Mr. DINGELL. Is he equal to you or superior? Mr. BREWER. He is on a consulting basis to us. Mr. DINGELL. You say he is there on a consulting basis? Mr. DINGELL. He is a consultant, then; is that right? Mr. DINGELL. On a part-time basis. What is his address and where does he come from? Ms. DALGLEISH. I am not sure I know. Mr. Rhodes can probably Mr. DINGELL. Maybe the gentleman sitting next to you maybe he can tell us. Who is he? Mr. BREWER. He was hired by the Bureau of Economics to help. them and Mr. Rhodes represent the Bureau of Economics. Mr. DINGELL. We are getting Mr. BREWER. We tried to be sure that every base was touched on this case. Mr. DINGELL. The committee does appreciate Mr. WILSON. Could I Mr. DINGELL. I think maybe we will defer while I try to find out who this gentleman is. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment on- Mr. DINGELL. Do you have any comments with regard to the particular point we are discussing at this time? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Then we will recognize you. Mr. WILSON. I just wanted to acquaint you with the circumstances of Mr. Allott-Mr. Allen, I am sorry-being hired. I am not sure he is a consultant. I think he is probably classified as an expert on a 3or 4-day-a-week basis with the Commission. After the contract had been entered into with the Resources Management Corp., RMC, it was evident that there was going to be a requirement for contract administration. Mr. Allen was in, I believebrought in to the Commission to handle the contract administrative problems connected with that contract. Mr. DINGELL. He was brought into the administration for that sole purpose? Mr. WILSON. For that, to assist the Bureau of Economics in administering the RMC contract. Mr. DINGELL. Do you know about this, Mr. Brewer? Mr. BREWER. No, sir. Mr. DINGELL. How about you? Mr. STAFFORD. I delegated these matters of employment pretty much through my management director of the personnel office and it appears clear but maybe not made for the record. I had asked the Vice Chairman of Services, Administrative officer, to oversee this entire matter. So I don't personally look at every employee's record that we get in or out of the Commission; no. Mr. DINGELL. Well, maybe Mr. Brewer can tell us about those facts. Who is he? Mr. BREWER. Mr. Allen is a retired officer of the military and the recommendation was made to me by the Bureau of Economics that this man be employed on a part-time basis, and all I did was to say if that is the man you want; yes. I think Mr. Rhodes can fill you in. He is the Deputy in charge of this matter and handles the Bureau of Economics. Mr. DINGELL. We will direct our attention to that a little later. Mr. POWERS. Is Mr. Allen on the ICC payroll? Mr. BREWER. In a capacity I am not quite aware of. Not as a fulltime employee. He is a part-time employee, I believe, a consultant; but I believe not Mr. POWERS. He is paid by the ICC, though? Mr. BREWER. Yes; but it comes out of the special fund set aside from this study, not out of our appropriated funds. Mr. POWERS. Did he do-was he the contracting officer in the negotiations with Gordon Allott? Was he involved with that? Mr. BREWER. I don't believe so. Mr. POWERS. He advised how the contract Mr. BREWER. He was pretty busy with those kinds of things and I believe he drafted the first letter which Ms. Dalgleish signed, I believe the first of February; but I am not sure of that. Mr. POWERS. Ms. Dalgleish, in the determination and findings, could you point out to us the language that you feel clearly and convincingly establishes that the use of formal advertising is not feasible or practical, aside from coming to that conclusion? Will you point out that language that you feel satisfies that requirement? Mr. DINGELL. While Ms. Dalgleish is going into that, if I could, Mr. Wilson, let me ask you this question. Ordinarily a warrant is directed to the individual who is going to carry forward with the job; is that correct? The warrant, let's say, to issue a contract. That is an extremely important document? Mr. WILSON. I am not absolutely sure of that, whether it has to be to the individual or whether it has to be to the position. I know that back in the days when I was a contracting officer in the Navy, at that time, I am quite sure that we received our authority by the position that we were occupying at the time. Now, I believe-I don't know-I guess what I am saying is this: I just don't know whether or not, to have a proper warrant, whether it has