Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WHITEHEAD. We had conversations as far back as April when one department downtown informed us they were willing to go ahead within a relatively short period of time. A few nuts and bolts to the operation and they could start the prototype job.

Mr. MINSHALL. Do you feel any more R. & D. is necessary?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I am not technically qualified to say that.

Mr. MINSHALL. Were the people who told you this technically qualified?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. They were in the FAA, and I would assume they would know.

Mr. JONAS. They have spent $91 million on research. That will buy a lot of research.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I tell you from the bottom of my heart, I would not want to allow very much more money for research, not $140 million.

Mr. JONAS. They only say they have a design for that much.

Mr. SHIPLEY. I think these gentlemen may have a workable program, but they should be before the appropriate legislative committee. as Mr. Jonas said.

I can see a great deal of delay and redtape connected with getting your program operational. The administration has to pick the people to serve on this organization and so forth.

Mr. MINSHALL. How long would it take you to get your program underway?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I want to make this emphatically clear. I know we would have to go to another committee to get authorization to set up this project, but we are first coming in and laying the cards on the table to the people who hold the money purses of the Government. Mr. SHIPLEY. We appreciate that.

Mr. GIAIMO. Along the same lines, it seems to me what we are seeking here is to set up a corporation somewhat similar to the Comsat Corp. is that not so?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. It is, without the sale of common stock.

Mr. GIAIMO. Does this not involve a lot more than just having the appropriation?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Let me say

Mr. GIAIMO. This involves getting the Congress to change the entire approach to this problem.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. The objections that Senators Kefauver and Gore had to the concept are not entailed in this project here, I assure you. The question of patents has been equitably dealt with here. The patent rights will remain with the Government until these bonds are paid off by industry.

The McClellan subcommittee counsel went over this pretty thoroughly.

Mr. GIAIMO. Do they not stay with the Government anyway under existing law?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I do not know the practice downtown at the moment.

There is a bill in the Judiciary Subcommittee at the present time. This would embody the principles and objectives that the late Mr. Kefauver fought for which I think were substantial and equitable. How long it would take to get this project underway, I do not think anyone could tell you that.

Industry has already suggested certain names as directors of the corporation, in both the financial and industrial areas. They have no connection with the SST right now. People like Mr. Donald Douglas, Sr., chairman of the Douglas Aircraft Co., his name has been suggested; also Bill Littlewood, former vice president of American Airlines, and in our estimation the finest engineer in the country, aviation engineer; and Mr. James Mitchell, who is a vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank.

Probably those three men, if they could be importuned to take on this task, could get this corporation on the road within 6 months. I say certainly it would be a shorter period of time than the 18 months now contemplated.

We are not mad at anyone. Our staff paper says we are trying to be helpful to the Congress and the President, and that is what we

mean.

What I can envisage here as an equitable situation would be for the Congress to cut the $140 million down for the next 4 or 5 or 6 months and in the interim conduct a study and get this thing on the road in another committee, so that in time they could join forces. I would say to you that in 6 months this could be accomplished.

Mr. SHIPLEY. I disagree with you. It would take a session of Congress to have the legislative committee have hearings on this and get legislation enacted.

Mr. JONAS. Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Mr. EVINS. The committee appreciates Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Cole presenting these facts. They will be given every consideration.

Mr. COLE. I would like to make one point that I do not think has been given much consideration:

This plan, while it may involve some slight delay, avoids the necessity of using public funds, and that to me should be a very, very persuasive factor for consideration.

If the plan does not sell the SST, and at the same time the SST can be accomplished without using public funds, it seems that direction would indicate that should be followed.

Mr. GLAIMO. We may agree with you.

Mr. EVINS. The matter of the long-range financing is not a closed proposition. We will give further consideration to the matter. We thank you gentlemen for coming in.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you very much.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. EVINS. The committee will come to order. Next is a supplemental estimate in House Document No. 278 for stenographic reporting services for the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. John W. Bush is the Acting Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we shall place in the record your justification state

ment.

(The statement referred to follows:)

JUSTIFICATION OF THE NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1966

The purpose of this supplemental appropriation is to provide funds to finance a stenographic reporting services contract for fiscal year 1966, at a cost of $185,000.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REPORTING SERVICES CONTRACT

Under a stenographic reporting services contract which is awarded annually by the Commission, the contractor is required to make a record of all appearances and a verbatim official record of the proceedings in all hearings before the Commissioners or persons designated by the Commission to take testimony, at Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the 48 contiguous States. The original and one copy of the transcript of record in each hearing is furnished to the Commission, and copies are available for sale to parties in the proceedings and to others.

During the past 6 years, the Commission has experienced serious difficulty obtaining responsive bids for its reporting services contract. Only one responsive bid was received each year during the period, fiscal year 1960 to 1964. For fiscal year 1965, the Commission received no bids responsive to Commission requirements. A thorough survey of available reporting services was made on a nationwide basis and all alternative courses of action were carefully considered without success in securing even one responsive bid. Since it was essential that a contract be in effect by July 1, 1964, negotiations were held with the only competent firm indicating a willingness to enter into such negotiations. These negotiations resulted in a contract which provided free copies to the Commission. However, because of the relatively high price per page of transcript to others there have been numerous complaints registered from State governmental and other parties to the proceedings, and from public sources interested in obtaining transcripts of hearings.

From 1956 to 1965, the Commission has been receiving its copies of the official transcript free of charge. The contractor has received his compensation by sales of the official transcript to others. These latter sales have been steadily decreasing in volume due to the increasing availability of new types of inexpensive copying machines. Many purchasers have reduced their purchases to one copy. and have made additional copies on these machines, thus resulting in fewer sales by the contractor. The Commission has taken a number of steps to discourage this practice. On June 11, 1964, the Commission issued a statement of policy which declared such practice in violation of the Commission policy. In addition, a statement is required to be made by all hearing examiners at the start and conclusion of hearings to the effect that it is the policy of the Commission to discourage copying of transcripts and that copies must be purchased only from the official reporter. A similar statement is included by the official reporter on the order form used by participants in ordering copies of transcript.

This policy seems to have arrested the downward trend of sales, but there is no indication that any increases in sales will result therefrom.

The invitation for bids for the fiscal year 1966 contract for reporting services was issued on February 1, 1965. In recognition of the failure to obtain responsive bids in fiscal year 1965, and the opinion of the National Reporting Council and interested bidders that the existing level of sales is not high enough to make it profitable for a contractor to bid without the Commission paying for its transcript, this invitation contained a provision for the bidding of a price per page to the Commission. There was also a provision permitting a different bid rate per page for the hearings conducted in Washington and the hearings conducted in the field. The successful company was also to be given addressed postage and fees paid envelopes and labels for mailing of official transcripts. exhibits, etc., to the Commission.

Bids were opened on March 8, 1965. The low bidder was the CSA Reporting Corp. of Washington, D.C., the Commission's current contractor. Its bid provides a price to the Commission of 50 cents per page of transcript for the field hearings and no charge for those held in Washington, D.C. The following table shows for the fiscal years 1963 and 1964 the number of field hearings and cor

« PreviousContinue »