is the real responsibility and I think whenever we take possession of, or cognizance of, any information, it has been my experience during 21 years here, that there is less likelihood of the irresponsible leak of information from the committees of Congress, than from the agencies, or the executive branch itself.

I just don't see the problems herein raised. Now clearly the rules of the House do not provide that the chairman has any greater right of access to information than any other Members of the Congress. I think it is interesting here to refer to the rules of the House in rule XI of the House, subrule 27c, "all committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the member serving as chairman of the committee, and such records shall be the property of the House and all Members of the House shall have access to such records."

Mr. COHEN. That is not the provision I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. This is the governing provision. There have been Chairmen over the years who have asserted a right beyond the authority given them by the authority of the rules of the House. I am familiar with that rule because I have had to invoke it against a number of Chairmen and it is so clear, there is no right and they don't have private files. If they do, they are abusing their authority as a chairman. And anything I want as a Member of this House, from any Member of this House. I am entitled to receive.

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. Are you always successful in invoking the rule? Mr. Moss. I have not had a failure. I have had some vigorous opposition, but I have not had a failure. I learned that as a freshman where I had a reeling round with a chairman. I might add I have never asserted such a right myself. I think every Member of this House has a part of the total responsibility of the House.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would enjoy hearing more of this colloquy, so long as I am not in the middle of it.

I do want to make only one point. I had been informed-I take it mistakenly-that there is a provision, maybe it is just practice, that certain materials that go directly to the chairman's possession and become part of his file, are not available to any other person, without his permission.

Mr. Moss. The language of the rule, it is an old rule, but it is quite clear.

Now, as to a reasonable time, who would make the determination, the Commission or the Congress, as to what constituted reasonable? Mr. COHEN. That is difficult because it can only give rise to argument. But, seriously, the Commission has been around for 40 yearsMr. Moss. The Congress for 190 plus.

Mr. COHEN. And I was a Commissioner for some years. But in all the years I was there, when questions did arise as to the availability of records, they were worked out. More often than not, I was assigned to deal with the chairman of the committee and the records were available. Sometimes, because of the sheer bulk of the records, and because there was no organized way of getting at these things, these things usually were worked out by certain persons designated by the chairman and by the committee. I am not aware of any situation that created any problems.

In fact, I know that on some occasions-I remember one occasion very well, sitting before a subcommittee of this committee, I guess it

was the full committee, it goes back a number of years after the Commission made its records available, then this committee exercised very vigorously and very effectively its oversight responsibility in that case, much to the embarrassment of many people in the Commission. But nothing was withheld, it was always made available.

Mr. Moss. I am trying to recall any problems with the Commission generally and I cannot. However, I can recall very substantial problems with other independent Commissions and here we are dealing with a pattern. The committee is directing its attention to a pattern of independence and a pattern of congressional rights to access.

On one occasion, I recall a subcommittee of this Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce faced with the claim of a right to withhold, because of bulk, ending up with the halls of the Cannon Building being the temporary halls of the file rooms of the Commission, because we insisted on our rights and took possession of the files we thought we wanted. I might add that we did cull them with great care. That was the old Oversight Subcommittee of Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Mr. COHEN. I hope, Mr. Chairman, neither you nor any members of the committee have taken from anything I have said any suggestion that I don't trust the members of the committee with respect to those materials. But, if I understand the rules, including the rule you have read, those documents are available to people other than members of the committee, or they could become available. While I am not suggesting there are greater leaks in the Congress than at the SEC, I am merely speaking to the bare possibility that some of that information may become available prior to the time when perhaps it should be, prior to the time when an investigation is completed, prior to the time when raw data has been adequately dealt with, prior to the time when the Commission has had a reasonable opportunity to take some action. Mr. Moss. Isn't that possible at the Commission?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, it is, and there have been one or two occasions when it has been suggested there had been a leak at the Commission, much to our great embarrassment.

