CHAPTER TEN
From Spokane to Paris
FOLEY'S TURN
In the Senate, Expo '74 had the backing of Henry Jackson and Warren Magunuson, whom The New Yorker described as having "more power and influence than any other pair in the Senate at the time." (104) In contrast, the Expo bill would be shepherded through the House with the sponsorship of one congressman, and a relatively junior one at that.
Thomas S. Foley was elected to the House of Representatives from eastern Washington in 1964. He was in his fourth term when the legislation for Expo '74 came before Congress. Foley had attended law school at the University of Washington and entered into practice with Hank Higgins, his cousin and boyhood friend. He then became an assistant attorney general in Washington state, and in 1961 he went to Washington, D.C. to work for Senator Henry Jackson as a special counsel on the Senate Interior Committee. In 1963 Jackson suggested that Foley run for Congress, but Foley seemed uninterested. He must have been tempted, however, because a year later when Joseph Drumheller, a major figure in the local Democratic party, chided him about his hesitancy" - You won't run unless you get an engraved invitation handed you on a silver Tiffany tray"-Foley decided within twenty-four hours to file for candidacy. On July 17, he arrived at the state house in Olympia just minutes before the 5 P.M. deadline. Hank Higgins, who had taken him to so many weekends of "riotous movie-going" when they were boys in Spokane, came with him and lent him the money to file. (105)
Foley's opponent was Walt Horan, a Republican who had been representing the district for twenty-two years. Foley waged an unusual campaign. Rather than belittle his opponent, he took pains to compliment Horan for his many contributions to the district; rather than wear casual clothes for appearances in the many rural parts of the district, Foley wore a suit, or at his most informal, a blue blazer. Asked by an aide about his clothes, Foley said, "These people aren't voting for the president of the Rotary Club. I don't believe anyone wants to be represented by someone who doesn't look and act the part of a member of Congress." According to his staff, Tom Foley was able to communicate well because of his lack of pretense; he was seen instantly "as unstuffy and complete." (106)
During the 1964 race, Tom Foley campaigned well, showing superior knowledge of the district's problems. Aided by the Lyndon Johnson landslide of that year, Foley beat his Republican opponent by 3 percentage points, much to the surprise of most of his supporters, who were accustomed to seeing Democratic candidates fall before the popular Walt Horan. Foley won by increasing margins in 1966, 1968, and 1970. In the election of 1972, when the Expo bill appeared before the House, Tom Foley was facing an unlikely opponent, a tombstone saleswoman who was said to have sold her washing machine to pay the filing fee. Foley's chances of reelection were hardly in danger as he went to work on the exposition legislation in the House. But legislation itself was in danger.
Foley's commitment to Expo was strong. In congressional discussions, he said that the fair "has sparked the imagination of our region as nothing has for decades." (107) But when he was asked years later about his initial reaction when King Cole told him about the exposition proposal, Foley admitted, "I have to say honestly my early impression-I was very polite about it-but my early impression was, 'This is a really spacy idea. You're going to have a world's fair in Spokane, sure.' I was trying to be respectful and responsive. But going through my mind while talking to him was the idea, 'This is wild-an international exposition in Spokane?"' (108) King helped Foley change his mind. "You know," Foley remarked, "King is wonderfully persuasive." (109) Foley was also impressed with the ability of men and women in his hometown to build momentum for the project.
Before the bill reached the House, Tom Foley had spoken on behalf of Expo '74 at the Senate committee hearing. There he called the fair "a significant world event on the timely subject of environment." "The site itself," he said, "will provide a dramatic example of this theme; a downtown river site converted from many decades of neglect to become a permanent park, and its rockbound falls restored to their primitive natural beauty." (110) On October 4, 1972, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs scheduled hearings to assess the value of Spokane's proposed fair, and Foley was invited to explain the bill to his congressional colleagues. The hearing would take place before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements.
Congressman Foley was worried about the work ahead. The session was drawing to a close, and if the bill did not pass soon, Expo might be doomed. As the House hearings began, the bill was being discussed in the Senate, and its fate there was very much in doubt. The day before, Senator Fulbright had unleashed his blistering attack on the bill. If Washington's two powerful senators failed, how could Foley succeed?
As a young man, Foley was in awe of Jackson and Magnuson. Years later he recalled Jackson's tenacity. "If you got his attention, and he got himself involved, engaged in something, he wanted it to happen. I mean, if he decided to have you appointed to the United States battlefield commission, you know, he was relentless about it. He would work until they would say, 'Call off the dogs. No more, please, no more!'"
