At Issue; 68; Congress and Ethics

The following program is from NET, the National Educational Television Network. Do you think members of Congress should be obligated by law to disclose their outside income? To me, it's most important that such a law should be passed, and I have introduced legislation which if enacted would result in this change. I don't believe that you'll improve the quality of government by passing more disclosure laws. It's my guess that the other posters you could use that would be much more effective. I believe members of Congress should be obligated by law to disclose their income. I think this should be made a matter of public record. I've done this for a number of years. I think it helps the public to judge whether or not there's any propriety or impropriety in the various sources of income that they have and evaluate what they do as congressmen

in the light of this. I can see no objection to such a law. Certainly, I'd have no objection to any law requiring such an objective. I'm convinced that members of Congress and their immediate families should be required by law to disclose their outside income. From the new Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, the National Educational Television Network presents, at issue, a commentary on events, people, and ideas. At issue this month, Congress and ethics. Once again, the question of ethical behavior by people in government royals the political life of Washington and obliges a reluctant Congress to examine the ethical standards and practices of its members. Here to discuss this issue with several prominent senators and representatives is Mr. Robert Novak, well-known Washington correspondent and co-author of the nationally syndicated column Inside Report. Corruption in government is no stranger to American history.

The annals of the nation are stained with stories of anality, of men in high office using their office for private gain. Starting with the Credit Mobile Air scandal and the Grand Administration, almost all these scandals have originated in the executive branch. Scandal and Congress has been suggestive rather than clear cut and not usually destructive of reputations. Senator Daniel Webster's Law of Business constituted a blatant conflict of interest, but today he is enshrined in the capital as one of the five greatest senators of all time. Indeed what little legislation has been adopted in the area of governmental ethics has been aimed at the member of the executive branch. The member of the legislative branch is bound by few restrictions. Title 18 of the U.S. code makes it illegal for a congressman to accept a bribe or otherwise misuse his office for private profit, but there is nothing governing more subtle conflict of interest other than a vague code of ethics adopted in 1958. Moreover up until just recently there was not even any investigative machinery for looking

into wrongdoing on Capitol Hill. Perhaps at the height of the gilded age in the late 19th century the great rubber barons of the Senate could mix private and public business to their own great profit with little threat of exposure. In some congressional ethics comprises a vast gray area with no literature, no guidelines on the subject and few students of it. Thus the current Senate investigation of charges against Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut connotes far more than merely an inquiry into one senator's affairs. It may well mean a stripping away of the veil from the entire shrouded area of congressional ethics, cautious though the senators are investigating their colleagues. It will not however come up with definitive answers. For what is involved here is not the rubber barons senator of the golden age plundering the nation for his own personal enrichment.

Questions are subtle and do not lend themselves to easy moralizing. They can be broken into two general related categories, outside income and campaign expenditures. There is today no restriction whatsoever on outside income received by a member of Congress. Nor despite growing demands for it, is there even any requirement that he disclose such income? In 1958, Code of Ethics merely electors against using confidential information for private profit. But getting a cut of the law office's business, remaining a substantial interest and an industrial concern is permitted, though it is an obvious, it can be an obvious, conflict of interest. Even the relatively innocent means of gaining income on the lecture circuit is time consuming , consuming, and a distraction from the legislators duties. The late beloved senator, Albin Barkley of Kentucky, spent so much time lecturing that his important job as Senate Majority Leader became really only a part-time job.

But a huge majority of members of the House and Senate insist they just cannot make do on their $30,000 a year salary. And therefore, they say they must supplement their income. The first cousin of the outside income problem is the problem of campaign financing and increasingly expensive business. In any district where there is the slightest contest, the member of Congress must actively court the money man, and perhaps consciously or otherwise tailor his voting record to the preferences of these money sources. This becomes further complicated with the so-called co-mingling of campaign funds and private funds and plain language using campaign funds to help defray day-to-day personal living expenses. The internal revenue service recently used a case of co-mingling to bring an income tax prosecution against former governor William Stratton of Illinois, but the case was thin and Stratton was acquitted further be fogging this question. The members of Congress we will visit tonight had studied these problems in depth long before

the Dodd case surfaced. The variety of their opinions further shows the complexity of the entire shadow area of Congressional ethics. Senator Joseph S. Clark, the author of the book Congress, The Sappless Branch, has long advocated congressional reform and particularly stiffening of regulations governing Congressional ethics. Senator Clark, how would you consider the current situation regarding the entire conflict of inter-situation V of E members of Congress? Well I think that it's important that while the iron is hot, we should strike recent revelations about congressional ethics and attitudes have key noted public interest on this subject. And I believe now is the time to pass the kind of legislation which President Johnson recommended when he sent down to the Senate through me his campaign expenditures bill which

included a provision requiring the disclosure by senators and congressmen of their income to the extent that it was earned. I would go further than that and include all income. What good would a disclosing income do you think that this would have any effect in the campaigns or in the voting record of the members of Congress? This I do, it seems to me as long as you bury a congressman or senator's finances ten feet deep or sweep them under the rug, all sorts of peculiar things will go on which the congressman or senator would not permit to go on if he had to make his holdings public and this of course would involve his legal fees, actually it ought to involve to my way of thinking the earnings of his spouse and all of the financial affairs. This to me is a very small price to pay for what I am convinced would be a substantial increase in the ethical stature of members of Congress.

