[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 125 (Thursday, September 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11383-S11402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BROADCAST MEDIA 
                             OWNERSHIP RULE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 17, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A Senate Joint Resolution 17 (S.J. Res. 17) disapproving 
     the rules submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 
     with respect to broadcast media ownership.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me begin with a brief opening 
statement about why we are here and what brings us to this point. My 
colleague from Arizona, who will speak in opposition to this resolution 
of disapproval, is here to make a presentation and my colleague with 
whom I have worked on this resolution of disapproval, Senator Lott from 
Mississippi, is here and will make a statement. I believe others will 
arrive as well.
  Let me describe what we are doing. There is a provision in Federal 
law that allows the Congress to effectively veto a rule offered by a 
Federal agency under certain circumstances. This is called the 
Congressional Review Act. I call it a legislative veto. It is rarely 
used. In fact, this is only the second occasion on which it will be 
used. It requires 35 signatures of Senators to discharge a proposition 
from a committee and bring it to the Senate floor, with 10 hours of 
debate. Following the 10 hours of debate, there is then a vote on the 
resolution of disapproval.
  The specific rule that brings us to the floor today with a resolution 
of disapproval is a rule by the Federal Communications Commission 
dealing with broadcast ownership rules. This is an issue that is 
controversial. It is highly charged and very significant. Some

[[Page S11384]]

Members believe very strongly that what the Federal Communications 
Commission has done is horribly wrong for the interests of this 
country.
  I said at the Commerce Committee when we discussed this, especially 
in the aftermath of the FCC making and announcing its rules, never have 
I seen a Federal agency that is supposed to be a regulatory agency cave 
in so quickly and so completely to the large economic interests. That 
is exactly what I think has happened. It has happened at the expense of 
the public interest.

  The foundation of our democracy is information. The free flow of 
information is what nourishes and refreshes this democracy of ours. 
When what the American people see, hear, and read is controlled by 
fewer and fewer interests, in my judgment, it is detrimental to this 
government and to our country.
  The ruling by the Federal Communications Commission says, among other 
things, this will be just fine in the future; in America's largest 
cities, one single company can own the dominant newspaper, the dominant 
television station, and two other television stations, eight radio 
stations, and the cable company in that same town. It is just fine. And 
they can do it in that town and another town and another town and 
another town, and that is just fine, according to the FCC rule.
  Pardon my expression, but I think that is absolutely nuts. It is not 
fine--not fine with me, not fine with a good many of my colleagues. 
What we design to do is to pass a resolution of disapproval in the 
Senate to say to the Federal Communications Commission: Do it over, and 
do it right.
  The Federal Communications Commission held only one public hearing 
before embarking on the largest rule change in the history of this 
country with respect to ownership of broadcast properties. Having held 
only one hearing, they then said: Well, let's do this Katie-bar-the-
door approach to allowing the additional concentration and this new 
orgy of mergers that almost certainly will occur as a result of this 
rule. They said: Let's allow newspapers to own television stations in 
the same town, have the same television stations and radio stations 
marry up.
  We know what has happened since the 1996 act. Ownership rules have 
changed; we have seen galloping concentrations. One company in this 
country now owns nearly 1,300 radio stations. In one city in North 
Dakota, we have eight radio stations. One of them is a religious 
station, one is a public broadcast station, and six are commercial 
stations. All six are owned by the same company.
  I ask my colleagues, does anyone think there is a public outcry in 
this country for the need to have more concentration in broadcast 
ownership? Has anyone heard that public outcry? I have not.
  The airwaves in this country belong to the American people. They do 
not belong to the broadcast companies. They do not belong to a 
television or radio company. They belong to the American people. We 
license them for use by companies that want to send a television or 
radio signal and we say that, attendant to that use, you have certain 
responsibilities and obligations: Competition, diversity, and localism.
  What does localism mean? It means we anticipate that when you have a 
property to broadcast radio or television signals in your local 
community, you have a responsibility to that community to broadcast 
some of those local basketball games, talk to the people in the 
community about the local charity event this weekend, tell them about 
what is happening on Main Street. That is localism.
  What do we have these days? All too often we have the concentration 
that has developed in all broadcast media. Now we have something 
instead of localism; it is called voice tracking.
  Do you know what voice tracking is? With this massive amount of 
mergers, with one company owning many stations, voice tracking is that 
which occurs when you drive down the street in Salt Lake City, UT, and 
turn on your dial on the radio station and hear someone saying, ``It is 
sunny out here in Salt Lake City this morning,'' and that person may be 
in a basement in Baltimore, MD, broadcasting from a broadcast booth. Do 
you know what that is called? Voice tracking; ripping a sheet off the 
printer from the Internet that shows the sun is shining in Salt Lake 
City so they can pretend they are broadcasting from Salt Lake City, UT, 
from a Salt Lake City station, when in fact they are not 1,000 miles 
near Salt Lake City, they are halfway across the country pretending 
there is some local element to that radio station.

  That is not moving in the public interest.
  As we engage in this debate, I want someone to tell me that localism 
is old fashioned. I want someone to tell me that what I consider to be 
a transcendent truth about the value of requiring localism in exchange 
for being able to use the airwaves with a radio or television license 
is somehow an old-fashioned value. For me, it is not.
  There is so much to say about all of this, and I will speak at great 
length, but I have a chart that shows where we are with respect to 
these broadcast properties these days. I will not attempt to tell you 
about all of this, but the News Corporation, of course, is Fox and 
Rupert Murdoch; Clear Channel; Viacom; Disney; AOL/Time Warner. Let me 
use Disney as an example: Ten television stations, including in New 
York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, 
Raleigh, Fresno, Flint, Toledo; 53 radio stations. The ABC Network, 
Disney Channel, ESPN, A&E, SoapNet, History Channel, Lifetime, Disney 
Pictures, Touchstone, Hollywood, Caravan, Miramax. It goes on and on 
and on.
  People say: What is the big deal here? We have so many more outlets 
in which you can get information. We now have the Internet. We didn't 
used to have that. You have so many different outlets. Do you know 
something. Go to your cable system and find out who owns the major 
channels. The same people. Go to the Internet and find out who owns the 
top sites on the Internet. The same people.