Foley thought Magnuson was particularly impressive when he was promoting a bill on the Senate floor. Foley remembered watching him one day. "He got geared up" and worked his way around the floor, "causing a certain sheepish guilt as he was recounting all the things that the Commerce Committee [had] authorized. 'Now the gentleman from Mississippi,' Magnuson would say, 'I remember supporting the project at such and such and the gentleman from so and so.' He was just rattling off all these projects from memory, like shooting ducks in a gallery!" What could a relatively junior congressman from eastern Washington do if Magnuson and Jackson were unable to prevail in their chamber? Looking over his shoulder at his Senate colleagues was daunting. "That was part of it very definitely," Foley remembered. "I was nervous." (111)
The Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements met in room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Subcommittee Chair Donald M. Fraser of Minnesota called the meeting to order and asked for a statement on behalf of H.R. 16797-as the Expo bill was known in the House. Congressman Foley began by noting that this was the first exposition to seek federal support under Public Law 91-269, which mapped out procedures for federal support of international expositions held in the United States. Foley noted that Spokane had already achieved "a solid record of local achievement and initiative," including success in Paris with BIE endorsement. The fair had also won the support of the Department of Commerce. All in all, the region had "done its homework" in laying the foundations for a great fair. During the House hearings, Congressman Foley gave new force to a familiar argument for Expo. He asserted that the exposition was "timely, in a location particularly well suited to the subject of the exposition." The fair was devoted to ecology, and "The site itself," Foley said, "will provide a dramatic example of the theme, a downtown river site converted from many decades of neglect to become a permanent park." He described Spokane Falls as a blighted landscape full of potential as a scenic wonder. The exposition, he said, provides "a unique opportunity to show what can be done with a major natural resource that has been encrusted, over many years, with industrial plants and other facilities that have deprived the community and area of the great recreational and environmental impact and beauty of the river itself." (112)
Foley's statement contrasts sharply with the rhetoric of the Northwestern Industrial Exposition of 1890, when speakers described the primeval falls as a wasted resource, needing to be harnessed. The pioneers claimed that the falls reached their proper condition when they turned mill wheels and electric turbines. In 1972 when Tom Foley described that earlier progress as having "encrusted" the falls and obscured the beauty of the river, he was viewing them from the standpoint of a nation that had developed a new appreciation for natural wonders.
When Congressman Foley finished his testimony, Bill Nelson of the Commerce Department made a supporting statement, as he had done in the Senate. Then subcommittee chairman Donald Fraser began a rigorous examination of both Nelson and Foley. Fraser asked Nelson a potentially embarrassing question about the White House's handling of the Expo proposal. Noting that the president had given his blessing to the fair in July 1971, and that it was now October 1972, he said, "As you know, once we were past the August recess, the difficulties in handling this legislation were bound to be considerably greater than earlier in the year. Congress is trying to complete its work by next week. ... Why did it take a year to come out with a recommendation on this?" Nelson described the thicket of regulations that Spokane had been trying to penetrate for almost two years in working on Expo. The fair needed BIE approval, but before it could get BIE approval, it needed federal recognition. With both of those endorsements in place, the White House was able to seek architects' plans and bids for a federal pavilion, but before doing that the government needed to know roughly what the site would look like. (113)
At one point, Nelson seemed about to blame the delay on Spokane, noting that "The Spokane sponsors took some time in order to get the parcel of land together." But he was not so much casting blame as explaining that each stage of the process required time. All of these pieces had to be in place before Expo backers could seek funding, or else Congress would not know what they were being asked to build and whether the exposition deserved recognition. If any American city could approach Congress out of the blue and expect, say, $10 million for a world's fair, how would Congress know whether the proposal had any chance of success? Rep. Paul Findley of Illinois then made a statement which must have seemed encouraging, then chilling, to Expo's backers. "I would say I think it is a splendid idea," he said, "but at this stage in the 92nd Congress, given the expenditure limitation which may be brought up this week, it will not be easy to get it through." (114)
Donald Fraser resumed questioning, asking for more information about existing federal law on U.S. participation in American world's fairs. Reading Fraser's questions today in the printed record of the hearing, one can see that he was working over new and confusing territory, trying to understand it himself. Nelson explained that Public Law 91-269 divided federal participation into two phases, recognition and participation. The White House was expected to recognize a fair, as it had in the case of Spokane, before approaching Congress for support. Only at the participation phase was Congress involved. "In a sense," Nelson explained again, "the legislation makes the sponsors go through a very arduous procedure before the Congress takes up the question of whether the United States would participate." Foley noted that the White House had already recognized the fair and invited foreign governments to participate. If Congress held back its approval at this stage, "We would be in the difficult situation of having issued invitations, received acceptances and having participation under way by other countries without ourselves, the host country, being a participant. ... Should this occur, we would have very serious problems in the future if the United States applied for another international exhibition." In such an effort the United States' credibility "would be compromised." (115)
Still trying to come to grips with what was happening, Rep. L. H. Fountain of North Carolina asked, "We have already extended the invitation?" The question had just been answered, but like other congressmen on the subcommittee, he was bemused by the situation. In effect, Congress was being asked to approve something after the fact. Finally, Rep. Abraham Kazen Jr. of Texas said what other committee members were apparently thinking. "This is the first time we have run up against Public Law 91-269, and we are now seeing there is a gap in that law. I think certainly before the president and the local people and everybody else goes to the extent that they have gone in this case, there should have been some expression from Congress that they would come through because you are going to be left holding the bag if this bill doesn't pass." (116)
This was the critical point in the hearing. The discussion had veered away from the merits of the fair to what Kazen called the "gap" in the law. But time was running desperately short; the Expo bill had been pummeled by a leading senator; now a key body in the House was questioning the very legislation that covered federal participation in world's fairs. At this moment the young congressman from Spokane knew he had to shift the subcommittee's attention back to the fair itself. Foley admitted that there may have been "a problem inherent in that legislation," but, after all, it did provide the rules under which Spokane had acted on good faith. Tom Foley then all but brought his hometown into room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Spokane had taxed itself to the tune of $5.7 million; the local business community had committed another $6.8 million; the railroads were donating millions more in property. Rep. Kazen of Texas appeared to be impressed. "Without any guarantee from Congress?" he asked. With that question as his opening, Foley described just how much his city had done without Congress. "If you could come to Spokane, you would see great railroad trestles which formerly marred the downtown area being torn down by huge machinery to clear the Expo '74 site-100 acres comprised of riverbanks and islands on which two major railroad terminals were built in the early days of this century .... Through the years the falls area became encrusted with business operations and railroad yards which destroyed the ecological heart of the city." (117)
Foley's compelling portrait of a small city that raised big dollars to restore its "ecological heart" apparently had an effect. Kazen asked a few more questions, but he said nothing more about "gaps" in the law, and after asking several harmless questions about Spokane's population and the length of the fair, he seemed eager to be conciliatory, even though he was still doubtful about the outcome of the project. "Mr. Foley," he said, "I want to assure you that I am sympathetic to your project here. I am just very fearful it may have come too late." (118)
Foley turned even that comment to his advantage. He admitted the time problem, thanked the subcommittee chairman for scheduling the hearing so promptly, and urged the congressmen to act on the matter at hand: "Unless we get the most expedited consideration possible," he said, "we could run into some very difficult construction problems." He pointed out that it was virtually impossible to reschedule a world's fair. Indeed there was a time problem, so now was the moment to approve the bill.