Well you have voluntarily disclosed your outside income for some time I believe. Have you received any reaction to that from your constituents or otherwise? It's been generally favorable a number of editorials commending me for what I have done. I have been printed. My colleague from Pennsylvania thought he should follow suit so he now discloses his income. Senator Young of Ohio and a number of others have done the same thing, Senator Douglass and Mansfield. I think this is sort of a ripple which I hope would grow to a wave which might result in this action voluntarily although I would prefer legislation. Well just how far does disclosure go? For example you have to own a great deal of oil stock and investment in the oil business as a matter of fact your voting record is against the oil industry but let's just say hypothetically you were voting for the oil industry do you think that this should be a deterrent against voting for the oil industry because you own oil stock? No actually Bob I don't own oil stock it's oil royalties which is very much better because

that gives me the 27 and a half percent depletionary amount which I wouldn't get if I were merely a stockholder. But I think it's important that the constituents should be able to weigh the motivation which results in a senator voting one way or another and I think a tendency would be to do what I do actually to lean over backwards in order to prevent any adverse political criticism I happen to believe the depletion allowance is much too high. In other words this is strictly in the lapse of the voter as you see it a member of Congress or a senator can have a great deal of income outside income from a law firm and it strictly would be if they had disclosure would be up to the voter there would be no inhibition on his getting this income. That's my view I think disclosure is much more effective than any effort to create criminal penalties or even to write a code of ethics. I think if all the facts are on top of the table you'll get very salutary results. Would you also extend this to even lecture fees in this sort of income would it be completely

across the board? Yes I think that's important too because one of the best ways of attempting to influence a senator or a congressman is to pay him a very large honorarium for talking before some lobby group and this may be all right but I think when that happens he ought to tell his constituents. Senator over the years there has been a rather substantially healthy majority of the Congress opposed to any kind of disclosure on the grounds that this makes members of congress second class citizens. Now you say the iron is hot because of the current situation dot investigation. Do you think that this majority has been whittled down realistically? I think if we ever got it to a vote you'd be surprised how many people would vote for disclosure. What's you advances the Dixon thesis that a man becomes a second class citizen if he has to tell what his income what his assets are. I don't go for this at all.

It seems to me you've more or less like seizures wife we ought to be above suspicion and I have no hesitation I don't think I'm just behaving like an exhibitionist in disclosing my own holdings and I don't see why anybody else should either. Senator even if you have disclosure mandatory disclosure by all members of congress you still are not quite the restrictions on you would not be nearly as difficult as they are on members of the executive branch that is a member of the executive branch is required to divest himself of stock. Well is it? Well is it? It seems to me that this is a rule as often honored in the breaches and the observance. It's generally believed that this is true but I've known many instances where congressional committees have just looked the other way and large amounts of stock will continue to be held by members of the administration on the ground the particular job they were performing didn't raise any serious conflict of interest.

I'm not sure that I agree with complete divestiture I'd be better satisfied with complete disclosure. But isn't that up to the individual committee and their confirmation proceedings for example the Senate Armed Services Committee has taken a very harsh line in requiring Pentagon officials to divest themselves. Well that was largely because the Wilson incident back in the Eisenhower administration when I think the committee felt they'd been burned a little bit. But it was carried over to McNamara and this isn't it. Yes it was. But I think you'll find if you go down the line a little further it's not all that strict. But that you are not worried about a double standard of a higher standard for the executive branch and a lower standard for the legislative branch. I think the standard should be the same I'd like to substantially raise the congressional standard and with respect to divestiture. I think the executive department may have gone too far in certain instances. You mean the congress requirements on the executive department? Yes. Actually they're largely moral requirements aren't they there's nothing legal about it.

I don't think that the fact that a man owns General Motors or Lockheed aircraft or Boeing aircraft disqualifies him from being a secretary of defense or a secretary of the Air Force. But I think the public are entitled to know just what he does on and be guided accordingly in forming its judgments. Senator in regard to the current case do you believe that the problem of Senator Dodd would have been obviated if there had been a disclosure rule? I think it's quite likely it would have but no one can be absolutely sure. I believe this is a great safeguard in protecting the public from deals made under the table. Senator Russell Long, Democrat of Louisiana, is one of the most influential members of the Senate with 18-year service there. He is the Senate Majority Whip, which makes him a system majority leader and is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Long, since you do not agree that do not believe that disclosure of income, outside

income by members of Congress should be obligated, aren't you creating a double standard as between members of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch? That doesn't bother me at all. A member of the Executive Branch is in position to be one man who can make a decision that can benefit a corporation or an individual to a large extent, perhaps the extent of millions of dollars. A member of Congress is merely one of 537 Legislate Towers. He's one of 100 senators or one of 437 House members, and a Legislate tar is not expected to be unbiased and unprejudiced. When you're moving in the Legislative field, it's well-recognized that people run for office and they say how they expect to vote on things. A man can run for office and say, I'm going to vote. To raise your pension, Grand Paul, I'm going to vote for more welfare or I'm going to vote