Mr. Moss. I think that the Congress at its advanced age has the maturity of judgment to insure that files in its possession will not be leaked in a manner prejudicial to the work it has delegated to the Commission.

I do think on a matter of reasonableness, normally, while we might say within 2 days, if the Commission came forward and made a reasonable case, I have no doubt there would be an agreement for an extension, but there could not be the interminable delays which are frequently encountered.

Mr. COHEN. I agree with that.

Mr. Moss. I recall, Mr. Cohen, when the Department of Agriculture wanted to withhold some files from the Government Operations Committee involving some alleged misconduct out in the Midwest, and they raised the issue of the sanctity of investigative files in matters of pending litigation, a careful examination of the facts by the committee showed that the litigation had been pending and not submitted for almost 10 years. So we have to be very careful in agreeing to imposing conditions on the Congress that we not agree to the fashioning of straitjackets.

Mr. COHEN. I would agree with that. I think what you said a little earlier is what I was trying to get out. The suggestion as to the chairman was only a suggestion of one way of dealing with the problem. I suspect the chairman and members of the committee would like to hear from the Commission if the Commission feels that all or a portion of the records should be restricted in some way or withheld for some period of time.

Mr. Moss. I think we would expect that.

Mr. COHEN. Really, what you are getting at is maybe some real formalized relationship with respect to this matter. I certainly agree with that and I want to make clear again that every branch of government, including the SEC, one of the best organizations in the country, should be open to informed oversight, which this committee has exercised, I think to its great credit, through the years. Maybe that is what kept the SEC so good.

Mr. Moss. I certainly thank you.

Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to go into the comments you made concerning section 4(d) and I am glad the chairman gave you an opportunity to expand on the concerns that you expressed in your statement about the practical use of this provision. I am glad that we have had this colloquy

here.

In regard to your statements about the need for the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibility, of course I have had the very strong opinion Congress does need to exercise greater responsibility than it has in the past, particularly in regard to the regulatory agencies. That is the reason I introduced H.R. 340 which would authorize appropriations for the Commission for 3 fiscal years.

We did this, as you may know, when we created last year the Consumer Product Safety Commission with a specified authorization period included in that basic act. As you know now there is no specific authorization for any specific number of years. It is an open-end authorization. For the Commission to get its appropriations, it goes direct to the Appropriations Committee.

Of course, in my experience, we are busy around here and tend to deal with emergencies that come up and never get around to an in-depth study of the work of the Commission. The specified year authorization is merely a device that would require the committee to come back and review the work of the Commission at a specified time. We are not bound to 3 years.

Through the years we have authorized programs for other Commissions for 3 years. It could be 2 years, 4 years, or 5 years, but it will make us up here sit down and go into the work of the Commission in some orderly way. That is the reason I introduced this legislation.

As far as the figures, we can talk about those at a later date. I know the Commission has been understaffed and I have been among those that have urged the Appropriations Committee to give considerable consideration in the budget this fiscal year to granting additional appropriations for the use of the Commission.

Mr. Moss. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes.

Mr. Moss. I want to say I concur completely with the remarks that the gentleman just made.

Mr. COHEN. I want to say that that is the reason I thought the concept in that bill is a very good one. I am assuming, of course, if the concept is adopted and the Congress fixes amounts, that there will be some flexibility, not on an emergency basis. But if something is an emergency from the point of the Commission, and does require an extraordinary expenditure of money-I referred to that earlier by way of the Commission coming back to the committee to enact legislationit takes time, and the committee is exposed to all kinds of pressures, proper pressures, and we should allow for flexibility in this area.

Basically it is a good idea and will allow the Commission to go beyond what it has done through the years. It will allow it to budget its resources for 2 or 3 years. Because it was always subject to the wishes of the Appropriations Committee, and that was subject to economic conditions and various other governmental conditions, it was a difficult job to do. Something along the lines you propose, I think, would be beneficial from the Commission's point of view as well. Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Stuckey?

