A bill to exclude from gross income payments from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to the victims of the tragic event, loss of life and limb, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. This bill represents a strong bipartisan effort to strengthen the independence and integrity of our nation's Inspectors General, who represent one of our strongest tools in combating waste, fraud and abuse throughout our government.

When I first came to the Senate this January, I made it one of my top priorities to become actively involved in oversight and accountability in Congress and in the Federal Government. I was thrilled to have been given an appointment to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which is ably run by Chairman Lieberman. I was proud to have been able to cosponsor S. 680, the bill authored by Senator Collins which included not only extensive reforms of Government contracting practices, but also included many provisions geared towards improving the Inspector General system. I must thank Senator Collins especially for working with me on

the Inspector General legislation, which incorporates not only many of her reform ideas, but also those introduced in the House by Representatives Jim Cooper of Tennessee in H.R. 928, which has passed that chamber by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 11.

My 8 years as State Auditor in Missouri has given me tremendous respect for auditors and investigators working to make sure Government is spending our taxpayer dollars wisely. While many people are aware of the great work done by the legislative branch's Government Accountability Office, very few people realize that there are Inspectors General in many of our most important agencies. These IGs report both to the Executive and Legislative branch, and work in the trenches in the agency, constantly ferreting out cases of fraud, waste, abuse, and other mismanagement. Their unique role, resting inside the very agency they are charged with auditing and investigating, often creates unavoidable tensions.

The goal of the first Inspector General Act, passed 30 years ago next year, was to create a system that would allow the IG to rest harmoniously in the agency but allow them to provide oversight of an agency's actions and duties free from interference.

For the most part, this system has worked. But we can do better to assure that Inspectors General are free of intimidation or inappropriate influence by the agencies they oversee. Recent news reports have noted that the CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, is being investigated by his own agency, even though there is no apparent legal authority for such an investigation to take place. The Administrator for the General Services Administration has been openly critical of the GSA IG, and has tried to cut the responsibilities and the budget of that office. The State Department IG has answered charges that he has failed to investigate allegations of contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan with the claim that he has not been provided enough money by his agency to do such an investigation.

Obviously, some changes are needed and our IG reform bill attempts to make them. For example, IGs currently request their budgets through their agencies and then the agency heads determine if that request is appropriate before sending their budgets to the White House and then on to Congress. No one in Congress has the ability to see how much an IG office truly needs to adequately fulfill its oversight duties. Our bill requires that IGs can attach comments to the agency's official budget request if he or she believes the funding the agency requested for its IG is not enough to do the job.

As more Executive agencies move to a pay for performance compensation system, bonuses given by the agency have become a bigger part of the total compensation for employees. Having the agency that you audit decide how much of a bonus you will receive is an obvious, unacceptable conflict of interest for Inspectors General. Many IGs refuse to take a bonus, and those who do accept them have myriad reasons for doing so. However, this practice will be forbidden under the new law. Given the negative impact on the compensation for Inspector General and the need to attract and retain the best and the brightest, the pay of presidentially appointed Inspectors General will be raised one level. For the other Executive IGs, their agencies will be directed to pay them the same or more than the total compensation received by other senior level employees. This system will end the possibility of an agency head trying to entice an IG to go easy on them, or to punish an IG who refuses to do so.

This bill also gives the IGs more security from the fear of losing one's job for the simple reason they are too good. Before any IG can be removed, the congressional committees of jurisdiction must be notified, in writing, of the intent to remove the IG, and the reasons for doing so. This notice must be received at least 30 days before the scheduled removal. Bringing transparency to this process should guarantee that no IG will be removed for the wrong reason.

I want to make sure that the good work of the IGs is readily accessible to the people who pay for it, the taxpayer. I was shocked to realize that many IGs did not post their reports on the web. At least one IG shop didn't even have a website. In this day and age the public, and Congress, should have timely and easy access to all the public reports produced by Inspectors General. This bill requires all reports which are open to the public to be posted on the web within three working days of their release. It also requires all IG shops to provide, on their websites, a method for anonymously reporting waste, fraud or abuse.

Finally, this bill codifies a council for the IGs to have as a resource. This council, which exists now only pursuant to Executive order, would provide a structure for IGs to pool their resources when it would effectively help them perform their mission, such as providing Government-wide training for investigators and auditors. It will also include an Integrity Committee that will investigate allegations made against Inspectors General and certain staff members. Congress would receive periodic reports from this committee on the number of investigations they have undertaken, the results of those investigations, and any action by the agency taken in response to the findings of the committee.

I want to make clear that I am one of the biggest fans of the current cadre of Inspectors General, with very few exceptions. I want to make sure these dedicated public servants are able to perform their duties free from interference. I am very proud to be part of the effort to make sure this happens, and again thank my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn for their hard work and dedication to this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators McCaskill, Lieberman, and Coburn, in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan measure that will help detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in government operations.

This legislation is an important companion to S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007, which the Senate passed last night by unanimous consent. Indeed, many of the reforms in this bill were included in S. 680 in February, when I first introduced that legislation along with Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and McCaskill. At our Committee's markup of S. 680, I recommended that the provisions governing Inspectors General be removed from that bill so that we could work together to improve the effectiveness of our Nation's Inspectors General in a separate legislative vehicle. The legislation we introduce today reflects that collaboration and continues our Committee's strong, bipartisan efforts to improve the effectiveness of Government.

