Media Ownership Act of 2007

Mr. President, about 2 hours ago, the Commerce Committee of the Senate took some action on a bill I offered along with my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi. I wish to talk about the Media Ownership Act of 2007 for just a moment. I hope, perhaps, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission may take note and watch what the Commerce Committee did.

This issue is very important. It has been around for a long time. It deals with media concentration. Some years ago--in 2003--the then- Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell, rounded up two other votes and by a vote of three to two passed a new FCC rule allowing a relaxation of ownership limits for television and radio stations, and for newspapers, and here is what they concluded back then. It is almost unbelievable. They said it will be OK with them if, in the largest American cities, one company owned eight radio stations, three television stations, the newspaper, and the cable company--they would all be owned by the same company. They said that would be just dandy.

Well, the fact is, it was not fine with me, and I fought it. Senator Lott joined me back then. We offered a resolution of disapproval of the FCC rule and it passed the Senate. In the meantime, the Federal court of appeals stayed the rule, and so the rule never went into effect. But it was unbelievable to me that the Federal Communications Commission thought that what we really needed in this country was more concentration in the media.

Well, the idea is not dead. The current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission came up recently with an idea of relaxing ownership rules, and he announced--in an op-ed piece in the New York Times and then in a press release he was going to propose a new set of rules that relax the ownership restrictions. So he said: We are going to announce the rule in November, and I am going to ask for a final FCC vote by December 18.

He says his proposed rule is a real compromise. It is going to allow the ownership of the newspaper and a television station in each of the 20 largest markets in our country. These top 20 markets, by the way, cover one-half of the population of America. He will relax the ban that exists on cross-ownership between newspapers and television stations.

Now, I do not know that anybody is lying awake at night in this country thinking about our most serious problems and deciding that one of the biggest problems in America is that newspapers are not allowed to buy television stations. We have a cross- ownership ban for good reason, in my judgment, but apparently the Chairman of the FCC has been lying awake thinking: We have to fix this. So he has come up with a rule that says: Well, let's let newspapers buy television stations.

We just passed a bill, S. 2332, over in the Commerce Committee that would stop what the FCC is doing and would not allow them to proceed with the December 18 date. It would require that the American public be allowed to weigh in on these issues. We say in our bill that passed unanimously in the Commerce Committee that you have to have a process that is fair to the American public. You cannot decide to announce, ``Here is my rule,'' in November, and then drive it through to a conclusion in December.

The Chairman says: Well, but we had six hearings around the country. We did this. We did that. None of those hearings would have given people an opportunity to comment on this rule because the rule did not exist when he held the hearings. He waited until the hearings were all done and then announced the rule and then has tried to jam this home by December 18. That is what the Chairman is trying to do. It is unfair, and it makes no sense.

With respect to concentration in the media, let me say this: I do not think it has served this country's interest to have the concentration in radio and television, and it certainly does not serve this country's interest to decide that we ought to allow the newspapers now to buy the television stations. I think that concentration is injurious to this democracy. We need the free flow of information.

It is interesting, most of what people will see, hear, and read in America today--Tuesday, December 4--will be controlled by about five or six major corporations with respect to television, the Internet, radio, and the newspapers. About five or six major corporations in this country have a substantial amount of control of what kind of information is available to the American people. And some believe there needs to be greater concentration?

We held a hearing recently in the Senate Commerce Committee, and the Parents Television Council, which is considered to be on the right side of the political spectrum, came and weighed in with opposition to the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission. The witness was from Los Angeles. He said: I have in my office in Los Angeles, CA basic advanced tier cable where I get 48 channels. But he said: That isn't 48 different voices. Then he went down the list of who controls those channels--Time Warner, etc. He just went down the list of the 4 or 5 or 6 big companies that control those 40-some channels.

So it goes back to what I have said for long time. When the FCC is trying to relax these ownership rules, they say: Well, you now have a lot more choices. You have more channels. You have more networks. You have more Internet sites. My response was: Yes, there are more voices from the same ventriloquist. Really, this country is not, in my judgment, served well by a Federal Communications Commission that is just hell bent on deciding: We need to have greater concentration in radio, television, or newspapers.

Now, take a look at what has happened with radio concentration. In one town in North Dakota--a town of about 40,000 or 50,000 people--one company

bought up all of the radio stations--all 6 of them. All six commercial stations were bought by one company from Texas. Does that make sense? It does not to me. The FCC said it was just fine. So what happens with respect to news-gathering in that town? Well, you end up with fewer newspeople because when one company owns all the stations, they just consolidate it all.

There is a real dispute about the story I'm about to tell you and I do not know that anybody has ever gotten to the bottom of it. I have seen so many different stories. Late at night--at 2 in the morning--a train came through Minot, ND, and with anhydrous ammonia cars, derailed, went off the tracks, split some anhydrous ammonia cars, and this deadly plume enveloped the city at 2 a.m. It caused a death, and caused many injuries. Many went to the hospital. It caused great fright among the population, not knowing what was happening. We discovered later it was a great danger to the population. Well, the emergency broadcast function somehow did not work. But notwithstanding the fact the system did not work, the townspeople could not get anybody to answer the telephone at the local radio station. All the commercial stations were owned by the same company from another State. One wonders, what if those stations were owned by individual operators who lived in town? Do you think they would be able to track somebody down? I think so.