for lower interest rates, to make the bank and make less money and make it easier for a man to own a home, and there's no basis for whatever to contend that a Legislate tar should not be biased. He's entitled to be biased and he's entitled to be prejudiced and he's entitled to say that I'm on the side of the NAACP or I'm on the side of the Citizens Council. The function of a Legislate tar is entirely different from that of a judge, and in many respects, the difference in that of an Administrator who is supported, Minister of Law, and Portia. There's no requirement, whatever. It's not expected. The Legislate tar is going to be impartial. He can be on the labor side and be known for it and run on that basis, and if he fails to support that side, he can be regarded being corrupt because he didn't keep the commitments that he made when he ran for office. Well, if a Legislator owns a certain amount of stock and corporation X, and a bill comes up, which gives tax relief for corporation X, do you think that the Legislator should disqualify himself from voting on that bill?

Well, if I just might give you an example, I personally think that he ought to say, I mean they just stockholder in this company. I have an interest in this matter. So at the public knows that that's the case, and may I say that I had a situation like that one time where there was no conflict, both the Federal and the State Proposal would have been the same as far as my personal interest was concerned, but I felt that I should disclose it to the committee. And one of your colleagues in one of these columns ruled about it not one time but several that I had an interest in the matter. And my interest was parallel to that of my State. When I was fighting for my State, I did have an interest parallel to my State's interest. From the economic point of view, I thought as a matter of ethics, I should disclose that and I did. And everybody could talk about all they wanted to. That was an interest that I inherited from my father. And that's been the matter of campaign propaganda from time to time. But he really didn't have anything to do with the issues. I think in a case like that, he ought to say, this is the interest that I have. But if you're going to take the attitude that a legislator can't vote on something, if

he has an interest in any respect, how would you ever vote on a pay raise bill that involves a legislative branch? It could never be passed because only the Congress can pass that pay raise. In addition to that, or even one to cut the pay, you still got an interest in it, even if you're voting against your interest. And how would you vote on the revenue act of 1964? Now, it was a four-manage on that. When that was the biggest revenue act in the history of the country, it was a $14 billion tax cut. It cut everybody's taxes. Well, theoretically, not a single member of that Congress could have voted on that because they all had an interest in it. As a practical matter, we all understood what our interest was. And it was the same interest that we thought the nation had. Those others who voted for it thought that the reduction in taxes would stimulate the economy. It would help everybody. And we voted for it, sharing the benefit of it, just as everybody else did. Well, apart from the disclosure, do you think there are or should be restrictions, maybe not restrictions in law, but restrictions on a voluntary basis on what outside income

a senator should have? I mean, for example, should he continue to derive income from a law firm that is doing business with the federal government? I don't think so. No, I think that that involves a direct conflict. And the code of legal ethics takes care of that, and I don't know of any senator who violates that. If that would be the case, I'd be surprised. Now, there was a time, and I can look back to the years in the call times when a senator would be a member of a firm, and that firm would have a lot of connection with big concerns, which had problems with the federal government. Most persons who had that kind of a problem, however, made a point to restrict all of their practice to perhaps state and local matters, not dealing with the federal government. I personally think that if I felt I can afford it, he ought to sever all his private law connections when he goes into a position of being a congressman, a senator, and of course he has to do that in the executive branch, and I think it's appropriate.

What reforms or what changes do you think should be made in the rules governing campaign expenditures? I would like to see a law to make it easier to finance campaigns legitimately, and I think you ought to start out at the point where the influence is the most pronounced and becomes the most effective, and thinking about the campaign for the presence of the United States. In a tough race, it will cost perhaps a quarter of a million dollars for the average size state for a senator to run and be elected, it might cost $100,000 more than that. But with that, he can get his side across the people, and that's not an insurmountable obstacle for a job like the United States senator. Practically all the people who run are successful men in business with their professions when they do run, at least 30 years of age when they run, and most of them have established themselves, they haven't made money on their own right, they haven't inherited some, while they know people, fellows qualified to run for a job with that sort, has a chance to win, had a lot of connections, so he can raise a substantial amount of money, and after it to be heard, and even though he might not be near as well financed as his opponent.

And a congressman can usually raise $15,000, $20,000 without too much difficulty. That is enough to make your side heard, that people know what he stands for, and beyond that point, you tend to reach a point of finishing returns. I heard Congressman Bowling suggested $50,000 would be an amount that a person might have been running for Congress. I can understand well how that much could be spent, and it would perhaps be a fair amount for a highly contested race. But that is, while within the means of a good candidate to raise, the problem that brings most improper influence in the government, in my opinion, has to do with the financing of these racists for president. Albert Gold made a study in depth for that some years ago, and he gave me an educated guess that the year he investigated was the year when I was in high school, and again, Stevenson. He concluded that it took the Democrats about $12 to $15,000,000 to make a race for the presidency in that year, and it probably cost Republicans around $36 to $40,000,000.

