CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. William M. Colmer (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. When the committee adjourned on yesterday, Mr. Bennett was testifying. We had reached Mr. O'Neill. So, Mr. Bennett, we will be glad to hear from you further, and Mr. O'Neill may have some questions he wants to propound to you. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Bennett, I was mailed to my office three or four copies of a newspaper article that referred to you. Do you have a copy? Do you want to explain your thoughts with regard to the last paragraph as to how far you would go if legislation of this type were passed? Mr. BENNETT. Yes; I think I best state this by repeating what I said yesterday, because it is rather brief on this article. 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 Committee 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 "white wash" 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 were 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. So I didn't say what this newspaper report has given the impression to some people that I did say. As I pointed out, the things that I have said, which are well shown by the record, including what I said when I first opened the meeting the day after the committee was created, and I stated at the first hearings of the committee last yearI am reading from the minutes of October 20, 1966, what I said-and this was approved by the committee, "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." But, of course, despite that statement, it is clear that the statue would not allow the committee to look into anything that was not approved by the House in law. So I don't know what the purpose of writing the article that way was, and I talked to the reporter about it the day after it came out. It was sort of paradoxical because I also talked to a member of the committee about it and told him how distressed I was. It is my understanding he then proceeded to send it to many Members of Congress despite the fact it was not, I told him, a portrayal of my thoughts at all. The law requires that the committee would be restricted, it would have no discretion at all to set up standards and pass on standards for Members of Congress. It only has the authority to bring in the Congress standards which would have to be enacted by the House or if it is going to be a law, by the House and Senate and approved by the President. Only thereafter would it be able to take any action with regard to any censureship that would be brought forth by the committee. Mr. O'NEILL. With regard to the case that is on hand at the present time, which most of this all stems from, the Constitution says, of course, you have to be 25, you have to live in the congressional district of the State, the question of residence and the question of citizenship, 7 years a citizen. How about the fact of the private life of the gentleman, that he had flaunted the courts in his own area? Do you think that would have been a matter for this committee? Mr. BENNETT. No. The law constituting the committee would prohibit it. Mr. O'NEILL. You have no idea of changing the basic concepts of the Constitution? Mr. BENNETT. Not a particle. I don't have the idea-not only I don't have the idea, but I think if anybody has a lingering doubt about it, they should change the statute to make it clear. I don't see how it could be clearer. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett, you keep referring to the statute. What statute are you referring to? Do I get the impression you are talking about this resolution? Mr. BENNETT. I am saying that if this law is passed, which I am asking to be passed, that the committee in the field of censureship could only consider censuring a Member under the safeguards that are set up if the Member had violated a statute which had been enacted prior to the deed done by the Member. The CHAIRMAN. You have reference then to existing law and not to this proposed legislation? Mr. BENNETT. I have reference in this narrow respect only to existing law, not to the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation does not set up any standards at all. Mr. O'NEILL. On page 3, line 7, "No investigations may be made-" Will you clearly state the effects of that sentence so that we can write it into the record here? Mr. BENNETT. I am now reading what has been referred to: No investigation may be made with reference to any complaint of a violation occurring prior to the establishment of the standards of conduct involved. After such investigation, the Select Committee may recommend to the House appropriate resolutions of censure for its consideration and action thereon. Now, if this legislation is not amended in any respect, passed just as it is, the effect of this would be that a Member violating any law after it was enacted these are laws in the past now we are talking about-could be brought up for censure for violation of that law or resolution. Now, there was some criticism yesterday in the hearing about the breadth and the vagueness of the existing code of ethics. That would, of course, be a standard. However, I take no personal umbrage with this and if the members of the Rules Committee would want to strike that rather general statement of the code of ethics and just leave it to just law that had been passed by both the House and Senate, and approved by the President, this would not seriously affect the actions of the committee at all. If they would desire to do that in view of all the apprehension people have raised about the vagueness of this, it might be a good thing to do. That would mean that you would strike on line 25, after the word "law," down to the period. Hr. O'NEILL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me say, Mr. Bennett, that I introduced a similar resolution with few differences from House Resolution 18. In view of some of the answers that you have given us, and particularly the answer to the question by the gentleman from Massachusetts just a minute ago, I am a little bit in the dark as to what this committe is going to do. I hope you are not boxing yourself in to the extent that you are only going to investigate violations of law. As I view it, if you are only going to investigate violations of law, there is no need for this committee's existence. Because, if a Member is violating the law, there is ample authority now to prosecute the individual. Would you agree with me? He is not exempt as a Member of Congress from prosecution for such action. Mr. BENNETT. No, I think the only additional value then to the committee would be whether they could bring in improvements of law. Plus the fact that I do think there is some reluctance-although I may be inaccurate in this, this is just a feeling on my part, and I can't substantiate it I believe there is some reluctance in the regular legal procedures of the Department of Justice and