One more testy comment came from the subcommittee. Rep. Jonathan Bingham of New York pointed out, "there was a substantial delay on the part of the executive branch here .... The point is, there was six or seven months delay there, and [now] the Congress is being asked to act within a matter of days." For a moment it seemed as if the hearing would turn again to criticism of administrative delays. But Bingham's questioning suddenly took a friendly turn. Indeed, the White House had lots of time to deal with Expo, and the Congress had very little, but then, he said, "Public Law 91-269 seems to contemplate exactly that procedure" because of all the steps the president was required to take before submitting a world's fair bill to Congress. "Unless we want to change Public Law 91-269 at this stage," he said, "I don't know how you can fault the administration for following the procedure that was expected here." (119)
The hearing went on through more questions, but by now the thrust of the questioning was more towards collecting information than challenging U.S. participation in the fair. Congressman Bingham asked about certain "waiver" provisions in the Expo bill. One such provision stipulated that Expo would not have to observe the "Buy America" Act to the letter of the law. Bill Nelson explained that the reason for that provision was that sometimes an international exposition had to order material that could not be provided in time from an American manufacturer. San Antonio's HemisFair '68, for example, had to order "an extraordinary size movie screen" from England because it was not available in the United States. The law requiring federal agencies to use cars provided by the General Services Administration might also have to be waived because GSA cars were not immediately available in Spokane. Moreover, exposition organizers would need more flexibility than most government agencies because in a world's fair it was vital to move quickly "to design and construct imaginative and striking exhibits which in a substantive way will portray the theme and story line of the exposition."
Impressed by this and other information, Bingham was encouraging, "I am in favor of the legislation, Mr. Chairman. I think we should do what we can to expedite it." Rep. Ronald V. Dellums of California concurred, "It would be embarrassing to this country to not participate and, as one member of the committee, I would support expeditiously moving this bill to the floor and trying to get it passed." (120)
The hearing finished shortly before noon on October 4. Five days later, the subcommittee reported to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Included with their report was a "fact sheet" with additional arguments in favor of congressional support for the proposed fair. The sheet was titled, "Vital Reasons for Congressional Authorization and Funding of Federal Participation at Spokane Now." The "now" was emphasized, and the arguments were more strident than those used by Foley and Nelson in the hearings. "It is a grave international embarrassment for the U.S. to be urging other nations to commit funds and take part in an event to which it has committed not one cent itself." Philadelphia had recently given up its fair plans, and "The U.S. cannot afford another red face now, particularly when the federal plan for Spokane is only $11.5 million." In contrast, Ottawa had spent $263 million on the Montreal fair of 1967, and Tokyo $I billion on the Osaka fair of 1970. "This is an emergency situation now," the fact sheet continued, "in terms of completing the planning and construction for this Federal pavilion." (121)
Relying on information from the subcommittee, the Foreign Relations Committee quickly drew up its report. The committee "noted with some distress the fact that H.R. 16797 was introduced in the closing days of the 92d Congress, allowing very little time for careful and orderly consideration of its merits." The committee complained that "some of the delay in introducing this legislation might have been avoided through more expeditious handling in the executive branch." Having groused briefly at the executive branch, however, the House Committee returned to the matter at hand and reported the Expo bill to the whole House on October 12 with unanimous approval and a "do pass" recommendation. (122)
This was good news, of course, for Tom Foley. But he still faced a major obstacle. In the House as in the Senate, the bill would be considered under a procedure that required unanimous consent. "That was an extremely difficult and chancy thing to do, since any individual member could offer objection." But any other approach would have required more time that Spokane could afford to lose. Foley had two advantages over Magnuson and Jackson: the House bill had been reported with a "do pass" recommendation, and by this time the bill had passed the Senate.
But Foley faced a threat in the persons of Congressmen H. R. Gross and Durward G. "Doc" Hall. Known as the watchdogs of the House, they were hard on any bill that seemed to waste the taxpayers' money. The Almanac of American Politics for 1974 provides vivid descriptions of both men. H. R. Gross of Iowa was "the House's reigning curmudgeon," the Almanac claimed. "He reads every bill that comes to the floor-a staggering task-trying to spot some new outrage perpetrated on the taxpayers .... The congressman believes that the federal government wastes far too much money, and he sees himself, often with complete justification, as the only member willing to object to some excesses." Dr. Durward G. Hall was a physician turned congressman. The Almanac described him as "one of the sternest watchdogs of the federal treasury .... Hall spent a good deal of time on the House floor fighting programs he thought smelled a little funny." He often worked in tandem with H. R. Gross. (123)
Tom Foley said of Gross and Hall, "They were the majority and assistant majority leaders of the 'Watchdog Party.' H. R. [Gross] got up at five in the morning and read every bill and resolution that was going to come to the floor that day, and he objected to many." Gross was "a funny guy in a way; he had this crabby red face, and he became an institution in the house, and his crabbiness became beloved after a while. Nobody else could get away with it." Foley particularly remembered Gross's response to a bill to provide recovery for the owners of honey bees killed by insecticides. Gross argued that the government was not responsible. "If this bill is passed," he said, "no animal will in the future ever die of natural causes without remuneration by the United States Government!" Other House members tended to relax when they knew that Gross was there "to read all these resolutions." To some members he was "like an auditor. You know, you didn't have to worry so much-H. R. is there to take care of any problems." (124)
Fortunately, H. R. Gross was going to be at home in Waterloo, Iowa, when the Expo bill reached the floor. "That was good," Foley recalled, "but the fact that Dr. Hall was patrolling in his absence was bad." Foley had to make a difficult choice, whether or not to tell Hall about the bill. He could alert Doc Hall to the forthcoming House vote on Expo and try to persuade him to support it, but this was risky because in "highlighting it," he might draw Hall's attention to the bill, and Hall might decide to oppose it. But if he failed to discuss the bill with Hall, the Congressman might well see it anyway, and Foley would then have missed a chance to win his support by being forthright.
