will be handled promptly in the field in which it will have jurisdiction. Within the past 2 years the Committee on House Administration, by virtue of its supervisory administrative functions in House accounts, has had knowledge of a number of situations involving very questionable activity; and it has failed to act promptly.

There may have been good and sound reasons for its failure to act promptly, but the records of the committee itself, the House Administration Committee, speak for what was actually left undone, and cannot be reassuring to the public without explanation.

Illustrations of the slowness of the House administration to deal with matters within their jurisdiction are replete in the hearings of the Special Subcommittee on Conracts held December 19, 20, 21, and 30, 1966. For examples: The matter of not cutting off the pay of Mrs. Y. Marjorie Flores Powell when paid in violation of law (see p. 44 of those hearings), and the matters of travel pay and per diem costs (see pp. 16, 17, 22, 113, 114, 115, 191, and 193 of those same hearings).

So despite the fact that there may have been good and sound reasons for these delays, the public could not be reassured by any action of Congress placing these new responsibilities in that same committee, without adequately documented and understood explanations of its past inaction. Moreover, clearly, any committee set up to do the broad task of raising and maintaining standards in the House should be a nonpartisan committee, with equal membership between Republicans and Democrats. The House Administration Committee is, of course, not so constituted as it should be for this purpose.

In conclusion, there is a need for the new Committee on Standards and Conduct to be established, a broadly based committee, but one devoted solely to the problems of raising and maintaining the highest possible standards in the House of Representatives. The House should come to grips with this need in an effective manner and in an important manner, and not just "sweep the problems under the carpet." We can do no less for our country.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett, specifically, there seems to be no provision in your resolution for a termination of the study. I assume that, if this resolution is adopted by this committee and by the House, it would operate throughout the 90th Congress. It would be authorized to do so.

Then, projecting that further, is it reasonable to assume that the distinguished gentleman has in mind that the committee, if it proves effective or desirable, should be continued in the next Congress?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, there would have to be a new authorization setting it up.

Mr. BENNETT. The resolution I am bringing to you now is the unanimous recommendations of the committee that has existed in the last session of Congress.

On further thought I, myself, and this was not brought before the committee, have come to a strong conclusion that the committee really should be a standing committee and the reasons for this are twofold: One, by analogy to the bar association committee on grievances or

ethics, or whatever you want to call it, they have found it wise in that professional group to have a continuing committee through the years, and I think it would be a wise thing to do, because of the experience of other groups that have had this problem before them. Secondly, in order to do a really good job in this field, there really should be a very good staff and it should not be overpaid. To get people to work in this field and not overpay them, an element which is going to arise is a question of how long their tenure is going to be; if that is going to be for only 2 years, I would say it is going to be rather difficult to get good men at a reasonable price to come and assist the committee in doing its research. So I strongly favor a standing committee, but I am now before you in the capacity of an ex-chairman of a committee which unanimously recommended a select committee and the matter of making a standing committee was not before the committee.

We never discussed it; although it's my personal view it ought to be a standing committee I am suggesting here only that it be a select committee.

The CHAIRMAN. That was what prompted my question. If this type of committee is desirable, then should it not be a permanent committee rather than just dip into the thing for one session?

Mr. BENNETT. I think it would be much better if it was a standing committee.

The CHAIRMAN. My second question has to do with the staff and the gentleman mentioned that himself.

How much staff did you have when you operated the last session? Mr. BENNETT. The committee did not spend a single penny on a staff because I found the problem arising right there. To get really top flight people for a short period of time, the only way in which I could get them was from volunteers, and I got volunteers. I got in addition to my own staff, I got people from the Library of Congress who worked off-time and I got a Mr. William Norman, who is a general counsel, I believe, or head of the staff on the Senate committee, who used to be my administrative assistant, and others assisted me.

Mr. Dick Sewell, who is here, who is my administrative assistant, they all worked without additional pay, even the secretary that took the notes did it free. So the committee did not cost you anything. It wasn't because I was trying to save money, it was because I couldn't find top flight people to come and work for this committee unless it was on a volunteer basis. They were willing to volunteer, but they were not anxious to go into a temporary situation like this. The CHAIRMAN. Could the gentleman who has given much thought, I am sure, to this matter give us any idea about what staff he envisions for the future if the committee should be set up?

Mr. BENNETT. I think we could probably operate with one good man who would have to be well paid, a man with a legal background, and one or two secretaries, which would mean if you paid the man adequately, I don't think I could get the type of man I think this committee should have for less than about $18,000 or $20,000.

As a matter of fact, the people that came to assist us, I think Mr. Norman, in the committee position he has now, which is permanent, gets $22,000 on the Senate committee and I don't know what the com

mittee feels about him. But if they approved him, I would be glad to offer him this job, but I don't think he would want to take very much of a cut, because that's a permanent job and he has a lot of children and I just don't think he would be willing to take a deep cut to come to this committee although he is interested in the subject matter.

So I would think I could probably not offer him less than $20,000 a year. He is a master of law from Harvard and a capable man. The committee would have to approve who is selected. They might want to take somebody else who is less experienced and less capable and pay them less money, but my own feeling is it is better to have a small staff composed of really competent people than to have a large staff composed of people who really have very little to offer.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Bennett, I would like to go back briefly and then I am going to finish my part of this, as far as this witness is concerned anyway.

The question was discussed here between your colleague on this committee and others about what would have happened with reference to a certain other Member of this House and his alleged derelictions had your committee been in existence.

Do we not now have laws that cover all of these alleged violations? Mr. BENNETT. Well, there are laws now dealing with things in the House Administration Committee's activities and those are the only laws that are being looked at as far as I know with regard to the Powell hearing. Of course, I am not on that committee, so I cannot speak to everything they looked at. But there certainly are vacancies in the existing laws.