So you can see that no one candidate can hope to raise that kind of money, and it comes in in large amounts. Now you talk about these $100 contributions, and the bill suggests that those should be deductible. What tends to happen in so many cases is that a corporation, which is forbidden to contribute directly, raises money indirect to the corporation president, or the chairman of that board, will pick one of their up-and-coming young executives, and he'll go around and talk to all of their officers and all of their retired officers, and get a check from each one of them. So even though the checks come in at small contributions, that corporation might be raising many thousands of dollars, and to help one candidate and labor unions tend to go along and ask each one of their members, their officers, to put up a certain amount. They make the rounds in effect. It's my judgment that it's this area, the actual election of a president, where most of the corruption sneaks into your federal government, and it's insidious.

It happens in so many ways that you never see it, that I would try to offset that, not by disclosure law. I don't think that'll accomplish a thing on the Sun, except to make people be more sophisticated and the deceit that they presently have engaged in. I think it would be just a lot better to say that when you elect the president, the federal government will reimburse him out of the treasury for expenses he has actually made up to, let's say, one dollar for each vote cast in his favor. That would require him to come in with his receipts and say, here's what I spent. And then you would take a look at that, and you'd measure that against the votes he had. If you had, let's say, 35 million votes, he could be reimbursed up to a figure of 35 million dollars if he spent that much, but he couldn't be reimbursed for more than he spent. You wouldn't put the reimbursement principle in effect for senators and members of the House. I wouldn't start out with it because I don't think that their expenses are insurmountable. I'm frank to tell you that most members of the House and most senators probably wouldn't want you to do that anyway for a reason it doesn't meet the eye.

You put that into effect for senators and congressmen, guarantee, practically everyone of them, a first class opponent the next time he runs for office, it would just bring a lot of additional people into the competitive field. And I'm not sure if the average senator or congressman wants that. As far as the president's concerned, whoever runs as a candidate for president is going to have a first class opponent from the opposition party anyway. He's going to have about the best that the opposing party can pick to put in there against him. And both sides are going to be well financed, no matter what they have to do or what commitments they have to make in order to get that done. You don't think that the financing for members of congress is a potential source of corruption? Not nearly so much so it is on the executive level. And once again the reason I say that is that if a senator or a congressman is advocating or trying to put across something that's not proper, that should not be done, that bill has to be signed in the law by the president even after it receives a vote of a majority of 100 senators and a majority of 437 House members.

And that president is well advised. He has people in every department who study these things and advise the congress what it looks like to them. And if he vetoes that bill, it's not going to become law, that's when you're talking about a law. If those people are suggesting that someone should have a particular contract rather than the other fellow, such as this TFX argument that we heard talk about, and the thing to that sort. Insofar as a submission involved, it can't be consummated unless somebody in that executive branch appointed by the president authorizes that. And a good precedent, this one in particular, it's more enough to know practically everything is going on in that federal government that it involves a large amount of money. Do you feel that there is any problem in the testimonial dinner which has received quite a bit of publicity lately of the member of Congress or the senator having a testimonial well obvious contribute money to him? Yes, there's a problem about these testimonial dinners and we're going to have to do something about it, my reaction to it is that we should simply say that all income that's directed

toward a member of Congress's personal account should be taxable to him. I always thought it was and it's contended now that it's not, they could be regarded as a gift. Now I can see how that could be the case, if you analyze it for a moment, if you take a personal key, suppose my own mother knows that my brother and my friends make a lot more money in other endeavors and I do, and she knows that I'm losing money being in this job, like to help me, suppose my mother wanted to contribute something to help me meet expenses to stay in the job of being a professional legislator. I don't think anyone would contend that the gift that she gives me in that respect should be any different than it would be if there's any other mother giving something to any other son to help him along with his business. She helped him make ends meet if she thought what he was doing which both violence should be encouraged. Now, when you get to a situation where people that have no family connection, no particular

reason to be interested in you, contribute money, it's seen in me that they have a purpose in mind, they want that man to be in office because he either helps their financial means, perhaps it's good for their company, even if it's just good for their city or their community that they're trying to advance. They're doing something to advance themselves, advance their community and they do a lot of things that are not tax deductible and I think that the person who receives it should treat it just as he would any other income. Make a taxable and we will so vote in my judgment. Representative Charles Bennett of Florida was author of the original Code of Ethics adopted by Congress in 1958 and has introduced new legislation now to create a federal commission on that. Thanks for government employees. Congressman Bennett, how do you feel your 1958 Code of Ethics has worked out?

Has it been any of you? It has been a great use. The Civil Service Commission and other parts of our government have repeatedly made reports to me on this. In the first place, people can be removed from office or disciplined because of improper actions and it's good to have a code which states what the proprieties and improprieties are. So this code has had the benefit of crystallizing in certain aspects, the degrees to which your person should act in one way or another and it has come up in a number of cases with the guard to disciplining individual employees. So it has had an active part already to play in the improvement of the climate of government. But has it had any impact on elected members of the legislative branch? Well, I'm sure it has. All members of the elected branch of government are participating that were there at that time and enacting it and others know that it exists and so it is a standard. It is better than having no standard at all.

