FCC Holds--Lightsquared

Floor Speech

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, 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.

Source