Inspectors General are vital partners in Congress's effort to identify inefficient, ineffective, and improper Government programs. By leveraging the expertise and independence of Inspectors General and their staffs, Congress has been able to identify, and take action to stop, wasteful spending.

Examples of the IGs' invaluable work could be cited in depressingly large numbers, but let me note two efforts that I found particularly striking. In a 6-month period following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the Department of Homeland Security's IG produced 29 reports that included alarming discoveries, including that 63 percent of the DHS purchase-card transactions made during the response had no documentation of goods or services actually being received. The DHS IG investigations helped produce 243 convictions for fraud or related offenses and aided in recovery of millions of taxpayer dollars.

As you will recall, the impressive work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction led to Congress's extending SIGIR's work in that country. The SIGIR reported, among other things, that more than $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed in 2004 could not be accounted for, that hundreds of contracts had problems, and that many projects to restore Iraq's water and electric services would not be completed. The SIGIR's work is estimated to yield taxpayers $25 of benefit for every dollar of cost.

The investigations and reports of IGs throughout the government help Congress shape legislation and oversight activities--improving Government performance, providing important transparency into programs, and giving Americans better value for their tax dollar.

Unfortunately, the past year has produced troubling instances in which the independence of Inspectors General has been challenged within their respective departments. We have also heard allegations of misconduct by some Inspectors General. These alarming examples of pressure and impropriety cannot be tolerated, and the legislation we introduce today is an important first step in clarifying congressional expectations concerning the independence, funding, training, and accountability of the Federal Government's Inspectors General.

The Inspector General Reform Act of 2007 would improve the independence and effectiveness of Inspectors General and contribute to better relations among the IGs, the agencies they serve, and the Congress. These improvements will also help to insulate and protect Inspectors General from inappropriate efforts to hinder their investigations.

First and foremost, the legislation provides a clear manifestation of how Congress believes IGs should be chosen. It amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to explicitly require appointments on the basis of ability and integrity, not political affiliation.

Additional enhancements included in the bill are a mandatory requirement to notify Congress 30 days before the removal of an IG, helping to prevent politically motivated attempts to terminate effective IGs.

A separate budget line for Inspectors General that includes their overall budget and training needs, helping to ensure that these offices are properly funded to perform their important mission.

A pay increase for IGs and a prohibition on cash bonuses or awards. Most IGs already refuse to accept bonuses to avoid an appearance of conflict, with the result that many deputies earn more than the IGs. This provision will improve an IG's influence and independence within an agency while avoiding the appearance of improper influence that bonuses can create.

Authorization for the Government-wide IG Council on Integrity and Efficiency that will ensure appropriate investigations of misconduct or malfeasance by IGs. And finally,

Clarification that the IGs' subpoena authority extends to electronic documents.

The oversight experience of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and many reviews by the Government Accountability Office have confirmed the vital importance of the Inspector General function

in our system of Government. By addressing identified shortcomings and further insulating IGs from inappropriate influence, the legislation we introduce today will make a critical function of Government even more effective. I urge my colleagues to support its prompt consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators McCaskill, Collins, and Coburn today in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. This bipartisan bill reflects the broad Congressional support for the outstanding work of our Inspectors General and our desire to ensure that these important and unique government officials are given the tools and the accountability to perform at their very best.

It has been almost 30 years since Congress, as part of its post- Watergate reforms, passed the Inspectors General Act of 1978 that created an office of Inspector General in 12 major departments and agencies to hold those agencies accountable to the public interest and report back both to the agency heads and Congress on their findings. The law was amended in 1988 to add an Inspector General to almost all Executive agencies and departments.

The experiment has been a great success, hailed as a sort of consumer protector for the taxpayer deep within each agency. According to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, last year alone IG audits resulted in $9.9 billion in potential savings and another $6.8 billion in savings when the results of civil and criminal investigations are added in.

Some of the IGs' work lands on the front page--exposing major shortcomings in government practices and official conduct. Most of it unfolds more quietly, but is just as critical in helping Federal agencies establish effective and efficient programs that make the most of the taxpayers' hard earned dollars.

Over the years, we have become aware of several instances where the independence of Inspectors General appears to be threatened. It is vital that Congress reiterate its strong support for the internal oversight IGs can provide and ensure they have the independence they need to carry out this vital, but often unpopular work.

Unfortunately, we are also aware of instances in which the watchdog needs watching--that is, situations where the Inspector General has behaved improperly or failed to provide vigorous oversight.

This legislation attempts to address both problems.

It includes an array of measures designed to strengthen the independence of the Inspectors General, such as requiring the administration to notify Congress 30 days before attempting to remove or transfer an IG. This would give us time to consider whether the administration was improperly seeking to displace an Inspector General for political reasons because the IG was, in effect, doing his or her job too well. It requires that all IGs be chosen on the basis of qualifications, without regard to political affiliation.

