Page images
PDF
EPUB

and Congressmen who have been unjustly charged with the desire for publicity are apt to forget the issues which are before the committee.

A second reason is that Judge LaBuy, sitting in the United States district court in Chicago, held that it was not within the power or province of a congressional committee to force television on a witness who did not want to appear, so we adopted the rule of letting the witness decide. As to this statement, the rules were violated this publication is in error, as you yourself can see.

Then, in another paragraph later on: The immorality of holding a congressional hearing for the political purpose of influencing a local election gave off such a stench that the full committee apparently wanted no part of it.

Now, the full committee has not passed on it, and we will come to that subject later. The full committee had an oppor

and by the Rules of the House, and which may lawfully be held and exercised by subcommittees of the committee with the approval and authority of the committee."

On July 15, 1953, another resolution was adopted, as follows:

"Resolved, That

"(1) after the adoption of this resolution, special subcommittees may be created only upon the approval of the full committee; and

"(2) upon the expiration of the tenth day following the day on which this resolution is adopted, each special subcommittee heretofore created shall cease to exist, unless, after the adoption of this resolution and prior to the expiration of such tenth day, the continuance of such special subcommittee shall have been approved by the full committee; and

"(3) each regular subcommittee is hereby authorized, for purposes of the conduct of studies and investigations coming within its jurisdiction

"(A) to appoint, fix the compensation of, and remove, such experts, special counsel, and such clerical, stenographic and other assistance, as it deems necessary, the compensation of such personnel to be paid out of the funds available to the subcommittee under House Resolution 150; and

"(B) to sit, hold hearings, and act at such times and places within or outside the United States, whether or not the House is in session, is in recess, or has adjourned, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such papers, documents, and books, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary; and any such subpena may be issued under the signature of the chairman of such subcommittee or by any member of such subcommittee designated by such chairman and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or member; and

"(4) the jurisdiction, membership, and chairmanship of the Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee, the Military Operations Subcommittee, the Public Accounts Subcommittee, the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, and the International Operations Subcommittee shall be as specified in the printed Legislative Calendar of this committee for April 1953 (No. 2), unless modified hereafter by action of the full committee; and

"(5) the chairman and the ranking minority member shall serve as ex officio members of each subcommittee and shall have the right to vote on all matters before the subcommittee; and

"(6) the rules, policies, and minutes of this committee, as heretofore in force, are hereby repealed and superseded to the extent that they are inconsistent with the foregoing provisions of this resolution."

[blocks in formation]

Well, all I can say to that charge is that it does not violate any rules had the report been released; as a matter of fact, it was not accurate. I will come back to that.

Now, let us get another statement from the Los Angeles Times, Thursday morning, May 21, 1953. That is after the hearing closed.

It is headed "Just To Keep the Record Straight," and reads as follows:

One point ought to be set straight about this congressional investigation of the Los Angeles Housing Authority. It was not an improvisation for the mayoral the mayoral election campaign.

The charge has gone out, and it was made last Friday, that those hearings were held to influence an election. Let me show you just how unfounded that charge is. These are the views of this paper.

For 2 years individuals and groups, public and private, have been asking for an investigation of housing authority affairs. The need for such an investigation became desperate after the 82d Congress provided a means for Los Angeles to buy its way out of the public housing program. The Congress said a city could cancel such a program if it would reimburse the Federal Government for funds expended. Los Angeles could not find out what it owed because it could not see the housing authority's books. Let me explain there that the housing authority in California is an independent organization. It is created under a Federal statute by the authority of the California State Legislature. Neither the Federal Government, which supplied the funds in the first instance, and there is where our committee got into it, neither the Federal Government, the State of California, nor the city of Los Angeles had control over the operations Angeles had control over the operations of the housing authority, an independent organization.

That may help you to understand some of the difficulties of the people of Los Angeles, who have voted on more than one occasion to end that housing program, which has, as I understand, been so ardently supported by our good colleague from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD]. Now I will continue to read:

The housing authority was and is responsible to nobody in Los Angeles who wants to stop the program.

The only way to find out about the housing authority's affairs, it became apparent, was through a congressional investigation.

