[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 79 (Monday, June 2, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4770-H4776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN MEDIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are now going to be
discussing, which is the concentration of ownership in the media and
the implication of more media deregulation as proposed by the Bush
administration and passed today by a three to two vote by the Federal
Communications Commission, the FCC, is, to my mind, one of the very
most important issues facing our country.
The reason for that is very clear. Today, we have a handful of very
large corporations who, to a very significant degree, control what we
see, hear and read; and I think this chart tells the story, and it is a
story that not a lot of Americans are totally familiar with.
When people watch television they say, well, there is CBS, there is a
company called CBS. Wrong. CBS is owned by Viacom, and Viacom owns not
only the CBS network but UPN Network, MTV, Nickelodeon and many other
television networks. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, MTV Films,
Nickelodeon Films. They own Simon & Shuster, Nickelodeon Books, Pocket
Books, Scribner, Touchstone, heavy into publishing.
Viacom owns not only television and film and book publishing, they
own 180 Infinity radio stations; they own television stations. And that
is the same story that we see with all of the major media
conglomerates, whether it is AOL Time Warner, which is heavy into the
Internet, cable TV, TV networks; whether it is Rupert Murdoch's news
corporation, owning 22 TV stations, owning Fox, owning various other
types of publications. Clear Channel radio now owns 1,200 radio
stations. Disney, that is the Mickey Mouse company, owns ABC; they own
many, many other aspects of media.
And as bad as the situation is today with a handful, it is likely to
become much worse as a result of the disastrous decision, three-to-two
vote, by the FCC earlier today.
In terms of national concentration as a result of this vote, a
national television network, we believe, may now be able to acquire
dozens of lawful broadcaster stations and control up to 90 percent of
the national television market. As a result of the decision today, as
we understand it, a single corporation may now acquire in one city up
to three television station, eight radio stations, the cable TV system,
numerous cable TV stations and the only daily newspaper.
I come from a rural State, the State of Vermont, and what we are
going to see in rural America, in small city after small city, town
after town, is one company owning the radio station, the television
station and the newspaper; and that does not to me seem and feel like
the democratic Nation that we are supposed to be, because what
democracy is about and what the framers of our Constitution had in mind
is a strong First Amendment, a country where people had different
ideas, and those ideas clashed, and we learned from the differing
points of view.
Today, increasingly, we are hearing one point of view, and that is
the corporate point of view, the point of view of large multinational
corporations like General Electric who owns NBC or Disney who owns ABC,
who have deeply vested conflicts of interest; and we will talk more
about that later.
The key issue here is, do we think it is a healthy situation for a
democracy to have a handful of huge, multibillion dollar conglomerates
owning and controlling what the American people see, hear and read. I
think it is not healthy.
There are many conservative organizations who, like the National
Rifle Association, spoke out against it; Bill Safire, conservative
columnist for New York Times; Trent Lott, conservative Senator, spoke
out against it. Progressives, moderates, conservatives understand and
appreciate that democracy is not about a handful of corporations
controlling the media.
I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen),
and I want to thank him for all of his good work on this issue.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am
pleased to be here tonight.
This was a very important decision that the FCC made today on a
three-to-two party line vote, and I found one of the significant
aspects of the decision was that it was made in spite of what the
newspaper says is 500,000 comments in opposition, and it would have
been fairly simple for the FCC to agree to hold a hearing, absolutely
just to have a hearing so that people could speak out in public. But
that is not way the chairman, Mr. Powell, decided to proceed. He wanted
this over and done as quickly as possible so that it did not become an
issue.
It has not become a major issue in the major networks. I wonder why.
Could it be that perhaps all those broadcasters, who pride themselves
on their independence, are a little uneasy about telling a story that
might be critical of their ownership? There is, as my colleague
mentioned, increasing concentration in the major news organizations.
It was just 1996 when the Telecommunications Act was passed. If we
added together the two largest groups of owners of radio stations in
the country, their collective ownership would come to, I think it was
something like 214. I may have that a little wrong. That may be too
high, but no more than 214 radio stations across the country. Today,
Clear Channel alone owns 1,200 radio stations, and yesterday and
Saturday evening Garrison Keillor on Public Radio had a comment about
this.
He was doing a little skit there, talking with someone who appeared
to be complaining about Clear Channel Communications and changing over
a local broadcast channel to Clear Channel. And he said, Look, Clear
Channel owns 1,200 radio stations in this country; we cannot expect
them to have a human being in every single radio station.
[[Page H4771]]
That is the point. Those who have been advocating this, like Mr.
Powell at the FCC, would say, Well, there will be inefficiencies of
scale. There will be inefficiencies, and it will jeopardize the ability
of small businesses to start up, to own radio stations.