Foley decided to discuss the legislation, and fortunately Doc Hall "actually turned out to be an asset." One of Hall's staff members had been Bill Nelson of the Commerce Department, who had testified alongside Jackson, Magnuson, and Foley at the Senate and House hearings. Nelson had told Hall "privately that the Spokane application was one of the best he had ever seen." Based on this information, Hall decided to support Expo. He told Foley, "I'm going to help you." Years later, the congressman from Spokane remarked, "I was just about ready to go hug him at that point." Foley added reflectively, "That's what you have to have in the way of luck in government and politics." (125)
It helped that Hall would raise no objections to Expo, but there were still several hundred other congressmen, anyone of whom could scuttle Expo with a negative vote on the consent motion. Tom Foley realized that for many representatives, a world's fair in Spokane was hard to imagine. "Spokane is known," he noted, "but you know, people often mispronounce the name 'Spo-cane.'" If someone says "There's going to be an international exhibition in Medford, Oregon; Casper, Wyoming; Helena, Montana-That's not what goes through the average member of Congress's mind when he thinks of an international exhibition. He thinks of a huge megalopolis-New York, San Francisco. Spokane seemed to be reaching, for a lot of people, beyond its scope and power and position to command that kind of exhibition." Many people assumed that it was only because of Magnuson's and Jackson's power in the Senate that the fair had gotten as far as it had. "With any kind of normal Senate delegation, it would have been extremely difficult to do." (126)
The moment of truth came during the late afternoon of October 13, 1972. "It was brought up by unanimous consent about six o'clock in the evening, and Don Fraser floor-managed it. He's the one who stood up and said, 'I ask for unanimous consent."' (127) Fraser had chaired the subcommittee that evaluated the exposition bill a few days before. He spoke briefly on behalf of the legislation, noting that "although this bill was introduced in the closing days of this Congress, it would be incorrect to assume that it was thrown together hurriedly without careful consideration. On the contrary, it was introduced only after the Spokane Exposition had met each of the strict requirements of Public Law 91269." Fraser mentioned the need for haste, underscoring the critical importance of the vote: "Should this legislation not pass during this Congress, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to complete the proposed U. S. Pavilion in time for the spring 1974 opening of the exposition." (128)
As the vote neared, Tom Foley was aware that friends in Spokane were waiting for this moment; his wife, Heather, was in the House dining room, eager for news from her husband. The Speaker of the House used words that evening that Foley would use many times when he became Speaker of the House almost twenty years later. There is "an awful moment there," he said, "when the chair puts the question, 'Is there any objection?' and there's like three or four seconds before the chair's going to say, 'Hearing none, so ordered. Without objection, the bill is passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.''' (129) At the last moment Wiley Mayne, another congressman from Iowa, home of the notorious but absent H. R. Gross, had entered the chamber with a piece of paper in his hand. Foley thought, "He has come in here to ask a couple of questions." "We have a technique in the House," he explained, "where you can interrupt a unanimous consent request and get information, like 'Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the Gentleman from Washington, how much this authorization, whether it's this, whether it's that.''' Then he can say, "Mr. Speaker, I object." With those four words, years of work on Expo '74 could have been torpedoed.
Congressman Foley waited through those three or four long seconds-and no one objected. Then the Speaker declared "the bill is passed." With that, the United States was ready to go to work on its pavilion for the world's fair in Spokane. (130)
Don Fraser told Tom Foley he was "absolutely astonished" that the bill had passed. What about Wiley Mayne's piece of paper? Foley reflected, "As it turned out, I'm sure the list he was looking at was a grocery list his wife asked him to pick up on the way home. It had nothing to do with my worries." Foley and Fraser went to the House dining room to tell Heather Foley the good news. Even in his fifteenth term in Congress, Tom Foley still savored that moment. The unanimous consent "was probably as proud a moment in my legislative efforts as any I've done," he said, "at least up to that time." (131)
In Spokane, Mayor David Rodgers was having dinner when he heard from Washington. He knew Tom Foley was anxious about the legislation.
I used to go to Washington maybe three or four times a year, and Tom would always make a point of taking me to breakfast at the congressional dining room. We would talk about Spokane things, and we had a good relationship.
I remember when Maggie and Scoop had gotten the authorization and the money all through the Senate, and I went down to see Tom and had breakfast and said "Well, Scoop and Maggie have done their job, Tom, and now it's time you did your turn." I could almost see the hair standing up on the back of his neck: "What's this guy laying on me?"