Now, please listen to this:

The city council petitioned Congress for an investigation in May 1952

What becomes of the charge that as chairman of that subcommittee I went out there on a political mission? I will read it again:

The city council petitioned Congress for an investigation in May 1952, long before the weird shape of this mayoral campaign

could be imagined. The council petitioned again on September 17, 1952, before Mayor Bowron had announced his candidacy for reelection. The hearing of the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations in Washington on March 25 furnished further urgent reasons for looking into the Los Angeles public housing mess on the ground.

So when Mayor Bowron declaims that the hearings now going on before Representative HOFFMAN'S subcommittee were arranged as a political smear against him in the closing days of the campaign, his arguments are pretty thin.

I might add that, in March of 1953and I will read that-the city council petitioned for a hearing. To quote further from the editorial:

First, the Congress was petitioned urgently long before anybody knew he was going to run again. And second, the mayor has said again and again that the affairs of the Housing Authority are none of his business, from which it follows that an investigation of the Housing Authority is none of his business.

On this, as on other matters, the mayor talks through his hat, though this technique may not show on television.

Last Friday, considerable was said on the floor of the House by certain gentlemen about these hearings. As stated there, the hearings are not of anything new.

On June 15, 1948-now get that date June 15, 1948, a special committee or rather a subcommittee on publication and propaganda of which Forest A. Harness, now Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, was chairman; James Wadsworth was a member; Henry Latham, Carter Manasco, Frank Wilson were members and Frank T. Bow, a member here now was general counsel-if you want to know about the situation out there, he can tell you. Let me quote two paragraphs from page 8 of that report:

All the evidence before the committee supports the conclusion that the Federal Public Housing Authority in the Los Angeles-San Diego area is systematically organized throughout for political purposes and for propaganda activities in behalf of a vigorous national policy for public-housing appropriations. This political organization extends not only to the administrative officials and civil-service employees of the PHA, but also to the tenants who are granted political favors and privileges in return for their votes and organizational work in the precincts.

The investigation also demonstrates that this propaganda activity and political work in public-housing projects lowers materially the standards of management and administration all along the line. Administrative costs and management charges on publichousing projects generally run approximately 25 percent higher than on comparable projects managed by private enterprise. Waste, loose spending, collusion on contracts, and collusion and favoritism on rental privileges are commonplace incidents of public-housing operations.

Then they go on to tell what the investigation does.

And the point is this, my colleagues on the Republican side and on the Democratic side as well. My point is this: That the evils still continue. That those questions which arose in 1948 were still with the city council and the people of Los Angeles, except as within the last few days a settlement has been reached, as I am advised it has been.

That report of June 15, 1948, was unanimously approved-and by whom by whom? Not only by all the Republicans but by Carter Manasco; John W. McCormack, who has had considerable to say about these hearings; William L. Dawson, chairman of the committee in the 81st and 82d Congresses; John Delaney, who has left us for the land above; Chet Holifield, who is shouting his head off now; Henderson Lanham who sits before me, of Georgia; W. J. Bryan Dorn, of South Carolina, again with us as a member; and Frank M. Karsten, now a member of the committee; and Frank Wilson, of Texas. The subcommittee report was signed by the Democratic members as well as by the Republicans. Our colleague the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl did a masterly job on those hearings.

Let me read some more about these hearings. I have read the editorial. Now let me give you the official communication, the last one. On March 23, 1953, a member of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles, city hall, wrote:

DEAR SIR: In accordance with the provision of the resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Los Angeles under date of March 20, 1953, it is requested that a committee of Congress come to Los Angeles to investigate the entire public-housing controversy and local operation, and it is, therefore, respectfully requested that you advise the undersigned as chairman of the State, county, and Federal affairs committee of the council if this request can be granted and when the committee may be expected to open its sessions here.

Remember that is the third or fourth the third official communication from the city asking for this hearing. Per

2 RESOLUTION

Whereas in this morning's issue of the Los Angeles Times, center of front page, is an article entitled "Housing Release Offered Los Angeles Again," in which it is stated, "The Federal Public Housing Administration has restated its readiness to release Los Angeles from the contract for the 10,000-unit federally aided low-cost housing program for Los Angeles whenever the city reimburses

the National Government for money already

advanced." Senator DWORSHAK, of Idaho, released this statement:

Whereas in reply to a request from the Senate Government Operations Committee for facts about the controversial program, General Counsel Marshall W. Amis fixed the amount presently spent or obligated at approximately $21,625,000. The article continues, "PHA has advised both the local authority and the officials of the city of Los Angeles that we stand ready and willing to cancel our contract with the local authority at any time upon the request of the local authority and the payment in full of said debt, together with interest to date of payment"; and

Whereas this offer comes as a complete surprise to members of the city council, and it is desired to obtain further facts and information: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That this resolution and clipping from the Los Angeles Times be referred to the State, county, and Federal affairs committee of the council in order that they may communicate with the Government Operations Committees of Congress and request that if possible a committee be sent to Los Angeles to investigate the entire public-housing controversy and local operation.