{time} 2130
It will jeopardize the ability of people in a local area to hear
local news, not something that is canned, prerecorded, from somewhere
else in the country. This decision is basically starting to strangle
the diversity of opinion that is fundamental to a democracy. It is
ultimately a very dangerous decision; and we in the Congress,
Republicans and Democrats, need to stand up and say that at the core of
this democracy, what makes it work is diversity of opinion.
Thomas Jefferson said a long time ago, if I were given a choice
between having newspapers and no government, or government and no
newspapers, I should not hesitate to choose newspapers and no
government. Obviously, we need both; but the media is, in all of its
different forms today, absolutely fundamental to the health of this
democracy. And with this decision today, the FCC has made our democracy
weaker. It is a bad decision, and the Congress should reverse it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has
long been involved in this issue, and we are pleased to have him with
us this evening.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), on his leadership, his unparalleled
leadership here in the Congress on the issue of a fair media, a diverse
media with diverse programming, and a competitive media where a small
number of large corporations do not make the decisions about
information that the public and our country sees and hears.
As the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) said, it was a 3-2 party line
decision, similar to so much of what has happened from the Supreme
Court in the year 2000 Presidential election, to vote after vote in
this body. The Bush administration, the Bush Federal Communication
Commission has thrown sound public interest and market principles out
the window, allowing America's biggest companies to decide what you
hear, when you hear it, what you see, and, in some ways, what you
think.
Without a doubt, when you look at the kind of response that the FCC
got to this issue, you can see that it really was back-room politics at
its worst, as the gentleman from Maine mentioned, 500,000 postcards and
e-mail messages almost uniformly against this rule change. A number of
comments were examined by a group, a group called the Future of Music
Coalition, a group representing artists from country music to rock and
roll, artists that almost everyone in this country listens to. They
released a report after examining 10,000 comments at random from the
FCC that were made public on its Web site; and 9,065 of these 10,000,
unaffiliated with any corporate media these 10,000, and 9,065 said they
were opposed to changing the resume. Only 11 individuals wrote in
support of the FCC.
So on one side there were 9,065; on the other side 11 people. It was
a ratio of 824 to 1. Nonetheless, the three Republican commissioners
voted with the 11 rather than 9,065. As I said, 500,000 postcards were
received overall, and they were equally uniformly against this rule
change.
As we said, it was another back-room deal. It only fuels the public
perception that the Bush administration has a policy of giving
corporations what they want regardless of consequences to the Nation.
Enron writes energy policy for this administration. Wall Street writes
Social Security privatization legislation. The insurance companies
write Medicare legislation. The drug industry writes legislation
overseeing the drug industry. It is issue after issue after issue. The
chemical companies and the oil companies write legislation dealing with
the environment.
About 2 weeks ago, the group of us who opposed this rule, a group of
about 15 Democratic Members of Congress and an Independent, held a news
conference, a news conference which, if that many Members of Congress
put one on almost always is attended by The New York Times; The
Washington Post; the L.A. Times; a couple of networks, AP, Fox,
perhaps. A whole group of what we would call the corporate media. And
we held this news conference in the middle of the day when the media
were not that busy, yet we had zero turnout from those corporate media.
Congress Daily, a couple of in-house newspapers around here showed up;
but none of the big corporate media, none of the mainstream, quoted-
unquote mainstream, generally corporate-owned conservative media in
this Nation showed up.
That tells you a little bit about how much press coverage they really
want for this. The large corporate media in this country do not really
want the public to think about this, do not really want the public to
know about this because they are the ones lobbying the FCC, they are
the ones contributing to President Bush's campaign, they are the ones
that contribute to Republican campaigns and Republican leadership; and
they want their way with the FCC. Their way with the FCC is fewer
companies, fewer corporations controlling the largest amount of media
in this country, 1,200 radio stations owned by one company. The CEO of
that company, the leaders of that company, good friends of the
President from San Antonio, Texas.
It makes you wonder if the FCC is maybe next week, after this
decision, going to change its name to instead of the Federal
Communications Commission, FCC, maybe to Furthering Corporate Control.
Because furthering corporate control is what they have done. They have
clearly acted against the public interest.
I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they really
do believe in competition, if they believe in diversity, if they
believe in a competitive leveling of the playing field in America like
they say they do, then we should enact legislation undoing this FCC
ruling.
I thank my friend from Vermont for his terrific leadership.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio could remain
for a moment on this issue, because I want to dialogue with him on
something that is interesting.
I think there may be citizens of our country who think, well, yes,
this is an inside-the-Beltway issue; it really does not affect me very,
very much. But I want to mention to my friend from Ohio on issues that
I know he and I share similar concerns just what the implications of
concentration of media are.
I know that my friend from Ohio is deeply concerned about our trade
policy, a policy which now has over a $400 billion trade deficit, a
policy which has cost this country millions of decent-paying jobs as
large corporations throw American workers out on the street, move to
China, move to Mexico.