We were sitting at home having dinner one night, and the telephone was right behind us, and the phone rang and someone on the other end said, "We got it! We got it!" It took me a minute. I said, "Is this Heather?" It was Tom's wife, and she said, "Yeah, it passed. We got the thing through the House." (132)
From Spokane to Paris
FOLEY'S TURN
In the Senate, Expo '74 had the backing of Henry Jackson and Warren Magunuson, whom The New Yorker described as having "more power and influence than any other pair in the Senate at the time." (104) In contrast, the Expo bill would be shepherded through the House with the sponsorship of one congressman, and a relatively junior one at that.
Thomas S. Foley was elected to the House of Representatives from eastern Washington in 1964. He was in his fourth term when the legislation for Expo '74 came before Congress. Foley had attended law school at the University of Washington and entered into practice with Hank Higgins, his cousin and boyhood friend. He then became an assistant attorney general in Washington state, and in 1961 he went to Washington, D.C. to work for Senator Henry Jackson as a special counsel on the Senate Interior Committee. In 1963 Jackson suggested that Foley run for Congress, but Foley seemed uninterested. He must have been tempted, however, because a year later when Joseph Drumheller, a major figure in the local Democratic party, chided him about his hesitancy" - You won't run unless you get an engraved invitation handed you on a silver Tiffany tray"-Foley decided within twenty-four hours to file for candidacy. On July 17, he arrived at the state house in Olympia just minutes before the 5 P.M. deadline. Hank Higgins, who had taken him to so many weekends of "riotous movie-going" when they were boys in Spokane, came with him and lent him the money to file. (105)
Foley's opponent was Walt Horan, a Republican who had been representing the district for twenty-two years. Foley waged an unusual campaign. Rather than belittle his opponent, he took pains to compliment Horan for his many contributions to the district; rather than wear casual clothes for appearances in the many rural parts of the district, Foley wore a suit, or at his most informal, a blue blazer. Asked by an aide about his clothes, Foley said, "These people aren't voting for the president of the Rotary Club. I don't believe anyone wants to be represented by someone who doesn't look and act the part of a member of Congress." According to his staff, Tom Foley was able to communicate well because of his lack of pretense; he was seen instantly "as unstuffy and complete." (106)
During the 1964 race, Tom Foley campaigned well, showing superior knowledge of the district's problems. Aided by the Lyndon Johnson landslide of that year, Foley beat his Republican opponent by 3 percentage points, much to the surprise of most of his supporters, who were accustomed to seeing Democratic candidates fall before the popular Walt Horan. Foley won by increasing margins in 1966, 1968, and 1970. In the election of 1972, when the Expo bill appeared before the House, Tom Foley was facing an unlikely opponent, a tombstone saleswoman who was said to have sold her washing machine to pay the filing fee. Foley's chances of reelection were hardly in danger as he went to work on the exposition legislation in the House. But legislation itself was in danger.
Foley's commitment to Expo was strong. In congressional discussions, he said that the fair "has sparked the imagination of our region as nothing has for decades." (107) But when he was asked years later about his initial reaction when King Cole told him about the exposition proposal, Foley admitted, "I have to say honestly my early impression-I was very polite about it-but my early impression was, 'This is a really spacy idea. You're going to have a world's fair in Spokane, sure.' I was trying to be respectful and responsive. But going through my mind while talking to him was the idea, 'This is wild-an international exposition in Spokane?"' (108) King helped Foley change his mind. "You know," Foley remarked, "King is wonderfully persuasive." (109) Foley was also impressed with the ability of men and women in his hometown to build momentum for the project.
Before the bill reached the House, Tom Foley had spoken on behalf of Expo '74 at the Senate committee hearing. There he called the fair "a significant world event on the timely subject of environment." "The site itself," he said, "will provide a dramatic example of this theme; a downtown river site converted from many decades of neglect to become a permanent park, and its rockbound falls restored to their primitive natural beauty." (110) On October 4, 1972, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs scheduled hearings to assess the value of Spokane's proposed fair, and Foley was invited to explain the bill to his congressional colleagues. The hearing would take place before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements.
Congressman Foley was worried about the work ahead. The session was drawing to a close, and if the bill did not pass soon, Expo might be doomed. As the House hearings began, the bill was being discussed in the Senate, and its fate there was very much in doubt. The day before, Senator Fulbright had unleashed his blistering attack on the bill. If Washington's two powerful senators failed, how could Foley succeed?
As a young man, Foley was in awe of Jackson and Magnuson. Years later he recalled Jackson's tenacity. "If you got his attention, and he got himself involved, engaged in something, he wanted it to happen. I mean, if he decided to have you appointed to the United States battlefield commission, you know, he was relentless about it. He would work until they would say, 'Call off the dogs. No more, please, no more!'"
Foley thought Magnuson was particularly impressive when he was promoting a bill on the Senate floor. Foley remembered watching him one day. "He got geared up" and worked his way around the floor, "causing a certain sheepish guilt as he was recounting all the things that the Commerce Committee [had] authorized. 'Now the gentleman from Mississippi,' Magnuson would say, 'I remember supporting the project at such and such and the gentleman from so and so.' He was just rattling off all these projects from memory, like shooting ducks in a gallery!" What could a relatively junior congressman from eastern Washington do if Magnuson and Jackson were unable to prevail in their chamber? Looking over his shoulder at his Senate colleagues was daunting. "That was part of it very definitely," Foley remembered. "I was nervous." (111)
The Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements met in room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Subcommittee Chair Donald M. Fraser of Minnesota called the meeting to order and asked for a statement on behalf of H.R. 16797-as the Expo bill was known in the House. Congressman Foley began by noting that this was the first exposition to seek federal support under Public Law 91-269, which mapped out procedures for federal support of international expositions held in the United States. Foley noted that Spokane had already achieved "a solid record of local achievement and initiative," including success in Paris with BIE endorsement. The fair had also won the support of the Department of Commerce. All in all, the region had "done its homework" in laying the foundations for a great fair. During the House hearings, Congressman Foley gave new force to a familiar argument for Expo. He asserted that the exposition was "timely, in a location particularly well suited to the subject of the exposition." The fair was devoted to ecology, and "The site itself," Foley said, "will provide a dramatic example of the theme, a downtown river site converted from many decades of neglect to become a permanent park." He described Spokane Falls as a blighted landscape full of potential as a scenic wonder. The exposition, he said, provides "a unique opportunity to show what can be done with a major natural resource that has been encrusted, over many years, with industrial plants and other facilities that have deprived the community and area of the great recreational and environmental impact and beauty of the river itself." (112)
Foley's statement contrasts sharply with the rhetoric of the Northwestern Industrial Exposition of 1890, when speakers described the primeval falls as a wasted resource, needing to be harnessed. The pioneers claimed that the falls reached their proper condition when they turned mill wheels and electric turbines. In 1972 when Tom Foley described that earlier progress as having "encrusted" the falls and obscured the beauty of the river, he was viewing them from the standpoint of a nation that had developed a new appreciation for natural wonders.