JOHN C. HOLLAND, Councilman. MARCH 20, 1953.

haps, you think, the hearings being over this matter is of no importance.

It is of importance because the integrity, the sincerity and honesty of a chairman of the Committee on Government Operations was distinctly challenged. It was challenged here last Friday evening.

Let me say this in addition, that the RECORD shows the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] said that he had given me notice. I will tell you what happened. As you who were present well know I was in charge of two reorganization plans here until late in the afternoon. I spoke out of order and I spoke by unanimous consent on some of these matters.

No word was said to me, not a whisper, as to any attack that was going to be made, a mass attack if you please, that was going to be made upon me personally. I went over about my business just as anybody would when special orders are being taken on subjects in which you have no particular interest. I got over there to a conference late in the afternoon.

Someone-it was Mrs. Heppes-from the outside office came in and said-it was in the committee office, where we were trying to arrange for hearings this week, in view of the imminent adjournment of Congress, and said to me that "Someone telephoned over that Mr. HOLIFIELD was speaking about you on the floor."

I did not assume that there was going to be any mass attack or anything of any particular importance going I thought it was the usual thing.

on.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as long as the gentleman has mentioned my name, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I have mentioned the gentleman's name and I will again mention the gentleman's name, but I decline to yield at this time. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I will take care of the gentleman later.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Without my being on the floor, the gentleman made-I do not know under the parliamentary rules just how I should put it but I will say a mild but not complimentary attack, a personal attack on

me.

Of course, being as busy as I was, I did not come over, but the implication was given to the Members of this House that I ran out in view of some attack that was going to be made upon me. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who believes that I am running away from anything. And I shall refer to something else before the day is over, in my special order tonight, if we get through with the legislative program in time.

It was said to the membership that I was-well, I will just give you the effect of it-that I was just a little old man, who was ill and did not know what he was doing. I will match the hours that I put in with those of anyone in the I put in with those of anyone in the House. But whether I am old or ill, I am not asking for any quarter from anybody on that side or over here on my own side of the aisle.

I go along with the leadership and the administration on every occasion, except

where it runs counter to some policy that I have been following for 15 years or more. And I do not propose to stultify myself before you gentlemen or my constituents by about-facing on a matter of principle.

Here is what the second paragraph of this letter from George P. Cronk, chairman, State, county, and Federal affairs committee of the Los Angeles City Council said:

I am not aware of what arrangements must be made for hearing rooms, reporters, and so forth. But if you will advise me, I will endeavor to make the necessary arrangements, although it may be that these meetings will be conducted in the Federal building and that the United States Government will make the necessary arrangements.

A copy of said resolution is attached for your information.

I shall print all this in the RECORD, and will not take the time to read it all now. But I answered that. This came in on the 23d. As is my custom of attending to my business-which, of course, prevents me from hearing all of the masterly addresses made by some of the Members-I answered this the next day, on the 24th:

Your letter of March 23, 1953, requesting an investigation of the public housing controversy in Los Angeles, has been received. Your letter transmits a resolution of the city council of Los Angeles which requests a congressional investigation of public housing in Los Angeles.

This committee has under way an inquiry of the housing activities of the Government, including public housing. Having in mind the request of the city council of Los Angeles and of other civic bodies, as well as information in the possession of the committee, the committee staff has been directed to expedite the necessary investigation preliminary to the holding of public hearings.

The committee will, of course, appreciate any assistance that can be rendered to the staff in conducting its preliminary investigation. However, arrangements for hearing rooms and other facilities will be made by the committee.

And let me add right there that the first time an investigator went to Los Angeles, we went to the Housing Authority and sought their cooperation, and when we came along later, we learned that some of their records had been destroyed, so we could not make a full investigation.