to specify the individual's name or whether it has to specify the individual's position he is occupying at the time. Mr. DINGELL. Which would you regard as the better practice, since a warrant is a very important document; it ought to specify the individual, ought it not? Mr. WILSON. I have never issued a warrant myself, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Mr POWERS. Do you know what NASA's practice is on that? Mr. WILSON. I believe NASA's practice is to issue a warrant to the individual. Mr. DINGELL. To the specific individual; isn't that correct? Mr. DINGELL. And NASA issues a whole lot of contracts; isn't that correct? Mr. WILSON. I am not certain on this, but to my recollection that is probably what they do. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Powers. Ms. DALGLEISH. It seems it starts on the last sentence of page 1 and continues through page 2. Mr. POWERS. Would you read that to us, please? Ms. DALGLEISH. The entire thing? Mr. POWERS. Any facts and circumstances. I don't want the conclusions. Just the facts and circumstances enumerated there. Ms. DALGLEISH. The responsibilities involved call for (1) the selection of a person highly esteemed by government and parties to the proceeding; (2) a person with broad knowledge of national economic problems and policy; (3) a person trained in the law, of unquestioned integrity, of judicious temperament; of national prominence and without past identification with special interests involved in the proceedings; and (4) a person who would insure that all aspects of cases are impartially reviewed, considered and recorded, and that any aspect of such cases which, in his judgment, requires further investigation or emphasis will be investigated or emphasized before a decision is made by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. POWERS. Does that describe a unique individual? Is that what that language says? Is there just one individual who can do that? Ms. DALGLEISH. No. I am sure there are many individuals who could do this. Mr. POWERS. Couldn't you have advertised that language, then, if there were numerous individuals who could perform that function? Ms. DALGLEISH. No; because I think you have to negotiate personally with the people involved. I don't think you can put the integrity on paper. Mr. DINGELL. Now, young lady, if you please, the first time you met Senator Allott was on February 26; is that right? Ms. DALGLEISH. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Did you ever make any inquiry into how he fitted into this particular requirement? Ms. DALGLEISH. No, sir. Mr. POWERS. Ms. Dalgleish, you also signed the letter contract in addition to the determination and findings; is that correct? Ms. DALGLEISH. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Now, as contracting officer can you tell us what types of contracts an agency such as the ICC can enter? Ms. DALGLEISH. I can tell you the only ones I have entered into with the ICC. We formally-advertised contracts are the only contracts I have any experience in. Mr. POWERS. Would you have a list of the various types that are available to be entered aside from a letter contract? Ms. DALGLEISH. That any Government agency can enter into? Yes, sir. Mr. POWERS. As provided in the Federal procurement regulations? Ms. DALGLEISH. Yes, sir. Mr. POWERS. And did you make a determination that no other procurement was suitable aside from a letter contract? Ms. DALGLEISH. No, sir. Mr. POWERS. Are you aware of FPR 1-3.408 that provides that a letter contract can be used only after a determination in accordance with agency procedures that no other type of contract is suitable? Ms. DALGLEISH. No, sir. Mr. POWERS. Are you aware of agency procedures in order to determine whether any other type of contract is suitable? Ms. DALGLEISH. Would you repeat that? Mr. POWERS. Are you aware of whether or not the ICC has any procedures under which a determination can be made whether another type of contract is suitable rather than a letter contract? Ms. DALGLEISH. No, sir. Mr. POWERS. That is all I have. Mr. DINGELL. Well, Ms. Dalgleish, we thank you. We will excuse you. You can go back and sit down. We will proceed. Mr. Powers. The Chair notes it is pushing 12 o'clock. Gentlemen, I think we are not going to be able to pursue our business clear to the end this morning. Probably we will have to come back this afternoon. Will it be convenient for you to come back this afternoon? Mr. DINGELL. Do you want to start a little before 2 or-what do