  So you have many different voices; yes, from the same ventriloquist. 
Many voices, one ventriloquist or two or three or four--at least fewer 
ventriloquists in terms of what the American people see, hear, and 
read.
  I do not accuse the Federal Communications Commission of bad faith. I 
happen to like the Federal Communications Commissioners. I believe I 
know all of them personally. The chairman is someone I have had lunch 
with a couple times. I like him a lot. I just think they have made a 
horrible mistake, and I think they did it without the due diligence 
that is required of those in a regulatory commission position.
  We expect them to be the referees of sorts. We expect them to wear 
the striped shirts with the whistles that say: We are here to call the 
fouls. We are here on behalf of the public interest to call the game. 
The fact is, this regulatory agency did exactly what the big economic 
interests and the broadcasting industry wanted. And they did it cleanly 
and quickly, with minimum nuisance of public participation. There was 
only one hearing in Richmond, VA.
  Well, they did get three-quarters of a million pieces of mail and 
communications over the Internet saying: Don't do this. It is against 
the public interest. But it did not matter to the FCC. They did it 
anyway.
  As a result, I hope this Senate will send a message to the Federal 
Communications Commission: This rule is a bad rule. This rule opens the 
gates to massive additional concentration, mergers, and acquisition to 
fewer and fewer companies owning more and more properties, at least in 
the circumstance with respect to broadcasts and newspapers. And, by the 
way, they also eliminate the ban on cross ownership. At least in this 
circumstance, we don't think it is in the public interest. That is what 
I hope the Senate will tell the Federal Communications Commission 
today.
  By this vote, it will be the first step--a big step--in a process of 
saying to the Federal Communications Commission: We in Congress veto 
this rule. You must go back and do it again. Do it over and do it 
right.
  Mr. President, I have a lot to say today, and I know my colleagues do 
as well. But I think in the interest of time, having described why we 
are here, and the origin of this effort, I will yield the floor. My 
colleagues from Arizona and Mississippi want to make presentations, 
following which I will again then amplify my remarks.

[[Page S11385]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for, as always, informing, and sometimes with very startling 
information. I still find it very difficult to understand the situation 
that happened in his State. When there was a toxic spill, and the radio 
stations were attempted to be contacted to alert the population, the 
citizenry, there was not a single soul in any of the six radio 
stations. All the broadcasting was done from somewhere else. That, 
obviously, was not the intent of the law, the intent of Congress, nor, 
indeed, the intent of the Federal Communications Commission. But these 
examples happen today.
  I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17, which has already been 
described by my colleague from North Dakota. As a result, pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, these rules would have no force or 
effect, and the FCC would not be able to adopt any similar regulations 
until Congress authorized the Commission to do so.
  I share many of the concerns expressed by my friends from North 
Dakota and Mississippi. I oppose the resolution because I believe that 
rejecting the rules without providing further guidance is not an 
appropriate congressional response. In addition, the nullification of 
all of the FCC's new media ownership regulations is, in my opinion, too 
sweeping.
  Whether we agree with them or not, the FCC's actions are a direct 
result of the direction given to it by Congress in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which should have been called ``Leave 
No Lobbyist Behind Act of 1996.''
  And might I add, as we are all responsible for our votes, my 
colleague from North Dakota voted for that bill, as did my colleague 
from Mississippi. I voted against it. I voted against it because I 
thought it was an outrageous exercise of lobbying power and special 
interest power and would have enormous unintended as well as intended 
consequences; and the unintended consequences we are dealing with 
today.
  So let's be clear, all of my colleagues, what is the genesis of this 
problem. That is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I say so because the 
DC Court of Appeals vacated the 35-percent cap and remanded it back to 
the FCC. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

       Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the 
     structure of the broadcast and cable television industries 
     [in the act].

  In fact, the court--I think very appropriately--characterized the 
1996 act's deregulatory tone as not subtle but quite explicit, likening 
it to ``Farragut's order at the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the 
torpedoes! Full speed ahead.' '' That is how the court described the 
1996 deregulatory act that my colleagues are on the floor now examining 
and wanting to reverse.
  Let's at least take responsibility for our action that set this train 
in motion. I agree with my colleagues, particularly on the issue of 
radio. When there is an example such as what happened in Minot, ND, and 
testimony before our committee that there is an organization, Clear 
Channel--let's say who they are--that owns, as the Senator from North 
Dakota mentioned, 1,300 radio stations, the ticket sales, the 
promotions, and the concerts--artists have come to us and stated 
unequivocally that they have been basically blackmailed and told to do 
concerts at a certain place or their works would not be played on the 
radio stations.
  Now, I can't prove that. I am only telling you what information was 
given us. So we have a tough situation.
  The resolution offers neither congressional direction for the FCC's 
next review of these rules nor a remedy for the infirmities of the 
existing statute that pushed the FCC to its recent decision. Moreover, 
the resolution would throw out the entirety of the FCC's action, 
including some rules that would actually tighten radio ownership 
limitations. Finally, the resolution could result in significant 
uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules.
  Let me mention one other thing before I go into a little bit more 
about this process.
  As usual, unfortunately, tragically, the Appropriations Committee has 
now gotten into the act. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, on 
the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill is now going to 
remove the provision of 35 to 45 percent media ownership, but they are 
not--they are not--going to touch the cross-ownership aspect of the 
rules that the FCC issued. Why? Why would that be?
  Well, my dear friends and colleagues, I only know one reason: The 
National Association of Broadcasters supports the 35 to 45 percent and 
opposes the cross ownership. Which is worse, that a conglomerate owns 
now 45 percent of the television stations in a market, or a 
conglomerate owns three televisions stations, the newspaper--the Los 
Angeles Times--the Internet, the cable company, and 8 radio stations? 
That is okay according to the Appropriations Committee. But they are 
going to take care of the 35 to 45 percent aspect of it and jam it into 
an appropriations bill, by the way, without a hearing before the 
Appropriations Committee, as usual.
  The Commerce Committee acted with a piece of legislation that is on 
the calendar. S. 1046, which passed through the committee, addresses 
the entire issue. Do you think we will get S. 1046 before this body 
before this year ends, my friends? No. But we will have to fight like 
blazes a one single shot provision that has been placed in an 
appropriations bill, in clearly a gross excess of their 
responsibilities, which are to fund authorized programs.
  So I guess if there is any lack of cynicism amongst my colleagues 
about this whole process we are undergoing right now, any lack of 
cynicism should be dispelled by the actions of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Whether we agree with them or not, as I mentioned, those actions are 
a direct result of the 1996 act.
  In short, if the Congress is unsatisfied with the result of the FCC 
review, it should step in to provide new direction. Simply saying, 
``You got it wrong, try again,'' in my view, is not an appropriate 
response.
  Although they are not provided in the resolution before us, new 
directions to the FCC have been provided and reported out of the 
Commerce Committee. The bill is on the Senate calendar awaiting action. 
The bill would establish explicit, sustainable media ownership limits 
while preserving new radio ownership rules tightened by the FCC in its 
June 2 order.
  While I don't support the resolution, I do support S. 1046. I have 
not always supported retaining strict limits on media consolidation, 
and in the past I have spoken frequently about the merits of 
deregulation of media markets. Over the years, I have written letters 
to the FCC insisting that they deregulate in this area of media 
markets. Moreover, even a few years ago, I offered legislation to raise 
the national television station ownership cap to 50 percent and to 
eliminate limits on newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership. I continue 
to believe in the principle of allowing markets, and not government, to 
regulate the way businesses operate.
  After chairing seven hearings on media ownership and observing 
unprecedented public outcry, it is apparent to me that the business of 
media ownership, which can so affect the nature and quality of our 
democracy, is too important to be dealt with so categorically. As a 
result, I have come to believe that stringent, but reasonable, limits 
on media ownership may very well be appropriate.
  It is a testament to the vitality and health of our democracy that 
the public mobilized to defend what they perceived as a challenge to 
this democracy. If Congress is displeased with the Commission's new 
rules, however, we must accept some responsibility for them. Congress 
and the courts gave the Commission little choice but to deregulate the 
media industry. When the D.C. circuit court of Appeals vacated the 35 
percent cap and remanded it back to the FCC for further consideration, 
it found that ``Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the 
structure of the broadcast and cable television industries'' in the 
Act. In fact, the court characterized the 1996 Act's deregulatory tone 
as not subtle, but quite explicit, likening it to ``Farragut's order at 
the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.'''
  Led by the able chairman, Michael Powell, the Commission followed the 
direction of Congress and the courts.