Then there was a move on foot among the Democratic membership of the committee on Government Operations to call off those hearings. It was charged-and that charge has been answered by the Los Angeles Times-it was charged that the Hearings were for a political purpose because a Member of Congress was a candidate for mayor, our colleague, POULSON.

Now, I had nothing to do with that; the political affairs of Los Angeles are of no more interest to me than they are to you. If it had been concerned with a little village in Allegan County, Michigan, I would have been interested, or some city in my district; but I was not, and the people of Los Angeles who by the thousand listened over the radio and saw the hearings as they took place, know very well whether it was whether it was not a political move.

or

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Now, may I ask: What would any Member of this Congress in a position to help, requested several times, this last time by wire, by a city authority, to hold an investigation do, what would he do? Would he do as I did, grant it? Or would he, because there was some political implication involved-that is, in the minds of our Democratic friends-put it off and let a city, which has the third largest budget in the United States the third largest budget, a population of almost 2 million, Los Angeles, let them suffer and wait with an issue which had been running along for 3, 4, or 5 years? Not me! Especially when the investigators who were out there said they were ready. Do not ask me for something unless you want it, because you are apt to get it.

I answered immediately. Said we would comply with their request.

There has been a lot of controversy, and prior to this time hearings in Detroit had been conducted unopposed. Had those hearings been held as I proposed to hold them they would have disclosed a most deplorable situation, of an improper use of Federal funds that could be found. But that has been my trouble. They thought they had me backing up until these folks, some of the committee members seems to thinkjust because I had always complied with their wishes that I would never turn, but would always yield to their demands. Well, some times I will in the case of folks I consider my friends yield my judgment but not to members of certain other groups with whose principles I cannot agree.

I said this in reply to that wire: Unless countermanded by Speaker MARTIN hearings will be held as scheduled.

The Speaker said nothing about it; he realized that it was our busines; he said nothing about it, although Drew Pearson says in his article-and by the way, Drew Pearson was in one time and I will tell you tonight, tomorrow, or the next day in these special orders about holding hearings in special committees, that the Speaker called me off, the Speaker made no comment as far as I know.

So we held the hearings, and now the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] said Friday that I was most discourteous. Some of the Republican Members who spoke-oh, they felt so sorry, so sorry.

Oh, please-oh, please, folks, please I plead with you as you read those hearings or as you read what they said here last Friday afternoon about me, please, please note that part where they expressed their very deep regret for having to take me out in the woodshed; it hurt

them more than it did me, they professed. Well, maybe so. It may have. I have no way of knowing.

While I cannot say I liked it, yet neither can I say that I am going to do what some people apparently would like to have me do. You know, there are several people in my district who have been candidates, one or two of them were State

senators, they were candidates against me in the primary, and it has been extremely disappointing to them that I have lived so long. They want me to go out, I guess, and commit suicide; in fact, they appear to bemoan the fact that I am still alive.

And last Friday here-you will not find it in the RECORD, but I have plenty of evidence of it, my good friends from Ohioand the Democrats love this family fight on our part, they love it and they encourage it—and I respond. When my Republican colleagues swallow the bait I respond. Throw a hook into me and you get action; there is no question about that or a reaction, I should say. So these two State senators, some of their friends expressed the hope-no, they did not, that is wrong; what they gave me was the impression that they would not be grievously disturbed if either Satan down below or St. Peter above took me from this particular place. I cannot do anything to help them.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER] here last Friday, one of them felt sorry for me because I was so old; the other felt sorry because I was so sick; and if it would not be out of place and unparliamentary I would say: Do not either one of you or both of you stand by and think I will fight you; either one of you could take hold of me with one hand and shake my shoes off, but I will tell you what I will do. I will run up the stairs or down the road with either one of you, and I will match in hours of work both of the gentlemen. Will they accept the challenge? If they do, I hope they will charge admission and give the proceeds to some charitable organization.

As to being discourteous, the gentleman from California referred to the record of the hearings. I have it here. He referred to my treatment of the mayor and one or two others, perhaps. That charge was made last week.

I see the gentleman from North Carolina present who signed the report in 1948. He was a member of our committee and I am sure he will be very, very greatly interested in this charge that the poor old man, teetering on the edge of the grave, has offended some Members of the House who are on the committee.

