« PreviousContinue »
you will find that somebody wasted $4,500 of the taxpayers' money, and as a taxpayer I resent that.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GIBBONS. Would you not call this playing politics at the taxpayers' expense?
Mr. Jones of Missouri. I do not even know what the contents of the telegram are, but I resent a telegram being sent when they could use either a letter or a mimeograph machine and some of the pages that we have to get this information to us, without wasting $4,500 of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. GIBBONS. I can agree with what the gentleman says, especially since this information apparently has been known and is a matter of public record and has been included in the hearings this Congress conducted. It comes as no surprise to any of us who are informed on this program.
(At page 16959:)
Mr. AYRES. I would not accuse Mr. Haddad of using these funds for political purposes. Of course he is not. We all know that.
But I was criticized for having alerted the House to this serious situation, because, out of my own funds I spent $411 to alert Members that they might have a primary opponent.
Mr. AYRES. I thank the gentleman for calling that to the attention of the committee. I should like to refer Members who have not seen the telegram to pages 16879 through 16883, where 450 names are listed in the Record.
Mr. AYRES. There you may find your next opponent.
It is pretty easy, when one has the taxpayers' money flowing into a district, with handpicked lieutenants who know nothing about poverty.
Members should take a look at the newspaper people involved. We even find Mrs. Riddik, the poor little girl. Everybody thought she was a volunteer until this list came out. She is getting only $60 a day. I do not think she is building any machine.
What this Sargent Shriver has been able to do in the way of propaganda has been unbelievable.
I commend myself for having spent $411. I will be reimbursed by many Members and many people who realize I am in poverty. When one can invest $411 with the possibility of saving the taxpayers a billion dollars, that is a very good investment.
[At page 16960:
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I could not get the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ayres) to yield to me, because I wanted to compliment him on the great rate that he apparently got from Western Union. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Jones) carlier computed the cost to have been around $4,500.
No. They make great political hay at the taxpayers' expense by sending around this $4,500 wire, and they try to convince everybody that they have found something that is a big scandal when it is in the records of the committees of this Congress and then they try to come here to convince you at the last minute about this. Who is crying crocodile tears around here? These are the same faint-hearted voices of doom and despair? We hear them all the time.
Mr. AYRES. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Jones) is my close personal friend. He has stated to me that he apologizes for having misread a cipher. The amount was $411.52. Mr. Hays. Any other questions? (No response.) Mr. Hays. That is all, Mr. Steinhauer, thank you very much. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Hays. We will have a 5-minute recess. (Recess.) Mr. Hays. Mr. Langston.
JULIAN P. LANGSTON, having been previously duly sworn, was recalled and testified further as follows:
By Mr. TAYLER:
Q. Mr. Langston, you have already testified and you are the chief clerk of the Committee on House Administration?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Langston, I am going to hand you a voucher on a House of Representatives form for the month of September 1965, from Western Union, in the amount of $4,136.85 for telegraphic service furnished the minority office for the period ending September 30, 1965, and ask you if your can identify that.
A. Yes, sir, Mr. Counsel, I can identify this. It is the original of the set of vouchers that come through the Committee on House Administration for normal processing and payment of a bill supported by invoice.
Q. Was that voucher paid?
A. This voucher was approved and sent to disbursing office, and I see that it was paid on October 26, 1965. The check number is shown on the face of the voucher.
Q. And the particular voucher you have in your hand, the original of the voucher, did that come from the records of the Finance Office of the House?
A. The voucher originated in the office of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Q. No, I mean where did you obtain it from.
A. It reached the Committee on House Administration from the House Finance Office.
Q. Very well. That is part of the official records of the Finance Office?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, sir, I am going to show you Steinhauer exhibit 2 and ask you if you can identify that.
A. Yes, Mr. Counsel, I can identify this. This is the Western Union invoice that accompanied the original and two copies of the voucher to the Committee on House Administration. This invoice was retained in the Committee on House Administration files together with one of the duplicate copies of the voucher.
Q. Does that—is that the supporting data for the voucher that you have already identified?
A. Yes. These two documents bear the same control number that was placed on them by the Committee on House Administration.
Q. What number is that? A. That number is 3051. Q. Very well. May the voucher be admitted as Langston exhibit—whatever the next exhibit is–No. 6, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hays. Without objection, it may be so admitted.
