provide any figures on the number of inquiries processed by other countries sending mail to the Soviet Union. We do know that at least two other countries, Canada and Great Britain, have discussed this issue on a bilateral basis with Soviet postal authorities. Question 5. Testmony we received last year pointed to a tangle of bureaucratic delay within the Postal Service to which individuals within this country were subjected to when they made inquiries concerning the fate of their correspondence to the Soviet Union. What has the Postal Service done within the past year to resolve this problem in terms of effecting better coordination between your office and the International Mail Classification Division? Answer. This question refers to testimony regarding delays in forwarding complaints to the Soviet Union, received by the Subcommittee during its hearing in July of 1978 in Washington, D.C. In a letter of November 20, 1978, the Postal Service advised the Subcommittee that the International Mail Division no longer had a backlog of complaints to forward to the Soviet Union and was able to keep up-to-date in its treatment of these complaints. The International Mail Division continues to be current in its treatment of these complaints. Question 6. Last year we had witnesses describe the trouble they had in getting information from their local post offices about sending mail to the Soviet Union. What has the Postal Service done to improve service to these postal patrons sending mail to the Soviet Union? Answer. Since 1978, employees seeking to become window clerks have been obliged to complete a 120 hours training course on domestic and international mailing procedures and to pass a qualifying examination before they are assigned as window clerks. This training requires familiarization with Postal Service publication 42, International Mail, which includes a chapter on the processing of inquiries and indemnity claims. In addition, the Postal Service has used its (bi-monthly) Postal Bulletin notices to disseminate information to all post offices regarding the proper treatment of inquiries and indemnity claims arising from the exchange of mail with the Soviet Union. The most recent example of the Postal Service effort to keep post offices properly informed about the handling of inquiries will be contained in Postal Bulletin notice 173-79, to be issued on November 15, 1979. Question 7. Registered mail sent within the United States is signed for by the addressee. Is there a policy within the Soviet Union for signing for registered mail, or can it be signed for by either the addressee or a postal official-depending upon the whim of Soviet postal officials? Answer. This question was asked of Soviet postal officials during bilateral discussions at the UPU Congress in Rio. The Soviet postal officials advised that, although a delivery-to-the-addressee service is provided in the Soviet Union, it was not always possible to obtain the signature of the addressee because there are many households in which all adults are at work during the day. In such cases postal officials are authorized to sign "Advice of Delivery" forms indicating the delivery of a registered item. Question 8. On page 4 of your testimony you cite examples of letters which were brought to the attention of Soviet postal officials at the March, 1979, UPU Executive Council. As you describe these cases, they seem to clearly indicate improprieties on the part of the Soviet Union in not delivering these letters. How do Soviet officials respond when presented with such questions? Answer. The Soviet Union has not responded to any of these letters to date. Postal Service officials brought copies of these letters to the UPU Congress in Rio and during bilateral discussion, asked for a response. The Soviet Postal officials apologized for the delay in responding to these letters and promised to see that we did receive a response. Question 9. I would like to request that the Postal Service keep this Committee informed as to its joint activities with the State Department in preparing for both the pre-UPU Congress conference you describe on page 7 of your statement and for the UPU Congress this fall. Answer. The Department of State was provided with copies of the proposals to amend the UPU Convention. A representative of the Department of State participated in the pre-UPU Congress conference described in the response to question number three. Prior to the departure of the U.S. delegation to the UPU Congress met with representatives from the Human Rights Bureau and from International Organization Affairs at the Department of State for a final review of actions to be taken at the UPU Congress. [Note received by Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman from Alexandr Ginzburg, former Soviet dissident recently allowed to emigrate.] чивать лет ни я ни моя семья по официальной советской почте. Clúrac меня копий писем одного , письма из-за граници США мне и моей собрана несколько тысяч пославных из жене только за два месяца 1978 года. 96TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 58 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should express to the Government of the Soviet Union the disapproval of the American people concerning that Government's systematic nondelivery of international mail addressed to certain persons residing within the Soviet Union and that the United States should bring to the attention of the next Congress of the Universal Postal Union the failure of the Soviet Union to comply with certain articles of the Universal Postal Union. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 26, 1979 Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. HANLEY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil Service CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should express to the Government of the Soviet Union the disapproval of the American people concerning that Government's systematic nondelivery of international mail addressed to certain persons residing within the Soviet Union and that the United States should bring to the attention of the next Congress of the Universal Postal Union the failure of the Soviet Union to comply with certain articles of the Universal Postal Union. Whereas the integrity of the mail service between the United States and the Soviet Union is being called into question by mailers in the United States who assert that postal items are systematically not being delivered to selected addresses in the Soviet Union; Whereas the explanations required under international law and given by the Soviet postal administration in regard to the nondelivery of mail to certain addresses have consistently been untimely or insufficient; Whereas the mail which is not being delivered typically is between family members or persons sharing a religious bond and typically consists of personal correspondence or gifts of articles for personal use; Whereas the nondelivery of mail which is deliverable as addressed and which does not contain prohibited articles is an interference by the Soviet Union with internationally recognized human rights guaranteed to all persons by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Whereas the systematic exclusion of certain persons from international mail services also violates the Convention of the Universal Postal Union and the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress (1) that the President, through the Department of State, should express to the Government of the Soviet 3 4 5 Union the disapproval of the American people— |