One of those I am alleged to have offended is a Mr. Marshall. Now who is Mr. Marshall? He appeared as an attorMr. Marshall? He appeared as an attorney for a witness. Mr. Marshall is one of the lawyers who came down and injected or inserted himself in the Rosenberg case. He was not asked to do so, he just came along. He is the gentleman out there who became extremely peeved when his client was asked if she was a member of certain organizations and on advice of counsel declined to answersee page 301 of the hearings. That is

the kind of gentleman he was, and there were some others.

Now, let me skip over to these reports. Complaint was made that we did not file reports. After we came back from California, the subcommittee filed a draft of preliminary report with the full committee on June 3, 1953. The Democrats objected that they needed time to consider it and read the transcript. The stenographer's transcript was given

them. Later, the transcript was printed. The gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD], and the other member appointed to the committee, Mr. IKARD, were present at the June 3 meeting.

How in fairness can it be said they had no opportunity to know what was in the report or to pass on it? Then we put in the amendments. We submitted it again. But, no; they did not want to act on it. That is their privilege.

If the Republican members of the committee want to adopt that attitude, I have no criticism. I have no criticism. I have been here a comparatively long time, and never once and I challenge any Member on either side to put his finger on the record-have I questioned either the ability, the integrity, or the patriotism of any Member of the House.

I have disagreed violently with some of the views expressed, but never have I made it a personal matter. I have been kicked around by experts outside, and experts inside the House are not going to hurt my feelings and cause me to resign, because I think if I did and stood before my people for reelection I might be sent back here, as another Member of this House was some years ago, after being expelled. He came back by an overwhelming majority. So do not worry about that.

Let me get to these hearings. I am getting back to the gentleman who complained of discourtesies, especially to the mayor. Two other individuals were present. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNSON] flew over from Las Vegas or wherever it was he was seeing the atomic test. He flew over there with Mr. BRAY. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr, BROWNSON] sat down, and believe it or not, he had his picture taken with members of the committee. I was not so bad then that he wanted to avoid any connection whatever with the hearings. The whole thing seems to have just soured, at least in the opinion of the gentleman from California, since that time, that is all.

Oh, yes; it is funny how we can change in a day. Do not forget, two other members of the committee were there: the Member from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE]-and let the record show she asked some questions of these men; she was present; she questioned the mayor-and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HILLELSON] was there.

We had some little hard language in the hearing. You know how it is when you have Communists around. I recall back in the 80th Congress, I think it was; we had Nathan Witt. Do you know who Nathan Witt was? He was General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board. He came in before our committee with Abraham Flaxer. Who is Abraham Flaxer? Oh, he is a Communist.

He did not deny it. He was engaged in a strike and we had him in, and Witt came in, and I was perhaps a little harsh. Nathan insisted upon having his say in running the committee, and I asked him to retire. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. FISHER] was on that committee; the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SMITH] was on that committee. They did not, either one of them, yell at me to be more courteous. Witt later was by his associate, Lee Pressman, identified as a Communist a member of the same cell.

So, out there, when this hullaballoo arose about these lawyers and these witnesses, what did I do? Let me get it. I called Richard Combs, page 334 of the hearings which I have before me, and I asked him to identify himself. He testified: "I am Richard Combs, chief counsel for the California Senate Crime Commission on Un-American Activities." "And you have been such for how long?" "About 14 years." Then he went on, and I will print it in the RECORD-I won't take the time now-he went on and told of his experience. Read his testimony printed at the close of my talk.

[ocr errors]

as

Then I asked him about some of these fellows. Oh, he says, they are Communists. None took the witness stand to deny the charge. Most of them were there. They did not take the witness stand and deny it. So, what is the conclusion? They were Communists? I just did not permit them to run the committee, as they usually try to do. Ask the Committee on Un-American Activities.

What about the mayor, that there has been so much criticism about the way we treated him? Let me tell you about that. We were holding hearings out there. There was a statement that we would not have anything to do with the political situation.