If you read the report which this committee got out, about 10 pages in the report, I think, relate entirely to existing standards in this field.

The CHAIRMAN. And I read that.

Mr. BENNETT. Just by reading them, you will see they were enacted for particular circumstances and not a general look at the law at all. A specific thing had to be cured and they wrote a law to cure that thing without looking at the broad picture at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, any law that was recommended by your committee would have to be specific, would it not?

Mr. BENNETT. It sure would and it would also have to be passed not only in our committee and passed by the House of Representatives, if it was going to be a real law, it would have to be passed the Senate,

too.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just come back to the basic question that bothers me about this, whether you can set up the standard code of standards or ethics that would be effective or would result in the desired results of making Members of the Congress, employees of the House, conduct themselves in an ethical manner.

Mr. BENNETT. This falls into two categories: First, the question of drawing a general statement of code of ethics, not criminal law; and, secondly, the bringing in of criminal law in this field, or specific laws which would say that certain things are prohibited and they could be taken to the courts if they were wrong.

I think it would be very difficult to draw a code of ethics which would be meaningful and helpful in the field of general House behavior, but that is not to say it cannot be done. I think it can be done

and I think it would be helpful both ways: To eliminate some bad behavior that might occur and to create a better image on the part of the public that these things are being looked into and that the standards are there.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. What I am trying to say is this: I am trying to think out loud about it-is it possible to legislate ethics and morality and honesty? Is that matter not, in the final analysis, going to have to be settled by the constituency of the Representative or the employee?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, if you are referring to the second group of things I referred to, which is statutory law, you realize that most of this report that I referred to deals with statutory law. If you are referring to that, obviously you can make improvements.

The first law probably was a law against murder and to say that there are not fewer murders because of this law, I think, is to make an untrue statement. I don't know when that law was written, probably thousands of years ago, but to say that laws-I will put it this way: It is obvious that no law can make a man good, but it is also obvious that a law can make a man perform well or do things well and not do bad things because of the penalty which may be applied to him.

All of us here are members of some religious faith and I think we would all agree that the only way in which we can make ourselves better is to live by high spiritual standards, but we cannot enact anything like that into law. That could not be done.

So far as the second aspect of it is concerned, the bringing forth of new statutory law with specific penalties, obviously this committee can do that. People have been doing this for thousands of years, and successfully, to improve society. As to the first point of drawing a general code of ethics for Members of Congress and just leaving it in the gray area without any real prohibitions, I think your observations are well taken. I think it is very difficult to draw a general or even rather specific thing in this field.

I am sure it could be done and would do some good, but I am not saying it would be an easy thing to do.

I was going to say after it is done, if it can be done, and I believe it can be done, I think there would be two benefits, as I have already mentioned. One of them is to raise the standards of the House and the other is to allay the apprehensions of the public, which I think is a good thing to do. But this is not the main thrust of this committee. The main thrust of this committee is not just to do that; it is to see wherever the deportment or activities of Members of Congress should be restricted in whatever fashion, by statutory law or whatever it might be. I am more hopeful that something can be done in the field of statutory law than I am in drawing a statement which is just going to appeal to people's higher principles.

Like you, I question whether, if you don't put some teeth in it, it is going to be very effective.

The CHAIRMAN. It was the question of standards, the code of ethics, I had reference to and was emphasizing particularly.

However, I recognize that, due to recent developments and events that have happened, there is a great demand for this Congress to do something and I assume that something will be done.

Mr. Anderson?

75-196-67-3

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. One question, Mr. Chairman.

Section 2(b) of your resolution, Mr. Bennett, refers to the power of the select committee to make an investigation of any violation by a Member, officer, or employee.

What would you do given the case of someone like the former secretary to the Senate majority who resigns before the full story of his misdeeds unfolds? Would the committee have jurisdiction to entertain charges in a case like that and conduct an investigation?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the committee, after this legislation is passed, if it is passed, would have no jurisdiction to investigate unless it violated existing statutes at the time that the man performed the duties, not the duties but the improprieties.

I want an extra copy of this so I can give this to Mr. Anderson. So it is difficult for me to say what would be done about the former Secretary of the Senate, because I do not have all the facts before me. But if this was enacted and he had done this in the House and there was a law duly enacted by Congress, either in the future or in the past, as set out in the report, and he violated it, he could be given a censure. That's all he could be given under this legislation. He could just be censured for his act.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. But you speak of employees. He would actually be an ex-employee if he had resigned. Do you still think the language is broad enough to cover that contingency?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think it is broad enough to cover an exemployee providing he did the thing that was wrong after the law had been enacted and he violated the law. I think he could be censured. I don't know how easy it would be to censure him after he left the employment. I think that really has more effect upon the people who expect to continue their employment than it does those who have already left.

So whether the committee would waste its time to censure somebody after they left, I don't know. The only thing for this committee would be to bring a proper case, one reflecting upon the House, publicly, not a private matter, brought to the attention with all these safeguards to investigate his act, if his act occurred in violation of a law which existed at the time when he did the violation.

That is a very narrow field, but I do think it is a step forward.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. That's all the questions Ì have.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Delaney?

Mr. DELANEY. At the conclusion of the hearings on this select committee, you would file a report with recommendations; is that right? Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. DELANEY. And then, in order to have it effective, it would have to go to one of the committees of the House?

Mr. BENNETT. No, I think the committee would be able to take any resolution that was asisgned to it by the Speaker and operate on it as if it were a legislative committee, could report it back to the House and the House and the House could act upon it. I don't think it would have to go through another legislative committee.

Mr. DELANEY. A select committee does not report directly to the House, does it?