Mr. STUCKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When Newton Minow was nominated to be Chairman of the FCC in 1961, he was asked the question, "What things qualify you to be Chairman of the FCC?" His response was, "Two things: I am not looking for a job in the communications business and, second, I don't want to be reappointed."

In a similar vein, some people will suggest there might be more independence in the various agencies by extending the term, say, the 5 years at the SEC to 6 or 7. Also, there might be a prohibition on any agency commissioner from seeking or accepting employment from any of the regulated industries for number of years.

Mr. COHEN. I would disagree with that in principle. First, let me say that for some who spend a good deal of their life in Government, their own health might be much improved if there were such a prohibition and they knew they would be through and retired. Thereafter, they either played golf or found something else to do.

In terms of the administration of the SEC or any other agency or establishment of Government, I think it would be a mistake because you would immediately limit the number of possible candidates that might be available and who would otherwise

Mr. STUCKEY. You think this would deter someone from accepting as Chairman of the SEC if he could not go back into the industry? Mr. COHEN. Oh, yes, I can speak from the staff level as well as the Commissioner level. I think young people are drawn for a variety of reasons, frequently because it is related to an area where they have

an interest.

Perhaps I can use my own career, if I may, as an illustration. I got my degree in economics and then decided to go on to law school, because at that time everybody said there was no future for economists, and now you see how wrong they were. At any rate, I went on to law school.

While there, I worked for the Twentieth Century Fund at the same time the Senate committee was studying the securities market and that led to the 1934 act in particular. So I had a personal interest in the SEC. So when the time came for me to look for a job, I came to the SEC and I was glad they took me. I stayed there, as I indicated a little earlier, maybe too long.

Mr. STUCKEY. You may note no member of this committee suggested that.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Stuckey. At any rate, my wife says it.

I stayed there too long, and staying too long, there is a funny mixture which is hard to describe. The SEC has been blessed-I am not speaking of myself any more-it has been blessed with bright, dedicated people. Obviously those people have to consider their future, consider their families. If they are going to move into an area and devote a good part of their lives to it and assist the Government in a good endeavor, and thereby become experts and, after they leave the Commission, become assisting arms of the Commission, as most of the alumni are there are a few bad apples, but most continue to be very helpful-I think the suggested prohibitions might discourage most of those people from coming on the staff.

Mr. STUCKEY. Even though it might discourage some from coming on the staff of the Commission, aren't some really using it as a training ground?

Mr. COHEN. This is true. At one time I thought this was terrible, particularly when I was in charge of a division and didn't have enough people. People would call and ask, "Have you a recent graduate of your school?" I resented this. But on reflection, I am not sure it is a bad idea. I think the boys who are graduates, if they stay long enough to really learn the work-some don't stay long enough-then can serve their clients and the community better than some fellows who never had that experience.

Mr. STUCKEY. The reason I ask is that we incorporated a similar provision into the consumer product safety bill. It gave me concern at that time. You and I have discussed this concerning the SEC. I am not certain which direction Congress should move in in that area.

Mr. COHEN. This may be a superficial thing. We are talking about people. I don't think restrictions of that kind really improve the situation very much. I think it might dampen the feeling of some people about coming to the Commission.

I talked about the staff but I think the same is true of members of the Commission. Maybe there in some greater flexibility. But a person at the Commission, if he leaves the Commission, no matter where he goes, will be involved in something over which the Commission has jurisdiction. The same may be true of the Federal Trade Commission. Whether he goes as a lawyer, an accountant, or with a company, wherever he is, he will be somewhere in an area of the Commission's jurisdiction. I am sure that the suggestion would not improve the situation at all.

Mr. STUCKEY. Getting away from that subject, we speak of trying to create a more independent SEC, or for that matter other agencies. Which administrative controls seriously hamper the SEC's ability to regulate? For example, the control over the budget? Which area do you feel hampers the independence of the agency?