The mayor was on television. I have a long, long single-spaced release that he put on about the committee, and he called us everything in polite language that was permissible to be published. I did not make any answer to that. He was not voting in Allegan, Mich., in the Fourth Congressional District, and his opinion was of little interest to me. No; I let him go, I let him speak, and I have always followed that course in the hearings I have held, the special subcommittee for the Labor Committee, yes; and for Judge Bell's committee back in January 1936, when I, a freshman, was sent alone to hold a hearing, and in all the hearings I have let the people talk, and when they said, "You are such and such" and so forth and "you did this and that and the other" I said "Go ahead, go ahead." And when they got through, I said, "Thank you for your opinion. I do not agree with you." I let it go at that and that was all there was to it, and after a while they discovered that the newspapers, not getting any copy or any argument about a dogfight in the committee, they quit it, and that was that. Now, let us get to Mayor Bowron. We were holding the hearings. Poulson was a candidate. I understand from one of the committee staff that Poulson wanted to be a witness. I said, "Do not talk to him, do not let him come around here; we do not want anything to do with

XCIX- -581

him," and we did not have anything to do with him. He was a Republican. Well, they were both Republicans.

Then, just as we had announced that the hearings were to close at noon on a certain day, just before noon and after the witnesses had all been heard who wanted to testify, along came the publicity campaign manager for the mayor, and he said, "I demand to be heard." The committee, mark you, had already been adjourned. I said, "All right; wait a minute." He said, "Well, you have adjourned." I said, "All right, but we are now in session again. Bring on your mayor." They had him outside.

The mayor came in, and he started to testify. Did he face the committee? Oh, no; he faced the television camera and he faced the reporters. That was all right with me. What did I say about it? Here we are:

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please.

This was after the recess. called back.

We were

For the first time, within the last 5 minutes, I received a request, not directly but indirectly, that the mayor wished to appear. I understand he is here. If he desires to come forward and testify in relation to the issues which we came here to get information on, well and good. If he wants to talk politics, we don't want to hear him, and we will not.

All right. Mr. Mayor.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in this way one candidate, in spite of our desire not to enter into a political discussion or have anything to do with this election, obtains a television audience.

All right, Mr. Mayor. And please confine your testimony to matters which bear directly upon the activities of the housing authority.

Mayor BowRON. Well, I thank the chairman for the admonition as to proper conduct. I did not come here to talk politics, I assure you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Proceed with your testimony, please. We had agreed to close the hearing at noon, but because, out of consideration for your position, and in spite of the fact you are a candidate at an election, and in view of the fact that we will be undoubtedly accused by certain members of the committee of participating in a political campaign, nevertheless we will hear you on the issue.

Mayor BoWRON. My name is Fletcher Bowron. I am mayor of the city of Los Angeles.

I think I am here more in the position of offering myself as a witness to answer any questions.

Now, get this:

If you

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. have testimony which has to do with the issue before the committee, I wish you would proceed with that.

Mayor BowRON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, until I make my statement. I understood you were here, from your own statement, to answer any questions. If in addition to that you wish to make a statement bearing upon the issues which the committee is looking into, will you kindly proceed with that statement?

Any discourtesy about that?

Mayor BowRON. I was going to say, as I am not familiar with the issues the committee is looking into

He said he

- How do you like that? was not familiar with its issues-what was he there for then? I interrupted: The CHAIRMAN. If you are not, then there is no need for any testimony, and I thank you very much for appearing.

Mayor BowRON. Am I dismissed?

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you have some statement that has to do with the issues which you say you are not familiar with, yes. If you are familiar with the issues involved and if you want to testify about those, we will be very, very glad to hear you.

Discourteous?

Then let us go over here, where I was not doing the talking. The mayor was still on some time later. I will continue his testimony so you will get the right picture.

Then Mr. HILLELSON, who is a young man, but was evidently getting tired, said:

I suggest we recess.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any further statement?

Mayor BOWRON. Well, apparently the committee does not want to hear me further.

The CHAIRMAN. Not in connection with anything that might have to do with the coming campaign. As I have repeatedly stated, anything that has to do with any misconduct of the officers or the employees of the authority or anything to do with waste or extravagance or the misapplication of Federal dollars, either coming directly or indirectly from Federal funds, yes; otherwise, no.

Then Mrs. ST. GEORGE, ever on the job, ever watching what is going on, ever intelligent, ever active, and who catches the issue quickly, said:

Or, Mr. Chairman, maybe the mayor, on the other hand, would like to encourage the housing authority and would like to say that, in his opinion, they have done a very fine job. Maybe he has come here to tell us that. We are certainly here to hear that, if that is what he wants to say.

