It is clear that the General Services Administration very strongly objected to this agreement; is that correct, Mr. Staats? Mr. STAATS. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. Now, before the Office of Management and Budget has had a chance to make its determination, we have a declaration from the Postmaster General and Deputy Secretary of Defense saying, since we haven't heard from you, we will go ahead. Is that what happened? Mr. STAATS. I assume the purport of this letter was to get OMB to say they agreed or disagreed, since they hadn't had anything in writing. Mr. WRIGHT. Whatever the purport may be, the words clearly say, 'Accordingly, we are moving forward under that agreement," do they not? 66 Mr. STAATS. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. Isn't that unusual? Mr. STAATS. I would say it is a bit unusual; yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Would you say it is unique? Mr. STAATS. I can only comment Mr. GROVER. Let's say it is rather a blunt approach. [Laughter.] Mr. STAATS. I can only comment from my own experience in Government that this kind of language isn't used very often. Mr. WRIGHT. Let's be more specific about that. How long have you been with Government, Mr. Staats? Mr. STAATS. I joined the Government in June 1939. Mr. WRIGHT. That is quite some time. That is 32 years, is it not? Mr. STAATS. Yes. Mr. WRIGHT. In 32 years, can you recall other instances in which someone has come to the Executive Office of the President and said, "Since we haven't heard from you, we are going to go ahead and do what we planned to do in the first place"? Mr. STAATS. I don't recall having had this kind of communication addressed to me or to the Director of the Budget while I was in the Bureau. Mr. WRIGHT. Therefore, we might conclude that if it is not unique, it is at least semiunique, is that correct? Mr. STAATS. I would think so. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. STAATS. The following day, as noted in the next paragraph, on May 5, 1971, Office of Management and Budget informed the Department that its review of the agreement was completed, and there was no objection to it becoming operative. We noted that during the period of suspension requested by the Director, Office of Management and Budget-March 27 to May 5, 1971— the corps' field offices, which were performing postal work, were not notified of the suspension, and seven new postal projects were assigned to the corps for services. Mr. WRIGHT. During this period in which the Executive Office of the President, as represented by the Office of Management and Budget, had requested a suspension of these activities, the corps and the Postal Service were proceeding with seven new postal projects; is that correct? Mr. STAATS. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. The corps' field offices weren't notified of the suspension. Do you know any reason why that came about? Mr. STAATS. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. We would like to perhaps add here that the corps officials that we talked to in Kansas City, Norfolk, and Savannah, which are all three postal design offices, and Baltimore, told us that they weren't aware of the suspension, and their postal support work continued unstopped. We had these discussions in May and June of this year. Mr. WRIGHT. The Congress sometimes takes official exception to being treated in this general manner by some executive agencies. It is potentially comforting to us in a sort of wry sense that even the Office of the President is occasionally subjected to this kind of disdainful treatment. Mr. STAATS. I am not aware of whether OMB was aware that there had been no notification to the field, but I think it would be logical to assume that if you are going to suspend something, you suspend it and notify the parties concerned. That would be the way I would operate. Apparently, the assumption was here that the OMB would concur, and therefore they didn't feel it was necessary or desirable to notify the field offices. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. STAATS. On May 20, 1971, a third agreement between the Department and the corps transferred the responsibility for the total postal facilities acquisition, design, and construction program, including lease construction, to the corps for an indefinite period. In addition, the agreement also provided for the transfer by July 1, 1971, of approximately 600 postal headquarters and regional personnel to the corps. As a result of this agreement, the Department, for all practical purposes, did not have an in-house capability to acquire facilities. Although we understand that all details pertaining to the agreement have not yet been worked out, it is quite possible that the corps' organization and staffing for the postal work will be significantly affected by the new agreement. Also, if the 5.5 percent rate contained in the March 11, 1971 agreement is to be applied to design and construction work under the May 20 agreement, the corps may have difficulty in staying within the rate inasmuch as it was predicated upon facility projects of major size. A further