« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
8. Telegram to Rep. Kenneth J. Gray from Mr. R. A. Nack, February 4,
Chief, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Postmaster General Winton
Assistant to the President, from Hon. Robert L. Kunzig, Adminis-
*Retained in Subcommittee file.
29. Further correspondence concerning the delegation of authority for the Page construction of Postal facilities by GSA.
325 30. Letter to Mr. John Constandy dated May 26, 1971, from Lawson B.
Knott, Jr., former Administrator of GŠA, and letter dated June 3,
330 31. A partial list of the kinds of facilities in which GSA has been involved in recent years.
337 32. (a) Memorandum of understanding, dated March 17, 1971, prepared
and signed jointly by A. F. Sampson and Henry Lehne concerning
ment between GSA and U.S. Postal Service, July 1, 1971. --350, 419 33. (a) List of GSA operated buildings proposed for transfer to the Postal
Service. (b) List of Federal Buildings to be transferred to the Postal
355 34. Letter dated January 13, 1970, from General Raymond, Corps of
Engineers to Mr. James Wilson, Assistant General Counsel for the
379 35. Memo (undated) by General Raymond, Corps of Engineers*
379 MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD GAO memorandum, “Notification of Appropriation Committees of Cost Increases"
118 GAO memorandum, “Agreement-Congressional Liaison”.
132 GAO document, Policies and Practices Followed by the Post Office Department in Leasing and Constructing Facilities.
149 Post Office Department chart, “Comparison of Planned Versus Actual Accomplishments as of May 28, 1971.
255 Corps of Engineers’ submission of contract estimated costs at three Florida Air Force facilities.-
406 Post Office Department chart, “Major Milestone Status as of May 28, 1971"
409 APPENDIX A. Memorandum of Understanding Between Postal Service and GSA, dated March 17, 1971.
419 B. Interim Agreement between Postal Service and GSA, dated July 1, 1971.- 419 C. Letter from Chairman Jim Wright to Hon. Winton M. Blount, July 23, 1971,
424 D. Letter to Representative Jim Wright from Postmaster General Blount,
July 26, 1971, enclosing “Answers from the U.S. Postal Service--- 425 E. Letter to Mr. Lee B. Holmes, Mortgage Bankers' Association of America, from Representative Jim Wright, July 14, 1971.--
443 F. Letter to Chairman Jim Wright from Mr. Lee B. Holmes, Mortgage Bankers' Association of America, July 22, 1971.
444 G. Memorandum to Chairman Jim 'Wright from Sherman S. Willse of subcommittee staff, July 27, 1971.
*Retained in Subcommittee file.
IMPACT OF POSTAL BUILDING PROGRAM ON FEDERAL
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1971
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
From the beginning of the Republic, the business of providing timely delivery of the mail to U.S. citizens was one of the original and vital functions of the Government. One of the earliest acts of the Continental Congress was to make provisions for post roads and post trails.
Always, from that moment until this year, Congress exercised legislative jurisdiction over this key function of government, and the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate exercised the legislative responsibility to provide buildings for use by the Post Office Department, often in conjunction with other agencies of the Government, particularly following passage of the Public
Buildings Act of 1959. Much of this has changed. The Postal Reform Act of 1970 has radically altered that historic relationship. That act created an independent establishment of the executive branch with the capacity to sell on the open market up to $10 billion worth of bonds and with unrestricted authority over postal facilities. The act also provided for the Postal Service to take over from the Federal Government all public buildings in which it occupies 55 percent or more of the space.
These provisions for unilateral decisions by the Postal Service for its own interests seem to portend serious planning and management problems for the General Services Administration, and its tenant agencies, and for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which the Postal Service has retained as its facilities construction and real estate management agency.
It will be the purpose of these hearings to ascertain exactly what effects the building program of the Postal Corporation will have upon the Government and its agencies and, therefore, upon the taxpayers of this country; and what protections, if any, should be provided to the taxpayers under these new circumstances. Mr. Grover.
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with your remarks concerning these very important hearings. These oversight hearings are doubly important to me since I am a member of and am very much interested in the work of this Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight, and also I have the honor of serving as ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, which is responsible for legislation dealing with the facilities we will be discussing here.
On this very point, Mr. Chairman, recent events have come to our attention, particularly concerning the withdrawal of the Post Office from certain facilities scheduled for their use. Like yourself, I have become extremely concerned over the impact such actions will have. What will be the effect upon the Federal agencies who were to have become tenants? One of our committee's basic responsibilities is for the smooth transition in dealing with the space needs of Federal agencies whether these needs involve merely an expansion or a new location. Plans have been drawn and sites have been acquired. Must we begin anew the processing of design, or site acquisition for those public buildings which it has been determined do not now meet postal needs? Or will these plans be abandoned with space needs left to gather cobwebs and dust? What effect will such delays have upon the waiting agencies? And what of the Corps of
Engineers, Mr. Chairman? What effect will the proposed Corps of Engineers construction and management relationship with the Postal Service have upon the agency which has for so long and so well served, through this committee, the rivers and harbors and flood control needs of this Nation?
I have many unanswered questions, Mr. Chairman, and it is my hope that, as the testimony unfolds before us in these 2 weeks, we will not only find some reasonable answers, but we may be assured that the projected efficiency of one part of this Government will not work to the inefficiency of other parts.
Mr. WRIGHT. Our first witness for today in these hearings is Mr. Rod Kreger, Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration. That Agency was created by law to be a real estate agent and to exercise a landlord relationship with all the other agencies of Government.
I understand that Mr. Kreger is accompanied by Mr. Herman Barth, Deputy General Counsel, General Services Administration.
Mr. Kreger, are there others with you who may testify today or respond to questions?
Mr. KREGER. Yes, I have with me Mr. Bill Sanders, Deputy Commissioner of Public Buildings Service; Mr. Bill Butts, Director of Office of Budget; Mr. Mike Martin, my special assistant; and Mr. Thomas Gherardi, director of our congressional affairs office.
Mr. WRIGHT. But you and Mr. Barth will be the ones who will be answering questions of the committee; is that right?
Mr. KREGER. Most of them; yes, sir.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Messrs. Kreger and Barth responded in the affirmative.)
Mr. Wright. Mr. Kreger, I observe that you have a prepared statement. You may proceed in such manner as you desire, either reading the statement, or presenting it in toto, or submitting it for the record and summarizing it, just as you please.