« PreviousContinue »
The WITNESS. In what regard, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hays. Well, I mean the purposes of the investigation and so forth.
The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. Hays. All right. Mr. DEVINE. May I ask one question before you get underway? Mr. Henderson, are you still also a newspaperman? 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. 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 services, Mr. ĎEVINE. 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.
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.
Q. You are referring to a report of hearings before the Subcommittee on the War on Poverty Program, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, and you are calling the committee's specific attention to page 43 of said report entitled "Antipoverty Program in New York City and Los Angeles.” And the hearings you referred to are Saturday, August 7, 1965?
Q. Indicated as present at those hearings are: Donald Anderson, counsel to the subcommittee; Will Henderson, minority counsel; Don Mitchell, Office of Economic Opportunity. Is that correct?
Q. Now, apparently we were unable to locate a claim for per diem or subsistence in connection with that. Could you explain that to us?
A. Yes, I will be very glad to. As I said before, I didn't take this as a paying job. I came down here to help where I could help. So when I went out there, I was asked to stay over.
And that brought me into the Watts riots; and I went out there and covered the Watts riots and wrote a report on them. The result of it is that I didn't want to embarass anybody by having them, saying, well, you weren't entitled to have more days than that, so I just paid it out of my own pocket. In other words, I felt that you will notice my salary is minimal for somebody with 30 years of legislative experience. I felt that I had been willing to spend that salary to help where I needed to dig out facts.
Q. Did you travel out there with Mr. Anderson and the others or did you go out by yourself?
A. No, I went out-as I recall it, it is not too clear. As I recall it, we went out on a plane all together.
Q. You stayed out there and then you returned back by yourself; is that correct?
A. Yes; and then I returned back by myself.
Q. And you didn't claim any per diem or submit a voucher for subsistence?
A. No, I did not, because I didn't want to
Q. Now, on your second trip, which was November 11, 1965, until January 13, 1966, you went out to San Francisco, I believe?
A. Yes; but it wasn't to San Francisco. Where I went, I went to write an educational report. I went, directly when I got out there, to Palo Alto, to Stanford University, and here are checks and you will see from the hotel and you will notice that they are marked "Palo Alto, Calif."
Mr. O'CONNOR. Let the record show that the witness has handed me three checks drawn on Riggs National Bank, one dated November 18, 1965, payable to Hotel President, $50; another dated November 27, 1965, drawn on Riggs National Bank in the amount of—payable to President Hotel in the amount of $53.02; another dated December 1, 1965, on the Riggs National Bank, payable to President Hotel in the amount of $35.
Mr. DEVINE. Who is the maker on the checks?
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Mr. Henderson, these checks are in payment of your lodging out there?
A. They are in payment—if you will turn on the back of the check you will notice that they are marked “Palo Alto, Calif.”
Q. Yes. But they are in payment of your lodging?
Q. Now, is there some reason why you did not claim per diem on this trip?
A. No; just simply because I was making this report, I went up to Berkeley and then I went down to Los Angeles and I went out to Watts and I looked into the poverty situation. And there isn't any reason why, outside of I didn't want-I have never wanted any criticism. In my many years, I have bent over backward. I served, as you know, on the Ohio Small Business Commission as an officer and I never charged anything. I paid my own fares.
Q. It is customary for representatives of the Government, when they are traveling on official business and are entitled to $16 a day per diem at the conclusion of that trip, to claim that per diem.
Ă. Well, no reason, no reason at all. I mean I don't-outside of the fact that I didn't want to have anbody say that you shouldn't have made the trip and you shouldn't have spent that money. Why, I was making a report on something that I thought was very necessary. I went up to
Q. That report that you filed, you filed it with the Education and and Labor Committee, did you not?
A. Well, I gave it to my direct person that was
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Henderson, would you recall the date on those checks again?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Am I correct in assuming that two of them were dated November 1965 and one dated December 1, 1965?
The WITNESS. I can't-yes, one is November. There was just a week in between. One was November 18, 1965. The other is—my eyes aren't so good-December 27, 1965, and the other is December 1, 1965.
Mr. WAGGONNER. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hays. Off the record.
MALCOLM R. LAPLACE, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. state , , A. Malcolm R. La Place, 701 Third Street SW., Washington, D.C.
Mr. Hays. Mr. La Place, your appearance before this committeeam I pronouncing your name correctly
The WITNESS. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Hays (continuing). Will be in executive session unless you request that it be in public session. If your appearance is in executive session, the public and press will not be admitted to the hearing room, and pursuant to paragraph 26, House of Representatives rule XI, your testimony may not be released or used in a public session without the consent of the committee. If your appearance is in public session, the public and news reporters will be admitted but television and news photographers will be excluded.
I now ask you whether you choose to appear before this committee in executive or public session.
The WITNESS. Executive, sir.
Mr. Hays. You have been advised that you could have brought counsel if you so desired ?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hays. You did receive a copy of paragraph 26, rule XI with your letter?
The WITNESS. Yes, I did.
Mr. Hays. Were you here yesterday when I read my opening statement?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. Hays. Did you understand it, as to the purposes of this hearing?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. Hays. Your constitutional rights are recognized by this committee and if you should properly make a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, that will be recognized. If you feel an answer might tend to incriminate you, you may say so. The committee will pass on its validity.
By Mr. O'CONNOR: When were you first employed by the Committee on Education and Labor?
A. I was employed in November of 1965.
Ă. I had a dual function-as the assistant director of public information, and investigator.
Q. And was this on the ad hoc committee?
Q. And the reason you have been called here today, Mr. LaPlace, is because of an examination of the vouchers and travel of the Committee on Education and Labor. And during that audit the following observations were made and I believe you received a copy of them.
A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q. Travel appears to have been properly claimed except that during the period January 12 through January 26, 1966, subsistence voucher shows him on a trip to the west coast.
Airline records show that he returned to Washington on January 21, 1966, which indicates an overclaim of per diem for 5 days, or about $80.
Now, I believe you and I had a discussion concerning this last week, is that not so?
A. Yes, sir; we did.
Q. And you have obtained vouchers establishing your presence on the west coast at that time?
A. Yes, sir; I have.
Q. Now, you traveled to the west coast in connection with a task force from the ad hoc committee, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
A. The purpose of the investigation of the poverty program to the west coast was to gather information and data on the poverty program in the Los Angeles area.
Q. Who traveled with you? A. Accompanying me on that trip were two other investigators, Michael Schwartz, who was on the staff of the majority, and Mr. John Buckley, a minority staff member.
Q. You traveled from Washington to Los Angeles on January 12, is that correct?
A. On January 12, yes, sir.
A. Well, the three of us, along with Congressmen Hugh Carey and and Albert Quie, remained in Los Angeles until January 18. Q. And then what did you do?
Well, I think Congressman Quie returned to Washington, and the other two_investigators, Congressman Carey and myself, proceeded to San Francisco on January 18.
Q. I think the airline ticket-I know the airline travel verifies that you did travel to San Francisco on January 18?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell the committee what happened on January 18 in San Francisco as far as you are concerned?
A. When I arrived in San Francisco, as was the procedure, I called in, to check in
Q. You called where?
A. Here in Washington. I talked to Chuck Stone and then the chairman came to the telephone and ordered me to return immediately to Los Angeles to secure some additional information. He gave me a list of names of people that I should contact, if possible, to talk to