I would ask my friend from Ohio, how often has he seen discussions of
the issue of the deindustrialization of America and the loss of good
paying jobs on television or in the editorial pages of newspapers?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is a very good question, and the answer is,
rarely or never. The more detailed answer is lots of discussion about
tax cuts, lots of discussion about Laci Peterson, lots of discussion
about issues that really do not affect people's lives, but almost no
discussion about York Manufacturing in my district, 400 good-paying
jobs, closed shop, moved to Mexico. Little discussion about trade
policy generally.
In fact, if my colleague will remember, during the NAFTA debate, some
of us did some surveys of editorials in this country; and we found that
editorial opinion was almost unanimous in support of the North American
Free Trade Agreement, even though poll after poll after poll showed the
majority of the public opposed it. The largest newspaper in the country
that opposed NAFTA was the Toledo Blade, a fine newspaper in northwest
Ohio, but perhaps the 50th or 60th size newspaper in the country, I am
not sure, but clearly not one of the largest newspapers in the country.
But that was the largest newspaper that actually opposed NAFTA.
But it is not just the editorial policy. We also did surveys of The
Washington Post; and if there is a corporate-controlled medium in this
country, it is it;
[[Page H4772]]
and The Washington Post op-ed pages were overwhelmingly in support of
the North American Free Trade Agreement even though we sent in numerous
articles. And to add to that, the Democratic whip, the majority whip,
sent a letter to the editor of The Washington Post in those days
outlining the number of articles, editorial opinions in support of
NAFTA and against NAFTA; and they actually censored his letter to the
editor and said we are not going to run that part, we will only run
another part.
So it is pretty clear that the editorial page, the other opinion
articles, the letters to the editor, and even the news coverage is
slanted towards a corporate media, because that is what it is. It is a
large corporation. Of course, just like General Motors is a
conservative company, they care about their profits, The Washington
Post, The New York Times, and all these corporate media are similar.
Mr. SANDERS. Just dealing with General Electric, the point here again
is that sometimes people turn on the television and they say there is
NBC. Well, no, it is not NBC. This is a subsidiary of General Electric.
For many, many years, General Electric has been an anti-union
company. The fact of the matter is that if you are a member of a union
in the United States today, you earn approximately 25 percent more than
an American worker doing similar work who is not a member of a union.
That is just a fact.
I would ask my friend from Ohio how often he has seen programs on
General Electric's media or in fact any other media talking about the
advantages of being a member of a union? Now, I myself have never seen
a program like that. Maybe my friend has.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Well, I come from an area, Ohio, which is a pretty
unionized State, but I do not see them there either. My colleague comes
from a State that is a little more rural; maybe you would not see it
there. You would think you would see it in Ohio, but you do not see it
in Ohio. It is pretty clear there are not a lot of labor unions owning
newspapers or owning radio stations.
There is a show once a week out of a Cleveland radio station, a small
part of this radio station, that talks about unions and has a pro-union
moderator. That is the only show I have heard, and that is 1 hour on
one station out of 15 stations or so and maybe 20 stations in greater
Cleveland. Half of those stations are owned by the President's friend
from San Antonio, which is becoming less and less diverse in its
programming, more and more single minded, more and more conservative in
its politics; and it is continuing to move in that direction.
But little or no discussion about the struggles people have, about
unions, about work, about trade policy, about feeding their kids. Few
shows devoted to single parents trying to struggle through life. Lots
of shows about glamour, lots of shows about the rich, lots of shows
about tax cuts; but nothing about the struggles of every day people.
Mr. SANDERS. I think my friend from Ohio put his finger right on the
issue, and that is in our country today, there are tens of millions of
families who are struggling hard to keep their heads above water. These
are people in my State, and I am sure in Ohio, who are not working one
job; they are working two jobs, three jobs. They are working 50, 60
hours a week. They are worried about their pensions, worried about
their health care situation. It would seem to me that the media might
want to focus on those issues.
I have the feeling in the back of my head that truthfully General
Electric is not particularly anxious to educate people on those issues;
not to talk about the horrendously unfair distribution of wealth and
income that we have in this country; not to talk about the fact that
the United States is the only Nation in the industrialized world that
does not guarantee health care for all people; not to talk about the
fact that our pharmaceutical prices are by far the highest prices in
the world because we are the only Nation that does not regulate the
pharmaceutical industry.
So the point that I am making here is that I do not want anyone to
think this is some kind of abstract, obtuse, inside-the-Beltway issue
that does not affect their lives. It does affect their lives. The
media, to a significant degree, ignores the struggles and the needs of
working families throughout this country, not giving them the
information they need.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. My friend from Vermont mentions the drug
companies. Now, the drug companies, how often in the newspapers or in
TV or radio shows do we hear, unless maybe they quote one of us, and
there are not that many of us talking about that, that the drug
industry is the most profitable industry in America for 20 years
straight; that they pay the lowest tax rate in America for 20 years
straight; that taxpayers do almost half of all the research and
development on prescription drugs; that Canada's prices are one-half or
one-third what they are in the United States; that we are the only
country in the world that does not do something to regulate or lower or
try to push down drug prices? Not one story ever, almost never a story
about that.