I would think that it would have a connection with what is now happening in ethics hearings on Capitol Hill today because it does set a standard. But it is unenforceable as far as members of the legislative branch because it's not a criminal statute. We're not dealing in the field of crime. Crimes are things which you can readily define with great deathness and put a penalty upon and that's it. That's a crime. A code of ethics has to do with things that are a little bit higher level than just criminal activity. It has to do with inspiring as well as enforcing a penalty. Well, I can see how that would be very effective or very necessary with a government worker. But with a member of Congress, do you think any such inspiration is really ought to be necessary or is necessary? Do I think any such should be necessary or is necessary? Well, I think of course that there ought to ever have to be anything to make a man a better man. It would be fine if all people were perfect, but regrettably all people are perfect.

In fact, nobody ever was perfect except Jesus Christ in my religion. The idea of making them better. I do think it makes people better to have high standards that's told us every day. I mean, if everybody had high standards as they grew up in life, we wouldn't have lots of the problems we have today. And I think having a code or standard set rules are helpful to people. Number eight in the code of ethics never use any information coming to him, confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit. Now, how could this apply to a congressman? How could this be not enforced but implemented in the everyday life of a congressman? Do you have additional legislation on this subject? Oh, yes. I never intended that the code of ethics was stand by itself. In the very beginning when the code of ethics was introduced, I accompanied it by a commission on ethics which would help to interpret the code and recommend changes in it from time to time and also make definitive, shall we say, common law decisions upon it to lay down

a body of case law on this subject. The code of ethics was never intended to stand entirely by itself. It's a list of standards and it does have some value in disciplining federal employees and by way of inspiration of those who are not actually disciplined. But of course, members of Congress themselves are disciplined on the Senate side by the Senate Committee on Ethics and I hope in the near future we'll be on the House side by a similar committee. How would you apply your feelings that there should be a disclosure of income? Would you put this as a statute applying to all members of Congress and their staffs and their spouses or just how would you apply that? Well, if I could get exactly the law, I wouldn't have to compromise in any respect and could arrive at the perfect law, it certainly would require it. The bill which I've actually introduced allows the Committee on Ethics to require it in particular instances.

What has been the reaction rather of your colleagues to your proposal and other proposals for income disclosure? There is a very strong group of members of Congress and the House of Representatives who have introduced similar legislation and asked for hearings before the Rules Committee so that this matter may be brought to a head. Do you think it's growing? The amount of what? Oh, very much. Is the Dodd case had some impact on this, do you feel? Well, every situation which brings these matters into the public light and discussion emphasizes the need for this, as a matter of fact, my coup d'avethics, which I was finally able to enact, I would say my coup d'avethics, many members of Congress assisted me in this, but it came about in the days of the deep freeze and the mink coat, but it was enacted on the Oriental rug of the Eisenhower days. In other words, it took that lapse of time about 70 years or something like that and another instant to come up. And it has, in it, some of the embodiment of the McCarthy era, for instance, the one you referred to about members of, a minute ago, about the members of Congress disclosing

information that came to them in a private manner, that came directly out of the experiences of the McCarthy hearings because there was an assertion, at least, that private information was being used to sell a book. Well, how does the testimonial dinner problem, the congressman who gets money from testimonial dinner, is for either private purposes or campaign purposes? How does this fit into this picture? What do you think should be done about this point? Well, there's nothing, basically, a moral for anybody to give a dinner and charge what he wants to for it and put it in his pocket or put it into his campaign fund if he wants to do it, but a man who is in public life should report, I think, his sources of income, whether from bankers or whatever it may be. And of course, if he raises them for campaign purposes, that's one thing. If he raises them for his own personal welfare, this is something else, and it should be publicly known. Should there be a demarcation, or do you think it's all right from the co-mingle these two kinds of funds?

Well, since they are in the nature of trust funds, the general principle law would apply that it's not proper to co-mingle them, because otherwise you would not be able to identify which would go to the private purposes, which would go to the semi-public purpose of a campaign. They all should be made public in the case of a man in public life, and they all should be reported so the public can see them. That is on a testimonial dinner that it should be reported in detail as to who attended the testimony. I think all income of members of Congress in the Senate should be public. What I have said in my House bill is to allow the grievance committee to decide which ones are going to be made public and which are not on particular cases, but that's not the goal. The goal is for all of them to be done. Do you see anything wrong with using the income from a testimonial dinner for private purposes? It is done publicly for private purposes. If you have a dinner for private purposes and you tell everybody that buys a ticket, that's what it's for. That's just making a gift to them. There's nothing more illegal or immoral than that. This is a method of giving a gift, as long as everybody understands it. It's made public.

It's perfectly all right. You would draw the line that if the campaign contribution were made, and then he used part of the Congressman, used part of the campaign contribution for his living in the trust funds with other funds. And besides that, I think when you have a campaign contribution, people don't give you money personally. They give you money because they expect to see you use it in the campaign. Do you think that is done, though, sometimes the use of the campaign runs for private purposes? I have no myself and in knowledge in this, whether it is or is not, would just be a rumor. What about this whole question of outside income congressman, Bennett, we've talked with other guests today about this. Is there, is $30,000 insufficient? I don't think so, I did right well when I had $10,500. It fits on how you want to live. Everybody can get used to any kind of income you want to put. And if you put yourself in a $30,000 blanket, you can be there very readily. I am. I spend every, every sense that I get in, I don't save any money at all. I save more as a second lieutenant in World War II than I do today is a $30,000. But you can't live on $30,000?