Now, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is galloping off to relax media ownership rules because he thinks that is really what is necessary. I met with him today, and I said: What is really necessary--he knows this because Senator Lott and I have both told him--is to do first things first; one, do a proceeding on localism to find out: How has all of this concentration affected localism? That is, we provide free licenses to use the airwaves for television and radio, in exchange for which they are responsible to serve local interests.

So do we know what they are doing? No. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has admitted to me they do not know how many stations are using a service called voice-tracking. I will give you an example of voice tracking:

You are driving down the road on a bright Tuesday morning in Salt Lake City, UT, and you have the radio on and after the song ends, the disc jockey comes on and says, ``It is a great morning here in Salt Lake City. We have the Sun coming up over the mountains. We have a blue sky. We have a light 5-mile-an-hour wind. We are going to have a wonderful day, aren't we?''

It turns out the guy is broadcasting from a basement studio in Baltimore, MD, pretending he is in Salt Lake City, simply ripping information from the Internet to say: It is a bright, sunny day here in Salt Lake City. That is called voice tracking. Does that serve local interests? It sure does not. So how many stations do this? How prevalent is that practice? Don't know. Neither does the FCC.

How about starting a proceeding on localism to find out whether those who are using the public airwaves, free of charge--airwaves that belong to the American public, not the licensees--how about finding out how they are serving local interests? Or how about a proceeding dealing with public interest standards because there are public interest requirements for the holding of a license for television and radio broadcasting?

How about first things first? Why the rush to provide more concentration allowing cross-ownership of television stations with newspapers? The Chairman would say: Well, I am not trying to do more concentration in radio and television; I am trying to allow newspapers now to begin buying television stations. Why? Well, he said the newspapers are not doing very well. I said: When did it become the job of the Federal Communications Commission to be the bookkeeper for newspapers? My understanding about newspapers is they used to have a higher profit margin. Now it has dropped to 16 to 18 percent profit margins--pretty good profit compared to all other industries. All of a sudden, the FCC thinks the newspapers are having financial trouble and so they should relax the rules to allow cross-ownership? I just think it is wrong.

Senator Lott and I offered the Media Ownership Act of 2007 today in the Commerce Committee. That bill was agreed to unanimously.

My hope is that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is watching and listening because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, says no to further relaxing the controls on cross-ownership. And this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, I feel, strongly believes we have too much concentration in the media. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission believes, apparently, we need more. He is just dead wrong.

My hope is that in the coming couple of weeks he will understand that it would not be the best course for the Federal Communications Commission. It would be wise for the Chairman to decide not to advance to a December 18 final vote on the rule he is proposing. It is not in the public interest. It is not doing what the FCC should do. My hope is he will instead open a public-interest proceeding and open a localism proceeding and finish them to their conclusion and do a good job on them. That would be a public service for this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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, on March 5, 2008, I introduced a joint resolution of disapproval stating that the December 18, 2007, vote by the Federal Communications Commission to loosen the ban on cross- ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations shall have no force or effect. I am joined by Senators Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Dodd, Stevens, Obama, Harkin, Clinton, Cantwell, Biden, Reed, Feinstein, Sanders, Tester, Leahy, Feingold, and Boxer. We seek with this resolution of disapproval to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, fast march to ease 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. On December 18, 2007, they took yet another step in the wrong direction. They gave a further green light to media concentration.

The FCC voted to allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the top 20 markets, with loopholes for mergers outside of the top 20 markets. The newspapers would be allowed to buy stations ranked above fifth and above.

The rule change was framed as a modest compromise. But make no mistake, this is a big deal. As much as 44 percent of the population lives in the top 20 markets of the United States. When nearly half of the people in this country are told that in their cities and towns the media will get the thumbs up to consolidate, they will not be happy. And with the loopholes in the rule, the FCC spurs a new wave of media consolidation in both large and small media markets.

The last time the FCC tried to do this, the U.S. Senate voted to block it. On September 16, 2003, the Senate voted 55 to 40 to support a ``resolution of disapproval'' of the FCC's previous decision to further consolidate media. We warned Chairman Martin that if he rushed this vote we would have to use the resolution of disapproval again.

On December 4th the Commerce Committee reported out the bipartisan ``Media Ownership Act of 2007,'' S. 2332 with 25 co-sponsors, requiring the FCC to give more time for public comment and study the issues of localism and diversity. The Chairman overlooked this bill.

On the day before the vote, 27 Senators sent them a letter in opposition to such a rushed vote on the rules. He went ahead anyway.

The FCC rushed towards a December 18th vote with a complete disregard for the process, let alone the substance of their ruling.

They rushed to finish the localism and ownership hearings with as little as 5 business days of notice before the last hearings.

The Chairman put out the proposed rule changes on November 13th in a New York Times op-ed--after the comment period had closed.

He then didn't give the public nearly enough opportunity to comment on the actual rule changes that were voted on. He gave the public just 28 days to comment on the proposed rules. While he likes to speak of giving 120 days and six hearings around the country, this was prior to the announcement of what rules would actually change. And he ignored the public testimony anyway.

This was hardly an open and deliberative process. It is a massive rush and a big mistake.

This rule will undercut localism and diversity of ownership around the country. Studies show that removing the ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership results in a net loss in the amount of local news produced in the market as a whole. In addition, while the FCC suggests that cross-ownership is necessary to save failing newspapers, the publicly traded newspapers earn annual rates of return between 16 and 18 percent.

This Resolution of Disapproval will ensure this rule change has no effect. 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 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.