We are certainly here to hear that, if that is what he wants to say. I was just going to say instead of bringing up any question of malfeasance maybe the mayor wants to tell us the Housing Authority has been of great benefit to the city and he highly apI proves of it and so forth. I think it is his right to make that statement to the committee, if that is the way he feels. If you

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that. want to state that, if you want to adopt her statement

Mayor BowRON. This is just one of many Housing Authorities in the United States. We complied with the law and have taken advantage of its benefits.

That is all he wants to say. Then Mrs. ST. GEORGE says:

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I realize that you made a statement when we went back to Congress we might possibly have a change made in the law.

He said something about that, and then she said:

The Chairman then said would that also mean then the Federal Government would take back whatever compensation or advantages had accrued to the city from public housing. Is that your understanding? Mayor BowRON. That assumes that something of value has accrued to the city in property.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. It does in property. That is correct.

Mayor BowRON. The city has acquired no property.

The CHAIRMAN. The housing authority has.

Mayor BowRON. That is correct.

Then, they go on and finally Mrs. ST. GEORGE and Mr. HILLELSON said they thought we could excuse the mayor and so he was excused.

Now, how was the gentleman treated discourteously? What I wish, what I sincerely wish, in order that I may be admonished by my friends, if I have any in the House, and so that I may amend my actions, if they need correction, is that those gentlemen who in force were lead by the generalissimo from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD], who assailed me here when I was not here, what I wish they would do is to give to the House what every man accused of crime is always entitled to, a bill of particulars.

Members of the House who have been here over the years know whether or not I have been arbitrary or unreasonable. I have been tenacious, I have been critical of the opposition, and I expect to continue that way when I feel justified in so doing, but I have tried to be courteous and I have tried to be decent in my contacts with the Members of the House. I ask these gentlemen who are so critical, so free with these words, to put it down on the RECORD when and where I have been discourteous to anybody-when or where I have violated any rule of committee procedure, written or unwritten. Tell me, but do not come along when I am not around and make the broad, general charge that I am not fit to serve in this Congress. Do not be cowardly about it. Lay it on the line, and I will either answer it or accept in humility whatever criticism you gentlemen may have.

APPENDIX QUOTING EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS

Some three of the citizens groups which joined the Los Angeles City Council in requesting the investigation were represented by Mr. Charles R. Drake. Mr. Drake testified in part:

Mr. DRAKE. The Monterey Woods and Montecito Hills Improvement Associations and the Huntington Villa Property Owners Association, composed of small property owners and grassroots citizens, welcome the Committee on Governmental Operations to Los Angeles. We appreciate your interest in uncovering what we believe to be basic errors in existing Federal legislation and in recording your findings so that Congress may take appropriate steps to correct existing evils.

*

Specifically may we request that this committee conduct a complete investigation into the operational methods and expenditures of the local housing authority. These matters are of Federal concern because the Federal Government, by and through its annual contributions contract, has obligated itself to make up any deficit in the operational cost of the local authority not to exceed the ceiling established by the Federal laws which is equal to the cost of long-term money to the Federal Government, plus 2 percent.

Under conditions in 1950 the maximum annual contributions rate would be 41⁄2 percent of the development costs. Without adequate controls, including detailed periodic audits of the books of the local authority, Congress has, in effect, given a blank check to the local authority which is limited only by a rather high ceiling.

The purpose of the annual contribution was, of course, motivated by the desire of Congress to maintain the low-rent character

of the projects and to guarantee repayment of the bonds, plus interest, issued by the local authority to cover the capital cost. We maintain that any expenditure posted on the city housing authority books as chargeable to either capital costs or operation and maintenance which does not result in accomplishing the public purpose of the Federal laws, is irregular or illegal.

We further maintain that such irregular expenditure is ultimately paid out of Federal funds because such expenditure increases the deficit which the Government, by and through the annual contributions contract, has agreed to pay.

Because of such agreement the Federal Government will, for instance, indirectly pay for the operation and maintenance of a large and expensive propaganda organization formerly headed by Frank Wilkinson, Director of Information, who refused to make any statement concerning communistic affiliations, but who in a prepared statement, subsequent to his dismissal, accused his superiors of being fully informed as to his beliefs.

Indirectly the Government will also pay for inefficient management and ill-advised expenditures of architects and attorney's fees caused by the failure of the city housing authority to observe our democratic procedures which resulted in expensive revision of plans.