Rarely is there a story about why drugs are cheaper in Canada, what
the Canadian Government does. Rarely is there a story about what the
French or the British or the Germans or the Japanese or the Israelis do
to get drug prices down. There are a lot of advertisements on all those
stations about prescription drugs, about arthritis drugs, about asthma
drugs, about cholesterol-reducing drugs; and all that stuff is good
information for the public, but millions, actually billions, of dollars
going into the pockets of these corporations that own the media and few
if any stories about how the drug companies really rip off the American
public.
When you think about that, all this money coming in to these
corporations to advertise, of course they are not going to bite the
hand that feeds them. Of course they are not going to expose the drug
companies' kind of practices and decision-making. Of course they are
not going to talk about 600 lobbyists in this town alone lobbying the
United States Congress. Of course they are not going to talk about the
$15 million that the drug companies are going to spend in my own State,
in one State, to try to kill a ballot issue and to keep it off the
ballot. Of course they are not going to do any of this because they are
getting so much money from the drug companies.
I do not accuse the media of being sleazy for that. That is probably
a good business practice. But what I accuse as sleazy is the way they
lobby the FCC and get the three Republicans on the FCC to do their
bidding, to do whatever corporate America wants. That is what is
outrageous.
So point the finger at the drug industry and some of the media; but
more importantly, point the finger at the people on the other side of
the aisle, the Republicans, who stand by these decisions and do
whatever corporate America wants them to.
{time} 2145
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman organizing this
special order on a dark day for American democracy, because today the
FCC, in almost a little hidden cabinet without taking adequate input
from the American public, struck a low blow for information going to
Americans.
I have come to the floor because I am hopeful that the U.S. House
will listen to the thousands of Democrats and Republicans who have
barraged the FCC with e-mails and letters that were ignored, and will
come to the rescue and change this rule in a way that is good for
democracy.
Since the FCC proposed this rule, they wanted to keep this as quiet
as possible. They wanted to sweep it under the rug. They wanted as few
Americans as possible to know what they were doing to America's
broadcast rights. What they did was they decided to have the
statutorily minimum number of hearings in a minimally accessible place,
so they had one hearing in Virginia.
Now to put this in context, when the Forest Service thought about
changing a rule regarding the forest, they had 600 hearings around
America so Americans could let Congress know what was going on.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and some people in Seattle
initiated a public meeting in Seattle.
[[Page H4773]]
Mr. INSLEE. And 350 people turned out, essentially spontaneously,
with about 48 hours' notice to tar and feather the FCC commissioners
who were going to ram this down their throats, and these folks were
very, very angry. And the reason they were angry was, they understood
the game being played by the FCC here. People are sophisticated enough
to get this.
The argument has been made if the anticonsolidation rules are
removed, we would have a plethora of new stations to listen to, and
radio is frequently used as an example. They say, There are still a lot
of radio stations out there, which is true, but what Americans
understand and what people in Seattle were so upset about, they realize
there might be a lot of stations, but they are owned by the same
people. One company owns 1,200 radio stations. Before these rules were
relaxed, the most radio stations owned by one company was 65.
It does not matter if we have 20 hoses all coming from the same
spigot, and that is the situation that the FCC is allowing to take
place.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, when people go to a newsstand and they see
hundreds, if not thousands, of magazines, they say, Wow, look at the
diversity of opinion. And we all know there are hundreds and hundreds
of television stations out there.
I would remind the gentleman that in the last days of the Soviet
Union, which was a totalitarian society, some people had the impression
that there was one newspaper and one television station and one radio
station. Wrong. There were hundreds, if not thousands. The only problem
was that all of them were either controlled by the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union or the government of the Soviet Union.
The gentleman's point exactly. All kinds of outlets; the problem is,
controlled by, in that case, two institutions.
Well, we do not have two institutions, we have more, six, eight, nine
institutions. But every day, and as a result of this deregulation
effort, that number is going to be smaller and smaller. So do not kid
yourself when you say hundreds of television stations and radio
stations; ask who owns them.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in response to this, and we have heard the
response of the FCC who pushed through this rule, their response is we
do not know that is going to happen. We do not know that consolidation
is going to take place.
I do not think that it is rocket science to realize, if we remove
rules against consolidation, there is going to be consolidation. This
is not rocket science, either, because we have had an experiment with
this in radio. The largest number of stations owned was 65 before the
anticonsolidation, and now it is 1,200; and that is why this is a
bipartisan concern.
It is interesting, groups as disparate as the National Rifle
Association and William Safire have come out against this. I love to
quote William Safire, at least when I agree with him. He said, ``The
concentration of power, political, corporate, media, cultural, should
be anathema to conservatives. Why do we have more channels but fewer
real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication
is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than
they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity.''
