Mr. KREGER. That is my understanding, also. Mr. WRIGHT. So we do wind up with a situation that you sought to avoid that of two Federal buildings to be constructed in the same locality where one had been planned as sufficient? Mr. KREGER. We will end up with two buildings, but with this larger percentage of space it may be the most economic thing with the post office needing that amount of space, and chances are-and I am only guessing now-their space needs have increased since the prospectus was first approved. Mr. WRIGHT. How about other Federal agency needs? Have they increased? Mr. KREGER. If they have not, it is the only place in the country that they have not. I am sure they have. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, that is true in your case, then, is it not? Mr. KREGER. It is true in a great many cases, yes, sir, and especially in the 10-year span with this prospectus approved in 1960. Mr. WRIGHT. Why was it so long after the approval of the prospectus by the House and Senate before any building was started? Were you unable to get funding through the appropriations process? Mr. KREGER. We were unable to get funding on several occasions. But each time we got the funding, before we could get into construction, the escalation had taken the project up above the funds available, and we had to go back and ask for additional funds. Mr. WRIGHT. Escalation-you mean the needs of the Government, or do you mean the inflationary impact of the building? Mr. KREGER. The inflationary costs in the building industry. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we could go then to New Bedford, Mass. Mr. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON, Washington, D.C. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, DEAR MR. SAMPSON: Thank you for the letter from Acting Commissioner Sanders asking whether the Postal Service will continue to participate in the proposed public building project for New Bedford, Massachusetts. Over the last several months the Postal Service has conducted an intensive review of our small handling plans for the Boston-Providence area. As a result, we have decided to adopt new mail handling concepts which make the acquisition of additional space in a new building in New Bedford unnecessary. Accordingly a decision has been made to withdraw from that project. I realize that this decision may cause some difficulties for your Agency and, for this reason, I would be glad to discuss it with you, at your convenience, if you desire to do so. Sincerely, (Signed) Henry Lehne, Assistant Postmaster General. New Bedford, Mass., Post Office and Federal Office Building Prospectus approved: Senate, May 9, 1968; House, May 9, 1968. Funds appropriated: Site Construction Fiscal year 1971 $600, 000 0 0 600, 000 Site. Total_ FUNDS Obligations Expenditures Total. Site: Size 200,000 Sq. Ft. (estimated). Status of acquisition: Site investigation made August 1970 but no selection made due to Post Office withdrawal. Building area: Gross-162,900 Sq. Ft. Net-134,800 Sq. Ft. 57% of space for postal use. Status of design : Design not started; funds not available. Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated. Scope and cost now being developed. Mr. KREGER. New Bedford is a building proposed at 162,900 square feet, with 134,800 net assignable square feet. Fifty-seven percent of the space in that building was proposed for the Post Office Department, the design is not yet started, because the funds were not available. The post office withdrew in late 1970. We propose a reduced project with a revised prospectus to be presented some time in the future. The prospectus is now being developed. Mr. CONSTANDY. All right. Manchester, N. H. Mr. KREGER. Manchester, N.H., was proposed at 243,000 gross square feet and 223,800 net square feet. Again 52 percent of the space was for the post office use. The design was stopped in 1970 after an expenditure of $73,000. The post office withdrew in April 1970. We propose a reduced project with a revised prospectus which is now being developed. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF FACILITIES, Washington, D.C., April 29, 1970. MR. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON, DEAR MR. SAMPSON: This will confirm the understanding reached at our meeting of April 22, 1970, about continued Post Office Department participation in your Manchester, New Hampshire, project. It is my understanding, as a result of our conference, that this building has such a low priority with your Agency that you no longer wish to delay the Department in meeting its space needs in Manchester. Accordingly we agreed that the Post Office Department would proceed with its own plans to meet its space needs in Manchester independent of other Government Agency requirements. It was understood that this might involve either a postal public building or a leased facility, depending on the ultimate extent of our space requirements. On the basis of this understanding, you may consider this to be a formal notice that the Post Office Department withdraws from the Manchester, New Hampshire, project. If, for any reason, my understanding with respect to matters covered in this letter is not correct, I will appreciate hearing from you. Sincerely, HENRY LEHNE, Assistant Postmaster General. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, Hon. ROBERT L. KUNZIG, Administrator of General Services, DEAR MR. KUNZIG: Reference is made to Mr. Chapman's letter of May 4, 1970, relating to the Post Office Department's plans for participating in the proposed joint GSA-POD projects in Augusta, Georgia, Manchester, New Hampshire, and Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands. The arrangements with respect to our participation in these projects as set forth in your letter is substantially in accordance with understanding reached between Mr. Lehne and Mr. Sampson in their meeting held on April 22, 1970. This understanding may be summarized as follows: Augusta.-In view of the fact that GSA will include construction funds in your 1972 fiscal year budget request, POD will continue to rely on the new building to meet our postal requirements in Augusta. Manchester. Since this project has a low priority on your construction schedule, and no site has been acquired. POD is withdrawing from participation and will plan to meet our postal requirements independently, either by the construction of a Postal Public Building or a leased facility. Charlotte Amalie.