When Congressman Foley finished his testimony, Bill Nelson of the Commerce Department made a supporting statement, as he had done in the Senate. Then subcommittee chairman Donald Fraser began a rigorous examination of both Nelson and Foley. Fraser asked Nelson a potentially embarrassing question about the White House's handling of the Expo proposal. Noting that the president had given his blessing to the fair in July 1971, and that it was now October 1972, he said, "As you know, once we were past the August recess, the difficulties in handling this legislation were bound to be considerably greater than earlier in the year. Congress is trying to complete its work by next week. ... Why did it take a year to come out with a recommendation on this?" Nelson described the thicket of regulations that Spokane had been trying to penetrate for almost two years in working on Expo. The fair needed BIE approval, but before it could get BIE approval, it needed federal recognition. With both of those endorsements in place, the White House was able to seek architects' plans and bids for a federal pavilion, but before doing that the government needed to know roughly what the site would look like. (113)
At one point, Nelson seemed about to blame the delay on Spokane, noting that "The Spokane sponsors took some time in order to get the parcel of land together." But he was not so much casting blame as explaining that each stage of the process required time. All of these pieces had to be in place before Expo backers could seek funding, or else Congress would not know what they were being asked to build and whether the exposition deserved recognition. If any American city could approach Congress out of the blue and expect, say, $10 million for a world's fair, how would Congress know whether the proposal had any chance of success? Rep. Paul Findley of Illinois then made a statement which must have seemed encouraging, then chilling, to Expo's backers. "I would say I think it is a splendid idea," he said, "but at this stage in the 92nd Congress, given the expenditure limitation which may be brought up this week, it will not be easy to get it through." (114)
Donald Fraser resumed questioning, asking for more information about existing federal law on U.S. participation in American world's fairs. Reading Fraser's questions today in the printed record of the hearing, one can see that he was working over new and confusing territory, trying to understand it himself. Nelson explained that Public Law 91-269 divided federal participation into two phases, recognition and participation. The White House was expected to recognize a fair, as it had in the case of Spokane, before approaching Congress for support. Only at the participation phase was Congress involved. "In a sense," Nelson explained again, "the legislation makes the sponsors go through a very arduous procedure before the Congress takes up the question of whether the United States would participate." Foley noted that the White House had already recognized the fair and invited foreign governments to participate. If Congress held back its approval at this stage, "We would be in the difficult situation of having issued invitations, received acceptances and having participation under way by other countries without ourselves, the host country, being a participant. ... Should this occur, we would have very serious problems in the future if the United States applied for another international exhibition." In such an effort the United States' credibility "would be compromised." (115)
Still trying to come to grips with what was happening, Rep. L. H. Fountain of North Carolina asked, "We have already extended the invitation?" The question had just been answered, but like other congressmen on the subcommittee, he was bemused by the situation. In effect, Congress was being asked to approve something after the fact. Finally, Rep. Abraham Kazen Jr. of Texas said what other committee members were apparently thinking. "This is the first time we have run up against Public Law 91-269, and we are now seeing there is a gap in that law. I think certainly before the president and the local people and everybody else goes to the extent that they have gone in this case, there should have been some expression from Congress that they would come through because you are going to be left holding the bag if this bill doesn't pass." (116)
This was the critical point in the hearing. The discussion had veered away from the merits of the fair to what Kazen called the "gap" in the law. But time was running desperately short; the Expo bill had been pummeled by a leading senator; now a key body in the House was questioning the very legislation that covered federal participation in world's fairs. At this moment the young congressman from Spokane knew he had to shift the subcommittee's attention back to the fair itself. Foley admitted that there may have been "a problem inherent in that legislation," but, after all, it did provide the rules under which Spokane had acted on good faith. Tom Foley then all but brought his hometown into room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Spokane had taxed itself to the tune of $5.7 million; the local business community had committed another $6.8 million; the railroads were donating millions more in property. Rep. Kazen of Texas appeared to be impressed. "Without any guarantee from Congress?" he asked. With that question as his opening, Foley described just how much his city had done without Congress. "If you could come to Spokane, you would see great railroad trestles which formerly marred the downtown area being torn down by huge machinery to clear the Expo '74 site-100 acres comprised of riverbanks and islands on which two major railroad terminals were built in the early days of this century .... Through the years the falls area became encrusted with business operations and railroad yards which destroyed the ecological heart of the city." (117)
Foley's compelling portrait of a small city that raised big dollars to restore its "ecological heart" apparently had an effect. Kazen asked a few more questions, but he said nothing more about "gaps" in the law, and after asking several harmless questions about Spokane's population and the length of the fair, he seemed eager to be conciliatory, even though he was still doubtful about the outcome of the project. "Mr. Foley," he said, "I want to assure you that I am sympathetic to your project here. I am just very fearful it may have come too late." (118)
Foley turned even that comment to his advantage. He admitted the time problem, thanked the subcommittee chairman for scheduling the hearing so promptly, and urged the congressmen to act on the matter at hand: "Unless we get the most expedited consideration possible," he said, "we could run into some very difficult construction problems." He pointed out that it was virtually impossible to reschedule a world's fair. Indeed there was a time problem, so now was the moment to approve the bill.
