committee, which handles the legislative matters with the Post Office Department has not had a stronger voice in the building program.

It seems to me that it only makes good sense that since our committee deals with the Department in all other matters we certainly are closer and more knowledgeable of the facilities and modernization programs than any other committee in the Congress.

I don't know that any changes can be made; in fact I would doubt it. I want to commend you, Mr. O'Marra, for this fine statement. It certainly has brought us up to date with respect to the problems you are facing and with the excellent work that has been done by your Bureau in preparing for the needs of the Post Office Department. I recognize, just as all other Members do I am sure, that the biggest problem you face is trying to maintain a schedule. You talked about planning a facility, from the time you start it until the time you are ready to use the facility, over a 4-year period. Now, you cannot plan properly under the present system where the Appropriations Committee has to deny you funds-not because they don't want to give them to you but because of world conditions or other matters-which interferes with your desire to proceed in a businesslike manner.

I am introducing a bill today which, unfortunately we will not be able to have hearings on by the end of this year. But, I am introducing it anyway for the sole purpose of allowing the Post Office Department to study it, and for other Members to study it to see if it may not be a partial solution to the funding problems you face. I think Dr. Packer's bureau is entitled to many more times the amount of money that they are able to get each year.

You came out of private industry, Mr. O'Marra, and you know what Western Electric, the Bell System, budgets each year for research and engineering in order to try to keep pace with the growing needs that they have in business. Business would be completely unable to keep pace with their needs if they had to use the funds that we make available to a business such as the Post Office Department. I doubt very much whether the Kappel Commission report will be adopted by Congress in its entirety. Congress is not willing to give up something that they control, and there are good reasons why they probably should not. There are parts of the report, however, that merit serious consideration. One of these parts I have included in the legislation I will introduce.

My bill would create a new authority that would raise and supply capital funds to the Post Office Department for the purpose of financing its capital building program. The administrator would be the Postmaster General who would hold all powers and duties and functions of the authority which would be exercised by the authority. The administrator would appoint an executive director for a term of 5 years who would serve at the pleasure of the administrator. This authority will raise capital funds by floating bonds in the same manner as the method used by the TVA. These funds would be given to the Post Office for Post Office Department needs for building and modernization of new facilities. The Post Office Department would still administer the building program. This is the main difference between my bill and the recommendation of the Kappel Commission. I think it is a compromise that Congress might give serious consideration to and one that would certainly, if we were able to adopt it, solve the

problems that you people have in trying to adopt a program and then be able to proceed with it in an orderly fashion.

As I say, we cannot hold hearings on this, this year, but it will give us something to talk about and think about. In the event I am back here in January I will reintroduce it for serious consideration in the 91st Congress.

In the meantime, we would appreciate any suggestions or recom mendations that the Department may have in connection with this legislation.

Are there any questions by members of the subcommittee?

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to apologize to the Assistant Postmaster General O'Marra and Mr. Coffman for being late for this hearing this morning, but I want to assure you that it was not due to a lack of interest. It was due to the fact that I had an executive session of the Subcommittee on Retirement, Insurance, and Health Benefits, and we reported out another bill this morning.

So I am pleased to have heard part of your testimony.

Mr. O'Marra, perhaps you can answer this question: How many post offices and post office facilities do you have in the United States, spread throughout the whole length and breadth of the 50 States that you deem obsolete, substandard, and should be replaced with modern up-to-date buildings as well as equipment?

Mr. O'MARRA. I do not have it in number of facilities, Congressman Daniels, but the Bureau of Operations has determined that of our existing 140 million square feet of space, 45 million square feet is obsolete.

Mr. DANIELS. That is approximately one-third.

Mr. O'MARRA. I would suspect that that one-third is in the larger and older Federal buildings, so it wouldn't be one-third of the space obsolete in terms of number of facilities. Our space is concentrated. Of our 140 million square feet of space, 58 percent of it is in our 27,000 leased facilities and 42 percent of it is in our 3,000 Federal buildings. As the Federal buildings represent the larger buildings, I would suspect that the bulk of the 45 million square feet of obsolete space is in that type of building. It might involve only, for example, 5 percent of the number of our facilities, although it is one-third of our space. Mr. DANIELS. What would you estimate it would cost to modernize those 45 million square feet?

Mr. O'MARRA. To replace that 45 million square feet we probably would spend $30 per square foot, so we are talking about $1,350 million for buildings. We would then have to equip that space. I would say that we are not talking about quite as much in the way of equipment in terms of dollars, but I think you are looking at something in the order of $2 to $2.5 billion.

Mr. DANIELS. How much was appropriated last year for construction purposes?