agreement between the Department and corps, effective as of June 28, 1971, assigns specific responsibilities and establishes funding procedures for the leasing and lease servicing functions involved in the execution of the Department's facilities program transferred to the corps by the May 20, 1971 agreement. The agreement provides that the Department will fund the costs incurred by the corps in executing the Department's leasing program, to include costs for leasehold improvement, alterations, and repairs. Mr. WRIGHT. Now, the Department will fund these costs. What "Department" do we speak of here? Mr. STAATS. The Post Office Department. It was still the Department until July 1. This was made plain. Mr. WRIGHT. Very good. Thank you. But the corps now has assumed under this new agreement not only the responsibility for constructing new buildings, but that for servicing some 27,000 leaseholds; is that approximately right? Mr. STAATS. That is correct. In effect, it makes them the real estate manager for the Postal Service. Mr. WRIGHT. To your knowledge, has the corps had this kind of experience in the past of servicing 27,000 leaseholds? Mr. STAATS. I am not aware of any comparable experience. My colleagues may. Mr. AHART. It is my understanding that they have provided leasing services in support of the military departments by way of recruiting stations in downtown areas and this type of thing. I don't have a figure on how many there might be of those. It would certainly not be comparable in magnitude to the program assumed here. Mr. WRIGHT. A recruiting station in a town with which I am familiar has a total of some seven personnel, and the post office operation in that town has a total of some 8,000 personnel, so we couldn't make much of a comparison really between that type of leasehold servicing and the one that is anticipated under this agreement. Mr. AHART. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Ahart. Mr. STAATS. The corps has an existing nationwide organization of over 22,800 employees experienced in planning and executing large scale and diversified engineering, construction and real estate operations. To carry out its mission, the corps is organized into three basic components: the Office of the Chief of Engineers located in Washington, D.C.; 13 division offices, two of which are located overseas; and 40 district offices, three of which are located overseas. The district offices comprise the primary or operational center of the corps organization. The corps prepared a brochure, dated February 12, 1971, to answer the questions raised by the Department concerning, one, the organizational arrangement by which the corps would accomplish the postal building program, and two, the estimated in-house cost of the corps to execute the program. With respect to organization, the corps stated that the one feature which distinguishes the postal program from all other major programs which the corps as administered or was administering, is that there is a single interface with the customer, and this interface occurs at the Washington level. Mr. WRIGHT. Just in passing, what does that mean? All the people who testified before the committee this year used the word "interface." I never heard it before this year. It seems to be necessary, to really understand and be with it, you have to talk about interfaces. What does that mean? Mr. STAATS. It is really born out of the computer technology area. We are using their term here. But interface, as we understand it, simply means that you have at the central headquarters a group in the Postal Service who will be responsible on the Postal Service side, who will deal with a single group over on the Corps of Engineers side. I think that is really all it means. Mr. WRIGHT. All right. In other words, they don't have to go through Congress and they don't have to go to the OMB, and they don't have to do all these other things that Mr. STAATS. I think it relates to the question of whether they have to deal with the field organization. They would have a single point of contact in both offices, rather than having to deal at subordinate levels. Mr. WRIGHT. Under this longer agreement that we mentioned a moment ago, signed on March 11, I believe, of this year, did the newly created Postal Service not impose on the corps the requirement that it refrain from any communications with Members of the Congress with respect to this building program it had embarked upon? Mr. STAATS. I cannot answer that question, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Socolar? Mr. SOCOLAR. I think I recall seeing something to that effect. Mr. AHART. The March agreement does provide that the congressional liaison related to any matter covered by this agreement will be the exclusive responsibility of the Department. Mr. WRIGHT. "Department" meaning the Postal Service? Mr. WRIGHT. So, if I were to direct a question to the Corps of Army Engineers, which comes regularly to this committee for its authorizations, concerning the progress on a given building under this agreement with the Postal Service, I might ultimately receive a replyperhaps signed by the Corps of