Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

firmation. However, I am very much incensed at your nomination to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Prior to the expiration of the term of Commissioner Tierney who you will be replacing on the Commission if confirmed, the Commission was composed of two members from Maryland, one from Kansas, one from Florida, one from West Virginia, one from Georgia, one from Ohio, one from Texas, one from Illinois, one from California, one from Kentucky. Since the death of Commissioner Wallace R. Burke in June of 1969 and the nomination and confirmation of Robert C. Gresham of Maryland to serve the balance of his unexpired term, for the first time in many years there is not a single member of the ICC from the northeastern part of this country. And yet the problems of transportation in the northeast section of this country are very acute.

You probably have read in the papers or heard something about the difficulties of the Penn Central Railroad. The New Haven Railroad has been a problem for many years as has the Boston & Maine. We also have a central situation with respect to the development of high-speed surface transportation within the northeast corridor.

I have been serving on this committee many years, and I think that probably the State I represent together with Vermont have the least air service of any locality in the United States. I realize that air service is not a matter for the Interstate Commerce Commission, but with all of the problems of population, traffic, and commuter transportation within the cities in the northeast corridor, it is absolutely inconceivable to me, that any President or any administration would continue to leave the Interstate Commerce Commission without a member from New England.

I served notice of my concern at the last nomination hearing of ICC.

In view of your record of Government service and of business service, however, and with the efficiency which you have displayed, I can hardly bring myself in justice to vote against your confirmation.

But, I have told representatives of the White House I thought in rather definite language, and I shall tell them again in more definite language that as ranking Republican member of this committee I do not intend to allow them to continue to ignore the need for an Interstate Commerce Commissioner from the Northeastern section of the United States—New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, that whole section.

And after all of the years I have put in on this committee we have two representatives on this committee from New England, and I am sure that Mr. Prouty feels as I do—if my own administration isn't willing to show the section we represent just consideration, the next time that there is a vacancy, I can promise them that there will be opposition to it even if they nominate St. Peter!

I have said so before. I have said so in this hearing. I have said so in private conversations with representatives from the White House. Yet it has been completely ignored. I may say so on the floor of the Senate. If I do make a statement on the floor of the Senate prior to your confirmation, I hope you will understand that it is not a reflection on you personally.

I think you will be a very competent member of the ICC. However, if, as it appears, the administration has written off the Northeast en

a

51-628 0_-71-3

tirely in nominating persons to the ICC I am not going to submit to it without a loud, long protest from now on.

So if you should hear some grumbling from me, it is not a reflection on you personally. I am thoroughly satisfied that you are so competent and your experience is so comprehensive that one in good conscience must vote for you.

And, I am personally happy to support you. But, for reasons I have stated, I am most unhappy and I am going to get more unhappy as time goes on. Somebody is going to come up here from the White House some day and want me to do something. I may find it necessary to do just the opposite in order to get my point across.

That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, Senator Cotton. I might say he does have credentials that you didn't mention, he was the assistant chairman of the National Finance Committee for Nixon for President in 1968 and was executive chairman of the GOP's financial committee, and I would imagine that these are two elements you might take into consideration.

Senator Cotton. Those are two very praiseworthy activities. But on the other hand, I don't know whether it is remembered or not that New Hampshire was the first State to go for Mr. Nixon in the first presidential primary.

Senator HARTKE. In the snows of New Hampshire, is that right?

Senator COTTON. Well, it was in March. We still have snow in March up there, and it is not a cheerful month. I certainly am glad to approve

a such a fine supporter of the administration.

I am also a supporter of the administration, although there may be a limit to my support one of these days.

Senator HARTKE. The fiscal year ends June 30, that is a good cut-off date.

Senator Pearson !
Senator PEARSON. No questions.
Senator HARTKE. Senator Baker?
Senator BAKER. No questions.
Senator HARTKE. Senator Cook?

Senator Cook. I am almost afraid to, Mr. Chairman. I might say to the Senator from New Hampshire that St. Peter would be qualified if he came to the Commission by way of New England, I think he at least ought to leave that door open.