-Inasmuch as this project also has a low priority on your construction schedule, and our space requirements have increased considerably since the approval of the prospectus, your site in inadequate to accommodate the total space needs. We therefore plan to proceed with the construcion of a new leased postal facility, but will retain a station either in the existing or in the new Federal building to be constructed by GSA. We shall furnish you our space requirements for this station at an early date. Sincerely yours, WINTON M. BLOUNT. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE-POST OFFICE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING Prospectus approved: Senate-September 20, 1966; House-October 6, 1966. Total estimated project cost: $12,215,000. Site: Size and location-365,600 sq. ft.; irregular shaped site fronting on Granite, Elm, Auburn and Canal Streets. Status of acquisition: No land acquired; site located in proposed urban renewal area; city unable to obtain DHUD's approval of its loan and grant application; acquisition therefore deferred by GSA; new site selection will be made when reduced scope project is undertaken. Building area: Gross-243,200 sq. ft. Net-223,800 sq. ft. 52% of space for postal use. Status of design: Design stopped November 20, 1970. A/E terminated at tentative stage. Date of postal withdrawal: April 29, 1970. Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated; scope and cost now being developed. Mr. GROVER. Could I jump back? Let us go back to New Bedford for a moment. That was planned, and the prospectus approved in mid1968, and a little over 2 years later the Post Office withdrew and the design was not started. Here the Post Office Department is to have 57 percent of the space within a relatively short time. In view of the long periods of projection here, the Post Office withdrew. Is there some logical explanation why their plans changed so rapidly in the short time? Mr. KREGER. Let me read you a paragraph from the letter on this project from the Post Office Department. "Over the past several months, the Postal Service has conducted an intensive review of our mail handling plans for the BostonProvidence area. As a result, we have decided to adopt new mail handling concepts which make the acquisition of additional space in the new building in New Bedford unnecessary. Accordingly, a decision has been made to withdraw from the project." Mr. GROVER. They are not going to substitute their own building; they are abandoning participation? Mr. KREGER. From the sound of that letter, it looks like they may put a building somewhere in the area, but not necessarily New Bedford. May I add also that one of our problems of GSA has been that we have over a billion dollars worth of buildings for which most of the sites have been acquired and design plans are either completed, or in the latter stages of completion. We just have not been able, over the years, to fund the program adequately enough to reduce that backlog. Mr. WRIGHT. You have more than a billion dollars worth of buildings somewhere in the process of being constructed, right? Mr. KREGER. Process of being designed, authorized buildings being designed, or the sites acquired. Mr. WRIGHT. More than $1 billion worth of buildings that have been authorized by the committee of Congress, but which have not yet been fully constructed? Mr. KREGER. In which the appropriations committees have not given us the money. Mr. WRIGHT. They have given you in some cases partial money, and you have moved to site acquisition or to design, but in none of these cases has construction begun? Mr. KREGER. That is right. Mr. GRAY. May I interrupt on that point? I would like the record to show very clearly that it is not the appropriations committee, but that the money has not been requested by the Office of Management and Budget. I know of no single instance where the Administration has asked for funds to construct a project that has not been approved by the Congress. Can you name me one, sir? Mr. KREGER. I do not know of any offhand, Mr. Gray. I was not intending Mr. GRAY. I wanted to make that clear. Mr. KREGER. I was not intending to cast any aspersions on the appropriation committee. But it is a fact that our appropriations for construction have averaged about $150 million a year, and at this rate we never could expect to keep up the demand for Federal buildings. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman knows I have a very high regard for him, and I was not trying to put words in his mouth. I wanted to correct the record in case the press got the idea that it is the Congress holding up the public buildings program in this Nation. It is not. Mr. WRIGHT. I think that is a very valuable point. You have mentioned, for example, that $150 million worth of construction annually has been funded by the Congress through the appropriations process. Mr. KREGER. I misspoke there. I should have said $115 million. Mr. WRIGHT. $115 million on an annual average. Mr. KREGER. Right. Mr. WRIGHT. Has been funded through the appropriations process. Mr. GRAY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Generally speaking it has been more than was requested by the administration. Mr. WRIGHT. That was the next question I was going to ask. How much on an average has been requested of the Congress? Mr. KREGER. That is about what has been requested for the last 8 to 10 years. Mr. WRIGHT. In other words, your problem then in securing adequate funding for the ongoing of this approved building program has not been the Congress, but in getting a budget submission that would be sufficiently high to accommodate your needs? Mr. KREGER. Right; I think it is fair to say that under previous administrations, as under this one, it is a matter of total Government priority of where to put the money each year. Mr. WRIGHT. All right; now, we have been talking about these multipurpose buildings in which your tenant agencies and the newly independent Postal Corporation are joint tenants. You are dependent upon the administration to submit to Congress a budget request, and then you are dependent upon the Congress to approve the moneys for |