Engineers, or signed by someone in the Postal Service-but the Corps of Engineers would be required, before replying to me, to direct that to the Postal Service for its handling, is that correct? Mr. AHART. As I understand the March 11 agreement, as well as the implementing instructions which the Chief of Engineers or his delegate have issued, you would receive a reply in writing from the Postal Service. You would not receive it from the corps. Mr. WRIGHT. Even though I asked the corps a question, I would get my reply from the Postal Service, is that correct? Mr. AHART. As I understand the detailed procedures, even if you went out and talked to a corps official or employee in your district, you would not get a response verbally from him. He would be polite to you, but you would get a response to your question from the Postal Service. It is very specific in the detailed instructions which the chief of postal operations at the corps has issued to the field people. Mr. WRIGHT. And that was included, I believe, in the longer agreement which was not made known to the congressional committees on March 11? Mr. AHART. That is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. Now I would like to have an opinion from Mr. Socolar as to the legality of that kind of an agreement where an employee of the Government of the United States is directed not to give any answers to a Member of the Congress of the United States. I have my opinion on it. I am interested in your opinion. Mr. SocoLAR. I don't know that I can actually answer that question without doing a little bit of research and providing it for the record. I think that certainly within a particular organization the head of the organization might instruct an employee that if he gets any inquiry from a Member of Congress it be referred to the head of the organization. I think in terms of what the ultimate power of the Congress would be to extract that information from the individual, I don't know that the agreement would prevail in any event, but I would like to submit something for the record in a more considered way. Mr. WRIGHT. The committee would be very happy to have your measured and studied response to that question. But in that specific connection, aside from and without regard to the ultimate legality of such a gag rule, are you familiar in the past history of Government agencies with any arrangement which so strongly denies to a public employee the right to communicate with or discuss with a Member of Congress the proceedings under a public program? Mr. SOCOLAR. The only example that I can think of offhand would be in a situation that gets to the level of the exercise of executive privilege. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes; the President's prerogative. That has been recognized since the days of George Washington. But that has to do with high policy matters such as negotiations of treaties with foreign countries, does it not? Mr. SOCOLAR. Well Mr. WRIGHT. And matters of national security? Mr. SOCOLAR. Right. Mr. WRIGHT. Never before, to my knowledge, on something as relatively simple or relatively mundane as the progress on a public building has any individual employee of the Government been restrained by his employer from communicating with or discussing with a Member of the U.S. Congress that project. Do you know of any other? Mr. SOCOLAR. I am not personally aware of any other case. Mr. STAATS. I am reasonably certain that no one would put this in the category of executive privilege. It is just not of that character in terms of any statements on executive privilege that have been issued by certainly any President in recent history. I am sure that neither the Postal Service nor the Corps of Engineers, nor anyone else would put this in that category. Mr. WRIGHT. I, for one, was appalled when the Postmaster General early this year, I think, sent out his directive to all of his postal employees that thenceforth none of them were to communicate with a Member of Congress. I am doubly appalled now that I discover that the Postal Service, a quasipublic and quasiprivate corporation at this point, has imposed that same gag rule upon direct employees of the Government of the United States, namely employees of the Corps of Army Engineers. Does that not seem to you to be a singular occurrence in the history of civil government in this country? Mr. STAATS. We have not researched this particular point in terms of any precedents. I am not, as of now, aware of any precedents that would be comparable here. (The following material was subsequently furnished by GAO for inclusion in the record:) AGREEMENT-CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON The agreement between the Post Office Department and the Corps of Engineers contains the following language: 66* * * Congressional liaison relating to any matter covered by this Agreement will be the exclusive responsibility of the USPOD. Congressional inquiries received by the Corps regarding all work performed under this Agreement will be sent with the Corps suggested response, on a priority basis, to the USPOD's Congressional Liaison Office for disposition." |