I think that is what happened to the FCC. They may have been stunned
by this outpouring of concern, but it is there. Ninety-nine percent of
all of the input they have received in the last several months on this
issue is against the very rules they just shoved down America's throat.
Mr. SANDERS. I think the gentleman is absolutely right in two
regards. Number one, there is enormous concern over this issue from one
end of this country to the other. Just a few days ago I was in San
Diego, California, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who
held a public meeting on this issue, and the problem was, he had rented
a hall that could only seat 200 people and 400 people showed up, so
half of the people had to be outside listening to the meeting via
speakerphone.
We held a meeting outside of Burlington, Vermont, we are a small city
in a small State, and we had 600 people come out to hear Michael Copps,
who has been one of the courageous commissioners on this issue,
traveling all over the country.
There is massive public concern, and your point earlier about the
outrage that, on an issue of this significance, Mr. Powell did not have
public meetings all over the United States; and if he had, no question,
based on your experience and my experience, hundreds of thousands of
Americans would likely have come out to say, No, we believe in a
democratic society, and a handful of people controlling the media is
not what a democratic society is all about. I suspect he knew that,
which is why he held one public hearing in the daytime in Richmond,
Virginia.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming
forward this evening to spend a few minutes via one of the avenues of
public expression that is still available to us to be able to talk to
people about this. The gentleman's comments a moment ago with the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) touched a nerve with me.
We have been watching this issue slowly bubble in the background,
move into the public consciousness. We have all expressed and we have
all experienced an outpouring in our own districts, our own
correspondence, phone calls, e-mails. It is fascinating to me that over
the last 6 months I have not had one Oregonian express to me support
for the direction the FCC has taken, not one.
One would think that for something that is this momentous, there
would be at some point, on some level, some indication that ordinary
men and women, that business people, government leaders, that somebody
would be there expressing the case for this relatively radical
approach.
To the contrary, we have seen in our community the same deep
bipartisan apprehension and opposition that has been expressed here
this evening. People know on several levels that competition matters,
that we benefit from a diversity of voices. Certainly, in this Chamber
there are a variety of different points of view. I think on those
occasions when we are actually able to express it, I think we do our
jobs better and the American public is better served.
But the people that I work with are aware that today almost every
television station, whether we go to Nashville, Redmond, Washington, or
Burlington, Vermont, the news sounds the same. They have the same air-
brushed approach. They have basically the same television accents. They
use the same media consultants to craft the sets that they use. They
all use the same gyrations, putting forth everything from the weather
to on-the-spot news. The same formats ensue because people are being
driven by the same media consultants and the pressures from
advertisers.
Now, as the gentleman points out, we are going to have the ultimate
homogeneous force, and that is concentration of ownership into a
handful of conglomerates that are going to be dictating it. It seems to
me that there will be no reason for our news to be indistinguishable,
distorted pabulum that is more entertainment than delivering
information.
I have one short, final point to make. I think the gentleman's
expression here this evening, bringing forward others, indicates why I
do not think this is going to be the last word on this subject. The
House and the Senate have the opportunity. They were the ones that
originally decided that the people's airwaves, the public airwaves,
were going to be given to commercial broadcasters in return for some
public benefit. Since we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we
have seen these competitive forces eroded away, people forgetting the
public benefit; and I think that the issues that you are focusing on
here will produce such a backlash it will be possible for us to be
responsive to the public, and hopefully we will see some action that
will reverse this egregious act.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this issue, and
that is the aspects of localism. Vermont is different from Oregon, and
we should pride ourselves on our differences and not see us become
homogeneous. From 1981 to 1989, I was the mayor of the city of
Burlington, Vermont, and when I
[[Page H4774]]
was mayor, there were four or five local radio stations who covered the
news. We would hold a press conference, and there would be four or five
takes on what we said. Now, if we are lucky, there is one radio station
covering the news, and that phenomenon has gone on all over this
country.
I remind my friends and colleagues that as a result of the
deregulation decision today, there will be hundreds of cities and towns
in America where there will be one company owning the local TV station,
radio station and newspaper; and if anyone thinks that is not a
dangerous situation, I would strongly disagree with that person.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to respond to this
bogus argument that the Republican FCC commissioners put up when they
decided to repeal this fairly long-standing, common-sense approach that
has enjoyed up to now bipartisan support, and I hope will again.
They argued that, essentially, because we have had a technological
revolution in the last decade or so, that removes the necessity of
having rules against somebody getting too egregious a distribution
proportion.
{time} 2200
They said basically that the Internet solves all ills that humans
will ever know. I am from the most Internet-involved part of the world
probably. I represent the First Congressional District of the State of
Washington. It is where a little company called Microsoft is located,
together with probably thousands of spin-off companies from Microsoft.
I represent a community that are evangelists for the Internet, who
really are believers that this is a way to change the way we do
business in fundamental ways. But the people there have told me, do not
let the FCC remove these anticonsolidation rules, the fans of the
Internet, the fans of new technology, the believers in new technology.
