Mr. REUSS. Well, do you think only insurance brokers approved by the Republican county committee of Cook County should be entitled to the emoluments of Government work in Illinois?

Mr. MANSURE. No, I answered that this morning. I said what I had been opposed to was the fact that the insurance has been placed during the past 20 years with a very small restricted group and I favored spreading it around a little bit, giving some other brokers a chance to have some of the business.

Mr. REUSS. And you thought that the reference to the executive chairman of the Cook County Republican Party was a good way of spreading it around?

Mr. MANSURE. I thought it was, yes.

Mr. RUESS. Do you think it likely that he would be zealous to give independent brokers who were neither Republicans nor Democrats a fair look in on this business?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, Congressman, I don't see why a contractor should have any more right to favor friends of his than the party should have to favor friends of theirs. When you place your business, when you select someone that you buy your insurance from your insurance costs are about the same, and you pick somebody you like to do business with, whether it is life insurance or automobile insurance, or casualty insurance, or whatever it is.

Mr. REUSS. Well, you have stated what is in issue between us, Mr. Mansure, and I just want to say in conclusion that I see a very important factor involved. I think it is quite important that the contractor on a Government contract be allowed a free hand to select that insurance broker which is going to do the most conscientious and competent and inexpensive job, particularly on a contract where the costs are passed on to the taxpayer, and that if we circumscribe that contractor's freedom of choice in the selection of his broker by telling him that it has got to be a Republican insurance broker, or a Democratic insurance broker, or any other specialized kind of an insurance broker other than an honest and efficient insurance broker, I think we do the public a great disservice.

Mr. MANSURE. I completely agree with that, and I think we should have carried that policy out during the past 20 years.

Mr. REUSS. Fine, I think there have been mistakes on both sides. What horrifies me is that from your testimony this afternoon I don't detect much disposition to improve matters, if they needed improvement.

Mr. MANSURE. Very much so, if everybody will agree to let all of this business go strictly on its merit I would be the first one to advocate that program, but you have to break the ring some place and I hope we could break the ring.

Mr. REUSS. I would say a good place to break it was right on this Nicaro deal.

Mr. YOUNGER. Yes, I have some questions.

Mr. HARDY. Why don't we adjourn and reconvene fresh tomorrow? Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Hardy, Mr. Younger sat here and tried to absorb this while you were questioning.

Mr. HARDY. I was merely being considerate of my colleague.

Mr. BROOKS. He hasn't asked a lot of questions. Let him have his opportunity.

Mr. HARDY. I am in complete agreement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNGER. I am perfectly willing to adjourn and start in the morning.

Mr. BROOKS. While I am thinking about it, Mr. Younger, I want to thank you for your courteous attention and we are going to sit here until you are finished, and if it takes until tomorrow or next week, we will still be here.

Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you. I think we should because there seems to be a lot of testimony that has been given here that is considerably at variance. I think to those that sat here the other day and listened to the testimony and listened to the testimony today, there is considerable question about it.

There are a few things I would like to try to clear up. You made a statement in your testimony in connection with talking with Mr. Balmer that you wanted any broker to be able to bid on the insurance. Was that your statement?

Mr. MANSURE. Right.

Mr. YOUNGER. I understood that a broker couldn't bid on the insurance, that only the insurance company could bid on the insurance. Mr. MANSURE. Right. Well, you see, at the time I didn't understand how the brokerage was placed. I was talking about my interpretation originally and then since then the broker is just assigned, whoever wants to be selected.

Mr. YOUNGER. That is what I am trying to get in. The difference here is that the insurance company bids for the insurance under sealed bids in this case?

Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

Mr. YOUNGER. The law requires that they must deal through a broker.

Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

Mr. YOUNGER. Any broker could get that business. They didn't bid for it.

Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

Mr. YOUNGER. They had no connection with it at all or with the bidding or the selecting of a company as indicated by some of the questions on the part of our colleague awhile ago. It is simply the option on the part of either the insurance company or the contractor to select a broker?

