[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 156 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8397-S8400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 4000. A bill to provide for improvements to the United States 
Postal Service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal 
Service Improvements Act of 2010. This bill would help the U.S. Postal 
Service regain its financial footing as it adapts to the era of 
increasingly digital communications.
  The storied history of the Postal Service predates our Constitution. 
In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as 
the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of a line of 
postsfrom Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia. The 
Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish post offices 
and post roads.
  Today, the Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing 
industry that employs approximately 7.5 million Americans in fields as 
diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, paper 
manufacturing, and financial services.
  Postal Service employees deliver mail 6 days a week to hundreds of 
millions of households and businesses. From our largest cities to our 
smallest towns, from the Hawaiian Islands to Alaskan reservations, the 
Postal Service is a vital part of our national communications network 
and an icon of American culture.
  But the financial state of the Postal Service is abysmal. The numbers 
are grim: the Postal Service recently announced that it lost $8.5 
billion in fiscal year 2010. The Great Recession, high operating costs, 
and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have 
challenged the Postal Services ability to remain financially viable.
  Faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service must reinvent 
itself. It must increase revenues by increasing its value to its 
customers and by becoming more cost effective.
  Unfortunately, many of the solutions the Postal Service has proposed 
would only aggravate its problems. Filing for enormous rate increases, 
pursuing significant service reductions including elimination of 
Saturday mail delivery and seeking relief from funding its liabilities 
are not viable long-term solutions to the challenges confronting the 
Postal Service. These changes will drive more customers to less 
expensive, digital alternatives. That downturn in customers will 
further erode mail volume and accelerate a death spiral for the Postal 
Service.
  The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It 
must adopt a customer-focused culture. It must see the changing 
communications landscape as an opportunity.
  The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I 
authored, provides the foundation for these long-term changes, but the 
Postal Service has been slow to take advantage of some of the 
flexibilities afforded by that law. And, to be fair, the Postal Service 
has encountered problems not of its making, such as a severe recession.

[[Page S8398]]