[[Page S11386]]

The commission incrementally increased the network ownership cap to 4.5 
percent finding that a ``modest relaxation of the cap will help 
networks compete more effectively with cable and DBS operators and will 
promote free, over-the-air television by deterring migration of 
expensive programming to cable networks.''
  I ask unanimous consent that an article by Michael K. Powell that 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2003]

                        And That's the Way It Is

                         (By Michael K. Powell)

       The days of free television may be numbered. We are in the 
     midst of change that is having a dramatic effect on how we 
     watch television. Consider how much the television landscape 
     has altered in the past two decades. It used to be that the 
     ``big three'' networks, ABC, CBS and NBC were just about the 
     only game in town. In those ``glory days'' of television, 
     when Walter Cronkite left us each night with his famous ``And 
     that's the way it is,'' the big three were ``the only way it 
     was''--our only sources of television programming. If you 
     wanted to watch sports you turned to the big three. Want to 
     watch the movie of the week? Turn to the big three. Saturday 
     morning cartoons? Turn to the big three. With over 80% of the 
     viewing audience watching free TV, it was good to be a 
     broadcaster.
       Today, much of the high-quality sports (ESPN, Fox Sports), 
     movies (HBO, Showtime, Starz, Independent Film Channel), 
     mini-series (Hallmark Channel), documentaries (History and 
     Discovery Channels), children's programming (Nickelodeon, 
     Disney Channel, Cartoon Network), minority-oriented 
     programming (BET, Univision) and breaking news (CNN, MSNBC, 
     Fox News) can be found on pay television. The migration of 
     top programming to pay television is demonstrated by the fact 
     that cable, for the first time, surpassed broadcast 
     television in all-day viewing share and this summer cable 
     claimed an all-time high 60% of the prime-time television 
     audience. And the quality of programming now on pay 
     television is embodied in its unprecedented success in recent 
     Emmy awards and nominations.
       Why is this happening? For those in the business of pay 
     television, there are two main sources of income, 
     subscription fees and advertising. Free television has only 
     one source--advertising. As the cost of quality programming 
     increases (``Friends,'' for example, costs a reported $10 
     million per episode), so too does the pressure to place those 
     shows on cable or satellite. To stem these rising programming 
     costs, free television has turned to low-budget programming 
     such as reality shows and daytime talk shows.
       Moreover, producers and creators of television shows often 
     are lured to the greater creative freedom of pay television. 
     Pay television programmers enjoy greater first amendment 
     protection against government content regulation than their 
     broadcast counterparts. This is why a show like ``The 
     Sopranos,'' too risque for the big three networks who passed 
     on airing the series, can be enjoyed by millions each week on 
     HBO. It also allows the possibility of running a show 
     commercial-free. For us viewers, pay television offers 
     programming that is tailored to our personal interests, be it 
     24-hour tennis, golf, news, history, food or game shows. On 
     free television, we get television created for the masses, on 
     a date and time of the network programmer's choosing.
       To survive, free TV must improve its competitive position 
     against pay television and find a way to innovate and offer 
     personalized television experiences that today's viewers have 
     come to enjoy and expect. The future of free television is, 
     at best, uncertain and, at worst, in peril.
       The shift to pay television and the value it has brought to 
     the television viewer over the course of the last 20 years 
     begs a question--do we even need free television? From a 
     public policy perspective, I believe the answer is yes--we 
     absolutely need to maintain a viable free television service 
     for the welfare of our citizens. Free broadcast television 
     remains an important service for those citizens that cannot 
     afford pay television. Additionally, free television 
     continues to play a vital role in informing the public during 
     national and local emergencies and in serving the interests 
     of their local communities.
       That's why this past June, the FCC passed a new set of 
     broadcast ownership limits, modernizing a regulatory regime 
     that was made for the bygone era of the big three to reflect 
     today's dynamic media marketplace. Those rule modifications 
     were made, in part, to strengthen free television to give it 
     a chance to remain viable for our citizens to enjoy for 
     decades to come. For example, by setting a slightly revised 
     national television ownership limit, the FCC will help the 
     networks attract and maintain quality programming, from the 
     World Series and Olympics to the next great TV series like 
     ``Everybody Loves Raymond'' or ``The West Wing.'' Other rule 
     changes, such as allowing cross-ownership or the ownership of 
     more than one local television broadcast outlet in some 
     markets, will bring consumers more and better quality local 
     news coverage and will help fund the transition to high 
     definition digital television, potentially giving free 
     television the ability to provide new innovative services to 
     the public well into the 21st century.
       These changes have been under attack from some in Congress. 
     A rush headlong into re-regulating free television is afoot, 
     and if successful, would prove disastrous. Bringing free 
     television into a more hostile regulatory environment will 
     continue to drive investment to pay television and drive more 
     sports and creative programs to pay television. It may just 
     drive free television to pay television altogether, as Bob 
     Wright, CEO of NBC, once suggested that he might shut down 
     NBC and simply move it to cable. Moreover, in its wake, this 
     hostile regulatory climate will stymie the transition to 
     digital broadcast television leaving broadcasters with ill-
     suited analog tools to work in a digital world--in turn 
     denying the American public the use of a primary spectrum for 
     future wireless innovation and services.
       Free television will not disappear tomorrow. Many remain 
     profitable with low budget reality shows and other 
     programming. In the face of increasing competition from an 
     ever expanding array of pay television programming, however, 
     the government must be careful not to hasten its demise. Free 
     television has been an important service to the American 
     public for over 50 years. If our efforts do not provide free 
     television with the ability to better compete in today's 
     vibrant media marketplace, we risk losing its services for 
     the next 50 years. And that's the way it is.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, two networks, Viacom/CBS and News Corp. 
have been operating at almost 40 percent for almost 2 years now due to 
stay from courts and waivers from the FCC. The Commission also relaxed 
its cross-ownership rules by permitting combinations of multiple 
television, radio, and newspaper outlets in more American media 
markets.
  The Commission had limited discretion in its decision-making process. 
We, however, do not. If Congress is displeased with the results of the 
Commission's review, it should legislate a solution, not just 
disapprove of the Commission's actions. Unlike the Commission, Congress 
consists of elected officials who must consider the views of the 
American public, not court mandates and statutory directives, when 
tackling difficult questions like the ones posed here.
  The public has strongly voiced its dissatisfaction with the new 
rules. The Commission received more public comments about its media 
ownership proceeding than any other proceeding. My office continues to 
receive numerous letters, phone calls, and e-mails from the public 
addressing the new rules. As representatives of the public, Congress 
should take a lead role in examining these rules, and if necessary, 
crafting new limits.
  As William Safire wrote recently in an Op-Ed piece in the New York 
Times, itself a large owner of several media outlets: ``The effect of 
the media's march to amalgamation on Americans' freedom of voice is too 
worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners. This far-
reaching political decision should be made by Congress and the White 
House, after extensive hearings and fair coverage by too-shy 
broadcasters, no-local-news cable networks and conflicted newspapers.''
  In discussing this resolution, we must also be mindful that its 
passage would roll back all of the FCC's rules, even those that 
tightened radio ownership limits. The Telecommunications Act eliminated 
the national radio ownership cap thereby allowing one company to grow 
at an unprecedented pace from 40 to more than 1,200 radio stations, 
including ownership of 6 of the 7 commercial radio stations in Minot, 
ND. At a hearing before the Commerce Committee, all five FCC 
Commissioners agreed that the consolidation of radio that has occurred 
in local markets has been excessive.
  This brings me to the issue we must continue to discuss and to which 
I don't know the answer: How much is too much? In my home State of 
Arizona, Gannett owns a newspaper and a television station. Is that 
bad? I have seen no ill effects of it. I have seen no consolidation 
problems, no collusion between the two, no problem with the citizens of 
my State receiving correct and accurate and unbiased information. What 
if Gannett owned two television stations, or three stations or four 
stations? What is the point, I ask my colleagues--and that requires an 
incredible amount of knowledge, which I admit I don't possess, as to 
what the proper degree of media concentration is allowable.