in the States as well, to bring Members of the House before their bar for the simple reason they think we handle those things ourselves. But, of course, there is a provision even under the law that was passed in the last days of the last session which says that the committee can bring violations of the law to the attention of the courts and prosecuting authorities, and that was what was recommended by the joint committee. However, the Senate committee is much broader. It does not restrict itself that way. I think there is a value even as suggested by Mr. Bolling yesterday to leave out that provision just mentioned on line 25, I think the committee would still serve a useful purpose. I must admit I think it serves a less useful purpose. Mr. LATTA. Let me say I am interested in the creation of a committee that will have authority to investigate acts of Members of Congress which bring disgrace on this body, whether it is by statute or otherwise. Let me give you an example of an individual who, through his personal conduct, disgraces the Congress. Let us assume this individual is a father; he does not support his family. He runs around with about 10 different women. This has become public knowledge; it is spread across the papers. He does not pay his debts; he has filed bankruptcy many times; he is a drunkard; he goes through the Halls of this Congress in drunken fashion; uses loud and boisterous language in the Halls of the Congress, and so forth, but he is not violating any law that you can put your finger on perhaps other than in being loud and disorderly. Unless you can pinpoint that this man is violating a statute, even though this individual, in my humble judgment, would be bringing disgrace on this Congress, your committee would not have the authority to get in and say, "Listen, you are bringing disgrace on the Congress. Unless you do something about your personal conduct, we are going to censure you." Now, as I interpret what you said yesterday, and what you said this morning, if you create this committee, cut out all powers that I think rightfully should be granted it, you are not going to be able to do that. But this individual would be bringing disgrace on the Congress. Do you want to comment on this? Mr. BENNETT. I certainly believe that the way in which you and I introduced this resolution and the select committee recommended is the proper procedure but it would certainly be preferable to have some committee make some step forward than to have no committee. Very strong elements are opposing any committee in this field or at least urging that a committee be constituted which will not be a separate committee on a nonpartisan basis, a full committee to look into these matters. Being a practical man, I want to make some step forward. I am not saying that I prefer deleting it. I certainly do not prefer deleting it. I think the deletion of it closes all possibility of looking into things that perhaps should be looked into in extreme cases. I think only in extreme cases. But there has been so much agitation among Members of Congress and despite the fact that every Member of Congress knows what it is to be in the busy life we have, inaccurately portrayed in the press-and I am not trying to blame the press, because it is partly our fault, I guess-despite that, there seems to be a desire to take the press over and above what the man actually said on the floor and in hearings and this sort of thing. Plus other things, they are making it quite a job to get any kind of committee born here. Mr. LATTA. Let us take what you said here; you are interested in getting something. I am not particularly interested in just getting something. I want to see a resolution be reported from the Rules Committee and be adopted on the floor, creating an ethics committee that has some power. I don't want to just see some headlines come out that the Congress has created an Ethics Committee that does not have any powers. Now, we well know that this resolution that we have before us today is not the same resolution that was passed by the last Congress, because item B, under section 2, was stricken by the Hays amendment, and by adopting that Hays amendment we took all powers to investigate away from the Select Committee on Ethics. But the general public thought that your committee had those powers. It is very difficult to try to operate. Now, you have been criticized by Mr. Hays, the very individual that offered the amendment for not doing something in 2 months. I can refer to his remarks here of yesterday. It seems to me that you are just asking for more trouble and more criticism, not only by Mr. Hays and other individuals who are opposed to the creation of this committee, but by the general public, when you come before the Rules Committee here this morning and say that you want something rather than nothing. I think you ought to be taking a strong position and say that you are for the creation of the committee that will do the job. Mr. BENNETT. That last statement I can certainly buy. I am in favor of the last. I am also in favor of the former, if that is all I can get, because I do think that there is some value in setting up a committee that would have the powers, even with the powers that we discussed a moment ago. I can see how you feel about it. I am disturbed that apparently some Members of Congress who feel that any Member of Congress, and particularly myself, who certainly has never opened his mouth in derogation of any individual at any time, would be thought to be a person that would do any witch hunting or snooping or anything like that. After all, I am 56 years of age. I have been in Congress 19 years. Nobody has yet pointed out any time when I have ever done anything like that. And I don't enjoy the stumbling of any of my brethren. I would hope that this committee, as I said yesterday, would be a committee that would be characterized by preventing rather than by penalization. But if this is the opinion that my brothers have in Congress of me, then I would say it would be better if someone else were chairman of the committee. I have already offered not to be a member of the committee, if that is a stumbling block for this committee, because this committee is an important idea, it should go forward, there should not be personalities. It ought to be on the basis of having a standing committee, if possible. There certainly ought to be a full committee devoting all its time to the field of ethics, improving standards. It ought to be a nonpartisan committee and it ought to be done in an important manner so that this country will know that it is going to be given real attention to. I would much prefer it had all the things in it that are in this resolution before us today and I hope the committee will bring this out. Mr. LATTA. Let me say, Mr. Bennett, that I am not one of those and I have not heard anybody say it, that feel that you would be too tough |