SHIELD Act

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about unemployment insurance, and I will be brief. At the end of my remarks I will be offering a unanimous consent request.

First of all, I wish to cite a study just released today by the Council of Economic Advisers.

I commend to my colleagues this report entitled ``The Economic Impact of Recent Temporary Unemployment Insurance Extensions'' dated December 2, a report by the Executive Office of the President and the Council of Economic Advisers.

I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary of the report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

This report released today had a number of findings: First of all, that the emergency expansion of unemployment insurance programs in 2007 has benefited 40 million people in the United States of America who have either received or lived with a recipient of these programs. This figure includes 10.5 million children.

In line with other studies that have been released, this report by the Council of Economic Advisers states that there are 800,000 more jobs and GDP is 0.8 percent higher because of the expansion of unemployment insurance programs. Without reauthorization through 2011, the one we are debating today in the Senate, at this time next year, in December of 2011, there will be 600,000 less jobs and GDP will be 0.6 percent lower. So there are real consequences to the denial of this reauthorization going forward.

To give my colleagues a sense of what that means in a State such as Pennsylvania, without reauthorization of these programs, 353,989 people will lose unemployment insurance coverage by November of 2011. The Pennsylvania economy will be severely impacted without reauthorization. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, there will be 31,228 less jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania if we do not reauthorize unemployment insurance.

Just to put that in perspective, in the first three quarters of this year, in the midst of a recovery--slow recovery but a recovery nonetheless--our State has gone from losing jobs in 2009 to gaining jobs. In the first three quarters of the year, we have gained roughly 48,000 jobs. Without unemployment insurance, we stand to lose, as I said, more than 31,000 of those jobs.

We know the unemployment rate of 9.6 percent nationally means nearly 15 million people are out of work. If you are opposed to this reauthorization, you have to come up with another answer. You can't just say to 15 million people: Well, we couldn't get it done, or things interfered in Washington.

In our State, fortunately, we are lower than 9.6. We are 8.8, percent. But 8.8 percent in Pennsylvania means that 560,000 people are out of work. It ballooned up to over 590,000 this summer, but fortunately that has been coming down over the last couple of months and, of course, we want to keep it moving in that direction.

Let me just conclude with this thought: For the past six decades, Congress has provided federally funded unemployment insurance benefits. During every recession, the Congress has done that, and thank goodness they did. Finally, without this reauthorization in our State of Pennsylvania, 83,000 Pennsylvanians will exhaust their benefits this month. Of course, across the country, it is some 2 million.

Exhibit 1

The Economic Impact of Recent Temporary Unemployment Insurance

Extensions

So with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I would not. I object to that for the simple reason that the construction of that amendment involves dollars already allocated to Federal programs across the board. Although the money has not been spent yet, it has been allocated. If there is a concern, as there seems to be--and I would categorize it as an alleged concern--about the deficit, there doesn't seem to be the same concern about running up the deficit not by billions but by hundreds of billions to extend tax cuts to Americans above the $250,000 income tax bracket. So if there is that concern about the deficits, I wish that logic and concern was applied to the tax cut debate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, because the Republicans want to extend unemployment benefits without increasing the deficits, would the Senator agree to include an amendment proposed by Senator Brown that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk?

Further reserving the right to object, first of all, I would love to offset the tax cuts with spending reductions in areas across the board because I think the deficit is a problem. Because the Senator from Pennsylvania just wants to increase the deficit with unemployment benefits, without offsetting it, without spending cuts, I am forced to object.