modate three different size bodies. They are being used to replace the oldier heavier type of 12-, 2-, and 3-ton trucks in collection service, relay service, some parcel post, interstation and special delivery. This has brought about interchangeability of parts, reduction in parts inventory, less parking space needs, fatigue reduction for drivers, increased safety (brakes and color) and many other advantages and improved service in many areas not formerly mechanized. Today the fleet has only four basic truck categories.

(d) Route studies are continuing with improved vehicles and many routes extensions have been made possible to render better public service.

(e) Employee morale is definitely improved.

Either the actual affected reduction in vehicle hire of more than $8 million per year, or the reduction in truck operating costs by 30 percent every year, alone, would justify a one-time capital expense of 5 times this amount.

Mr. GoFF. Are there any questions that the committee might have of Mr. Kieb?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes; I think there will be several, Mr. Goff.

Mr. Kieb, to start with, over on page 3 of your statement, you make a reference here to 25,000 Government-owned vehicles. But over on page 5 you say you have a Government-owned fleet of 18,000 vehicles. We seem to have lost 7,000 somewhere. What is that?

Mr. KIEB. In paragraph A on page 5, it says: "In 1953, the Government-owned fleet of 18,000 vehicles had less than 30 percent of 1-ton size or smaller."

On page 3, I say, "Today there are approximately 25,000 Government owned."

And I also refer in here in the percentages to counting of the local procurement that is underway since these experiments started.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Now, wait a minute. I am still not with you.
Mr. KIEB. All right.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You mean that you have 25,000 Government-owned vehicles today?

Mr. KIEB. Now, that is correct, sir.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But in 1953 you only owned 18,000?

Mr. KIEB. That is correct.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you own 7,000 more vehicles than you did then?

Mr. KIEB. That is correct, sir. And our experiments were based at the beginning upon our truck fleet as it was composed in 1953.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, then, how many vehicles do you use entirely now today?

Mr. KIEB. Approximately 85,000. And that was the same.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You mean you are still using 85,000 in 1953 and the same number today?

Mr. KIEB. Approximately so. That is an estimated figure.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have reduced operating cost of 17.3 cents per mile to 12 and 13 cents per mile?

Mr. KIEB. Except within the 17.3 figure we did not include depreciation and fixed charges but in the 12.13-cent figure we now include those charges. On a comparable basis, that is, the average truck cost has been reduced from 17.3 per mile to about 7 cents a mile.

Mr. PLAPINGER. What is the hourly cost?

Mr. KIEB. The hourly cost varies with utilization. You can well understand that if a vehicle is used for 4 hours a day and it has to carry these fixed charges, the cost per hour will be higher than a truck that is used 8 hours a day.

Therefore, that varies. But I would say our average is in the neighborhood of 60 cents. And I would ask that when Mr. Schlegel comes on, he give you those current detailed figures.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How long have you been with the Department?

Mr. KIEB. I came to work February 10 of 1953. I was finally confirmed by the Senate on Friday the 13th and sworn in on St. Patrick's Day of 1953.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In 1953 when you came into the Department, was there any research program in progress based on the Heller survey of 1949?

Mr. KIEB. Heller came on at the same time, or on approximately the same time I did.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate that.

Mr. KIEB. From the standpoint of research, prior to that time, however, there had been a small research program. And as a matter of fact, the Department had purchased 4 or 5 or 6 different type vehicles trying to do this very job.

But they were vehicles that were largely almost entirely modifications of the passenger vehicle rather than the development of a truck. The real need was to get a light flexible truck that could do the biggest portion of our mail-handling job. These light passenger vehicles did not give us that flexibility.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I notice according to the records that were given to us by the Post Office Department that you had approximately 16 in operation at the end of 1952 and all of them are referred to as light trucks.

Now, whether or not they are comparable to a modification of a passenger vehicle of course I do not know, but I do notice that they are sit-stand vehicles.

And I notice by and large they have the right door, right drive.

Mr. KIEB. One vehicle to my recollection—that is, the Marco—had a sit-stand drive. That was a truck. The rest of them were small Nash station wagons, Willys jeeps that were modifications of passenger vehicles, semitruck, semipassenger vehicles, and vehicles of that

nature.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Of course, all we have here is the description that was given to us down here and it referred to General Motors' 2 light trucks equipped for sit-stand operation made by General Motors; 2 from Divco, 2 from Fargo, 2 from Ford, and 2 from International. And those were allegedly in operation in 1952.

Mr. KIEB. If those figures, sir, have been given to you by one of the engineers, I am sure they are accurate.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I might help you. They were reported to Congress. The departments are required to report to Congress on experimental expenditures. And we took that from the Post Office's report. Mr. MOLLOHAN. But so far there was only one in operation?

Mr. KIEB. As far as I know there was only one that I was familiar with. There may have been others. I know there was a light threewheeled vehicle. There were a number of individual prototypes of

small vehicles that had been made trying to develop this very program and to begin it.

We started with those findings and we attempted to put into effect an experimental program on a large enough scale so as to quickly develop the type of light truck we needed to supplant the heavy truck we were using for the light work.

To do that we used a prototype and from that prototype we bought more and more, and each time we tried to improve the specifications. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you carry on the negotiations with Heller with reference to arranging for the contract and arranging for the contract?

Mr. KIEB. No. Those negotiations were carried on principally in the Deputy's office, although I was somewhat familiar with them. And the actual procurement of that contract was effected in my bureau of facilities.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I suppose, then, you sat in on preliminary discussions or a reasonable number of all the discussions?

Mr. KIEB. Pretty much.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which more or less laid the foundation or groundwork for need for an investigation?

Mr. KIEB. That is right.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were there not in that discussion any references to the Hoover report of 1949?

Mr. KIEB. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Was there any discussion there by Heller's representatives and by the Post Office Department in exchange of ideas and thinking as to what had been done in relation to the carrying out of the implementation of the experiment prior to the date of your discussions?

Mr. KIEB. Yes.

And there was a noticeable lack of a large enough experiment to prove out the effectiveness of these

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were there any references in those conferences to the number of vehicles that were in operation or were in use?

Mr. KIEB. There were general references but not specific ones; I mean not in detail so that I would recall the exact number of them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. What I was trying to get was: It seems to me rather unusual that you sitting in with these discussions would know of only 1 vehicle when they had 16.

Mr. KIEB. I had in mind, sir, the Marco vehicle. And I had in mind I believe if I recall the figures correctly-14 Nashes that were adaptations of a station wagon. That is what was particularly fresh in my mind. I have not, incidentally, read the original reports of those staff meetings in the last few weeks.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, of course, I understand that.

I do not expect you to remember everything that occurred and happened. But it seems to me that a man in your position sitting down with representatives of Heller who had made the original report and made the original recommendations would have made some very positive references to whatever might have been done by your predecessors or the Post Office Department with respect to presenting to you and to those other representatives who were negotiating the contract or were discussing just what had been done and what might be needed to do in

order to derive the fullest advantage from the recommendations that Heller had originally made.

Mr. KIEB. We were.

And I cannot remember them in detail for you, but in broad language, broad scope of the conferences, the big point that was made was the inadequacy of this piecemeal one-truck-at-a-time of its kind being applied in small experiments and varying parts of the country that were never followed through in proportions to give us the kind of data we needed to move toward lighter vehicles in the fleet, in large numbers, which is what we needed.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were there any positive records according to your recollection presented by the Post Office Department in these conferences of results of any of the experiments that were being made?

Mr. KIEB. I am sure that in these conferences, reports were made of what effectiveness had been achieved, and the results of these individual truck experiments.

One of our big difficulties, Mr. Congressman, was that there was no tying together of all these experiments leading toward the basic and major need of a light truck with a small right-hand drive, a small modification of the station wagon, for instance, had been used on rural routes.

And it had been found to be very handy and had very favorable characteristics. But it had not been done in any volume to get operating costs, nor volume experience, with people and personnel.

It had been used by 1 man or 2 men in 1 place and 1 location. And to prove out the effectiveness of this we needed to try it with a number of different people in a number of different places and under different and varying conditions.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Kieb, my interest here at the moment is this: There has been a great deal of reference by Mr. Gunther of Heller Associates to light weight functional vehicles, which seems to have been much of the substance of his original recommendation.

It was based on the survey and study that was made by Heller & Associates for the Hoover Commission in 1948 and 1949.

Now, according to the information that we have here, the Post Office Department in early 1951 undertook a program to develop lightweight functional vehicles. And that is the language that was used in the conversations our staff have had downtown, and in the reports that were submitted to the Congress.

That began in early 1951. That would suggest to me that in 1951 and 1952 there must have been some use of this lightweight functional vehicle. Now, according to our information there were 16 of those.

Now, just exactly what number of those 16 is important to the basic recommendations of the Heller Associates group dealing with a desire to develop a lightweight functional vehicle we are not prepared to say.

But it seems very definitely in these conferences which you held, surely Heller Associates since they have said here that they made no additional surveys, that their work with your department since 1953 has been one of implementation of their original survey rather than any rechecks or review or additional study.

It has been nothing more than-this research project for them has been a supervision of the implementation of that report and recommendation.

Now it seems to me since we have had these in operation, theoretically at least, for 2 years, there must have been some positive references in your discussion with Heller Associates as to need and background of the results of this survey of 2 years.

Mr. KIEB. As I recall it, sir, the Hoover Commission survey, which was the original one that Heller Associates conducted, was

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Wait a minute. Isn't that the only one they conducted?

Mr. KIEB. That is correct. It was in 1949. That was the original

one.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is the only one?

Mr. KIEB. That is right.

Then subsequent to that, the Department in a program that was much too small in our opinion, moved in with 1 or 2 vehicles in varying spots. That is, a small number of individual different types of vehicles. So that they were not testing the whole theory of using a lightweight vehicle to do our big bulk job.

What they were doing was testing individual makes and certain modifications of bodies on little individual portions of the job. We felt what we needed was a broad scope implementation of that research. And as a matter of fact, there was not enough money in the research account to carry it through. And we had to transfer money from one account to the other in order to be able to do it.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right.

Now, let me ask you this question: Now I gather from what you have said that you had knowledge of more than one vehicle.

Mr. KIEB. Oh, yes; I mean-when I use the word "one" I do not mean to imply that we purchased only one. I mean by that it was done in groups of one.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. I am not talking about that. I am talking about these discussions. You said you had knowledge of only one vehicle that had been used.

Mr. KIEB. Of that type.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that what you meant?

Mr. KIEB. One vehicle of the sit-stand type. That was the Marco. Mr. SCHLEGEL. If I may interrupt, sir: There were 16 vehicles that the chairman has reference to. They were of standard weight of 1 ton, 112, and 2 tons. They were not lightweight vehicles. They were 2 Dodges made by Fargo and 2 Chevrolets and 2 Harvesters, if I remember correctly.

And they were absorbed into the fleet.

There was nothing new about those trucks. The only 2 that were absolutely sit-stand were the 2 Divco's which were milk-type trucks, with a gross vehicle weight of around 8,700 pounds.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is what I wanted to know.

On the basis of the conferences that you held there, did Heller recommend that a lighter vehicle than the ones you had presently in operation be used?

Mr. KIEB. Definitely so.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then, those things were discussed in your conference?

Mr. KIEB. Yes; and that is what I had reference to when I said a lighter weight vehicle and the only ones that we had were modifications of passenger vehicles.