[[Page S11387]]

  Then you have a difference in markets. Minot, ND--with all due 
respect to the large population of North Dakota--I think has 27,000 or 
37,000 people--higher than that. The valley which I was just describing 
has over 3 million people. So it is not only a problem of the criterion 
itself for ownership, it also has a lot to do with large or small 
populations.
  I don't think a small town is going to have five television stations 
or eight television stations. So should the owner of the television 
station in Greenwood, MS, be allowed to own the newspaper? Is that 
control there? That may be excessive. But in Phoenix, AZ, ownership of 
one television station and a newspaper clearly is not of significant 
impact.
  So this is why it is important that we continue to examine these 
issues carefully and try to get the best knowledge and information we 
have.
  But I think there is one area of agreement, whether we succeed or 
whether the proponents of the CRA succeed: There is too much 
concentration in radio. I know of no credible person who disagrees with 
that. While it received little credit amid the outcry against the 
regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by prescribing 
new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on local radio 
ownership.

  This resolution would therefore have the perverse consequence of 
eliminating efforts taken by the Commission to strengthen its radio 
ownership rules--a move that surely would be applauded in the corporate 
offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their 
ability to benefit from existing loopholes. Moreover, the resolution 
would limit the FCC's ability to reinstate its more stringent radio 
market definition, because the CRA precludes the FCC from adopting 
rules ``in substantially the same form'' as those that have been 
disapproved without further direction from Congress.
  Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a 
regulatory void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the 
status of the FCC's media ownership rules. The absence of an 
affirmative Congressional directive will cast considerable doubt on the 
enforceability of the FCC's previous rules, given that one of the FCC's 
previous attempts to retain the rules was found by the D.C. Circuit to 
be arbitrary and capricious, and another was found not to have 
justified that the rules are ``necessary in the public interest.'' In 
both cases, the D.C. circuit remanded the rules to the FCC and directed 
the agency to either articulate a justification for retaining the rules 
or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC order will leave these 
court orders unanswered, risking additional court action that relaxes 
the rules even further, or even invalidates them entirely.
  Moreover, passage of this resolution would appear to set up the FCC 
for failure when conducting its next biennial review in 2004. In that 
proceeding, the FCC will likely have to justify its new rules before a 
court that has stated that the Telecommunications Act sets in motion a 
process of deregulation, while remaining mindful of Congress' 
disapproval of its 2002 Biennial Review. Chairman Powell has stated 
that the courts placed ``a high hurdle before the Commission for 
maintaining a given regulation, and made clear that failure to surmount 
that hurdle, based on a thorough record, must result in the 
rule's modification or elimination.'' Moreover, the Commission will 
also be forced to explain how it reached a different conclusion after 
previously having made extensive findings that undercut the network 
ownership cap and cross-ownership limits. Whatever action the 
Commission takes will be ripe for challenge by an unsatisfied party.