One more testy comment came from the subcommittee. Rep. Jonathan Bingham of New York pointed out, "there was a substantial delay on the part of the executive branch here .... The point is, there was six or seven months delay there, and [now] the Congress is being asked to act within a matter of days." For a moment it seemed as if the hearing would turn again to criticism of administrative delays. But Bingham's questioning suddenly took a friendly turn. Indeed, the White House had lots of time to deal with Expo, and the Congress had very little, but then, he said, "Public Law 91-269 seems to contemplate exactly that procedure" because of all the steps the president was required to take before submitting a world's fair bill to Congress. "Unless we want to change Public Law 91-269 at this stage," he said, "I don't know how you can fault the administration for following the procedure that was expected here." (119)
The hearing went on through more questions, but by now the thrust of the questioning was more towards collecting information than challenging U.S. participation in the fair. Congressman Bingham asked about certain "waiver" provisions in the Expo bill. One such provision stipulated that Expo would not have to observe the "Buy America" Act to the letter of the law. Bill Nelson explained that the reason for that provision was that sometimes an international exposition had to order material that could not be provided in time from an American manufacturer. San Antonio's HemisFair '68, for example, had to order "an extraordinary size movie screen" from England because it was not available in the United States. The law requiring federal agencies to use cars provided by the General Services Administration might also have to be waived because GSA cars were not immediately available in Spokane. Moreover, exposition organizers would need more flexibility than most government agencies because in a world's fair it was vital to move quickly "to design and construct imaginative and striking exhibits which in a substantive way will portray the theme and story line of the exposition."
Impressed by this and other information, Bingham was encouraging, "I am in favor of the legislation, Mr. Chairman. I think we should do what we can to expedite it." Rep. Ronald V. Dellums of California concurred, "It would be embarrassing to this country to not participate and, as one member of the committee, I would support expeditiously moving this bill to the floor and trying to get it passed." (120)
The hearing finished shortly before noon on October 4. Five days later, the subcommittee reported to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Included with their report was a "fact sheet" with additional arguments in favor of congressional support for the proposed fair. The sheet was titled, "Vital Reasons for Congressional Authorization and Funding of Federal Participation at Spokane Now." The "now" was emphasized, and the arguments were more strident than those used by Foley and Nelson in the hearings. "It is a grave international embarrassment for the U.S. to be urging other nations to commit funds and take part in an event to which it has committed not one cent itself." Philadelphia had recently given up its fair plans, and "The U.S. cannot afford another red face now, particularly when the federal plan for Spokane is only $11.5 million." In contrast, Ottawa had spent $263 million on the Montreal fair of 1967, and Tokyo $I billion on the Osaka fair of 1970. "This is an emergency situation now," the fact sheet continued, "in terms of completing the planning and construction for this Federal pavilion." (121)
Relying on information from the subcommittee, the Foreign Relations Committee quickly drew up its report. The committee "noted with some distress the fact that H.R. 16797 was introduced in the closing days of the 92d Congress, allowing very little time for careful and orderly consideration of its merits." The committee complained that "some of the delay in introducing this legislation might have been avoided through more expeditious handling in the executive branch." Having groused briefly at the executive branch, however, the House Committee returned to the matter at hand and reported the Expo bill to the whole House on October 12 with unanimous approval and a "do pass" recommendation. (122)
This was good news, of course, for Tom Foley. But he still faced a major obstacle. In the House as in the Senate, the bill would be considered under a procedure that required unanimous consent. "That was an extremely difficult and chancy thing to do, since any individual member could offer objection." But any other approach would have required more time that Spokane could afford to lose. Foley had two advantages over Magnuson and Jackson: the House bill had been reported with a "do pass" recommendation, and by this time the bill had passed the Senate.
But Foley faced a threat in the persons of Congressmen H. R. Gross and Durward G. "Doc" Hall. Known as the watchdogs of the House, they were hard on any bill that seemed to waste the taxpayers' money. The Almanac of American Politics for 1974 provides vivid descriptions of both men. H. R. Gross of Iowa was "the House's reigning curmudgeon," the Almanac claimed. "He reads every bill that comes to the floor-a staggering task-trying to spot some new outrage perpetrated on the taxpayers .... The congressman believes that the federal government wastes far too much money, and he sees himself, often with complete justification, as the only member willing to object to some excesses." Dr. Durward G. Hall was a physician turned congressman. The Almanac described him as "one of the sternest watchdogs of the federal treasury .... Hall spent a good deal of time on the House floor fighting programs he thought smelled a little funny." He often worked in tandem with H. R. Gross. (123)
Tom Foley said of Gross and Hall, "They were the majority and assistant majority leaders of the 'Watchdog Party.' H. R. [Gross] got up at five in the morning and read every bill and resolution that was going to come to the floor that day, and he objected to many." Gross was "a funny guy in a way; he had this crabby red face, and he became an institution in the house, and his crabbiness became beloved after a while. Nobody else could get away with it." Foley particularly remembered Gross's response to a bill to provide recovery for the owners of honey bees killed by insecticides. Gross argued that the government was not responsible. "If this bill is passed," he said, "no animal will in the future ever die of natural causes without remuneration by the United States Government!" Other House members tended to relax when they knew that Gross was there "to read all these resolutions." To some members he was "like an auditor. You know, you didn't have to worry so much-H. R. is there to take care of any problems." (124)
Fortunately, H. R. Gross was going to be at home in Waterloo, Iowa, when the Expo bill reached the floor. "That was good," Foley recalled, "but the fact that Dr. Hall was patrolling in his absence was bad." Foley had to make a difficult choice, whether or not to tell Hall about the bill. He could alert Doc Hall to the forthcoming House vote on Expo and try to persuade him to support it, but this was risky because in "highlighting it," he might draw Hall's attention to the bill, and Hall might decide to oppose it. But if he failed to discuss the bill with Hall, the Congressman might well see it anyway, and Foley would then have missed a chance to win his support by being forthright.