What they tell me is the reason we still need these rules is that
even though we have now Web-based distribution systems, the Web
distributors are owned by the TV companies. It is the same message.
What they tell me, again coming back to this kind of host analysis, you
don't get a new view just because it is a Web-hosted message if it is
the same message you are getting on television or if it is the same
message you are getting in the newspaper. And so what they have told
me, do not let them remove these anticonsolidation rules. The Internet
cannot solve the fact that democracy suffers when there are fewer
voices to provide Americans the news. This is going to result, as God
made little green apples, in fewer voices delivering news to Americans
because that is exactly what has happened in the radio industry, and we
know that that is going to happen.
Mr. SANDERS. I would point out, my friend mentioned Clear Channel,
which was the company that really sprouted after radio deregulation in
1996 and now owns some 1,200 radio stations. It is important to
recognize that Clear Channel not only owns radio stations; they own a
lot more. Clear Channel is the largest concert promoter in the country,
selling 66 million tickets in 26,000 events in 2001. Why is that
significant? It is significant because if you are an entertainer
promoted by Clear Channel, obviously you are going to get a lot more
air time on their radio stations than somebody who is not. You could be
the greatest singer in the world; but maybe if you are not promoted by
Clear Channel, you might not get the opportunity to appear on those
radio stations.
So I think the issue here is like anything else. We are living in a
country where fewer and fewer large corporations own more and more of
our Nation. That is a bad situation in general; but I think what we
recognize when it comes to the media, it is not just bad from an
economic sense in terms of stifling competition; it is bad in what it
does to the clash of ideas and diversity of opinions.
We have heard from people, for example, who are involved in African
American broadcasting, and what they are saying is they are losing
their stations being bought out by the large conglomerates. The same is
true with Latino stations. Again, fewer and fewer large companies,
homogeneous-type broadcasting one end of the country to the other,
fewer ideas for the American people.
Mr. INSLEE. I think it is important to note, too, that there is an
economic reason why this new rule, which is going to create these large
concentrations of media power, is a bad idea. I think it is important
to talk about the economic reason as well. The economic reason is that
these megacorporation media conglomerates will have the ability to
stifle entry of new businesses, particularly small businesses who want
to break into the media market. One of the great things about the
American economy is we have traditionally recognized having a dynamic
economy which allows entry into the market is important so that people
can get new ideas, new creative products and the like.
Here is a fellow who is not exactly in William Safire's philosophical
base, but he had an interesting comment. Ted Turner said, if these
rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually
impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to
launch CNN. The reason it would be impossible is that these
consolidations basically allow these companies to build these Chinese
walls around their little media fortresses which prevents these small
businesses from breaking into the market.
So if you are a small business-oriented person who believes in a
dynamic entry of markets, this is a mistake to allow these sort of
giant conglomerates to take over. Fundamentally, though, the democratic
argument and the damage to democracy is the one that is really
bothering Americans tonight, because one of the things we have learned
through history is that the paper on the parchment of the Bill of
Rights and the U.S. Constitution are nice and they are important; but
the Soviet Union had the same language in their Constitution, but they
did not have a vigorous press or a vigorous independent judicial
branch, and democracy never got going. We are very concerned that
absent a vigorous, competitive, dynamic, change-oriented media in our
democracy that our democracy will suffer. You can have the best Members
of the U.S. Congress, the best Members of the U.S. Senate, and an
enlightened President; but unless Americans can get the truth by
looking at various different colors in the spectrum, this place is not
going to work.
And so, yes, there is an economic rationale; but people value
democracy above everything, and they understand the threat that has
happened in this rule. I believe, and I know that the gentleman and I
and others will be working to pass legislation to reverse this rule. As
you know, we have cosponsored a bill already to repeal the 45 percent
national consolidation. Other bills will be introduced. We hope to
attract bipartisan consensus. We hope Americans will let their Members
of Congress know what to do here.
Mr. SANDERS. I would just pick up on that point from my friend from
Washington. If there is anything good about what has happened in the
last few months, what has been good is that more and more people are
now aware of what is happening in this issue than was previously the
case. As my friend from Washington indicated, we are going to be
introducing probably several pieces of legislation not only to undo the
damage of today's decision but to create a situation in which we
improve upon what existed yesterday.
My friend mentioned earlier that hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of people, progressives, moderates, conservatives, people in the NRA,
people in the conservative President's Parents Television Council,
people from all across the political spectrum have communicated with
the FCC to the tune of some 750,000 communications. Yet despite the
fact that the communications were overwhelmingly in opposition to more
media deregulation, the FCC moved in that direction.
