Committee, this subject arose and led to considerable exploration. Does ethics mean a delving into an individual Member of Congress' personal conduct? This was the only line which made very much publicity. I repeat here what I said in the debate last week.

75-196-67- -5

If it means looking into what a Member does, after 5 o'clockwhether he is taking a drink, playing poker, or whatever is meant by unbecoming conduct, I just want no part of it, and I cannot conceive that is what we are really talking about although it seems to be some people's idea we should so police ourselves.

It seems to me it is like children, or men without responsibility. I have always felt that a man who comes to this Congress came here with a heavy respect from the people who sent him here, and that until he proves otherwise by obvious misconduct, his good character and integrity should be assumed.

Speaker Sam Rayburn used to say—and it always impressed me very much that a man who came here, if he did not have integrity and if he did not maintain the respect of his colleagues, he is not going to stay very long.

Mr. Chairman, you have been here many years. You have seen many Members come and go. We are the severest critics of our own and soon learn about our colleagues. It is not particularly a conscious effort that we judge one another but by daily associations we reach understanding. "How can you formalize honesty and integrity?"— this was the subject of a column by Carl Rowan the other day. It is the heart and the fundamental question involved.

There are some other things about this whole question, which I assume we are going to have to decide some time or other. I assume specific legislation would be required on such matters as conflict of interest, nepotism, and to what degree, but ethics, good conduct, and so forth, is not clearly defineable.

Maybe we could measure the degree of conflict of interest by consanguinity as we could relatives on the payroll. Should we purge ourselves on certain legislation-walk down and disqualify ourselves on having a conflict of interest? Again it seems to me it has got to be up to the individual.

Should Members who have a farm or a ranch not vote on farm legislation? Should he disqualify himself or, as it was related the other day, he has an interest in some financial institution and a bill comes out of the Committee on Banking and Currency, should he disqualify himself on a conflict of interest?

It is hard to define, and again it seems to me it is a matter of individual conscience. Now, as to what committee this task should be assigned-if we are going to have it who should be given the responsibility and the commensurate authority?

I repeat that I am objective about it. In conversation a few minutes ago in the chairman's office I mentioned to someone, somewhat facetiously, that maybe it is a compromise to leave it right here in this committee. Maybe you should take charge of this issue. You have charge of rules, and conduct relates to rules and the decorum of the House.

Now, if a special committee is set up, call it the Ethics Committee or whatever you may call it, again what is its scope, what is it for?

If it is for the watchdog over the handling of money, then the House Administration has certain responsibilities which we expect to continue but some clarifying on that is needed. It is a little vague in places as to what our authority and responsibility is. I can find a great deal more responsibility than authority.