[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1674-S1675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 221. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate 
an increase in programming and content on radio that is locally and 
independently produced, to facilitate competition in radio programming, 
radio advertising, and concerts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation 
that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.
  This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I 
have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of 
ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on 
consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
  Last year, I introduced this same legislation, and with the help of a 
wide range of organizations and other Senators, we put this issue on 
the front and center in Congress. I am pleased that a number of 
Committees are looking at this issue and considering holding hearings 
in the coming weeks.
  With these hearings coming up, I want once again to bring this 
proposal to my colleagues attention. And as the Committee process works 
itself forward, I expect that we will discover additional issues to 
address that will strengthen the provisions in my legislation.
  But this legislation is where Congress should begin its efforts to 
promote competition, diversity, and localism in radio.
  I love radio. But, over the last year, I have learned that 
concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry has made 
it difficult for individuals, artists, and organizations to find 
outlets to express their creativity and promote diversity.
  Music and local news carried over the radio can help society to 
consider some of the most serious issues affecting our Nation: issues 
like war and peace, issues like social justice.
  If the already diminishing number of gatekeepers of radio content 
chooses not to air controversial music because it may turn off 
advertisers, one of the most universal mediums to engage in dialogue 
will be lost. Regardless of our point of view, we must retain the 
ability of radio to show the diverse range of voices that form our 
culture.
  I have heard many stories about the effects of this concentration. 
But perhaps the most compelling was at the annual Congressional Black 
Caucus event last year, when two people who have been involved in radio 
for decades told me about the real life importance of diversity in 
radio.
  They spoke about the importance of the locally-owned media that 
helped raise public awareness of the campaign of the late Harold 
Washington to become the first black mayor of Chicago. They said that 
the main avenue for many in the central city to hear about the campaign 
was through locally-owned radio stations.
  If an out-of-State corporation controlled the programming of these 
radio stations, would this political pioneer have received the same 
coverage?
  I have also heard a great deal from religious organizations about how 
consolidation harms their ability to reach out in their communities. 
They have said that we must get to the root of the problem by curbing 
anti-competitive practices that make it difficult for locally-owned, 
independent radio stations to prosper.
  I also learned about the story of Everett Parker, who during the 
civil rights movement of the 1960s was a pioneering defender of public 
interest in broadcasting.
  In Dr. Parker's most famous crusade, he and the United Church of 
Christ went to Jackson, MS, to challenge the license renewals of 
stations that were blocking coverage of the civil rights movement, even 
though African-Americans constituted almost half of the audience.
  By failing to cover the civil rights movement, the station failed all 
of the citizens of Jackson by limiting access to information on issues 
of public importance.
  So, joining with the local NAACP, the group went to the Federal 
Communications Commission and challenged the licenses of the Jackson 
stations. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit, which took away the station's license.
  What makes this case so significant is that it established the right 
of any American to petition the Commission, instead of limiting such 
petitions to commercial interests.
  The radio airwaves continued to be owned by the public. Radio is a 
public medium. It must serve the public good.
  We must promote localism and diversity on our airwaves and crack down 
on anti-competitive practices that are a result of concentration in the 
radio and concert industry.
  We must address negative consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications 
Act, which opened the floodgates for consolidation and led to anti-
consumer and anti-competitive practices.
  Just consider how the rise in ticket prices coincided with the 
passage of the Telecommunications Act. Following the passage of the 
Act, and the resulting consolidation of the radio and concert industry, 
ticket prices went through the roof!
  Before the passage of the 1996 Act, ticket prices were increasing at 
a rate slightly higher than the Consumer Price Index. Following the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased 
at a rate almost 50 percentage points higher than the Consumer Price 
Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices rose by more than 61 
percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by just 13 percent.
  During the debate of the 1996 Act, I joined a number of my colleagues 
in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of 
concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, independent radio 
stations, and local communities.
  Passage of this Act was an unfortunate example of the influence of 
soft money in the political process. I have consistently said that this 
Act was bought and paid for by soft money, by unlimited contributions 
by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political 
parties. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.
  That's why I am pleased to re-introduce this legislation, the 
Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which would reduce the 
levels of concentration and curb some of these anti-competitive 
practices.
  My legislation prohibits those who own radio stations and concert 
promotion services or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership to 
hinder competition in the industry. For example, if an owner of a radio 
station and a promotion service hinders access to the airwaves of a 
rival promoter or artist, then the owner would be subject to penalties.
  My legislation will also help to curb the concentration that leads to 
these anti-competitive practices.
  It would strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the 
FCC to

[[Page S1675]]

scrutinize the mergers of any radio station ownership group that 
reaches more than 60% of the nation.
  My legislation would also curb consolidation on the local level by 
preventing any upward revision of the limitation on multiple ownership 
of radio stations in local markets.
  The bill would also prohibit the current shakedown system, where the 
big radio corporations are said to leverage their market power to 
require payments from artists in exchange for playing their songs. And 
it would also close a loophole that allows large radio ownership 
companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third 
party. In these cases, they control the station through a third party, 
but the stations are not counted against their local ownership cap.
  Songs and ideas should not be broadcast on the radio based on how 
much money has changed hands. Airplay should be based on good songs and 
good ideas what the local audience wants to hear.
  My legislation would slow the levels of concentration and address a 
number of concerns that I have heard from artists and others, although 
it does not address all the issues facing our communities.
  Over the coming months, I hope that my colleagues will give this 
issue their attention, both on the floor and in committee.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that we can 
work together to restore competition to the radio and concert industry 
by putting independent radio stations, local concert promoters, and 
artists on a level playing field.
  People should have choices, listeners should have a diversity of 
options, and Americans should be able to hear new and different voices. 
Radio allows us to connect to our communities, to our culture, and to 
our democracy. It is one of the most vibrant mediums we have for the 
exchange of ideas, and for artistic expression. We must fight to 
preserve it, and together I believe we can do just that.
  Radio is a public medium, and we must ensure that it serves the 
public good. That's a democratic vision of American radio well worth 
fighting for.
                                 ______