Mr. MANSURE. Correct.

Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct, then. Now, in the past, has Mr. Balmer ever made any requests to you for help or consideration since you have been administrator of GSA?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes, he has, and I would like to introduce into the record some of his requests. Here is the complete group of them. I don't want to read them in detail but they are available to the committee.

On December 14, 1953, I wrote him regarding nickel and copper deposits in Alaska where he said there were some interests up there that thought they could produce nickel and copper. We gave them a fine review of the situation from the United States Bureau of Mines, and finally ended up in the letter and told him we are sorry, but as far as the Government is concerned, we are not interested in it.

Mr. YOUNGER. That was in connection with some mining interests? Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. YOUNGER. What other requests did he ever make?

Mr. MANSURE. A request here regarding Air Force Command furniture. I believe this was on the west coast, out of our Seattle office. They wanted to know why a certain unsuccessful bidder did not get the order. I said, here the difficulty is with the supplier itself. If they knew of any irregularities, or in fairness they should have had one of their principals contact us immediately. The claim is another manufacturer in Minneapolis had an "in" or had influence. I can't see how this was possible because these were sealed bids and everyone interested in it should have been there to observe it. This was a mighty good order, bigger than one would have gotten from any individual department store or account. Therefore, someone completely familiar with their operations should give personal attention to a matter as important as this.

The second charge is that this competitor obtained the business by not meeting an alternate to the specifications and by not following the specifications. We are informed by our Seattle office that this is not correct. However, thorough investigation is being made.

At present this is the situation. The first bidder was $100,000 higher on the bid on specifications than the other low bidder. On alternate bid, the first bidder was $12,000 higher than the lower bidder, and so it goes on and I say in conclusion already we have had a number of long-distance telephone calls on this back and forth, on this particular matter, because of charges of influence and favoritism. There are none.

Mr. YOUNGER. He was making an inquiry on behalf of whom?

Mr. MANSURE. On behalf of one of the unsuccessful bidders on this contract. Now, the third request that was made was pertaining to a Chicago firm, two Chicago firms. We have gone to considerable expense to have a thorough investigation made of this by sending two compliance men from Washington to investigate the entire matter in Chicago. The following are the facts:

The proprietor of one of the companies stated that in August 1953, it made a request to the Chicago region of GSA for information and guidance in obtaining Government business, and that in November 1953, he had requested that his name be placed on the bidders list. He said, however, that he had never received an invitation to bid. Investigation disclosed that the Chicago region had listed his name to receive invitations, but there were no invitations for this particular project covering work ever issued because this work is generally included in the larger projects awarded by the general contractor.

He was awarded his opportunity in participating in the GSA business which would normally lay in obtaining subcontracts from the general contractor. PBS will give him an appropriate answer.

The other complaint was from a stationery company. As far as he knew, his firm received all invitations to bid on class 53, that is office supplies. He indicated that he was interested in obtaining Chicago regional business and did not particularly desire to compete for the consolidated contracts awarded by the New York region or the Federal Supply Service contracts awarded in the Washington region.

The individual stated that another competitive company operated by the chairman, the national committeeman and the former chairman of the Democratic county committee was obtaining considerable Gov

ernment business, and he implied that favoritism existed. He did not advance any specific information to support this implication.

We made a complete investigation of it. There was no favoritism at all. The other bid was the low bidder. He got the business, and that is the way we operate everything that we do in GSA. We will take these complaints from anybody. We receive them continuously from members of Congress. We run them down and we give them the answer. Those are the only things that Mr. Balmer has discussed with me and every time it was an unsuccessful bidder, not the successful bidder.

Mr. YOUNGER. Now, a while ago you made a statement, and I quote: In the past, insurance has been given to a selective list.

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct.

Mr. YOUNGER. Now, for the information of the committee, will you furnish us that list and the amount of insurance that has been given to each of those brokers in the past?

