Page images

Mr. DINGELL. Which is it, the wish or reality?

Mr. BREWER. We don't know; and here again the chairman says he hopes this will do it but we may have to ask for more money, The environmental issues, for example, have arisen since we started this.

Mr. DINGELL. I am aware of the environmental issues. Remember, I have been bringing those forcefully to the attention of your agency for quite some time; and, as a matter of fact, in your recent rate case you rejected the special rates for scrap and recycling materials, something which I thought was very wrong-but

Mr. STAFFORD. And we did so on the basis of the record then before us and one of the things we hope to develop in Ex parte 270 is a more comprehensive record that will permit a more meaningful determination.

Mr. DINGELL. I am pleased to hear that.
Mr. Powers.

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Wilson, what contacts have you had with the ICC? Were you assigned on other matters to consult with them on contracts?

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. The only contacts I have with the ICC have been in connection with these two contracts for the economic studies and special counsel.

Mr. POWERS. When was the first time you were delegated to work with the ICC?

Mr. Wilson. I believe I was assigned over there in April of 1972. I can't remember the exact time; but it was in that time period.

Mr. POWERS. You say you were assigned there. Did you go over there 1 day a week, have an office over there, or

Mr. Wilson. I had an office at NASA.

Mr. POWERS. Can you estimate how much time you put in on ICC assistance since your original assignment?

Mr. WILSON. On the RMC contract for economic studies, since this contract was one where we were attempting to obtain full competition primarily from the point of attracting the best possible personnel to conduct the economic studies, it was a technical competition, if you will.

Mr. ÞINGELL. How long was it taking you in connection with that contract, from the time between the request for proposal and the time that the contract was actually let?

Mr. Wilson. I would say that it took approximately 9 weeks; approximately.

Mr. DINGELL. Is that standard time?

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. That required intensive efforts on my part. It required intensive efforts on everybody's part to go through a full competition and to do a complete source evaluation and to conduct oral discussions with the bidders in the competitive range. This had to be done at a very accelerated base, no question about that.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what is the ordinary period of time for that kind of thing to transpire? What would be the ordinary time at NASA?

Mr. Wilson. I would say if I had to estimate it it would depend on the particular procurement involved: what was the situation; but I would say 5 to 6 months would be

Mr. DINGELL. Take less than 8 months—that would be approximately an $800,000 series of contracts?

Mr. Wilson. I would say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 6, 7 months would not be unusual.

Mr. DINGELL. What would be the ordinary time at NASA in connection with this RMC contract with regard to the amount of time it would take from the point where the requests for proposal were issued until the time that the individual would have to submit the proposal? What would be the time period on that?

Mr. Wilson. Oh, I would say about 30 days.
Mr. DINGELL. About 30 days.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Would there be any advance notice that there was going to be a request for proposal outside of NASA in connection with matters of that sort?

Mr. Wilson. No. The only notice would be the notice in the Department of Commerce Business Daily. We also put a notice in the Commerce Daily in this particular requirement.

Normally, I would say that only publicizing through the Department of Business Commerce. I don't think it would be proper to let contractors know that you have potential procurements coming on the street at some particular time. I think it is fair that the contractors be given equal opportunity:

Mr. DINGELL. Let me shift to another matter.

Mr. Brewer, there have been a number of questions raised-some of them by the present occupant of the Chair or other Members of Congress here.

Now, how long-rather, who was it who suggested Mr. Allott's name to the Commission?

Mr. BREWER. Well, after we had—I have to go back a little, with your patience, sir.

After we had reached a final turndown by the Congressman, which occurred the latter part of December 1972, we were under again the same kind of pressure and to some degree that we were when Mr. Wilson was talking about, we had to get this money that we had impounted, the $740,000, we had to get it committed by June 30. We were then in a position where we were searching diligently for this person.

I was spending practically all of the time, quite unexpectedly, I think to most people, at least to me. Senator Allott was defeated and as I was thinking about who we could get and still had in mind the Congressman; and the judical type, the thought occurred to me that I might possibly approach Senator Allott.

