[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 148 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6326-S6327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Whistleblowers

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as my colleagues know, I get a lot of 
information about wrongdoing in government from whistleblowers. A 
significant part of my investigative activity is driven by 
whistleblower disclosures. To make that very effective, I have directed 
my investigative staff to cultivate those whistleblower relationships.
  Whistleblowers share information with me that the government likes to 
hide from Congress and, indirectly, then hiding it from the American 
people.
  Today, I am going to discuss a very concerning problem within the 
U.S. Postal Service. Based on whistleblower disclosures to my office, I 
have been alerted that the post office hired a registered sex offender 
as a letter carrier.
  The employment was confirmed in writing by that same Postal Service. 
Based on whistleblower allegations, this employee disclosed his status 
as a registered sex offender on his job application.
  If accurate, did the Postal Service then even bother to read his 
application before he was hired? After the Postal Service figured out 
what they had done, my office has been told via whistleblower 
disclosures that they put the employee on paid leave.
  So I began digging deeper to figure out the extent of this problem at 
the Postal Service. Since then, the Postal Service has obstructed every 
effort that I have made to get the information that Congress is 
entitled to.
  Wouldn't the American public like to know how many letter carriers 
are registered sex offenders? Where are they working? Do they travel 
near schools, homes, and where children are often seen?
  Now, the Postal Service apparently disagrees. The Postal Service was 
asked by my staff for a list of letter carriers who are registered 
offenders.
  Now, as you might expect, the Postal Service refused. So I and my 
staff asked for a list of letter carriers on the payroll. The Postal 
Service later said:

       Current employees' names, titles, and duty stations are 
     generally considered to be public information and releasable.

  But then the Postal Service refused to provide the information 
because my staff might cross-reference the names on the public 
registries. Specifically, the Postal Service said this:

       They have a personal privacy interest in protecting the 
     fact that their names appear on a sex offender registry.

  The Postal Service also said that it is refusing to provide this 
information because I ``intend to use the provided list to infer what 
employees appear on the public sex offender registries.''
  Now, it is time to get this straight for everybody. The names of 
Postal Service employees are publicly releasable, as admitted by the 
Postal Service to me in writing. These offender registries are public, 
which was also admitted in writing to me by the Postal Service. But the 
Postal Service says a privacy interest prohibits them from providing 
the names of all Postal Service letter carriers because my staff might 
cross-reference them on a public list? What a disgrace.

[[Page S6327]]

  Further, the Postal Service had the audacity to ask my staff this 
garbage request, and I am quoting from the Postal Service:

       We ask that you agree not to publicly release the names of 
     any employees that you believe appear on a sex offender 
     registry as a condition precedent to the release of a list of 
     letter carriers to you.

  Now, that kind of appears to be a shakedown, doesn't it?
  In support of its obstruction, the Postal Service cited a 2020 
Freedom of Information Act court case, White Coat Waste Project v. U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs. The Postal Service claimed that this 
case allowed them to withhold the information.
  Now, there are two problems with that. First, this isn't a FOIA 
request that I am making. It is a congressional request under the 
constitutional power of checks and balances of the government to make 
sure that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the 
laws. Congress isn't subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
  Second, in the case, the court held that the government had to 
produce requested names of government employees, in part, because it 
``will ensure that the public stays informed about what their 
government is up to.''
  Like you often hear me say, transparency brings accountability in our 
government.
  My staff then later asked the Postal Service the following, related 
to employee names:

       So, what's public is being treated as non-public because 
     there's a chance some letter carriers are sex offenders?

  The Postal Service's employee answered:

       Yes, because you can't put that together without both 
     lists.

  The Postal Service conduct is without any legitimate basis. 
Postmaster General DeJoy and the Postal Service Board need to fix this 
mess and fix it immediately. When it comes to this matter, our 
community deserves much better than what they are getting from the 
Postal Service.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.