  The legislation that I introduce today would help the Postal Service 
achieve financial stability and light the way to future cost savings 
without undermining customer service.
  One area the legislation would help address is the more than $50 
billion that the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal 
Service has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, 
and the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees 
Retirement System pension fund. It is simply unfair both to the Postal 
Service and its customers not to refund these overpayments.
  To address these inequities, the bill would allow the Postal Service 
to access amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. The 
Postal Service must be permitted to use these funds to address other 
financial obligations, like its payments for future retiree health 
benefits and unfunded workers compensation liabilities and for repaying 
its existing debt.
  I have pressed the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to change its 
calculation method for Postal Service payments into the CSRS fund 
consistent with the 2006 Postal Reform law. OPM officials, however, 
stubbornly refuse to change this methodology or even to admit that the 
2006 postal law permits them to do so. This has created a bureaucratic 
standoff that is unfair to the Postal Service. The OPM holds the life 
preserver it could help rescue the Postal Service, but it simply 
refuses to throw it.
  This legislation would direct the OPM to exercise its existing 
authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its 
methodology for calculating the Postal Services obligations to the CSRS 
pension fund. Once OPM exercises this authority, my legislation would 
allow the Postal Service to use any resulting overpayments to cover its 
annual payments into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather than 
having to wait until after September 30, 2015, to access the CSRS 
overpayment.
  Additionally, the legislation would allow the Postal Service to 
access the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees 
Retirement System, FERS, pension fund. The legislation would grant OPM 
this authority by adopting language, similar to section 802(c) of the 
2006 postal reform law, that allows OPM to recalculate the methodology 
governing Postal Service payments into the FERS pension fund.
  As with the CSRS overpayment, the Postal Service would be permitted 
to use the FERS overpayment to meet its statutory obligations to the 
Retiree Health Benefits Fund. These fund transfers would greatly 
improve the Postal Services financial condition.
  If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund 
the Postal Services obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, 
this legislation would allow the Postal Service to pay its workers 
compensation liabilities, which top $1 billion annually. The Postal 
Service may also choose to use these funds to pay down its existing 
debt, which currently is $12 billion.
  Second, the legislation would improve the Postal Services contracting 
practices and help prevent the kind of ethical violations recently 
uncovered by the Postal Service inspector general.
  Several months ago, I asked the Postal Service inspector general to 
review the Postal Services contracting policies. The findings of these 
inspector general audits were shocking. The IG found stunning evidence 
of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste.
  In its review of the Postal Services contracting policies, the IG 
discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The 
Postal Services contract management did not protect it from waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open.
  As a result, the Postal Service could not even identify how many 
contracts were awarded without competition. Of the no-bid contracts the 
IG reviewed, 35 percent lacked justification.
  In one of the more egregious examples of waste and abuse, the IG 
discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former 
employees since 1991. Looking at the past 3 years, the IG found that 
359 were awarded as no-bid contracts. And 17 of those noncompetitive 
contracts went to career executives within 1 year of their separation 
from the Postal Service.
  Additionally, some former executives were brought back at nearly 
twice their former pay to advise newly hired executives--an outrageous 
practice that the IG said raised serious ethical questions, hurt 
employee morale, and tarnished the Postal Services public image. In one 
example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, 
just 2 months after retiring. The purpose: to train his successor.
  My legislation would help remedy many of the contracting issues the 
IG identified. Specifically, the bill would direct the Postmaster 
General to establish a competition advocate, responsible for reviewing 
and approving justifications for noncompetitive purchases and for 
tracking the level of agency competition. The competition advocate also 
would be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service 
procurement to the Postmaster General, the Board of Governors, the 
Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress.
  To improve transparency and accountability, the bill also would 
require the Postal Service to publish justifications of noncompetitive 
contracts greater than $150,000 on its Web Site. This transparency 
would improve the Postal Services contracting practices and promote 
competition.
  To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would 
limit procurement officials from contracting with closely associated 
entities. It also would require the Postal Services ethics official to 
review any ethics concerns that the contracting office identifies prior 
to awarding a contract.
  Third, the legislation includes several provisions that would enhance 
efficiency and reduce costs. The Postal Service has made efforts to 
reduce costs over the past several years. But more must be done.
  One area where improvements can be made is in the consolidation of 
area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Services 
regional structure--eight area offices and 74 district offices costing 
approximately $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009--has significant room 
for consolidation. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a 
comprehensive strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map 
for future savings.
  The bill would also require the Postal Service to develop a plan to 
increase its presence in retail facilities, or co-locate, to better 
serve customers. Before co-location decisions could be made, however, 
the bill would direct the Postal Service to weigh the impact of any 
decision on small communities and rural areas. Moreover, the Postal 
Service would be required to solicit community input before making 
decisions about co-location and to ensure that co-location does not 
diminish the quality of service.
  Fourth, the bill includes a provision that would require the 
arbitrator to consider the Postal Services financial condition when 
rendering decisions about collective bargaining agreements. This 
logical provision would allow critical financial information to be 
weighed as a factor in contract negotiations.
  Finally, the bill would reduce workforce-related costs government-
wide by converting retirement eligible postal and federal employees on 
workers compensation to retirement when they reach retirement age. This 
is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that 
both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford to 
sustain.
  In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.7 
billion to employees on workers compensation. This includes 
approximately $1 billion in workers compensation benefits to postal 
employees. More than 8,600 of postal employees covered by workers 
compensation are over the age of 55. The Department of Labor indicates 
that Federal employees across the government are receiving workers 
compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. At the Postal 
Service alone, more than 1,000 employees currently receiving workers 
compensation benefits are 80 years or older. Incredibly, 132 of these 
individuals are 90 years of age and older and there are three who are 
98.
  The Postal Service is at a crossroads; it must choose the correct 
path. It must take steps toward a bright future.