  These rules have been mired in litigation for too long. If Congress 
believes that it is appropriate to retain certain ownership 
restrictions under today's market conditions, then it should pass 
legislation explicitly stating so. Again, S. 1046 is the appropriate 
legislative vehicle to achieve this goal.
  The Commission did its job by promulgating new rules after completing 
an intense twenty-month review. During that time the Commission 
reviewed twelve studies it commissioned to gather empirical evidence on 
the media industry, and studied over 500,000 public comments to better 
understand the media marketplace. As Mr. Safire suggested, it is now 
time for Congress to do its job. Congress has spent the past few months 
studying the previous rules, digesting the new rules, and holding 
multiple hearings on this issue. I have come to appreciate the 
importance of appropriate limits on media ownership. The media has a 
tremendous impact on the everyday lives of all Americans. By selecting 
and framing issues and ideas and promoting public discourse, the media 
facilitate a critical function in our democracy. It is now time for 
Congress to offer guidance, not simply reject the FCC's rules.
  My decision to oppose this resolution has been a difficult one for 
me, in large part, because I hold the senior senator from North Dakota 
in such high regard. I commend Senator Dorgan for his leadership in 
bringing the issue of media ownership to the attention of his 
colleagues. Earlier this year, he raised the now-famous issue of radio 
ownership in Minot, ND, in the Senate Commerce Committee. That issue 
was the catalyst for the Committee's subsequent review of media 
ownership, which included seven hearings this year. Few, if any, 
members of the Commerce Committee or the Senate understands the 
intricacies of this issue better than Senator Dorgan.
  Finally, I thank colleagues for their interest and involvement in 
this issue--especially three colleagues on the Commerce Committee: 
Senators Wyden, Lott, and Dorgan. They have been incredibly involved in 
these issues. We have had some of the best hearings I have ever 
participated in on these issues. I think we have contributed not only 
to the knowledge of our colleagues but to that of the American people.
  I want to commit, no matter how it comes out today, that we will 
continue to bring the Commissioners before the committee, bring the 
smartest people we can find before the committee, and move forward in 
an orderly legislative process. I hope one of the things we can do as 
early as possible is get consideration of the legislation that we 
passed through the committee, after careful deliberation and discussion 
and a very spirited markup.
  So I thank my colleagues. I think this is an important part of the 
debate and, for sure, we will be discussing this issue for a long time.
  I ask Members to vote against S.J. Res. 17 but support passage of S. 
1046.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution which 
would disapprove the new media ownership rules passed by the Federal 
Communications Commission on June 2 of this year. I must say, in 
listening to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I share a lot of 
his concerns and questions. I know from my discussions with him, and he 
knows, we need to do more in this area, and he believes the FCC ruling 
may not have hit the target in every area. He makes a good case about 
the difference in the size of the markets, from Phoenix to Jackson, to 
Minot, and other areas. Maybe he has touched on the answer. Maybe we 
need some sort of a tiered arrangement.
  I think in this case the fundamental policy is the one that really 
matters; that is, cross-ownership is not good. I think there are things 
you lose when you have the same newspaper chain owning one or two or 
three of the local radio stations and the same number of local 
television stations.
  I have a background, to a degree, in radio. My mother worked for a 
local radio station, WPMP/WPMO, which served Pascagoula and Moss Point. 
She was a bookkeeper. She did the logs, and then she did some 
announcing. She was the first woman's voice I had ever heard on a 
radio. And I did a program in high school for the local high school. 
This station was local, personal, and involved in the community. They 
were part of the community, and they were involved in the Chamber of 
Commerce. They had remotes, and if you opened a new furniture store on 
Market Street, they would go down there with a remote and would say: 
Come down to see the new furniture store here and maybe win a lamp. It 
was very personal.

  We have lost that involvement. I have a different attitude than 
Senator McCain in my thinking: It's OK to have these big radio chains, 
but I have to acknowledge that we have lost something

[[Page S11388]]

in the process. We have lost some localism. We don't have any in my 
hometown anymore. WPMP and WPMO have limited exposure. I don't know who 
owns them. If you want local news, you have to listen to a radio 
station 19 miles away in Biloxi, WBMI.
  This is my question: If that has not worked out, if there are 
consolidations, if one or two companies own an overwhelming number of 
radio stations, do we want that to happen in television? We already 
have all these chains that gobbled up our local newspapers. I don't 
know where these people come from or get their ideas that come in with 
these big chains. They worry me about some of the things they do and 
their idea of how they should report the news in local communities.
  I have a real problem with what happened at the FCC in this instance. 
I want to emphasize this: This is not a newfound position. This is a 
position I have had for basically 30 years in Congress.
  First, I am not one who thinks big is always bad. I don't believe we 
have to keep it small. I want the American people to have more of 
everything--more choices, more opportunities, more diversity, more 
competition. That is great. I am all for that.
  I am also one who has voted many times for deregulation. It has not 
always worked out perfectly. I am not as theoretically pure on 
deregulation as I used to be. I voted to deregulate trucking and 
deregulate the airlines, and I am for deregulation as much as possible 
in this area. But this is a little different now. This gets into First 
Amendment rights. It does get into the airwaves and who owns them. It 
does get into what happened with the networks and the chains.
  Do the American people really feel good about what is happening with 
the media in America? No. Check the polls. Check the people.
  This very morning I talked with my mother. She is 90 years old. She 
said: You weren't born in the backwoods.
  I said: What are you talking about?
  She said: You were born in Grenada Hospital, a small town, but it 
wasn't the backwoods, and they always make it sound like you are 
Abraham Lincoln coming out of some log cabin, which is fine, I like 
that politically. But my mother was offended that they had reported 
incorrectly as to my background.
  I said: Mother, relax, nobody pays attention to that. These people 
write stuff they think will make the story sound more interesting, 
embellish the truth. You know that. This very morning we talked about 
this.
  This is not about personality. This is not about revenge. This is not 
about prevailing in a position. This is about doing what is right and 
in the best interest of the American people.
  I recommended the Chairman of the FCC Michael Powell to President 
Clinton for a Republican vacancy when I was serving as Majority Leader. 
That was my prerogative. That is the way we worked things out with 
President Clinton and, by the way, he had been recommended to me by 
Senator McCain. This is not about personality. I like the Democrats and 
Republicans on the FCC. I find them to be highly qualified, good 
people. I just think they missed the target this time. By the way, who 
has the ultimate say for the American people on something such as this? 
Should it be these Commissioners? Should it be this agency? Or should 
the Congress have a little say in this? Shouldn't we at least have the 
right to say: Wait, this is a dangerous thing for freedom, information, 
and democracy in America. Go back and do it again. We have that right. 
In fact, I think we have that responsibility.