you gentlemen feel? Mr. BREWER. At your convenience. Mr. DINGELL. Let's do it for our mutual convenience. Let's proceed for a little bit. Mr. CONTE. While you proceed, let me show this gentleman the report on NASA. He can be thumbing through it. Mr. DINGELL. Let me go into fundamental questions that trouble me here. I am much troubled, Mr. Chairman, getting down to a philosophical question here-you said in your statement-Mr. Hungate queried you about it-the ICC represents the general public interest. The ICC is supposed to represent the general public Mr. STAFFORD. That is true. We have been representing the public interest. Mr. DINGELL. You are specifically charged with that responsibility; are you not? Mr. STAFFORD. True. Mr. DINGELL. Then you go on to state more specifically he is supposed to formulate issues, obtain, compile, and analyze available information and data, present the results of this analysis in the proceedings. Isn't that again the responsibility of the ICC? Mr. KAHN. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, to perhaps note the distinction between reaching conclusions in the public interest and representing the public interest. Mr. DINGELL. Dear friend, isn't the ICC supposed to carry forward the mission, though, of the chairman? Isn't that part of your statutory obligation? Mr. KAHN. Certainly the Commission is obligated to reach conclusions in the public interest; but we do not have at present on the staff of the ICC counsel of a kind to represent the public interest. Mr. DINGELL. That is one of the deficiencies of this thing. Shouldn't you on a continuing basis have somebody like that in the ICC? Mr. KAHN. That is a matter I referred to earlier and the Commission has indeed sought the authorization and funding to establish such an office. Mr. DINGELL. You have sought authorization and funding for that office? Mr. KAHN. On prior occasions, without success; yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Prior occasions. What prior occasions? Mr. KAHN. We would be happy to furnish that information for the record. Mr. DINGELL. That would be appreciated. Mr. KAHN. I do not recall whether it was the Bureau of the Budget or the Congress. Mr. DINGELL. Supply it for the record; because that is one of the problems I have with this particular contract. [The information referred is contained in appendix A, page 181.] Mr. DINGELL. Then you say: Upon analysis of the entire record, he shall take a position on all issues with a full statement of his views and reasoning, and recommend changes in the rate structure, the applicable law, or rate-making policy which he believes the record establish are in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Is not that again the ICC's position, function? Mr. STAFFORD. And he will make this as a formal presentation before the Commissioners and the Commission will make the judgment. Mr. DINGELL. It is ICC's responsibility. I don't see why you need outsiders. I don't see why you don't do this with insiders. Mr. BREWER. We do this as judges. The matter has to be considered on the record. The record has to be established in an adversary proceeding and we will be free to vote up or down. Mr. DINGELL. You want to do it the comfortable way rather than with your own internal mechanisms. Mr. BREWER. We didn't have the money. Mr. DINGELL. That happens to again be an inadequacy of your agency to carry out the terms of the statute, so you have to go out and get special counsel. What is the period of the contract? Mr. BREWER. The period of the contract-the definitive contract has not been drawn, but it will provide for either 2 years or the completion of the work of the project or the exhaustion of funds. Mr. DINGELL. Well, now, Senator Allott says 3 years. Mr. BREWER. That isn't in the contract. He says he thinks it will take 3 years, but that isn't in the contract. Mr. DINGELL. Is it going to take longer than 2 years? Mr. BREWER. It probably may; it may not. Mr. DINGELL. Will it or won't it? Mr. BREWER. There is no way Mr. DINGELL. Congress has lots of contracts to do certain things and then all of a sudden the work isn't done and we find ourselves committed to a lot more money. Mr. BREWER. This is a more complex issue. Mr. DINGELL. I am keenly aware of that; but I think you had better understand the full question here. As I understand your comments to the Appropriations Committee it was going to be 2, not 3 years. Mr. BREWER. If my memory serves me correctly, we think it should be done in 2 years. |