Mr. O‘MARRA. $50 million for postal public buildings, which is Federal construction, and of course rent to cover some lease construction in minor facilities.

Mr. DANIELS. You are talking about this $50 million?

Mr. O'MARRA. For Federal construction.

Mr. DANIELS. Has the Post Office Department done much construction work in the past 10 years?

Mr. O'MARRA. In the lease program

Mr. DANIELS. I am not talking about the lease program but the actual construction of post offices.

Mr. O'MARRA. No, sir. Our construction work, as distinguished from GSA, really began with fiscal year 1968, the first year we had authority

to construct our own space.

Mr. DANIELS. That was the

Mr. O'MARRA. 1968; yes.

year 1968?

Mr. DANIELS. What do you have on the drawing boards today in the area of construction?

Mr. O'MARRA. In the area of construction we have approval for three awards which we can make this year. We should make awards next year as these will be ready and will require some significant construction dollars. I mentioned this year we can only make three awards out of the $50 million appropriated funds. Then, of course, we lack site and design money on some additional projects, as well. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Daniels, chart No. 5 in the report which Mr. O'Marra presented gives the construction space modernization needs by year.

Mr. DANIELS. I won't consume much more time. I will take the opportunity to read and study your report. If there are any questions that come to mind I shall get in touch with you.

Mr. O'MARRA. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you very much.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scort. I would compliment the Chair again for calling this meeting, and compliment the gentlemen for being here. I think, however, we have just sort of scratched the surface. I would urge the chairman, if it appears practical to him, to have similar meetings about twice a year, or something like this, because if the Congress is going to exercise any legislative oversight of the Post Office Department I feel we need to get together about twice a year. A formal statement is fine, but I think we need this exchange between members of the subcommittee and people in control in the executive branch. Thank you again, gentlemen, for being here.

Mr. O'MARRA. Thank you.

Mr. WILSON. I certainly appreciate that comment, Mr. Scott. I agree, too, that we should have as close a liaison as possible with the Bureau of Facilities and the Bureau of Research and Engineering, and that we should know what their plans are because this makes it easier for us to intelligently comment about post office matters on the floor when problems come up and when we are talking about appropriation matters.

I think that it is extremely valuable for all of us to have this type of information and the opportunity to ask questions about it, to proceed as we have done today. It might be helpful to you gentlemen, also. Thank you very much.

Dr. Packer, would it be better for you to start your part of this tomorrow? We only have about 15 minutes left. Will that fit into your schedule?

Mr. PACKER. We have about 40 minutes of presentation prepared. We can go on now, if you wish, or tomorrow morning.

Mr. WILSON. Why don't we do it tomorrow morning, because I think the continuity of it is important and I know it is going to be an extremely valuable contribution to the hearings. I hope, Mr. Scott and Mr. Daniels, it will be possible for you and other members of the committee to be with us tomorrow because when we hear from Dr. Packer we get right down to the original planning and the scientific approach to the problems of the Post Office Department.

We look forward to your contribution tomorrow, Dr. Packer. Are there any other questions or comments that anyone has to make? If not, the subcommittee will adjourn, to resume tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, September 26, 1968.)

TECHNOLOGY OF POSTAL MODERNIZATION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL FACILITIES AND MODERNIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE. Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:08 a.m., in room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Charles H. Wilson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. WILSON. The meeting will come to order.

I want to thank you, Dr. Packer, and the representatives from your Bureau who are with you today to present the testimony. I would also like to thank Mr. O'Marra for the fine presentation he made yesterday and the contribution that was made to our hearings.

It is my understanding, Dr. Packer, that you will probably devote some of your testimony this morning to supplementing what Mr. O'Marra had to say. Then we also would like to have you get into some of your R. & D. work, if you could, and give us some information about the programs you are working on and the hopes that you have for the R. & D. and scientific mechanization of our postal facilities.

If you will introduce the people who are with you and then proceed in your own fashion.

STATEMENT OF LEO S. PACKER, ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL G. HENDRICKSON, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS; PETER C. HYZER, DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING; RICHARD W. HARRIS, INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER; ALVIN P. HANES, CHIEF, INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; AND JAMES L. COLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AD DEVELOPMENT

Mr. PACKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to introduce my associates from the Bureau of Research and Engineering. On my right, Mr. Paul G. Hendrickson, who is Director of Operations. He is responsible for administration, management, and program control in the entire Bureau. He has a varied management background in private industry. He is doing an absolutely indispensable job in making this Bureau a businesslike operation.

Mr. Hyzer, on my left, is Director of Construction Engineering. Mr. Hyzer is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, has a master's degree in civil engineering from MIT, and is a retired general officer