Senator Cotton. You know what we are going to get? The next two vacancies are going to be Democratic vacancies so we will get a New England Democrat. I like Democrats, but I don't like them too near home.

Senator Cook. I might say to the chairman that Mr. Brewer's qualifications of being assistant chairman of the National Finance Committee, Nixon for President, and being executive chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee, he did a fantastic job. I think the chairman is well aware of the finances of the last campaign.

Seriously, I think we should make a part of this record that relative to the holding in Ashland Oil and Ashland Oil Pipeline Co., the insignificant percentages that the pipeline company represents to Ashland. In its annual report for the year ending December 31, 1969, Ashland Pipe Line Co. contributed approximately 8 percent of the total assets of all the companies. Also, the subsidiary pipeline company contributes approximately 1 percent of the revenues and 9 percent of the net income.

Also, I think it important that Mr. Brewer's unequivocal statement to the chairman that he will not sit on any cases involving Ashland Oil be made a part of this record.

Add to this the fact that the ICC jurisdiction of oil pipeline activities constitutes less than 1 percent of all Commission activities, and we can see that the nominee's insignificant holdings will in no way affect his judgment as a Commissioner. I might say in all fairness that I doubt seriously with all of the discussion that may go on in the committee that the members of the committee will write all of their holdings down and submit them to the chairman.

I only say this in all fairness, because I think there may be a double standard in this regard. Also, I think it is to the benefit of the nominee that he be an investor in the things that make the free enterprise system of this Nation great, and as a matter of fact I think there would be some inhibiting value to an individual if he were not in some way connected with the free enterprise system in this country.

And in this regard, I see good judgment in his portfolio. When the day comes when nominees to commissions in this country have to dispose of their investment in what makes this country the great country it is, then I think we will be at a low ebb in our confirmation of such nominees.

Thank you.

Senator COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I just noticed Commissioner Jackson from California seated in the back of the room. He is an old friend of mine. I want to make sure that he relates the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire the next time he visits the White House.

Senator Cook. May I add one thing, Senator? I said a minute ago I was going to try to claim Mr. Brewer, because he was born in Kentucky, and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee said he was going to charge him to me. I might add that if Mr. Brewer were going to be charged to me, it would be the first thing that was charged to me since I have been a Member of the Senate.

Senator HARTKE. The hearings are adjourned.
(Thereupon at 10:30 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.)

a

NOMINATION OF DR. CLAY T. WHITEHEAD TO BE

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1970

U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. John O. Pastore, presiding.

Present: Senators Pastore and Pearson.

Senator PASTORE. The hour of 10 having arrived, we will commence this hearing.

We are very happy and honored indeed to have with us this morning the Presidential nominee for the Office of Telecommunications, Dr. Clay T. Whitehead, who is not only a distinguished Californian and Kansan, but also a distinguished American.

I am very happy that we have the senior Senator from California here to introduce our nominee.

STATEMENT OF HON GEORGE MURPHY, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CALIFORNIA

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce Dr. Whitehead to what I consider to be one of the most important areas of Government. I would like to say that the wonders of the State of California are well known. Sometimes I think we boast a little too often about them, about the great people and progress and scenery and all the other beauties which the Lord has endowed us with out there. Today I take great pride in presenting to you a young man who, early in life, heeded Horace Greely's immortal words and went West to settle in California. We are very pleased that he did.

Although a native of the great State of Kansas, Tom Whitehead has lived most recently in California prior to his appointment to the White House staff in January 1969.

I believe that this young man typifies in so many ways the great young breed of talent that exists not only in California, but across this great country of ours. I know that the chairman will agree with me that too often these days we hear about some of those who create problems rather than those of the young breed who would not only continue the great legend of America, but would improve it and do a much better job.

He has proven himself greatly as Special Assistant to the President. Although he is only 31 years of age, he has already packed in three

« AnteriorContinuar »