My friend might be interested in knowing, why does that happen? How
does it happen? I would point out one of many reasons and that is the
power which is not limited just to the FCC but the power that the
industry has over the regulators. Sometimes people think that the
regulators regulate the industry. In truth, given the role that money
plays in Washington, more often than not it is the industry that
regulates the regulators. The Center for Public Integrity recently
reported
[[Page H4775]]
that over the last 8 years the FCC took staff and members on some 2,500
junkets that were paid for by the industry. Industry paid for trips for
FCC commissioners and top staffers to be flown to hundreds of
conferences, conventions, and broadcast industry events in Las
Vegas, coincidentally Las Vegas, 330 trips to Las Vegas for FCC members
and staff, New Orleans, New York, London, San Francisco, Miami,
Anchorage, Palm Springs, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, all over the
world. The industry was paying for the visits and the travel done by
the members of the commission and the staff.
Mr. INSLEE. And the reason that I think people are so upset about
this, and they are upset, I have talked to a lot of people who are
really hot about this issue, and I think justifiably because this has
been one of the more outrageous instances of a public agency willfully
and consciously, number one, shutting to the extent humanly possible
the public out of the decision-making process of their government by
holding one hearing in one part of the country. There were other
members of the commission who begged the chairman, Mr. Powell, to hold
multiple hearings, because he knew this was something that really
people cared about around the country, not just inside the Beltway, and
Mr. Powell refused. Because they are too busy? Excuse me, this is the
single most important decision of the FCC probably in the last 10
years, but they only hold one hearing because they do not want to
listen to Americans, and it is wrong. Then when the word snuck out
through various efforts, including our own, they have been deluged with
almost a unanimous position of the Americans who care about this.
And what is their response to Americans who have taken the time to
send postcards, to send e-mails, to call in? Their response has been,
go fish. That is about what it boils down to. I heard Mr. Powell today
briefly, I did not hear his whole comments, but I heard him say, if we
don't do something, this rule will get changed anyway by the courts.
That is true if you do not prepare a record; if you do not go out and
ask people what is going on in America to prepare the record, then this
rule might be subject to judicial scrutiny. He is correct. But the
reason is that they did not go out and ask anybody around America. They
held one lousy hearing. So if they want to preserve the rule which they
had the opportunity to do, they needed to build a record. The reason
they did not build a record is they knew the message they were going to
get. They had a predisposed decision. These commissioners had made a
decision before they opened up these hearings at all. It is pretty
obvious when you see the railroad job that took place.
Mr. SANDERS. I would say to the 750,000 people who communicated with
the FCC, the 750,000 people who said do not deregulate the industry
more so that a tiny handful of companies will control what we see, hear
and read, I would say to those people and to the Members of Congress
not to give up on this issue. We suffered a setback today which was not
unexpected. I think we all knew what was going to happen. But the fact
that so many people from the State of Washington or the State of Oregon
or the State of Vermont and all the States in between, that so many
people are now aroused about this issue, are upset at what happened,
are going to fight for a more democratic media, is a positive thing.
Clearly now the ball falls to the people in this Congress to undo the
damage done by the FCC. I know that I will be working with my friend
from Washington and my friend from Oregon and people from all political
points of view to undo the damage done today so that we create a media
that we are proud of, where the American people become not just the
best entertained people in the world but the best informed people,
where the media gives our democratic society the ideas and the
information that people need in order to make informed decisions in a
democratic society.
We have got our work cut out for us. I have not the slightest doubt
in my mind that the vast majority of the American people stand with us
and do not want to see a few corporations controlling the media, and
our job now is to take that support and to convert it into strong
legislation.
Mr. INSLEE. I just have a closing comment, which is that democracy is
not self-executing. It does not get done by itself. Now is a moment for
all men and women to come to the aid of their country on this issue. We
need, those of us who care deeply about this, for everyone to let their
Member of the U.S. Congress and Senate know how they feel about this
issue, because we need to kindle and blow a little air on this fire to
keep it going. We are going to hope that we will have enough support
across the aisle of our good friends, the Republicans, that we are
going to have enough Republicans who will join us in forcing a vote on
this issue on the House floor. That is going to be very important. It
will be a great victory on a bipartisan basis for American democracy. I
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman
from Oregon for their very thoughtful remarks. This is an issue of huge
consequences. We have got to go forward together to undo the damage
done today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to today's
vote by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to relax
limitations on media ownership.
Apparently, the FCC has overlooked the fact that the airwaves are
owned by the American public, just as the Commission has forgotten that
its legislated mission is to protect those same airwaves for the
public's use.
Relaxing rules that have worked for decades in order to allow huge
conglomerates to gobble up even more media outlets will certainly
diminish the quality of our news and stifle minority views and
opinions.
I find it particularly interesting that while the FCC regulators and
their staff were reviewing the changes, they took some 2,500 junkets--
worth almost $3 million--which were paid for by the media industry.
During all that time, the Commission managed to hold just one public
hearing. Does anyone have any doubt to whom the FCC was listening
during its deliberation process--the media moguls or the public?
I understand how the FCC decisions will benefit those media
conglomerates. What I do not understand is how they benefit private
citizens or our democracy, which can only survive on the free flow of
information and diverse opinions.
