SURVEY OF SELECTED ACTIVITIES (Part 5-Efficiency and Economy in the Post Office MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1962 HOUSE OF REPESENTATIVES, GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 100-B, George Washington Inn, Hon. Jack Brooks (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Congressmen Jack Brooks, Lucien N. Nedzi, George M. Wallhauser and Richard S. Schweiker. Also present: Edward C. Books, Jr., staff administrator; Ernest C. Baynard, associate counsel; Daniel L. Power, investigator; Tanner T. Hunt, investigator; and Irma Reel, clerk. Mr. BROOKS. The Government Activities Subcommittee, having been duly organized under the rules of the House of Representatives, and a quorum being present for the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence, the meeting is hereby called to order. This morning the Government Activities Subcommittee, which has held a series of hearings this month seeking new ways to effect economies in the overall operation of the agencies under our jurisdiction, will take a look at the efficiency of a specific aspect of the Post Office Department. We are concerned today with the efficiency of the Post Office Department's methods of transporting money, as pointed up by the recent $1.5 million hijacking in Massachusetts of a Post Office truck. The purpose of this hearing is to get the facts, direct from responsible agency officials, regarding Post Office policies concerning the transport of large sums of cash by regular employees of the Depart ment. It is not our intent for one moment to expose further the timetested protective methods of the Post Office Department. We don't intend to give a moment's aid or comfort to criminals by revealing secrets which properly belong to the Post Office security officials. These men are charged with great responsibility in guarding the U.S. mails. The incident in Massachusetts, involving the largest cash haul by hijackers in the Nation's history, has already received wide publicity. A virtual primer on how to rob a mail truck was written by those hijackers in Massachusetts on August 14. It certainly is no secret that a resourceful band of thugs, armed with submachineguns, 383 smoothly wrested a fortune in cash from a lightly armed driver and guard in an ordinary, unarmored mail truck. But we do believe that the public and the Congress should have an official explanation of this method of handling huge sums of money, inasmuch as it is the public purse which must absorb all unrecovered losses. POSTAL EMPLOYEES EXPOSED TO "QUESTIONABLE COMPASSION" We also are deeply concerned about the wisdom and fairness of having virtually unarmed postal employees exposed to the questionable compassion of machinegun-toting desperadoes, greedy for an easy, quick million dollars. Solving this crime is not our mission that is the province of the postal inspectors, who have a reputation for bringing in their man that any police organization might covet. We certainly hope they solve this case and that the courts can make that 25-year mandatory sentence for jeopardizing the life of postal employees stick. We are very grateful that the two men on that mail truck in Massachusetts were not harmed-but they could have been. What we wish to do today is to examine the reasoning behind some of the methods the Post Office Department uses in transporting big amounts of money. Cities are growing, the population is increasing, more money is being transported. Certainly it is time for a careful reappraisal of methods which have been successful in the past. Certainly some improvements seem in order before criminals strike again at our mails and menace the lives of our postal employees. INVESTIGATION URGED BY CONGRESSMAN BOLAND Now, without further ado, I would like to introduce a letter that was submitted to me by Congressman Edward P. Boland, of Boston, Mass. Springfield, Mass., actually-who has been vitally concerned with both this inquiry and the general well-being of the Post Office Department for many years here in Congress. The letter I would like to submit for the record is one which he sent to me, and it is dated August 18, 1962. EXHIBIT 1-LETTER FROM HON. EDWARD P. BOLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO HON. JACK BROOKS, AUGUST 18, 1962 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: May I respectfully urge your Government Activities Subcommittee to investigate the Post Office Department's procedure for transporting registered mail containing large sums of cash similar to that which was stolen in the robbery of a mail truck in Plymouth, Mass., Tuesday night, August 14. It would seem that the Post Office Department's security precautions in the handling of such a large shipment of money was so loose as to almost invite thieves to hold up the panel mail truck with a single guard, armed with a revolver only. I would very much like to know how often the Post Office Department relies on this apparently lax method of transporting large shipments of cash throughout the country. Both the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, large metropolitan newspapers in my State, have raised some pertinent questions as a result of this bold multimillion-dollar robbery. I am enclosing copies of the editorials for your perusal. As a former member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee of the House, I have continued my deep interest in the operations of the Post Office Department, and am now very much concerned about the security precautions taken by the Department to protect its mail and personnel involved in these shipments. It would seem to me that an armored truck would be employed, accompanied by a police or armed guard in the transportation of such large sums of cash. The money was being shipped from banks in the Cape Cod area to the Federal Reserve bank in Boston. I would urge that your subcommittee inquire as to whether the Post Office Department has a working arrangement with the Federal Reserve Bank System for the proper protection of such large cash shipments. Thanking you for your consideration, and with every good wish, I am, Sincerely yours, EDWARD P. BOLAND, Member of Congress. Mr. BROOKS. And now I would like to introduce for any comments he would like to make at this time, Congressman Boland. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD P. BOLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, if there was ever an incident that raised questions that must be answered, it is that of the biggest theft of negotiable cash that has ever occurred in this country. The mail robbery of just 2 short weeks ago has prompted demands for a congressional investigation from many sources the press, the public, and public officials. The Committee on Government Operations, and particularly this Subcommittee on Government Activities, is the logical vehicle of Congress to pursue this probe. I take it that your great standing Committee on Government Operations is charged with looking into, ferreting out, placing responsibility, and making recommendations for necessary actions to correct conditions that need correction in this vast and sprawling Government of ours. Its broad legislative and investigative powers have been used extensively and effectively to make the departments and agencies of the Federal establishment to, so to speak, "stay on the ball." No one expects this committee to solve this $1,551,277 mail robbery. This is the responsibility of a task force now in being of the great organization of postal inspectors, the best of the FBI and Treasury men in cooperation with the able and competent State and local law enforcement officials of Massachusetts. To bring the robbers to book is their job and they are now pursuing this task with relentless, laborious, and painstaking efficiency. But also involved here, are the public, the taxpayers, the safety and security of postal employees and the protection of goods shipped by mail. Let there be no doubt that these are areas that command the attention of the Congress as well as the responsible departments and agencies. Mr. Chairman, some interesting questions have been aired in this matter but few seem to have been fully answered. There may be good and sufficient reasons why many questions should not be answered while this full-blown investigation is underway to solve the crime. But surely, there are a few relatively simple questions that can and should be answered. "SMORGASBORD OF GREENBACKS" Why was so much cash permitted to be shipped in the manner it was? Think of it, $1,551,277. It was the finest, the richest, and most enticing smorgasbord of greenbacks ever laid out in the back of a panel delivery truck-two $1,000 bills, 120 $100 bills, $24,000 in $50 bills, $492,000 in $20 bills, $752,000 in $10 bills, $139,000 in $5 bills, $4,100 in $2 bills, and $42,700 in $1 bills. Just think of the marketability of these denominations. What is the true story of police escorts? There have been vague and confusing versions on this point. Why was there a change in the manner of shipping these funds reputedly to have been effective July 16, 1962? Under the previous setup, the weekly shipments of money by registered mail was by privately owned contract carriers and trailed by State police cruisers. Were the shipments, prior to the night of the robbery on August 14 and after July 16, made in the same way and manner as the August 14 shipment? What is the policy of the Post Office Department relative to the shipment by mail of large sums of cash? What steps does it take to guard the property and protect the person of its Post Office personnel? These are questions that, when fully answered, can perhaps supply the answers on why and how the conceivers of this crime were handed such a fantastically unusual opportunity to stage this holdup. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will make some recommendation with respect to offers of rewards in cases of this type. The Post Office Department and/or the Federal Reserve System should now offer a substantial reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the mail robbery of August 14, 1962. ADVOCATES GREATER REWARD Presently, the Post Office Department Order No. 57051 limits the amount in this case to $2,000. It ought to be $50,000. In the famed Brinks robbery, the offers totaled $100,000. There is no question that such offers and their size do produce information that is not otherwise available and rewards do figure prominently in the solution of crimes. Somehow, it seems that when the Government loses the money, the sense of urgency to resolve the crime is lacking. There is a feeling that nobody suffered any loss, that the public did not lose. Well, there is $1,551,277 gone. The Federal Reserve System and its member banks stand the loss and I suppose ultimately the taxpayer. The Post Office Department has to pay its insured loss and thus the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I have filed with the Congress H.R. 12939 which does appropriate $50,000 for the payment of rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the persons who committed the robbery in Plymouth, Mass., on August 14, 1962, in the course of which cash was taken from the U.S. mails. This bill has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations. I hope that this subcommittee can make a recommendation to the Subcommittee on Appropriations that we can vote it out in a supplemental budget. I trust the Post Office Department will recommend this be passed. Thank you very much. Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Boland, for a very fine statement. I am sure that the Congress will hear with an open mind, and I hope favorably, your recommendation on an adequate reward for the apprehension of these criminals. We will ask the Postmaster General about his attitude on the bill. I don't know whether he has looked into it yet, but I am sure they will evaluate it. Do other members have any comments? Mr. WALLHAUSER. I have no comment other than to congratulate him for his interest in this matter. Mr. BROOKS. I would say you are certainly welcome to stay and serve with us on this committee during this study and hearing this morning. Mr. BOLAND. Thank you very much. Mr. BROOKS. Now, I would like to introduce a very distinguished and senior member of the Massachusetts delegation, the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, long-term Member of Congress, the Honorable Tom Lane. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. LANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Government Activities of the Government Operations Committee, may I just say a few words briefly-and far be it from me to encroach myself into this part of the program because I know your committee is most anxious now to listen to the other witnesses to follow Congressman Boland and myself. I know you have a fine list of witnesses here, including the Postmaster General from the Post Office Department, and his assistants and the men that were involved in this holdup, and, of course, you are anxious to go forward with your hearing this morning. But I do wish to say, Mr. Chairman, first, that I extend my congratulations to my colleague, Congressman Edward P. Boland, for his thoughtfulness in bringing this matter first to the attention of this committee, and to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the fact that you have so promptly and so expeditiously stepped into this situation to arrange for these hearings here this morning so that this matter will be properly brought to the attention of the Congress. There is no doubt that there's a great deal of interest not only in Massachusetts but throughout the United States because of the fact that, as Congressman Boland has well stated here in his opening statement, there is something to be corrected here, and where it should be done remains for this committee to find out. I am satisfied that your committee is not here for the purpose of trying to solve this serious holdup of a million and a half dollars at Plymouth, Mass., but I do know that your committee is anxious to find out whether or not we in the Congress need some legislation to give proper protection, not only to these men working for the Post Office Department, but to the public in cases such as the one that has taken place up here in Massachusetts. So I just want to aline myself, Mr. Chairman, with the very able and well-prepared statement made by my colleague here who has put a lot of study, thought and time into this subject matter, and to join with him and also with yourself, Mr. Chairman. In your opening statement I thought you outlined it very well to the public that this 89028-62-pt. 5—2 |