[[Page S8399]]

It must reject the path of severe service reductions and huge rate 
hikes, which will only alienate customers.
  The Postal Service must reinvent itself. It must embrace changes to 
revitalize its business model, enabling it to attract and keep 
customers. The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2010 will help 
spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain 
its vital role in American society.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Brown of 
        Massachusetts):
  S. 4004. A bill to amend section 798 of title 18, United States Code, 
to provide penalties for disclosure of classified information related 
to certain intelligence activities and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a new and very 
serious threat to our national security.
  In July of this year, the organization known as WikiLeaks, led by an 
Australian citizen named Julian Assange, published 90,000 classified 
intelligence documents related to our efforts in the ongoing war 
against the Taliban insurgents and al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
  In October, WikiLeaks dumped 400,000 classified documents that 
revolved around the efforts of our Nation and our coalition partners to 
bring democracy, peace, and stability to the people of Iraq.
  Now, just a few days ago, WikiLeaks has dumped another 250,000 
documents that reveal private, often personal, communications between 
diplomats and heads of state--communication that is necessary for the 
critical discourse that occurs between governments on the many relevant 
and challenging international issues of our day.
  In light of the damage that has already been done and the continuing 
threat posed by WikiLeaks, I am here to introduce a bill that will help 
defend our national interests, protect our troops, and provide 
assurance to our friends and allies that what they say to us in private 
will stay with us, and that there will be consequences for the reckless 
actions taken by WikiLeaks, or others, who may attempt to do what they 
have done--consequences that are consistent with our values and with 
our first amendment.
  Let me spend a few moments examining the nature of this threat and 
some of the serious implications.
  After WikiLeaks dumped 400,000 classified documents concerning our 
efforts to promote democracy in Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Geoffrey 
Morrell stated the Department of Defense had to scramble to notify 300 
Iraqis because we were immediately concerned about their safety. He 
went on to say that as many as 60,000 Iraqis could possibly be 
identified in these leaked documents.
  Let us consider the plight of those Iraqis just for a moment. These 
individuals came forward to us with information that they felt would 
help their government deal with the insurgency and terrorist presence 
that has been an impediment to peace and stability within their nation. 
Yet this despicable character, Julian Assange, has rewarded their 
bravery by naming them to their enemies. This puts their very lives and 
the lives of their families in jeopardy. This discourages other Iraqis 
from coming forward and standing up for freedom.
  This, in turn, jeopardizes the lives of our American troops and harms 
our efforts to provide stability in Iraq to the point where we can 
withdraw our troops.
  Unfortunately, if Iraqis become afraid to speak out against the 
terrorists in their midst for fear of being named by Julian Assange, 
succeeding becomes that much more difficult.
  Let's turn to Afghanistan. Back in July, I read in the Times of 
London a very interesting assessment about the implication of Mr. 
Assange's actions. Let me quote:

       Hundreds of Afghans' lives have been put at risk by the 
     leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files 
     identify informants working with NATO forces.

  Let me quote again from the Times:

       In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, the 
     Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with 
     providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces. Their 
     villages are given for identification and also, in many 
     cases, their fathers' names.

  To the credit of the Times, they cited examples to back up their 
claims. But as any responsible media organization should, they at 
least, in their report, took the steps of hiding the names of the 
villagers who came forward with information to assist their government 
and NATO.
  Madam President, just as WikiLeaks recklessly dumped the leaked 
intelligence on Afghanistan, a Taliban spokesperson gave an interview 
in which he said:

       We are studying the report. . . .We will investigate 
     through our own secret service whether the people mentioned 
     are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, 
     then we know how to punish them.