  This is not partisan. In fact, there are 20 cosponsors, or more, of 
this disapproval resolution. I know for sure in addition to myself 
there is Senator Hutchison from Texas, Senator Snowe from Maine, 
Senator Collins from Maine, and Senator Allard from Colorado and 
Senator Chambliss from Georgia both signed the discharge petition for 
this resolution. So you see there are Republicans and Democrats, small 
State Senators, big State Senators. Colorado, Texas, and Georgia are 
not exactly small places.
  By the way, they have seen some pretty interesting examples of what 
happens in Dallas or Atlanta with that sort of consolidation.
  What would this disapproval resolution do? If it is passed, if it 
gets through the Senate and House and the President signs it, the FCC 
will have to take another look. They might come back and say: We will 
do these modifications or we will go with half of this or not all of 
this, and they may need more action from the Commerce Committee and 
from the Congress. Great, we can do that. The President may veto this 
resolution. I think that would be a mistake.
  We are coming at this issue on all fronts. We are going after the 
issue with a resolution of disapproval and we will go after it in the 
appropriations bill, if we have to. I prefer we do it through the 
authorization bill, as Senator McCain said. I don't like the 
Appropriations Committee always having to do our work because we will 
not or cannot find the time to get it done.
  The Commerce Committee voted. We reported out S. 1046. I am a 
cosponsor of it. Senator Stevens of Alaska is for that bill. I believe 
Senator McCain said he would be supportive of that bill. If we fail 
here, we will be back here, there, and everywhere because this is a 
very critical issue.
  Let me go back to the process. I was worried when I saw this 
developing. I had a feeling it was not going right. The proof was that 
we were having trouble getting information about exactly what they were 
going to do.
  On April 9, 2003, I joined a large bipartisan group from Congress in 
sending a letter--most of the signers are on the Commerce Committee--to 
Chairman Powell and the Commission saying we were disappointed that the 
FCC-revised ownership rules would be released in final form June 2 
without any opportunity for the Congress or the public to review them 
beforehand, in effect saying: Wait a minute, have more hearings; come 
see us about this. They pretty much summarily ignored that letter.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the Commission be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
       Dear Chairman Powell: We note with disappointment your 
     announcement that the FCC's revised media ownership rules 
     will be released in final form June 2nd without any 
     opportunity for the Congress or the public to review them 
     beforehand. We believe it is virtually impossible to serve 
     the public interest in this extremely important and highly 
     complex proceeding without letting the public know about and 
     comment on the changes you intend to make to these critical 
     rules.
       While the Commission and its staff have amassed a 
     significant record of comments to date on current media 
     ownership rules, the Commission has not put forth any 
     specific changes it is planning.
       Dramatic changes in the structure of our media marketplace 
     could have long-term consequences on the diversity of voices 
     and free expression in our nation. Given the gravity of this 
     proceeding, we are puzzled as to why the FCC would not insist 
     on having a thorough discussion about any proposed changes 
     before these would take effect. Openness in this process is 
     the best path to ensure that Congress and the public support 
     the agency's direction.
       We again urge the Commission to provide full disclosure of 
     any proposed changes before they are made final.
           Sincerely,
         Olympia J. Snowe, Byron L. Dorgan, Ernest F. Hollings, 
           Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Daniel K. Inouye, 
           John D. Rockefeller, Ron Wyden, Barbara Boxer, Bill 
           Nelson, Maria Cantwell, Frank R. Lautenberg, Susan M. 
           Collins, Patty Murray, Wayne Allard, U.S. Senators.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't think they reached out and listened 
enough. I know the committee was worried about it. Then they--poof--
made their decisions, and then they came before the Commerce Committee 
to explain it. I have to tell you, I scratched my head at some of their 
explanations, particularly their explanation of the media ownership cap 
at 35 percent and why it should be raised to 45 percent. The 35 percent 
cap is a position I supported back in the midnineties and earlier. We 
had a huge debate as to whether it should be 25 or 35. Senator Dorgan 
wanted 25. I think I supported that, but we finally went along with 35 
percent.
  When questioned on that issue, the chairman said something to the 
fact that a couple of the networks are above or at this cap now so we 
should raise it to 45. Does that mean when they get to 45, we are going 
to raise it to 55? I

[[Page S11389]]