I can live on $30,000 a year. I never, didn't have any capital when I came here as much to speak up, but what I had is mostly gone today. I haven't saved anything by being here. But do you feel that many, many senators, many congressmen do say that is utterly impossible for them to put on the living of the state in which they think their constituents expect them to? In the first place, I think most constituents allow the congressmen to set the way in which they want to live. If a man wants to live with a Ford car and an humble house, he can do that and not many constituents hold us against him. I think it's more that the constituents assume with this large salary that he can live, like most other people can live with that salary, which of course is not true. In other words, although we get $30,000 a year, it's a net income of perhaps half of that, and that is not understood by most people. I mean, there's a lot of office expenses, a lot of expenses which are necessary to do. I don't want to talk about social. I'm talking about actual equipment and things of this type which are not adequately repaid by the federal government, and it's a consequence you live on much less than $30,000 a year.

But if you live as if you had $30,000 a year, well, of course, you'll go in the red. Representative Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is one of the most senior and most powerful members of the House of Representatives. Representative Rivers, you say you would have no objection to a law requiring disclosure of outside income by members of Congress. Do you actually favor such a law? If such a law were proposed, I'd vote for it. You would vote for it. Is that a representative change in your position from past years? Well, I've never had the question propounded to me. I've had no, no, any other position. If anybody would have asked me this at any time in my career, I'd have answered the same way. Do you feel that the senior members of Congress, the committee chairman, with some liberals of call, the establishment now also generally favors such an income disclosure law? I don't know what they do, but I.

I found nobody in the House, and my experience who opposed it, I know no opposition to such a law. Senator Dirkson, the Senate Minority Leader, has felt that such a law, with constitutes second-class citizenship for members of Congress or for public servants. Do you feel that way, sir? Well, the Congress is under constant attack by various segments of our press and of our communications, and the institution has suffered these attacks over the years. There are only 500 odd members of Congress representing 200 million people, and members of Congress occupy a very special place in the eyes of America, and I don't feel that of a constitute, making members of Congress second-class citizens, sent you to ask a question. However, if a member of Congress were minded to want to hide any of his assets, I assume

he could do it with respect to the law. So you don't think the law could be mandatory in that sense? Well, if it were mandatory, and a man wanted to be dishonest, he could, but if the Congress wanted to require this of their own membership, I'd support it. On a broader scale, Congressman Rivers, do you think there is a problem of congressional ethics today, of the ethics of members of Congress? No, I certainly don't. So you feel there is no need for corrective legislation? I don't think there is a need for it. Do you feel that the Dodd case, this investigation, points up any need for problems? I don't know anything about the Dodd case, and I'd rather not discuss it because it's under inquiry in the Senate, and we never involved ourselves, and we never involved ourselves in the actions of another branch of the Congress. I don't know nothing about the Dodd case. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, you have a great deal

with the leading officials in the defense department, and before they were confirmed, a great many of them had to dispose of their stock. And I think that was a serious mistake. You do feel that. I certainly do. I think that was a mistake. That does create sort of a double standard, doesn't it? What I said in the executive branch and the legislative branch? I certainly does, and I don't think they should have done it. I remember when Mackamara and Charlie Wilson came down here from jail mortars, of those men were going to be dishonest, they'd be dishonest anyway, and I don't think, at a matter of role, I never'd agree with this, making them dispose of their assets. What do you feel the alternative should be to that soon? A few, if we had to get big men in government, to come from outside industry, we can't make them divest themselves of everything they own, to come down to Washington and take the abuse, which is so characteristic of Washington.

And I don't think that was a wise thing to do. Would you say a simple disclosure would be an adequate, a preferable to make a man dispose of his stock interest, he'd accumulated over the years, and maybe the laws, and I didn't think it was wise. Don't agree with it. I think it was a mistake. Mr. Chairman, do you think, as a general rule, as a general principle, there should be a single standard, a single measurement of this outside income problem dealing with the Congress on the one hand and the executive branch on the other? In other words, should a member of Congress be dealt with the same way as a senior official in the executive branch, a cabinet officer? Do you think there is a basic difference in the way they got their office in the... Oh, yeah, it's a metallic basic difference. A member of Congress is elected, these men are appointed. So do you think there should be a stricter enforcement of what we call ethics of regulations or conflict of interest regulations as opposed to the members of the Congress has to run every two years and every six years?