So I called our Chairman, Mr. Stafford, and I said the thought just occurred to me that Senator Allott might be interested in talking about this and I don't know whether he would or not; but with your permission, I would like to approach him; and the chairman gave his consent.

Mr. STAFFORD. Might I just speak in there.

I worked 17 years in the Senate before I went to the ICC and I knew Senator Allott well; and favorably. So this wasn't a case of just approaching somebody that he suggested. He was talking about a man I know well as far as a person, a man of considerable dignity and understanding.

Mr. BREWER. Thank you; and I agree with that totally.

I then called the gentleman who was serving as administrative assistant to the Senator and asked him if he thought the Senator would be willing to talk to me about this matter and he said, well, he is at home with the flu at the present time; but I will see if I can get in touch with him.

In the meantime, just by accident, I was at a social party right after the first of the year and Senator Allott attended and, of course, I just-at the proper time, I said, Senator, I would like to have lunch with you. I have something I would like to talk with you about. He said fine, give me a call

. So the following week I gave him a call and we set up a luncheon which was on January 10. At that luncheon I went into the details of 270, told him how important I thought it was and how important the Commission thought it was; that we were going to enter into a sole-source kind of contract; and would he have any interest in discussing the matter.

He was extremely reluctant at that time to discuss it. He said I have a number of other propositions and other things I am thinking about and he said I think I would have to tell you I have very little interest in the matter at this time.

I know how important it is. But he said I just will have to think about it, and I waited a week and called him and he said would it be possible—he was very reluctant. I said would it be possible for you to meet with some members of our staff to talk a little further because I am not a lawyer and you are a lawyer.

I don't pretend to know all the ramifications of this investigation but I know it is a very important one, a very much needed one. The Commission is striving to move ahead and do things in a very positive way and we are devoting a lot of time to a lot of different things.

So I would like for you to talk to us about it.

He said I will come down and talk to you. So I sent a car to get him. At the meeting which followed we had our General Counsel, Mr. Kahn, there and we had Mr. Robert Rhodes, who is our staff man, who was there: Mr. Leonard Goodman, I believe, was there; Mr. Joe Fittipaldi, who heads up our Rate Bureau was there, and maybe others whom I do not recall.

And at that time they discussed the investigation only in general terms; and I asked Mr. Kahn, our general counsel, if he would explain to Senator Allott the delicacies of this kind of investigation, where he would be a party, and where he would protect—would have to protect Commissioners and the Commissioners would have to protect themselves against any kind of ex parte communication.

Mr. Kahn then went into great detail and explained that. The Senator understood. Mr. hn sa in the event that we enter into a contract, I myself as General Counsel have to deal with you at arm's length because I will be called upon by the Chairman to make my own recommendations upon any finding that may be made.

That discussion went on for several hours. I sent him home in a car. Şubsequently we had another meeting- I don't remember all of the dates, but I think I am in chronological sequence—we had another meeting at which I said, Senator, I would like for you to now talk to the contracting people without my presence to see what interest you may have, what kind of a contract they may have.

At that time, the Senator retired to another room in my offices, the library, and he had with him Mr. Rhodes, and I believe Mr. Goodman and Mr. Wilson and maybe others, and they discussed it I believe most of the day. Then the discussion went on from there time and again. Sometimes there would be a week elapse, but we finally culminated with a letter contract on the 26th day of February.

Mr. DINGELL. At this point the Chair asks if Mr. Rhodes is the same Mr. Rhodes referred to by Ms. Dalgleish?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. In other words, he was the fellow who handed her the papers that later-determination and findings.

Mr. BREWER. No. Mr. Allen.

Mr. DINGELL. I mean Mr. Rhodes was the man on—who handed Ms. Dalgleish

Mr. BREWER. Mr. Allen did.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. BREWER. Mr. Allen.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Allen. I see.
Mr. BREWER. Mr. Rhodes is here. He heads up our task force.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Rhodes, sit down there and we will get to you.
You say it was Mr. Allen.

