STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT GUDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GUDE. I have submitted a statement, and have seen the due deliberation with which you all are pursuing this problem. I have submitted a statement, and I would like to just mention several aspects of it. Whatever is done, adequate funds must be provided for a permanent professional staff which is certainly necessary for a truly effective committee, where backup research can assure that partisan and personal vendettas do not influence the committee.

Without this, the commitee would just be a front, and I believe it is significant that the large number of resolutions introduced specifies this problem be dealth with by a select committee structure. This would make it possible for the committee to concentrate exclusively on matters of ethics and conduct and it would help insure its continuing independence and impartiality.

The very act of creating such a committee would be a symbol of congressional concern, that standards of conduct should apply to all Members of Congress.

There is a pressing need for speedy approval of the resolutions such as I have introduced, No. 286, and the other resolutions, because I believe the credibility of the House of Representatives is at stake. I think it should be a bipartisan committee.

(His statement follows:)

TESTIMONY ON SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT BEFORE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE BY HON. GILBERT GUDE

During my previous legislative work, I have devoted considerable effort to the area of ethics and conflict of interest legislation. I am testifying in support of House resolution 286 which would provide for a select committee on Standards and Conduct. I would like to urge that the following aspects be kept carefully in mind.

1. Adequate funds must be provided for a permanent professional staff, which is the sine qua non of a truly effective ethics committee. Thorough back-up research can insure that partisan and personal vendettas do not influence the committee. Without adequate appropriations to provide for a permanent professional staff, it would become nothing more than an elaborate front to fool the public.

2. I believe that it is significant that the large number of resolutions which have been introduced specifies that this problem be dealt with by a select committee outside of the existing committee structure.

3. The very act of creating such a committee would be a symbol of Congressional concern that standards of conduct should apply to all members of Congress. There is a pressing need for speedy approval of this resolution; the credibility of the House of Representatives belief in equality is at stake.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gude.
(The following statements were submitted for the record :)

TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVE SEYMOUR HALPERN

In this year of Adam Clayton Powell's arrogant disregard of the Congress and the people he represented, the question of the establishment of a Committee on Standards and Conduct-in common parlance, an Ethics Committee has become a burning question throughout the land.

Mr. Powell asked for the action which was finally taken by the Congress. Now, the people of the United States are asking for immediate action by the Congress to keep its house in order. They must get this action. It is their right.

Through the years I, and other members of the House, have introduced a number of bills and resolutions which would have required the establishment of an Ethics Committee.

In the second session of the 89th Congress, such a Select Committee was created, but the Congress allowed this Committee to be stripped of investigatory powers which must be one of the principal reasons for its existence.

At the close of last year, the Committee issued its final report showing significant achievements, despite this basic lack of power. The report also asked that action be taken early in this session to reconstitute the Committee.

Representative Charles E. Bennett the gentleman from Florida who headed the Select Committee in the 89th Congress, introduced such a measure at the very start of this session. I also introduced a similar resolution calling for the establishment of a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.

Gentlemen, the prestige of the entire Congress is at stake. The people we serve have expressed doubts, and whether they are well founded or completely unfounded, we must move speedily and decisively to end them.

This can be done only by the establishment of an Ethics Committee, armed with the full powers it needs to establish rules of conduct, and to determine if they are being followed, or where they are being circumvented.

I urge you to use the power of your Committee to make certain that the people of the United States be given the assurance they need to maintain their trust in their elected representatives.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.

I appear before the committee today to support the Bennett bill and to speak in behalf of the people of the 7th District of Michigan in favor of a permanent congressional committee on ethics.

The need for new initiative in the area of congressional ethics and objective standards of personal conduct for congressmen is self-evident. While the case of Mr. Powell has been in the spotlight, public opinion across the country is: nearly unanimous in its opinion that Mr. Powell, at the very worst, is only symptomatic of a bigger problem. The integrity of congress is what is at issueand the growing public cynicism about the congress and its conduct is due to what has been our own ponderous inability to develop some tough, but fair, objective standards of ethical behavior.

I am here testifying today because I believe this committee is handling the most important issue before the House at this time. We've got to restore public confidence in the congress, and that requires some real initiative.