The Government will indirectly pay for unlimited traveling expenses, expense accounts, lobbyists, claques, and many items which tend to corrupt our republican form of government and democratic procedures and which by even the wildest stretch of the imagination cannot be considered necessary to accomplish the public purpose of the subject laws, to wit, to maintain the lowrent character of the projects.

Certainly, if these existing procedures are not illegal in accordance with present legislation, Congress will want to know in detail how the local housing authority operates so that appropriate steps may be taken to prevent or curtail the continuance of this type of procedure.

We of the Rose Hills area are particularly cognizant of the danger and threat to changing our American way of life by the use of tactics and facilities presently available to the local housing authority. In an attempt to preserve the sanctity of our homes, we had a difficult time in paying some $1,800 in attorney's fees in connection with a lawsuit, whereas the city housing authority was in a position to retain a staff of attorneys at a reported retainer fee of $50,000, which expenditure was indirectly reimbursable with Federal funds.

Our efforts to change legislation at the local level required that we take time off from our jobs, travel at our own expense and plead our case solely on the basis of merit. What chance have we against the most powerful lobby in the country which is financed indirectly with Federal funds?

Among the most critical testimony from the viewpoint of the legitimate concern of the House Government Operations Committee was that which showed that the Federal Government by pouring tens of millions of dollars into the Los Angeles Housing Authority against the will of the city government and of the voters of the city was actually financing a huge lobby which was beyond the means of the local people to combat.

I think you will be convinced if you read the record that that point is established, confirmed, and reconfirmed.

One of the lobbyists for the housing authority admitted that entertainment of State legislators made up part of his official expenses. He testified that he

was employed by the housing authority as a lobbyist.

An organized procedure for making substantial deductions from the payroll of employees for local political purposes was repeatedly affirmed on the stand. The money from which these employees were paid came from the Federal Government. The employees were organized for local political and lobbying purposes.

Mayor Bowron said he had nothing to offer with respect to the issues before the committee. So he was not questioned extensively regarding the financing of this political lobby by Federal funds.

However, the Los Angeles chief of police, W. H. Parker, testified that on or about January 31, 1952, he gave Mayor Bowron detailed information regarding 10 alleged Communists in the housing authority.

This is the testimony, in part, of Chief Parker:

Mr. MCKENNA. Were you some time in the past advised of the presence of apparent Communists and subversives in the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles?

Chief PARKER. I was.

Mr. MCKENNA. Approximately when? Chief PARKER. Approximately the 31st of January 1952.

Mr. MCKENNA. About how many names were furnished you at that time? Chief PARKER. Ten.

Mr. MCKENNA. Was it just a list of names furnished you or were details about the individuals also furnished you?

Chief PARKER. Both names and detailed information.

Mr. MCKENNA. Did you take action with respect to that list, Chief?

Chief PARKER. I did.

Mr. MCKENNA. What action did you take? Chief PARKER. I delivered all the information to Mayor Fletcher Bowron, in his office.

Mr. MCKENNA. Is it your understanding or not that he, in turn, turned that over to the proper authorities of the housing authority for further action?

Chief PARKER. It is my understanding that he did so at once.

Mr. MCKENNA. At once?
Chief PARKER. Right.

Mr. MCKENNA. On January 31 or February 1?

Chief PARKER. It could have been after January 31. I received the information on that date. As nearly as I can recall, I received the information then, and the records so indicate it was very shortly after that I gave the material to the mayor. It could have been the same day or the next day.

Mr. MCKENNA. But not later than 2 or 3 days?

Chief PARKER. That is correct.

Mr. MCKENNA. The information you gave is not simply listed, but all the information you received?

Chief PARKER. That is correct, sir. I gave him the entire information that was put into my hands.

Mr. MCKENNA. That is information with respect to approximately or to exactly 10 persons?

Chief PARKER. Ten, as I recall it. I can check it. Ten; exactly 10.

Mr. MCKENNA. Was Frank Wilkinson among those persons?

Chief PARKER. He was.

Mr. MCKENNA. Would you read the information with respect to Frank Wilkinson, exercising the privilege of eliminating sources or anything that would prejudice the present operations of the police force?

Chief PARKER. I might say there is nothing in these reports to indicate their source.

« PreviousContinue »