  I don't think I need to elaborate on how the Taliban punishes their 
enemies.
  Now we have this latest dump of classified State Department cables 
and information. I applaud our former colleague, Secretary Clinton, for 
the excellent remarks she has made on this issue. She pointed out that 
the leaks have put people's lives in danger, threatened our national 
security, and undermined our efforts to work with other countries to 
solve shared problems.
  An essential dialog takes place between nations--a dialog that has 
existed since nations first began. With that dialog, diplomats need to 
be able to express their views candidly and, yes, privately. This is 
how a lot of problems are solved.
  Our Nation is working toward international solutions to some very 
complex problems. The Government of Yemen is fighting terrorists that 
reside within their own borders. The proliferation of nuclear weapons 
technology and the threat of long-range missiles in North Korea are 
problems that require multilateral international engagement.
  Secretary Clinton made another point I will focus on for a moment. 
Assange didn't just leak classified details about meetings between 
diplomats. Our diplomats overseas meet with local human rights workers, 
journalists, religious leaders, and others--people with unique insight 
into a wider range of issues.
  Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous world where revealing the 
identity of someone fighting for social issues, such as women's rights 
or children's rights or the identity of an advocate for religious 
freedom could have serious repercussions that include imprisonment, 
torture, or even death.
  I wonder if WikiLeaks understands if Afghan villagers or activists 
fighting for human rights under oppressive regimes are killed as a 
result of being named in these leaks, the blood of these good people is 
on their hands.
  Before I proceed with an examination of the bill that I have crafted 
to address this threat, let's be clear about some things. No one should 
do Julian Assange any credit by referring to him as a journalist or as 
part of the news media. He is a computer hacker and an anarchist.
  True to his hacker roots, he has devised a portal through which he 
hopes members of our government will anonymously and surreptitiously 
provide him unfettered access to our closest secrets.
  Make no mistake, these actions have harmed our friends and helped our 
enemies in a manner prejudicial to the safety and national interest of 
the United States.
  So with this threat in mind, a threat that the Founders could have 
never seen coming, we have crafted a bill that amends the Espionage 
Act, specifically Title 18, Section 798.
  Under current law, it is a criminal act for someone who knowingly and 
willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, publishes, or otherwise 
makes available to any unauthorized person any classified information 
concerning the communication intelligence activities of our United 
States of America.
  My bill, which we are introducing today, extends this protection 
currently afforded to the communications intelligence to human 
intelligence, known as HUMINT. This bill protects human intelligence 
sources and methods. I want to be very clear. It is my opinion that we 
can go after Julian Assange under the current statute. But what our 
legislation does is updates this decades-old statute to address this 
evolving threat prospectively.
  I have no doubt that Assange is going to put out another document 
dump on

[[Page S8400]]

his Web site and another one after that. Once he does, this bill would 
give the administration increased flexibility to deal with him and 
potentially other copycat organizations that aspire to his likeness.
  There are a couple of concerns I want to address. First, one might 
wonder how this bill stands with our first amendment. While I hope we 
can all agree that Julian Assange is no journalist, some might wonder 
if the amended law that would result from this bill could be applied to 
the news media. It is pretty frustrating for the intelligence community 
when communications intelligence sources and methods are blown.
  When this happens, sources of vital intelligence dry up or become 
inaccessible, and potentially millions of defense dollars go down the 
drain. However, despite the serious consequences associated with losing 
a communications intelligence source or method, and the damage that 
does to our national security, no Presidential administration has ever 
prosecuted a member of the news media under the existing statute, which 
has been on the books since 1951.
  Let's face it, leaks do happen. As Secretary Gates stated just a few 
days ago, regrettably, our government leaks classified information like 
a sieve. This bill does not stop anybody from publishing leaks, but it 
does provide legal incentive to Julian Assange to do what Amnesty 
International has repeatedly asked him to do: be more responsible about 
how classified leaks are handled by not revealing the identity of these 
classified human intelligence sources.
  Let me be clear. This bill doesn't target journalists. Instead, it 
provides flexibility for the Attorney General with a targeted solution 
and increased flexibility to deal with WikiLeaks.
  Some might be wondering whether Julian Assange, who is a foreign 
citizen, can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. In fact, the courts 
long ago established that he can be prosecuted under these statutes.
  I am not a lawyer, but if you study the United States v. Zehe from 
1986, it becomes immediately clear that Assange can be prosecuted under 
the Espionage Act.
  That said, my concern is that our existing laws may have some 
loopholes through which he can escape. In fact, just a few days ago in 
the Washington Post, I read where Attorney General Holder said:

       To the extent that there are gaps in our laws . . . we will 
     move to close those gaps.

  Well, I submit that the bill I am introducing today, with a couple of 
others, will do just that. It closes a gap in our laws and it moves to 
protect vital human intelligence sources and methods consistent with 
the manner in which current law communications intelligence is already 
protected.
  I thank Senators Lieberman and Brown of Massachusetts for joining me 
in this important legislation and for the input Senators Lieberman and 
Brown of Massachusetts have given me on this important legislation.
  I hope we can take up this bill, consider it, work with the 
administration, work with the House, and pass this important 
legislation so the next time, and we know there will be a next time, 
that Julian Assange and his associates leak classified intelligence 
that puts people's lives in danger, we can actually have another tool 
in the arsenal so our Department of Justice can go after these 
despicable people.

                          ____________________