«Gentlemen. Distinguished colleagues, Mr. Undersecretary. Senate hearing number six-four-one commences session on this date at the hour of two-thirty; so let the record state.»
As the stenotypist, staring at nothing, effortlessly touched the muted keys, Trevayne realized that the «Undersecretary» was himself. He had been «Mr. Undersecretary»; an undersecretary, one of many.
«Having been appointed generously by my colleagues as chairman of this hearing, I shall open with the usual statement outlining the purposes of our gathering. At the conclusion of this brief statement I welcome any additions or clarifications—I hope no contradictions, as our objective is fully bipartisan.»
There were perceptible nods of agreement, several unhumored smiles, one or two deep breaths signifying the start of Senate hearing six-four-one. Gillette reached for a folder in front of him and opened it. His voice had the drone of a court-martial charge.
«The state of the defense economy is appalling; an opinion shared by every knowledgeable citizen. As elected representatives, it is our duty-by-oath to use the powers granted us by the Constitution to ascertain these deficiencies and correct them wherever possible. We can and should do no less. We have made provision for the forming of an investigative subcommittee, so requested by the Defense Allocation Commission—a subcommittee the purpose of which is to make a thorough study of the major contracts now existing and submitted for congressional approval between the Department of Defense and those corporations doing business with Defense. To limit the scope of the inquiry—and surely it must be limited, for reasons of time—an arbitrary contractual figure of one-point-five million has been suggested for the subcommittee’s guidelines. All Defense agreements in excess of this amount are subject to the scrutiny of the subcommittee. It will, however, be at the discretion of the subcommittee to make all such investigatory decisions.
«Our purpose this afternoon is to examine and confirm or deny the appointment of Mr. Andrew Trevayne, formerly Undersecretary of State, to the position of chairman of the above-mentioned subcommittee. This hearing is closed, and the record will remain classified for an indeterminate period, so I urge my colleagues to search their consciences, and where doubts exist, should they exist, express them. Again, further—»
«Mr. Chairman.» Andrew Trevayne’s soft-spoken, hesitant interruption so startled everyone in the room that even the stenotypist lost his appearance of uninterest and looked over at the man who had dared to interrupt the opening remarks of the chair. Walter Madison instinctively reached out and put his hand on Trevayne’s arm.
«Mr. Trevayne?… Mr. Undersecretary?» asked the bewildered Gillette.
«I apologize… Perhaps this isn’t the time; I’m sorry.»
«What is it, sir?»
«It was a matter of clarification; it can wait. My apologies again.»
«Mr. Chairman!» It was the aquiline Senator Knapp. «The Undersecretary’s lack of courtesy to the chair is strange, indeed. If he has anything to say in the nature of clarification, it certainly can wait for the proper time.»
«I’m not that familiar with procedures, Senator. I didn’t want it to slip my mind. You’re right, of course.» Trevayne reached for a pencil, as if to write a note.
«It must have struck you as most pertinent, Mr. Undersecretary.» It was the Senator from New Mexico who now spoke; a man in his fifties, a respected chicano. It was apparent that he disliked Alan Knapp’s intimidating rebuke.
«It did, sir.» Trevayne lowered his eyes to the paper. There was a momentary silence in the room. The interruption was now complete.
«Very well, Mr. Trevayne.» Senator Gillette seemed unsure of himself. «It’s quite possible that you are correct, though unorthodox. I’ve never held to the theory that the chair’s remarks were sacrosanct. I’ve been tempted far too often to cut them short myself. Please. Your clarification, Mr. Undersecretary.»
«Thank you, sir. You stated that it was the responsibility of this panel to search for and express doubts… I’m not sure how to say it, but I feel that a similar responsibility is shared by this table. Quite honestly, I’ve had doubts myself, Mr. Chairman.»
«Doubts, Mr. Trevayne?» asked Mitchell Armbruster, the small, compact Senator from California whose wit was as much a part of his reputation as his judgment. «We’re born with doubts; at least, we grow to recognize them. What doubts do you refer to? Pertinent to this hearing, I mean.»
«That this subcommittee will be given the degree of cooperation it needs in order to function. I sincerely hope the panel will consider the implications of this question.»
«That sounds suspiciously like an ultimatum, Mr. Trevayne.» Knapp spoke.
«Not at all, Senator; that would be totally unwarranted.»
«It nevertheless strikes me that your ‘implications’ are insulting. Is it your intention to put the Senate of the United States on trial here?» continued Knapp.
«I wasn’t aware that this was a trial,» replied Trevayne pleasantly, without answering the question.
«Damn good point,» added Armbruster with a smile.
«Very well, Mr. Undersecretary,» said Gillette. «Your clarification has been placed into the record and duly noted by this panel. Is that satisfactory?»
«It is, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman.»
«Then I shall conclude my opening remarks, and we may proceed.»
Gillette droned on for several minutes, outlining the questions which should be raised and answered. They fell into two categories. First, the qualifications of Andrew Trevayne for the position under consideration, and second, the all-important factor of conceivable conflicts of interest.
At his conclusion, the chairman made the customary statement. «Any additions or clarifications, beyond Mr. Trevayne’s previous inclusions?»
«Mr. Chairman?»
«The Senator from Vermont is recognized.»
James Norton, early sixties, close-cropped gray hair, down-easter accent very pronounced, looked at Trevayne. «Mr. Undersecretary. The distinguished chairman has described the areas of this inquiry in his usual clear and forthright manner. And we certainly will raise the questions of competence and conflict. However, I submit there is a third territory that should be explored. That is your philosophy, Mr. Undersecretary. You might say, where you stand. Would you grant that privilege to us?»
«No objections, Senator.» Trevayne smiled. «I might even hope that we could exchange such views. My own and the panel’s collective position, of course, relative to the subcommittee.»
«We are not standing for confirmation!» Alan Knapp’s voice crackled harshly through the speakers.
«I respectfully refer the Senator to my previous remarks,» answered Trevayne softly.
«Mr. Chairman?» Walter Madison placed his hand once more on Trevayne’s arm and looked up at the platform. «May I have a word with my client, if you please.»
«Certainly, Mr… Madison.»
The Senate panel, in the courtesy of such hearings, talked among themselves and shuffled papers. Most, however, kept their eyes on Trevayne and Walter Madison.
«Andy, what are you doing? Are you trying to deliberately confuse the issues?»
«I made my point…»
«Unforgettably. Why?»
«I want to make sure there’s no misunderstanding. I want this record to specify—not indicate, but specify—that I’m putting everyone on notice. If they clear me, they do so knowing what I expect from them.»
«For God’s sake, man, you’re reversing the function of the hearing. You’re confirming the Senate!»
«I guess I am.»
«What’s your point? What are you trying to do?»