And certainly one who comes to Washington and would be appointed to position should be held in a stricter kind of his actions, at least the public can get out of a member of Congress. Do you feel... But do you feel as a rule the question of his ethical conduct, the accepting extraordinary cases ever comes up in elections? Those aren't... That elections are never forward on that issue very much. Oh, they are... They are fought out in all kinds of ways, primaries and general elections too. Men... They get pretty hot. I've never endeared it. As a matter of fact, in my 26 years, I've had very seldom ever had opposition. But I've seen many races get waxed pretty warm and everything is said, which can be said. Mr. Chairman, as a... Now let me hasten to tell you this, I don't think a member of Congress, nor will I give this impression, as on an equal should be regarded as on the same basis with an appointed official, because we are the creator of those people.

And we don't necessarily become comparable to these men. For instance, they had a pay bill this year for the postal employees, and they wanted to put the members of Congress an increase of members of Congress on a postal pay bill. This is ridiculous. If members of Congress need a pay, raise the ought to have separate legislation, why should we hang on the kite of some postal employees whom we created? Well, on that, this is not... I don't put myself on a parity with a government employee. Well, the people in the Constitution put me above them. On that point, sir, the Congress has done a pretty good job over the years, I think, in policing the misbehavior and unethical conduct in the executive branch. Do you think there is perhaps some need for a permanent means, a permanent method of policing the members of the legislative branch? Not necessarily, because they can set up these committees on ethics, they may, they want

to. And the Constitution said, each branch shall be the judge of whom they shall, that branch shall seat as members, the Constitution says that. So you have the law now, all I have to do is set up a committee. Do you feel there should be some special committees set up though? Not that there is none in the House today. I don't proceed on the premise that there's a need for this. I know, in my 26 years, I've never seen any tickler. I've never noticed any dishonest in our branch of the Congress. I've seen, once in a while, I've seen cases brought up against members of Congress. And there have been quiddles, and there have been convictions, and that's 26 years. Representative Richard Bowling of Missouri's author of the book House Out of Order, he has

been a leading liberal in the House of Representatives in long and advocate of congressional reform. Representative Bowling, do you think that the problems of campaign financing, of members of Congress getting finances for their campaign, constitutes an ethical problem for the congressman today? I think it constitutes a major problem. The law as it exists today is totally unrealistic. The limits for members of the House and Senate set by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act take into account nothing of the expenses that really exist today in TV and radio and other media. I think that law badly needs to be changed so that we have a realistic limit. At the same time, I think that much more stringent enforcement of the law should be required. There are techniques that everybody uses today in which you set up committees, which are not bound by the law's provisions, and indefinite amounts of money may be spent through these committees, and you're still within the law.

I believe that the way to control it is not only to control the amount of money that can be contributed, but also and primarily to see to it that there are no expenditures that are not accounted for. This is not as difficult to do as something, at least in the area of the media. I do not believe that a candidate should be able to hide behind a front of a committee set up to keep him within the law. I think a candidate should be held responsible for all the expenditures made in his behalf, and that it should be illegal for anybody to make an expenditure in his behalf without his consent. This is the only way that I know that you can meet the problem, which I consider a critical problem of money in politics as far as it concerns campaign expenditures. Well, beyond that, do you think you have the problem of the congressman in the marginal district of districts such as yours, where you have a race coming up, either the primary election or in the general election, where there is a contested election? Do you find that in such districts the congressman becomes beholden to special interests because

of his need for campaign financing? I think that that is not necessarily so. I think it can happen. I believe that all politicians should remember a quotation from Ferello Laguardia that one of his greatest qualifications for high office was a total lack of gratitude. I think that that has its application. I don't think that a person who takes a campaign contribution should feel that he is bound to the people that make it. Now, the way there are a variety of ways to meet this problem since campaigns are so expensive. One of them is to try to see to it that you get a great mix of different kinds of contributions, small, large, business, labor, and so on. But I think that the person who gives a contribution with the notion that he's going to get something in return should be disabused of that, and I think this is one of the reasons why it's important to amend the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. I think it can be done.

A lot of people say it's impossible. Incidentally, I think it should apply both to primaries and generals. Now, don't misunderstand me. I think that the individual, either the person who's in office or the person who's out of office, should be allowed to suspend a realistic sum of money. There should be greater care taken in this than I have been able to take. But I'd think that a member of the House and anybody running for a House seat in either a primary or a general should be allowed to spend as much as say $50,000, perhaps $50,000 in the primary, $50,000 in the general. That's a lot of money. And a senator should be allowed to spend the number of 50,000s that there are congressional districts, for example, in the given state. Now, this is facing up to the fact that running for offices is an extraordinarily expensive thing today, and that money is an essential to an effective political campaign. Congressman Bowen, do you think there is a problem today in the so-called co-mingling of campaign funds and private funds?

That is to say that the Congressman has a testimonial dinner, or he has some other fundraising device, and he uses part of the money for the campaign funds and others for his personal day-to-day living expenses. I think this should be defined very clearly in the law, because there's a cloud area. What is a campaign expenditure? If you buy a relatively expensive dinner for some very important campaign contributors, for example, is that a campaign expense, or is it a personal expense? Where do the personal expenses end and begin? I think that should be defined, so that everybody knows what the rules of the road are. And I think that's one of the reasons why we need to so badly to revise the laws. For some years, I didn't think that you could regulate ethics with law, and I still think that this is true. I think that Chief Justice Warren is correct when he said a long time ago that law floats on a sea of ethics. You can't pass law that will take care of all the ethical decisions that an individual must make.