Mr. BREWER. I believe she testified to that. I don't know personally.

Mr. DINGELL. Very good. You may proceed, sir.
Mr. Brewer. I think that, unless you-that about brings it

Mr. DINGELL. Commissioner, this is an unfortunate question, but it has been one in the public press and one that troubles the Chair.

The New York Times carried a story on March 9 that Mr. Allott had arranged an appointive position for you in the Post Office.

Mr. BREWER. That is totally untrue. I would like to go back and relate the entire sequence under oath.

I started as a rural mail carrier in Kentucky in 1933. I might point out I was appointed by then Postmaster General Farley as a rural mail carrier and I carried the mail for 10 years and then became a postal inspector. The New York Times article commented on the fact that as a postal inspector I had to list my political affiliation. Being a lawyer such as you are, sir, and other gentlemen, I am sure you are aware of the fact that there was, and may still be, in the old Post Office Department before the reorganization, an Executive order probably issued by President Wilson that all postal inspectors must be equally distributed between two major political parties.

As a result of that, all applicants for postal inspector positions had to list on their application their political affiliation so that the administration could equally divide the inspectors and provide that the investigative branch was totally nonpartisan and I was involved in the apprehension of many people, some of whom had violated the Hatch Act.

I am a Kentuckian, born and raised in Kentucky, and as a postal inspector, I traveled all over the country, and Alaska, on criminal investigations, in addition to other duties.

In 1953, the Post Office Department decided to decentralize. Up until that time, practically all the official communications came to and practically all the decisions had to be made in Washington, and Jesse M. Donaldson, who later became Postmaster General, who was First Assistant at that time, who was Chief Inspector when I was a postal inspector, told me they were receiving 10,000 letters a day in the Bureau of Operations and if you remember, the Hoover Commission had recommended decentralization of the Post Office Department; and back as far as 1908 the Penrose Overstreet Commission of the Congress recommended the Post Office Department be decentralized into regions.

I was called in, together with nine other inspectors from the field, to help the consulting firm and the Post Office Department regionalize the system.

We created a first region, in November 1954, in Cincinnati, Ohio. We operated that region by postal inspectors until we got the bugs out of it in 5 months.

I was serving as district manager in Lexington and other inspectors were serving at various points around in those three States, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.

Following that 5 months, the post office management satisfied we had the bugs out sufficiently to put in the next region which was Chicago. I then was put in charge of the program and later on helped create regional offices throughout the country and acted as regional director of the new offices of the Post Office Department at Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco, and in Denver which was the 14th of the regions to be created.

I had no friends in Denver. I was not acquainted with Denver. I knew no politicians in Denver. The Postmaster General called me in and said go out and take care of the Denver region and I will take care of any problems for you.

I went out and took charge of the Denver region. I knew no one. Senator Gordon Allott, I believe at that time, was a recently elected junior Senator. The senior Senator was Senator Millikin. If there was any congressional approval, it had to be between somebody in the Post Office and Senator Millikin, not me. I was a career Post Office official. I had never involved myself actively in partisan politics.

In 1961 when the administration changed, I found myself out of a job. I went to California in the banking business, came back to Denver in 1963, at the end of 1963, and took over as president of a company and operated that company until 1968.

I had no contact with Senator Allott per se. Senator Allott has never appointed me to any position any time anywhere. He did recommend me or sit by me when I was confirmed for this Commission, he and Senator Peter Dominick, as a courtesy, which I think most Senators do.

When I was confirmed for this Commission, they sat and recommended me to this Commission. Senator Allott to my knowledge never appointed me to anything.

Mr. DINGELL. I never said "appointed,” I am speaking of patronage.

Mr. BREWER. I have no knowledge of that. If there is such, certainly, if I had any patronage, it didn't work in 1961 after 29 years of Government service.

« PreviousContinue »