Foley decided to discuss the legislation, and fortunately Doc Hall "actually turned out to be an asset." One of Hall's staff members had been Bill Nelson of the Commerce Department, who had testified alongside Jackson, Magnuson, and Foley at the Senate and House hearings. Nelson had told Hall "privately that the Spokane application was one of the best he had ever seen." Based on this information, Hall decided to support Expo. He told Foley, "I'm going to help you." Years later, the congressman from Spokane remarked, "I was just about ready to go hug him at that point." Foley added reflectively, "That's what you have to have in the way of luck in government and politics." (125)
It helped that Hall would raise no objections to Expo, but there were still several hundred other congressmen, anyone of whom could scuttle Expo with a negative vote on the consent motion. Tom Foley realized that for many representatives, a world's fair in Spokane was hard to imagine. "Spokane is known," he noted, "but you know, people often mispronounce the name 'Spo-cane.'" If someone says "There's going to be an international exhibition in Medford, Oregon; Casper, Wyoming; Helena, Montana-That's not what goes through the average member of Congress's mind when he thinks of an international exhibition. He thinks of a huge megalopolis-New York, San Francisco. Spokane seemed to be reaching, for a lot of people, beyond its scope and power and position to command that kind of exhibition." Many people assumed that it was only because of Magnuson's and Jackson's power in the Senate that the fair had gotten as far as it had. "With any kind of normal Senate delegation, it would have been extremely difficult to do." (126)
The moment of truth came during the late afternoon of October 13, 1972. "It was brought up by unanimous consent about six o'clock in the evening, and Don Fraser floor-managed it. He's the one who stood up and said, 'I ask for unanimous consent."' (127) Fraser had chaired the subcommittee that evaluated the exposition bill a few days before. He spoke briefly on behalf of the legislation, noting that "although this bill was introduced in the closing days of this Congress, it would be incorrect to assume that it was thrown together hurriedly without careful consideration. On the contrary, it was introduced only after the Spokane Exposition had met each of the strict requirements of Public Law 91269." Fraser mentioned the need for haste, underscoring the critical importance of the vote: "Should this legislation not pass during this Congress, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to complete the proposed U. S. Pavilion in time for the spring 1974 opening of the exposition." (128)
As the vote neared, Tom Foley was aware that friends in Spokane were waiting for this moment; his wife, Heather, was in the House dining room, eager for news from her husband. The Speaker of the House used words that evening that Foley would use many times when he became Speaker of the House almost twenty years later. There is "an awful moment there," he said, "when the chair puts the question, 'Is there any objection?' and there's like three or four seconds before the chair's going to say, 'Hearing none, so ordered. Without objection, the bill is passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.''' (129) At the last moment Wiley Mayne, another congressman from Iowa, home of the notorious but absent H. R. Gross, had entered the chamber with a piece of paper in his hand. Foley thought, "He has come in here to ask a couple of questions." "We have a technique in the House," he explained, "where you can interrupt a unanimous consent request and get information, like 'Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the Gentleman from Washington, how much this authorization, whether it's this, whether it's that.''' Then he can say, "Mr. Speaker, I object." With those four words, years of work on Expo '74 could have been torpedoed.
Congressman Foley waited through those three or four long seconds-and no one objected. Then the Speaker declared "the bill is passed." With that, the United States was ready to go to work on its pavilion for the world's fair in Spokane. (130)
Don Fraser told Tom Foley he was "absolutely astonished" that the bill had passed. What about Wiley Mayne's piece of paper? Foley reflected, "As it turned out, I'm sure the list he was looking at was a grocery list his wife asked him to pick up on the way home. It had nothing to do with my worries." Foley and Fraser went to the House dining room to tell Heather Foley the good news. Even in his fifteenth term in Congress, Tom Foley still savored that moment. The unanimous consent "was probably as proud a moment in my legislative efforts as any I've done," he said, "at least up to that time." (131)
In Spokane, Mayor David Rodgers was having dinner when he heard from Washington. He knew Tom Foley was anxious about the legislation.
I used to go to Washington maybe three or four times a year, and Tom would always make a point of taking me to breakfast at the congressional dining room. We would talk about Spokane things, and we had a good relationship.
I remember when Maggie and Scoop had gotten the authorization and the money all through the Senate, and I went down to see Tom and had breakfast and said "Well, Scoop and Maggie have done their job, Tom, and now it's time you did your turn." I could almost see the hair standing up on the back of his neck: "What's this guy laying on me?"
We were sitting at home having dinner one night, and the telephone was right behind us, and the phone rang and someone on the other end said, "We got it! We got it!" It took me a minute. I said, "Is this Heather?" It was Tom's wife, and she said, "Yeah, it passed. We got the thing through the House." (132)