admit we can have disagreements on the cap. Maybe it should be this 
level, a little higher, a little lower. I would rather have no caps 
than have this creeping raising of caps.
  Should we have some restraint on the reach of one network owned by 
these corporate giants? I think so. Am I mad at one network or the 
networks versus the cable? No. This is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox--it is 
all of them. I just think that some limits are appropriate, which would 
give a greater variety of voices--and also I worry about more and more 
dominance by the networks.
  Local affiliates, if you get them off in a corner, say they don't 
want the cap to be raised. Local affiliates say: We don't like a lot of 
the programming; it is trashy, worthless; we would rather have local 
programming. Boy, they have trouble now. You don't think the networks 
don't tell them: You are going to run what we send you in Jackson, 
Mississippi, or Portland, Oregon, or a small town in Oregon? I don't 
like that.
  Again, localism is good for the people--some choice, some discretion. 
That is one of the things at risk here.
  Let me emphasize, we have an unusual alliance on this issue. We have 
the Actor's Equity Association. I generally don't team up with actors, 
other than in the Senate. We have the AFL-CIO, the National 
Organization for Women. Then we get over to the Family Research Council 
and the National Rifle Association. This is the far, far, far left and 
the far right, and everything in between, I think.
  Here is an interesting thing about this alliance. This is a diverse 
group, and they generally represent people, individuals. That is why 
they have had this avalanche of mail at the FCC opposing these 
regulations. I understand perhaps it is the largest number of comments 
to the FCC of any issue in history. The groups here represent 
individuals, generally speaking, not big or corporate interests. I like 
being identified with those people.
  I like worrying about what the fishermen in Biloxi, Mississippi, are 
going to be able to hear and see, and that they have choices. So this 
is a very important issue and it is one we should act on.
  The Majority Leader has been very cooperative with this. He could try 
to maneuver this around or push this off, but he was reasonable, as was 
Senator Dorgan, and I am glad to be involved in this effort.
  I do want to emphasize that personally I am less concerned about the 
cap than I am about the cross-ownership. I think we ought to repeal the 
new rules as to both, but my major worry is this consolidation of 
newspaper, television, radio, cable, the works, and how in towns the 
size of Jackson, Mississippi, one entity is controlling everything. I 
do not know that it is that dangerous to people. People are smarter 
than we are, and the media, for sure. They would just watch it, dismiss 
it, and not put much stock in it, but I would still like for them to 
have that choice.
  By the way, we should note that the court has also stepped in. The 
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia placed an injunction, a 
stay, of the new rules so Congress could have more time to officially 
override them if we see fit. That is what this is all about.
  I do not think anybody should be apologetic for supporting this or 
worried about what the impact is. This is part of the process. I do not 
want to get all caught up in process, but I think what is at stake here 
is bigger than process. This will have long-lasting effects, and once 
we start down this trail unwinding that Gordian knot we would be tied 
to in community after community in America, it would be difficult, if 
not impossible, to do something.
  I urge my colleagues not to worry about the personalities, not to 
worry about the threat of a veto, not to worry about the threat of a 
network or a newspaper or a chain. What can they do to each and every 
one of us that they have not already done? Worry about what is at 
stake, and it is really fundamental. This gets to what makes this 
country great, and that is the ability to have diversity of opinion and 
arguments, different points of view.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up, let us 
vote for this disapproval resolution. We put this process in place for 
a reason. We have been very careful about using it. This is only the 
second time in the history of this disapproval resolution process that 
it has been used, but this is a good one to do it on. I am delighted to 
join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this 
disapproval resolution and I thank Senator Dorgan for the courtesies he 
has extended along the way, and I am glad to work with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution. 
I particularly want to commend my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, and our friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, as well, for 
their bipartisan efforts.
  I believe I have sat through every minute of these hearings because I 
believe what the Commerce Committee has been looking at is 
extraordinarily important. I want to take a few minutes today to 
outline for the Senate and others who are just beginning to get 
involved in this issue what I think is at stake.
  First, I think it is important to be clear about what is ahead. In my 
view, the big media conglomerates want to make a meal out of the 
Nation's small media outlets, and I believe the Senate needs to step in 
and cancel this feast. That is what this resolution would do and why it 
is so important.
  I would like to begin, in discussing this issue, by talking about the 
fact that the Senate has been down this road before. In the discussion 
with respect to radio, there was considerable debate about the 
deregulation of radio at the time. Extensive testimony was taken. 
Arguments were made that this was an experiment that should be allowed 
to go forward. In 1996, the Congress relaxed the limits on radio 
station ownership. What we heard during our hearings, and I asked 
Chairman Powell about this specifically with respect to radio, was 
truly alarming.
  Chairman Powell, under questioning that I engaged him in in 
committee, admitted now there was a problem with respect to 
concentration of radio. Chairman McCain attested to it as well this 
afternoon. So the challenge now for the Senate is to make sure the 
Senate does not allow a repeat of the failed media experiment.
  What went on in radio is something that has not worked. It is an 
experiment, where the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. The Senate has 
an opportunity to make sure that the failed experiment that has taken a 
toll on localism, choice, and diversity across this country is not to 
be repeated. In my view, it is the centerpiece of the argument as to 
why this resolution is so important.
  There are not a lot of rallies outside the offices of Senators for 
big media kind of feeding frenzies. All of the input has essentially 
been the other way. The public has been concerned that as the 
conglomerates get bigger, the diet of news in particular is going to 
get blander and certainly less diverse and less locally oriented and 
more mass produced.
  We have been very troubled about what we have seen in our home State 
of Oregon. In Eugene, OR, for example, a network affiliate wanted to 
shift around program time slots so it could offer the city's first 10 
p.m. newscast. It was not going to cut programming. It was going to 
shift some of the schedules. The network said no, because they wanted 
to maintain what they described as a consistent nationwide distribution 
pattern.
  As a result, Eugene residents still have no 10 p.m. news program even 
though the local station, a family-owned business, wanted to offer it.
  The lesson has been clear. For the network, nationwide business 
judgments trump local interests. That is the story of what has happened 
in Eugene. The big networks may claim they are fully committed to 
localism, but in practice they behave differently than a truly local 
owner would.
  When they came before the committee, I asked about this issue and 
they said, it is a free country. That local network affiliate does not 
have to take network programming 7 to 8, or 8 to 9, or 9 to 10. It is a 
free country. They can make their own choices.
  Essentially, the freedom they have described for a local affiliate is 
the freedom to go broke. A local affiliate cannot, in effect, write off 
network

[[Page S11390]]