Now that the decision has been made, it will be up to Congress to
review these rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
make sure that public interest will be heard--and that our airwaves
will not fall victim to powerful special interests. I would like to
share with my colleagues an op-ed I authored on this issue which
appeared today in Rochester, New York's Democrat & Chronicle.
Too Little Discussion Has Preceded FCC Decision on Media Ownership
(By Representative Louise M. Slaughter)
What if one person controlled all the information in the
newspaper you are reading, on your favorite radio station and
on the TV channel you watch nightly?
It could begin to happen today, when a five-member panel at
the Federal Communications Commission votes on relaxing
regulations governing media ownership in this nation.
Sixty years ago, when television was just a fledgling
invention, the FCC was created to ensure that our airwaves--
which the American public owns--would not be dominated by a
few large corporations that could control information and
news.
Our government rightly recognized that the free flow of
ideas, opinions and information is central to the ongoing
national dialogue that drives this great democracy.
Protecting local and minority ownership of media outlets is
also crucial to guaranteeing coverage of local issues and
diverse viewpoints.
As time passed, a few large corporations began to acquire
more newspapers, radio and TV stations across our nation.
Thirty years ago, there were 1,500 locally or regionally
owned newspapers. Now, there are only 281 such independent
papers. Six large companies control most of the media in this
nation, while three corporations control all the cable news.
After 1996, when the FCC relaxed ownership limits for radio
stations, 90 percent of radio stations were bought or sold
within five years. Hundreds of stations have been
consolidated since then: Clear Channel now owns more than
1,200 radio stations. Before, they could own only 40.
In Rochester alone, six of our radio stations are owned by
Clear Channel. Four more are owned by Infinity Broadcasting.
Thus the information and music aired on 10 stations in
Rochester are controlled by two conglomerates that are based
nowhere near here and have little concern for our local
issues.
The FCC is now considering relaxing its regulations even
further, which will certainly lead to a dangerous
concentration of media ownership. The proposed changes would
allow networks to own stations reaching as much as 90 percent
of the country,
[[Page H4776]]
allow companies to own three television stations in some
markets and would do away with a 28-year ban on companies
owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market.
What is perhaps more egregious is the secretive process
through which these changes have been considered. The FCC
tried to keep the plan's details secret and refused to have
more than one, barely publicized hearing on the issue. FCC
Chairman Michael Powell has rejected requests from two of his
own commission members to delay the vote for more public
comment.
Fortunately, even though this issue got relatively little
media coverage, the American public has taken action.
Progressive and conservative interest groups, artists and 200
communications academics have protested the new rules. Of the
9,000 e-mails the FCC has received on the issue, only 11
supported relaxing the rules. I, along with 100 of my
colleagues in Congress, recently wrote to Chairman Powell
expressing our opposition to the proposed rules.
Unfortunately, the FCC is not listening.
Owners of media outlets are obliged to serve the public
interest--not just their own financial interests. Our
Founding Fathers created this democracy to give us the right
to debate ideas openly and make informed choices. If these
changes go into effect, a few huge, powerful corporations
could gobble up even more media outlets to control most of
the news we get.
Be grateful that today you had the opportunity to read
about these proposed changes, supported by the powerful media
conglomerates. If they have their way, the next time the FCC
decides to change the rules, you may not be informed at all.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to discuss an
issue that is very important to many men and women in my district and
to the men and women working in the telecommunications industry.
The FCC is preparing for a release of their Triennial Review of the
UNE-P and I want to weigh in with my colleagues as to the fundamentals
of how the UNE-P pricing model works, or as I see it, doesn't work.
Suppose you, an entrepreneur, go in to manufacture candy bars and you
invest significant capital to create this wonderful factory and
generate candy bars. You operate for 30 years, during which you must
buy new equipment, and maintain that equipment. The bottom line of your
costs is say, $.75. You determine to sell them in the retail market for
$1. Then you discover that there is a regulatory body empowered by the
Congress that regulates candy bars and one of their missions is to
promote competition. One day, these regulators come to you and they
say, ``You know what? We think since you're the largest candy bar
manufacturer, you should have a competitor. And we have someone that we
want to be your competitor.'' Then the regulators tell you one way in
which they've determined to promote competition is for you to allow
this competitor to sell your product from your machinery and buildings
at $0.75 or in some cases less than $0.75, so they in turn can resell
it in the market for a profit to them, and a loss to your company.
All the money you just spent to build a building which stores the
machinery you use to make your product, package your product,
distribute you're product, and maintain all of this, is used to provide
a product to your competitor for the same price or less of a price that
is costs you, only they don't have any risk.
I pose the question to the regulators and my colleagues. What would
you do as CEO of this candy bar company, what do you feel is the right
thing to do? I see it to be wrong and think the regulators should take
steps to mitigate this wrong or change it while they still have a
chance.
____________________