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. A. Yes. A. 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 my 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. Will you state your name and address, please, sir. A. Malcolm R. La Place, 701 Third Street SW., Washington, D.C. Mr. Hays. Mr. La Place, your appearance before this committee--am 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. A. 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? A. 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 them. I had just checked into the hotel; I immediately checked out and returned to Los Angeles. Q. Did you tell Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Buckley was it? Buckley, and Congressman Carey were aware of this. Q. What did you tell them? A. That the chairman, Mr. Powell, had ordered me to return to Los Angeles. Jan, 12-26 Jan. 12 Jan. Jan. 20 Jan. 20. Jan. 20 Jan... 20 50 15 days per dier in Los Angeles, and San Francisco, Cal.16-240-----00. Taxicabs - Los Angeles to katts 4 trips @ $8 - only method of transportation Transportation to Dulles 2 50 Los Angeles airport ta hotel -3-54. lotel to Los Angeles Airport 3 San Francisco Airport to biotel -75Hotel to San Francisco Airnort 75 Los Angeles.. Airport to lotel ----50Taxicabs in San Francisco 5 00 Telephone flotel to Los Angeles Airport 3 Dulles. to..office -2 150 Air fare fron San Francisco to Los Angeles 14 50 18 This.voucher is for investitative work for-the-Poverty Authorized by Hl. Res. 537, 89th Congress, approved Aug. 25, 1965 TOTAL * SIGN ORIGINAL ONLY Payee ficatica by pay any there must act be any erasure or alteration whatever) Walcolm R. La Place By i luviale din viac I carry that the above articles have been received in good condition and in the qualit and quantity above specified, or the services performed a stated, and that they are in accordance with the orders therefop; that the prices changed are just reasonable, and in accordance with agreement. Elene potrel Kinta Ponte, Chairan kes Subcommittee on the tax on Poverty VOAV? C, POWELL, Chairman kommittee on tetation -art-talar.. APPROVED ALLOWED Rouba Goberto (Date) --- Clerk, de Homer Represent Clairman, Committee on House Administration dated 19 , on the Treasurer of the United States at Washington, D. C., in favor of payče named above. • Where A voucher a certifed by a corporation or errady, the pare of the sun write the corporate or company name, as well as the capacity in which be signs, must appear. Example: Chicago Edison Company, per Scho Bin. th, Secretary of Treasurer, or anxmber of arm, as the case may be 150743-5 GPO Q. And did you tell them why you were returning to Los Angeles? A. I told them I had instructions from the chairman to do some additional investigating, that is all. Q. Did you tell them anything further than that? Q. Did you perform the duties which the chairman instructed you to perform? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. I hand you Voucher No. 00312, signed by, apparently signed by you and Mr. Powell, reflecting a 15-day trip from January 12 to 26, to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Los Angeles and return to Washington, D.C., and ask you if this is your subsistence voucher which covers that period. A. Yes, sir, it is. It is my signature. Mr. O'CONNOR. May that be an exhibit entered in the record as LaPlace Exhibit 1, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hays. Without objection, it will be so placed. (The above-referred to document was marked "LaPlace Exhibit l” and received in evidence.) By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Now, as I indicated to you, the information which the audit group had was that you returned on January 21, rather than January 26. What information have you brought with you to establish that you were actually in Los Angeles for that extra 5-day period? A. I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Sheraton Park Hotel and Motor Inn here in Washington, D.C., from the credit manager, which I requested, to confirm my registration at the Sheraton Wilshire Hotel in Los Angeles during that period. Mr. O'CONNOR. May the record show that the information submitted by the witness indicates the date of departure of Mr. LaPlace as January 26, on a U.S. Government rate of $10 per day, but it does not indicate that it was at the Sheraton-I beg your pardon, it does indicate that it was—the type of receipt at the Sheraton Wilshire Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif. May this be entered in the record, Mr. Chairman, as LaPlace exhibit No. 2? Mr. Hays. It may. |
Get this book in print
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |