[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20116-20117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        FCC HOLDS--LIGHTSQUARED

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the cornerstone of Congress's ability to 
effectively oversee the Federal Government is the free and open access 
to information--in other words, congressional oversight, what I was 
talking about in regard to Fast and Furious.
  On another investigation 231 days ago, on April 27, I made a very 
simple request. I requested that the Federal Communications Commission 
turn over communications regarding its controversial approval of the 
LightSquared project. LightSquared is a company owned by a hedge fund 
called Harbinger Capital Partners that is seeking FCC approval to use 
its satellite spectrum to build a terrestrial wireless network. To 
accomplish its goals, LightSquared has already spent millions of 
dollars on lobbyists and made large political donations.
  The problem is that LightSquared's signals would, according to 
Federal Government tests, cause massive interference with the global 
positioning system, more commonly referred to as GPS. GPS, as you know, 
is a critical tool for anything from military drones and missiles to 
car and ship navigation. LightSquared's initial plan, which the FCC 
conditionally approved,

[[Page 20117]]

would have interfered with just about every single GPS user.
  The surprising fact is that there is no evidence the FCC even tested 
LightSquared's plan before approving it. In fact, the FCC granted this 
waiver--which is estimated to be worth at least $10 billion to 
LightSquared--in a shortened comment period starting right around 
Thanksgiving, 2010. Giving a company a possible $10 billion windfall in 
a holiday-shortened comment period without doing any testing is very 
suspicious. Risking our Nation's GPS assets, including the role they 
play in defending our Nation to accomplish this goal, is downright 
dangerous.
  The question I am asking is, Why would the FCC do this? Of course, to 
get to the bottom of this question I asked the Federal Communications 
Commission for some documents--again, a simple question, a request for 
some information. The FCC, an agency with employees who are supposed to 
work for the American people, said no to my request. My staff was told 
the FCC intentionally ignored my document request. The FCC officials 
said they have determined that they will only be responsive to two 
Members of Congress: the Chairs of the House and Senate Commerce 
Committees, not even to ranking members of those same committees, and, 
of course, not to members of those committees whether you are majority 
or minority. Presumably, they would not even answer to the majority 
leader of the Senate or to the Speaker of the House, but for sure they 
surely are not answering to this senior Senator from Iowa. If you 
happen to be one of the 99.6 of the Congress who doesn't chair one of 
those two committees, from the FCC's point of view, sorry, you are out 
of luck. No documents for you. This attitude is unacceptable. I 
conveyed my concerns to the FCC on July 5 and asked again for 
documents. Again, I was stonewalled. This time the FCC claimed that 
since I cannot subpoena the FCC, it would not respond.
  President Obama committed to run the most transparent administration 
in history. Yet the FCC is saying if you cannot force us to be open, we 
won't do it. I wrote another letter asking the FCC for documents on 
September 8, and again I was stonewalled.
  This brings us to where we are today, 230-some days later. The FCC's 
decision to impede Congress's constitutional duty of oversight has 
forced me to make a difficult decision. I do not take that decision to 
hold up nominees lightly, but I never do it in secret. I always put a 
statement in the Record, and this is in addition to that statement. But 
when an agency flagrantly disregards congressional oversight, something 
must be done.
  Before I publicly announced my intention to hold the nominees, I, 
through staff, contacted the FCC officials. I informed them that if the 
documents were not forthcoming, I would hold up the Federal 
Communication Commission's nominees whom the President sent up here. I 
was surprised and disappointed by their response. Despite knowing my 
intentions, they chose not to provide any documents. As a result, I am 
honoring my promise to hold those nominees.
  It is unfortunate the FCC has chosen this path. Due to the FCC's 
decision to hide its actions from the public and Congress, these 
nominations are now stalled in the Senate. The question I would ask 
today of my colleagues and the President of the Senate is: Why? The FCC 
has already told me it would likely provide these documents if certain 
members--chairmen of committees--asked for them, but somehow 99.6 
percent of the Congress has no right to this information. In other 
words, 99.6 percent of the Members of Congress cannot do their 
constitutional job of oversight of the Federal Communications 
Commission. To paraphrase a very popular slogan these days, I guess 
that makes me part of the 99.6 percent.
  My concern is not just specific to this document request. It is 
broader than that. In the future, any Member of Congress may request 
documents from the FCC. As the courts have put it, every Member has a 
voice and a vote in the process under the Constitution. Each one of us 
has the authority to request and receive information from the executive 
branch in order to inform those votes. That is what our court has said. 
That authority is inherent in each Member's responsibility to 
participate in the legislative process.
  The creation of the committee system and the delegation of certain 
responsibilities to committee chairmen doesn't change that at all. 
Individual Members still have a right, as well as a responsibility, to 
inform themselves by requesting information directly from agencies. For 
Congress to have a complete view of how an agency works, we need to 
have access to documents. Turning off that flow of information 
shortcircuits transparency and hurts accountability.
  In this case, the Federal Communication Commission's actions have 
real- world effects. The FCC's decision to grant a waiver to 
LightSquared created uncertainty for GPS users, and that includes our 
own National Defense Agency, the Department of Defense, and other 
Federal agencies. Another one is the Federal Aviation Administration 
which claims that 800 people would die as a result of LightSquared's 
initially proposed network. To the FAA, the FCC's decision could have 
killed people.
  The Department of Defense wrote a letter to the FCC saying that it 
was not consulted by the FCC. Press reports say that General Shelton--
who heads up GPS for the Armed Forces--said that LightSquared's 
interference would harm the military's use of GPS. To the Department of 
Defense, the Federal Communication Commission's actions would have 
harmed national security.
  These are only two agencies, but the Department of Transportation, 
NASA, and NOAA, among others, have already raised concerns about 
LightSquared's plan. The effects of the FCC's decision are not just 
limited to the Federal Government; they also affect ordinary Americans. 
Here are two examples: For Americans who hope that NextGen air traffic 
control will reduce air traffic delays, the FCC's action would have 
continued to increase air traffic wasting time, fuel, and ultimately 
money for the flying public. For Americans who use precision 
agriculture to save time and money, the FCC's actions would harm the 
accuracy and reliability of their equipment. This again leads to wasted 
energy, lower crop yields, and higher prices for products such as wheat 
and corn. At the end of the day, the FCC's actions would cost the 
American consumers money.
  Does the FCC even care? I don't know. But the agency certainly has 
not provided any evidence that it took any of this information into 
consideration. What we see today is an agency that is completely 
unaccountable and unanswerable to 99.6 percent of the Congress and, by 
extension, the American public. This is simply wrong, and I will 
continue to hold the FCC's nominees until this attitude changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized.

                          ____________________