The legislation would codify and strengthen the existing IG councils, creating a unitary council that can provide greater support for IGs throughout the Government.

The bill would provide greater transparency of IG budget needs, including funds for training and council activities, to help ensure the IG offices have the resources they need for their investigations.

Most IGs would also receive a pay raise, to reflect the importance of the work they do and their proper stature within an agency. Currently, some IGs earn less than other senior officials in their agency and sometimes even less than some of their subordinates. However, we also prohibit bonuses for IGs, to remove a potential avenue for improper influence by the agency head.

Our bill also enhances IG accountability by strengthening the Integrity Committee that handles allegations against Inspectors General and their senior staff, and facilitating greater oversight of Integrity Committee by Congress.

The bill also ensures that the Inspector General of the Justice Department will have the authority, shared by other IGs, to investigate misconduct of any Departmental employee.

The House has already voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation addressing many of these same issues. It is time for the Senate to follow suit. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy and common sense piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Media Ownership Act of 2007, along with Senators Lott, Obama, Snowe, Kerry, Nelson of Florida, Cantwell, and Feinstein. We seek with this bill to halt the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, fast

march toward easing media ownership rules.

The FCC has taken a series of destructive actions in the past two decades that, I believe, have undermined the public interest. Now they appear prepared to do it again. The FCC is working to have a rewrite of media ownership rules completed just next month. Now this seems like a massive rush to me and a big mistake. How will the public interest be served by attempting to rush through a plan to relax ownership rules?

We don't need more concentration of ownership in radio and television stations and a green light for cross ownership between newspapers, radio and television stations. Further consolidation of media ownership at all is an affront to common sense. But even if we disagree with the rules the FCC issues, and even if we think the FCC should break up the big media companies rather than allow them to consolidate, the FCC must go through an honest and thorough process. They must study the questions that affect a decision of whether to adjust ownership limits. They have not done this. They have not put the final rules out for comment for a meaningful amount of time, they have not given the necessary consideration to the issue of localism, and they do not know enough about the impact of consolidation on localism or female and minority ownership.

The Media Ownership Act of 2007 ensures that the FCC allow enough time for comment on the actual rule changes. It requires that the FCC put out the final rules proposed by the Commission for 90 days of comment.

The bill also requires that the FCC complete a separate proceeding on the promotion of local programming and content by broadcasters and newspapers. In 2003, Chairman Powell set up a task force to promote localism in broadcasting and they began some hearings and took in comments. Chairman Martin has wrapped those comments into this ownership proceeding and is finishing the last localism hearing as part of this rushed schedule. The bill requires that they must publish a final rule in a separate proceeding and allow 90 days of comment. This must be completed prior to the vote on ownership.

The bill requires that the FCC establish an Independent Panel on Ownership by Women and Minorities. The FCC must collect and provide this panel with data on the specific gender and ethnic makeup of media owners. The panel shall issue recommendations and the FCC must act on these recommendations prior to a vote on media ownership.

The last time the FCC tried to do rush to consolidate media ownership, the United States Senate voted to block it. On September 16, 2003, the Senate voted 55-40 to support a ``resolution of disapproval'' of the FCC's previous decision to allow further concentration. If we have to do this again we will. A number of us have sent numerous letters to the FCC stating what needs to be done prior to a vote on media ownership limits and yet the Chairman is on track to move this proceeding to a vote. The FCC is clearly not listening and legislation is now necessary.

This is again a bipartisan effort to stop the FCC from destroying the local interests that we have always felt must be a part of broadcasting.

It is time to ensure that we first protect localism and diversity, which the FCC appears to have long forgotten. Only then can we really review the rules of media ownership in a thorough process to see if it is actually in the public interest to reverse any of those rules, or if greater public interest protections are necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will, I hope, help provide some measure of assistance to those family members who lost loved ones and to those who suffered wounds as a consequence of the horrific shootings that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Tech. I am pleased to have my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, as a cosponsor of this legislation.

In the aftermath of that tragic day, where 32 lives of promise were forever cut short, over 20,000 individuals and groups across the country demonstrated their support for the victims and their families with generous financial donations that totaled approximately $7.5 million. Virginia Tech established the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund within the Virginia Tech Foundation to accept these charitable contributions. The Hokie Spirit Fund distribution plan offers families of the 32 individuals who lost their lives a choice of receiving proceeds from the Fund or dividing those proceeds between a cash payment and a scholarship in the victim's name. Injured victims are also eligible for Fund proceeds. On October 30, 2007, the University officially distributed these funds to the 79 families and individuals in accordance with the protocols established. While no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss of life or limb, these payments provide both the families of the deceased and the injured survivors with some financial resources to help, in some modest way.

Unfortunately, Federal law is not clear as to whether these payments are subject to Federal taxation. In my view, not only does precedent indicate that these types of payments should be free of Federal income tax, common sense concurs. Accordingly, the legislation that Senator Webb and I introduce today makes it clear that any payments by Virginia Tech from the Hokie Spirit Fund in conjunction with the April 16, 2007, shooting at Virginia Tech should not be taxable for Federal purposes.

It is my hope that the Congress will expeditiously pass this important legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.