Mr. MANSURE. I wouldn't have any possible way of doing that, Congressman Younger, for this reason: I have no access to where insurance has been placed. Now, there is no way that I would have, of course, of being able to get those names other than we have known, all of us, for many years that insurance business has been placed with those who have favorable recognition from the party in power. That has been an existing practice for a long time and I feel that this insurance, and particularly the brokerage should be spread around a little bit, and I would like to see both parties stop this practice.

Mr. YOUNGER. Well, that is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I think, as our friend Shakespeare would express it, but I am interested, since you make the statement, you must have had some evidence that there was a select list.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, we all know many companies that get political insurance. I don't see any reason for-I mean I can't tell what those companies are, but I suppose that if we made a check we could show companies that have had business.

Mr. YOUNGER. I think it would be interesting if you could make a check and see the volume of business that has been given and whether it has been consistently to 1 broker or 2 brokers, and then we could get those brokers in to find out what their affiliations are and how they get business. I think Mr. Reuss would be very much interested in that; wouldn't you?

Mr. REUSS. I would like to join with you in a request, Congressman Younger, that Mr. Mansure file with this committee any instances, either Democrats or Republicans, I don't care who, where a contracting official of the Government has told a contractor with the Government that that contractor has to go see a political official to decide who his insurance broker can be. I would like any and all types of that. Let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, from a practical standpoint, that is like saying you would like to shoot at the moon.

Mr. BROOKS. You mean that it is the usual procedure?

Mr. YOUNGER. What shooting at the moon?

Mr. BROOKS. That is with some folks, but I was thinking whether or not that was a usual procedure for selecting insurance brokers.

Mr. YOUNGER. Well, will you give that some study, Mr. Mansure, and see if you cannot furnish the committee as we have requested such information?

Mr. MANSURE. I certainly will.

Mr. YOUNGER. Now, there was another question that came up in a letter that was read a while ago by the chairman, Mr. Brooks, and the last two sentences of that say:

In addition, this contention is not fair to the Cuban interests since they do not participate in the National Lead Co.'s profits. The Cuban interests came into the Nicaro project through a very positive stipulation of GSA.

Will you inform the committee what that stipulation was?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, that is an excellent question, Congressman, but that is in the former administration and you would have to ask those who were operating at that time. I think there is probably quite a bit of information available.

Mr.YOUNGER. Well, isn't there some information on that that you can get in the files?

Mr. MANSURE. Possibly there is. I haven't reviewed that.

Mr. YOUNGER. Well, will you make an effort to review it and see whether or not you can. I would be interested to find out what that stipulation was. It was evidently made under Mr. Larson's regime. Mr. MANSURE. Made during the past administration, yes.

Mr. YOUNGER. Let's find out. In the first place, we are interested in carrying out promises which our Government employees make. Secondly, we are interested in whether or not it is a legitimate promise, and why it wasn't carried out.

Mr. MANSURE. I would like to get that quote so we can run that down.

Mr. YOUNGER. Well, it is in the minutes. It is this letter here. It is Mr. W. C. Strecker's report of May 25, 1953, your own engineer, his report.

Mr. MANSURE. I would have to check into that. We will run that down.

Mr. YOUNGER. Run that down and see what there is.

Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. YOUNGER. Now, did you recommend a Mr. Luther as a public relations man to the Snare Co. ?

Mr. MANSURE. That is another example of how a person's memory can confuse him. One time out of a clear sky Mr. Cremer asked me when I said they had done a poor job, this was after I told him he had done a poor job in my estimation in selling and public relations, particularly here in Washington, without any association to these previous conversations at all, he said to me, "How long have you known Frank Luther?" I said, "Well, I have known Frank Luther for almost back to college days. He lived in Chicago, I knew his family well. He came to Washington." He said, "Well, what do you know about him?” I said, "What do you mean, what do I know about him?" He said, "What does he do?" I said, "Well, he represents a number of different companies in the public relations field." He said, "What do you think of him as an individual?" I said, "The very highest character and integrity."

That was a summary of a conversation. Nothing more was said. To my amazement several weeks later a friend said to me, "Did you