I CERTIFY that the above bill is correct and just, and that payment therefor has not been received.
* SIGN ORIGINAL ONLY (Bill must be completely filled in before certiSeation by payee, and there must not be any
Payee ------------ WESTERN UNION... Erasure or alteration whatever.)
• Where 8 voucher is certified by a corporation or company, the name of the person writing the corporate or company name, as well as the capacity to which he signs, must appear. Ersple: "Ohicago Edison Company, per John Smith, Secretary or Treasurer, or member of fire, as the case may be.
(The above-referred-to document was marked "Langston exhibit 6” and received in evidence.) Mr. TAYLER. That is all.
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Do you recall when that invoice came to your office whether there was a copy of the original telegram attached to it?
A. It is difficult to remember the exact instance, as so many vouchers go through, but I don't recall seeing it. It would be extremely unusual because of the amount and I believe that I would have
personal recollection. I questioned the personnel in the office that might also work with this. No one remembers seeing the original of the telegram.
Q. So you assumption is that it did not come to your office?
WILL HENDERSON, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr. Hays. Will you state for the record, Mr. Henderson, your full name and address.
The WITNESS. Will Henderson, 200 C Street SE., Washington, D.C.
The WITNESS. Yes.
The WITNESS. Well, according to that thing, I never knew the title. It is clerk, but it is a part-time position.
Mr. Hays. All right. Mr. Henderson, your appearance before this committee will be in executive session unless you request it to be in public session. If your appearance is in executive session the public and press will not be admitted to the hearing room and your testimony, pursuant to paragraph 26, House of Representatives rule XI, and your testimony may not be released or used in a public session without the consent of this committee. If your appearance is in public session, the public and news reporters will be admitted.
I ask you now whether you choose to appear before this committee in executive or public session.
The WITNESS. Well, I have no choice. It doesn't make much difference to me. But I am willing to go ahead with the committee as it so is.
Mr. Hays. In executive session? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. Hays. You have no counsel? The WITNESS. No. Mr. Hays. You received a copy of paragraph 26, rule XI with your subpena or with the letter.
The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. Hays. You were here yesterday when I read my opening statement, were you not?
The WITNESS. Yes.
diffe he wire or publiether you
The WITNESS. In what regard, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hays. Well, I mean the purposes of the investigation and so forth.
The WITNESS. Yes..
The WITNESS. No, I sold my newspaper, my news service, and I sold my interest in newspapers. And frankly, what I am doing down here is I am just trying to make my last years more meaningful by working where I can. Mr. DEVINE. You are not working as an independent press man? The WITNESS. No, I am not. Mr. DEVINE. For any chain of newspapers or anything? The WITNESS. No, I am not. I am not. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, sir.
The WITNESS. The only thing that I have done is a newsletter that helped out a friend of mine. But I didn't receive any pay for that at all. In other words, I had retired, Mr. Devine, but retirement is just not for me and I wanted to get back doing something. And I came down here and I worked for nothing to help out people. I wasn't on anybody's payroll. But anybody who needed my servicesMr. DEVINE. Thank you; that answers my question.
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Mr. Henderson, we called you here today to clarify two items that were developed during the audit of the vouchers in the travel for the Education and Labor Committee. And during the year January 3 to September 30, 1965, you were employed on that committee, were you not?
Q. And during the audit—and we furnished you with a copy of the results of the audit in the letter that you received from us—the audit indicates that you traveled from Washington to San Francisco in August 1965 while on the staff of the full committee.
A. Wait a minute. That was August?
A. There was an error on that ticket. The ticket said San Francisco, but I went to Los Angeles.
Q. Yes. Let me read this and then you can explain it. A. I am sorry. Q. (Reading:) We were unable to verify the date of his return. He also traveled from Washington to San Francisco November 11, 1965, and returned January 13, 1966, while on the staff of Subcommittee 7. This is the only travel performed by Henderson and no subsistence was claimed for either of these trips, the second of which covered a period of 2 months.
Now, do you have an explanation for those two trips and as to why you did not claim subsistence?
A. Yes. Right here, if you will be kind enough to look on page 43 of the hearings of the "Antipoverty Program in New York City and Los Angeles,” you will see in the hearings there, Mr. O'Connor, that my name is being mentioned as being present at those hearings.