I salute Mr. Bennett for his leadership in ethics reform and I believe that a permanent committee on ethics is an absolutely essential first step.

In the face of growing public cynicism about the personal conduct of members of congress, I believe that it is first in the national interest that we act decisively to restore what is left of our public respect. When serious doubt arises in the public mind about our conduct here in congress, then our ability to provide the very highest form of national leadership is eroded.

Second, it is in our own self interest to act decisively to lift the standards of congressional conduct well above the level of public doubt. Under the present situation, the many suffer for the indiscretions and bad character of the few. The respect and integrity of congress can only be strengthened by a forthright step to establish a permanent ethics committee.

Let me now address the question of why we need a permanent ethics committee. What are its advantages? Number One: Is ethics above partisanship? I think the answer is yes. So I think an ethics committee has to be constructed on a basis that places it above partisanship. For this reason, I think it is essential that the committee be composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats without reference to the partisan composition of the House.

Now, it has been argued that the majority party ought to have the responsibility of policing ethical behavior in the House. I disagree. One reason for disagreeing is that ethical behavior ought to be above party considerations. A second consideration is that opportunity for abuse of privilege is greater when a member belongs to the majority party in the House, irrespective of which party may be in the majority. Mr. Powell's bad conduct was due, in part, to the fact that he belonged to the majority party in the House and, as such, had special discretionary power on the Education and Labor Committee. While the great bulk of the discretionary power in the House accrues to committee and subcommittee chairman-who by definition are members of the majority party in

the House-it seems unsound to expect that same majority to have the policing responsibility over the use of this discretionary power.

Number two: A permanent ethics committee offers a clear advantage of avoiding the existing committee structure. If an existing standing committee, or subcommittee, is given the ethics responsibility for the House, then the chairman of that committee or sub-committee would be in the impossible position of having to police himself-I speak in reference, of course, to the great discretionary power which accrues to committee and sub-committee chairmen. The soundest approach would be to select for membership on a permanent ethics committee, members not presently in chairmanships elsewhere in the House. It also seems advisable to have the chairmanship of a permanent ethics committee filled on a rotating basis so that one man would not dominate in this position for a period of years. An ethics committee must have complete flexibility to act and, as such, I think it needs to be completely free of any relationship to the existing committee structure, which, as in the case of Mr. Powell, often gives rise to questions of abuse of power and unethical behavior.

Number three: A third advantage to a permanent ethics committee is that it gives the question of ethical conduct front rank consideration by the congress. In my judgment, no more important question comes before the House than questions relating to the ethical conduct of House members. There is tremendous public interest and concern about problems of this type. The Powell case is also instructive on this point in that the House took great pains to assign its best talent to the Powell select committee. The assignment of the most senior member of the House, Mr. Celler, who also serves as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is partial evidence of great care the House took in probing a question on a member's ethical conduct.

In recognition of the graveness of an ethics inquiry and its importance to the general public, I believe we need an independent ethics committeeconcerned just with ethics. Not burdened by the need, as would be the case with a sub-committee, to work through a full committee. And with ethics not considered as just one of many duties and functions of a standing sub-committee, or for that matter, a full committee. This matter is too important. The matter of congressional ethics, and personal violations of these ethics, ought to be the sole responsibility of a full committee-which can devote its entire attention to this vital matter.

Number four: A fourth advantage, is that the U.S. Senate has already taken this needed step. I think we are no less a body and ought not to make the mistake of according this problem less importance than the Senate accords it. To attempt to pre-judge a House ethics committee on the basis of the record of the Senate ethics committee, makes no sense. That would be as senseless as judging one member of congress by the actions of another member. A House ethics committee will be as effective or ineffective as we make it.

Number five: A fifth advantage to the establishment of a permanent ethics committee has to do with a restoration of public confidence in the integrity of the House.

If we fail to act decisively in establishing a permanent ethics committee, I believe the public-rightly or wrongly-will view this as a whitewash, and as an effort to give the ethics question back-burner treatment. Personally, I think congress has little to hide and I think we will be a better, stronger body if the question of ethical conduct is given maximum attention and is fully exposed to the white light of open public review.

STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM A. STEIGER, SIXTH DISTRICT, WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman: As a freshman member of this great body, the Congress of the United States, I hesitate to question or recommend changes in the functions of this body. The subject we are examining today, however, that of ethics and conduct, transcends party lines, party traditions, and traditions of this body. Because of the importance of this subject to our election process and our governmental process, I submit this statement in favor of establishing an Ethics Committee in the Congress.

There are two areas that I think are most significant in this matter and which I would like to discuss briefly.

The first is the matter of the public disclosure of a member's financial status. It is my feeling that such disclosure is important if we are to be able to ade

quately study ethics and if we are not to just give lip service to this problem. None of us likes to disclose our financial interests. Nobody in America wants to tell other people how much they have or don't have. We, the members of Congress, don't want that kind of second class citizenship thrust upon us. Yet, we must accept this if we are to be equipped to study the efforts and effects of the influence peddlers on Congress. We must accept the responsibility for public disclosure with the responsibility that comes with our election.

The second point is that in the establishment of an ethics committee it is inherent in their duties, in their examination of the ethics of members of this body, to examine the expenditure of campaign funds or funds received for campaign purposes. In order to carry out that function, this Congress must soon also consider the implementation of legislation regarding the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Present laws are obviously inadequate.

In establishing this committee, however, let us not forget that one of its functions, and perhaps one of its primary functions, must be the examination of campaign expenditures as they relate to ethical standards. In order to strengthen this point I need only point to the present examination being conducted in the other body in regard to the expenditure of campaign funds by one of its members.

Mr. Chairman, I think legislation of this kind is vitally important. I respectfully urge this committee to act favorably on an ethics proposal. I have introduced two proposals to which I call your attention, H. Res. 297 and H.R. 6185. In both cases, you'll note, these proposals call for starting fresh with the creation of a separate committee for handling these matters. This new, fresh approach is, I am convinced, the best means of approaching this problem.

I am of the belief that public office is a public trust. We must, however, be worthy of that trust if we are to maintain our strength, effectiveness and purpose. Thank you for this opportunity to offer my views.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. GEORGE A. GOODLING

Mr. Chairman: I have introduced H. Res. 368 to the Congress, legislation designed to set up a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct for the United States House of Representatives.

It is my firm belief that there should be a separate Committee especially charged with the responsibility of guardianship over the House Membership and provided with the authority and facilities to carry out this responsibility.

I do not feel that an assignment of this nature can properly and effectively be accommodated by any existing Committee in the House of Representatives that has other areas of responsibility, because the delicate nature of the assignment requires the concentrated attention of a single Committee especially constituted for this sole objective.

An especially established Select Committee on Standards and Conduct would serve as a guardian over the membership of the House of Representatives, having power to recommend to the House such rules and regulations deemed necessary to insure proper standards of conduct by members, to carry out investigations on alleged breaches of conduct, to recommend appropriate censure proceedings on House Members, and to report violations of any law to the proper authorities.

Such a Committee would, Mr. Chairman, serve two valuable services, one corrective and the other preventive. For one thing, the Committee would be able to quickly take care of those cases where there was evident abuse of Congressional authority and privileges. Over and above this, however, the Committee also would serve as a kind of helpmate for the House Membership, helping to clear away some of the confusion and uncertainty that sometimes exists among legislators engulfed by a vast amount of complex issues and technical details, as well as a great variety of intricate parliamentary functions.

All of us know that most Members of Congress maintain the highest standards of personal conduct; however, all of us know, too, that Members of Congress are human beings and, as such, are subject to error.

It is quite generally agreed, Mr. Chairman, that some type of ethics unit should be established during this session of Congress. The question to be resolved is what form this unit should take.

If it is going to be done, then let it be done right. Anything less than a fully concentrated effort toward guardianship and guidance by an especially estab

lished separate Committee would, in my considered opinion, be a disservice to the Members of the House of Representatives and a deception to the people.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate having the opportunity of presenting this statement for the consideration of the Committee.

(Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)