But I think in an area as important as this, there should be a great many more guidelines decided upon after careful study, the kind of careful study given by the Commission that President Kennedy appointed on this problem. And then come up with a proposition that's generally agreed to by the running politicians acceptable to the public realistic in relation to the actual costs. And then we would know whether this was right or this was wrong in a great many more areas. That still be cloudy areas. What about the testimonial dinner that is the type of testimonial dinner that has received some notoriety in the Dodd case where the senator has a testimonial and is lobbyists are invited, businessmen are invited, and the purpose of the dinner is unclear. But what the real purpose is is to give him some living expense money for the next couple of years. This was the so-called slush fund concept. Well, again, this is a case where the law today is totally unclear. There have been a great many such testimonial dinners.

I don't know exactly the same kind as the one you mentioned, but I think that it would be helpful to the politician to have it stated specifically that this was in or was out. Personally, I think it should be out. I think that today at least, perhaps not in every occasion in every year, but today at least a congressman in the senator gets paid a living wage. And he has realistic expense allowances within certain limits. But I think there has to be a law so that the rules of the road are defined, and it is known that this is proper, and this is improper. I would hope that we would pass such a law as a result of the various events that are taking place today. What would you make improper? I don't believe that a politician, specifically a congressman, today is so badly paid that he can't afford to live on his salary. I also don't believe that the solution to that is a testimonial dinner if, in fact, he cannot live on his salary.

I think that we should be paid salaries adequate to meet our legitimate living expenses at a relatively high standard of living. But I think that's the way you solve it, not by the testimonial dinner, and I would much prefer to see it done that way, and I think it could be done that way. Well, many of your colleagues, Congressman Bowling, disagree with you on the adequacy of the $30,000 a year plus expenses. They claim this is not a living wage in Washington. Do you feel that there is a majority of feeling in the House that this is not a living wage? Well, there may be a majority feeling in the House, but I haven't noticed any great effort on the part of that majority to pass legislation. Personally, I would not hesitate a moment to vote for a higher salary. But I think that $30,000 is a great deal of money, and it is a reasonable amount on which to live. Now, I don't believe that you have to accept the notion that we have to be the leading social lights in town.

I don't think we have to have enormous entertainment expenditures. Clearly, it would be nice to have more money, everybody likes to have more money. But I do think that after we finally got up to the $30,000, after a lot of backing and filling, that that was a reasonable amount. Now, our expenses seem to me are professionally adequate. Do you think President Johnson's proposals in this whole area of campaign expenditures and generally form our adequate agenda? Well, not entirely. I preferred, and I wouldn't want to have to go into all the detail because it was some time ago, but I preferred the more detailed recommendations of the commission appointed by President Kennedy. I feel that there should be an effort made to see to it that there are great many more small contributions. And I, for one, would not hesitate to go beyond most of the recommendations that have been made by most official bodies to see to it that some of the expenses were picked up by the general taxpayer in the form of some kind of a direct subsidy.

The tax credit, rather than a tax deduction. Well, I do think. The tax credit, perhaps, and perhaps even a portion of the campaign expenses, a portion, not all of them, being picked up out of the federal treasury. I see nothing outrageous about that. Many benefits from what happens in government, and it seems to me that everybody should be, that pays taxes, should be willing to make some contribution to the process, which results in an orderly government, and that is, after all, a democratic process, which, in turn, is an electoral process. Do you see any chance for the enactment of social legislation this year? Well, I'm a perennial optimist. People have told me that a great deal of the legislation in the social welfare field that we passed last year would never come to pass. People tell me that the reforms proposed in my bookhouse out of order have no chance, and yet I've seen a great many changes take place in the years that I've been in Washington,

and I'm convinced that the society finally demands of its legislative leaders that they do the necessary thing to keep the process functioning. I would hope that we, in the legislatures, would give more leadership, and that instead of sweeping some of these things under the rug, because they've always been done the other way, and it would be convenient, that we'd face up to a very serious aspect of what has been described by some as the problem of money and politics, and I think it can be faced up to, both in terms of campaign contributions, and in all the other things that we've discussed. These problems are susceptible to no quick-clean solution. Holesay Reform of campaign giving laws seems indispensable to make clear if nothing else that political contributions can be used for campaigns and campaigns alone, and cannot be co-mingled tax-free with a congressman's personal income. But this is scarcely a solution to the problem of a modern congressman's money needs.

It is doubtful that the Congressional salary can ever be raised high enough to obviate the need for outside income, nor is it even remotely possible or even desirable to restrict the nature of his outside income. Ineffective though it may be, disclosure of outside income by congressman is the most it can be hoped for. That at least would give interested constituents the information, sadly lacking to them now. However, even this mild device is by no means certain to pass Congress and is today probably short of a majority. All that can be said is that the Dodd case has increased public realization that the ethical problems of the congressman in today's complex society are a matter of public interest and public concern that too long has been neglected. At least these problems, though not their solution, may now be more clearly defined. Thank you. This is NET, the National Educational Television Network.