programming for most of the evening because they are committed to 
public service news and the opportunity for citizens to be heard.
  There has to be a balance. There has to be a balance between national 
judgments and local judgments, and I believe the Federal Communications 
Commission would skew that balance. They would skew it towards a media 
that was less sensitive to local concerns and local interests, and 
would be less diverse and offer fewer choices. I believe that is why 
these rules need to be maintained so as to have a proper balance rather 
than a skewed approach to media regulation in our country as the 
Federal Communications Commission's approach would do.
  If we look at the media landscape today, it is pretty hard to argue 
that the Federal Communications Commission is holding the reins too 
tightly at present. Concentration is already on the rise in television, 
radio, cable, and newspapers. Viacom, News Corporation, AOL/Time 
Warner, Walt Disney, and others have amassed a very broad and extensive 
array of media properties, and it would seem to me that given the trend 
towards concentration at present, the current FCC's rules are even more 
important than before.
  I think what it comes down to is that the Federal Communications 
Commission's approach is going to take a toll on several vital areas of 
the public's interest. I believe, for example, that the diversity of 
viewpoints in medium-size towns across the country will be reduced if 
the same company owns the local newspaper, the most watched television 
stations, local radio stations, and perhaps the cable system, too. We 
heard testimony to that effect in the Senate Commerce Committee.
  If each of these media outlets at the local level are part of a big 
nationwide chain that is making programming decisions at corporate 
headquarters thousands of miles away, what is going to be the bottom 
line emphasis? Are those people at distant conference tables thousands 
of miles from our local communities going to put the kind of focus on 
local news and local programming that my constituents want? The 
evidence suggests otherwise.
  With respect to creativity and independent content, if the local 
cable system, the local broadcaster, and the main satellite providers 
in effect are able to control substantial programming interests, we do 
have a way to preserve the kind of local orientation that our citizens 
feel so strongly about. If that changes, and I believe it would change 
under the Federal Communications Commission approach, I think what is 
going to happen in the future is everywhere independent programmers 
turn, they are going to be told by the national interests, by these 
national economic powers: Sorry, but we have to give preference to the 
programs that we produce in-house, rather than the local cable system, 
the local broadcaster, the main satellite providers who, today, offer 
so much creativity and diverse programming for local communities.
  Finally, it seems to me that the Federal Communications Commission 
approach is going to take a toll on objective news coverage. With 
respect to news outlets reporting independently on issues that affect 
the parent companies, you ought to begin the discussion just by noting 
that ABC--and it has already been reported with respect to this 
matter--that ABC News, owned by Disney, quashed an investigative story 
on Disney theme parks. It seems to me that more cross-ownership is 
going to create more opportunities for conflicts of interest in news 
coverage and that will reduce the kind of independent reporting that 
has consistently been in the public interest.
  A lot of the advocates for these changes, these powerful 
conglomerates, point to the idea that these are tough economic times; 
that some media outlets may be hurting. Their argument has been that it 
may be efficient, as they describe it, from a pure dollars and cents 
perspective, to allow different media businesses to combine their 
operations.
  I would only say to those who make that argument that efficiency is 
not the only thing at stake in this debate. Sure, if all anybody cares 
about in the United States is efficiency, why not just have one single 
nationwide news bureau? They could run everything and people could say 
we sure have efficiency now. We wouldn't have all these reporters and 
commentators running around trying to beat each other and scoop each 
other and the like. But I think it is pretty obvious to Senators that 
would not be in the public interest because it would reduce diversity 
and reduce choice and reduce the kind of robust public debate that 
America wants.
  So there are other values besides efficiency. That is the point of 
the current rules, that they help to balance these competing interests.
  I will wrap up because I see other colleagues waiting to make their 
remarks. I think what has happened in this country, and with the FCC's 
set of initiatives in this area, is that the Federal Communications 
Commission has rung the dinner bell--they have rung the dinner bell for 
these powerful conglomerates who are out there licking their chops at 
the prospect of making a meal out of these small outlets.
  As I said earlier, I hope the Senate, when it looks at the facts, 
when it looks at what has gone on in the failed experiment of radio--
and I want to emphasize that--I think the Federal Communications 
Commission will say: All right, these big media companies are at the 
dinner table. They want to gobble up these small outlets.
  I hope the Senate votes in favor of this resolution and cancels the 
Federal Communications Commission's feeding frenzy. I hope the Senate 
will do that when we vote next week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, are we under managed time?
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution 
of disapproval regarding proposed changes in the media ownership 
regulations by the Federal Communications Commission. I personally 
thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership on this issue, as well as the 
rest of the Commerce Committee for so vigorously exploring the 
potential impact these regulations would have on the nature and content 
of the American media. These issues are of vital importance to the 
public, and I am pleased to be part of this effort, utilizing the 
congressional review process to ensure that the rulemaking process 
reflects the public interest.
  Frank Blethen, the publisher of the Seattle Times, eloquently 
testified before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year. Mr. 
Blethen stated:

       The America newspaper, large and small, and without 
     exception, belongs to a town, a city, at the most to a 
     region.

  There is a certain pride and comfort to be taken from the notion that 
the media that so pervades our lives could be so rooted in focus and 
accountability. That comment reflects a core value that has led me to 
the position that I take today, that the Federal Communications 
Commission has proposed a series of historically broad rules changes 
that would make it easier for large media corporations to gobble up a 
greater share of local media, including television stations, in the 
same market.
  The Commission, and those who already hold enormous control over the 
content of the press, claim that this will only enhance the ability of 
the media to meet the needs of the consumer. The world, they claim, has 
grown so large and so complex that only vast resources and centralized 
control can carry important stories across the globe. I respectfully 
disagree.
  Consumers benefit from technology more today than in any time in 
history. In an age of satellite television and the Internet, I am not 
as convinced as some that the greatest hole in news coverage is the 
world beyond our region. The Consumers Union has correctly pointed out 
that the opposite is the case: Satellite provides no independent local 
news information and is struggling just to make local stations 
available to subscribers.
  Radio provides another acute example. Prior to 1996, there was a 40-
station national ownership cap in the radio industry. Today, Clear 
Channel alone owns almost 1,240 stations, and between one-third and 
one-half of all independent radio stations have been absorbed or run 
out of business, including many in Colorado. Suggesting allowing 
increased cross ownership does

[[Page S11391]]

not strike me as a policy in the greatest interest of the public whom 
the FCC is chartered to serve.
  The current generation of Americans has seen the number of 
independently owned newspapers dwindle from 1,700 to 280. As Commerce 
Committee Chairman McCain noted this spring, this often equates to a 
loss of diversity of opinion in the pages of those newspapers with a 
common owner. I share the Chairman's opinion on this matter and am 
profoundly concerned with the homogenization of information being 
funneled in to local communities by multi-market media corporations. As 
Mr. Blethen stated in his testimony, the secret of the free press and 
vibrant public discourse depends upon voices in the communities 
themselves.

  While those facts stand on their own, it is instructive to examine 
what we have witnessed in my home State of Colorado in recent years.
  A number of family-owned newspapers in Colorado have recently been 
absorbed by a media giant, the Media One Corporation. In Northeastern 
Colorado both the Ft. Morgan Times and the Sterling Journal Advocate, 
as well as the Southeastern Colorado paper the Lamar Daily News, have 
gone from being locally owned family papers to being part of an 
enormous media machine headquartered far from those who rely on the 
news and information of those papers. I ask my colleagues, particularly 
those from States with large rural areas, what will happen to the 
information available in those communities if the rules are relaxed 
even further? Will those in Lamar, CO, receive all of their news from 
newspapers, radio and television outlets owned by the same company?
  In my community of Loveland, CO, for example, I have seen a locally 
owned radio station become part of a syndicate of radio stations. We 
don't have the coverage of the local football games by the radio 
station anymore. We don't have local newscasters. A new station came in 
which was created by the city so you can tune into the station to get 
driving information in that small community in which I live. All of 
this was provided by a small radio station at an earlier time, before 
that larger conglomerate bought up that radio station in Loveland, CO.
  This represents an enormous fiscal impact on large and small 
businesses as well as individuals, infringing on their ability to reach 
the consumers they relied upon for years. Those who can still afford to 
advertise are forced to pass these increased costs to consumers. It is 
important to note that this is the market today, without the new, more 
loose FCC regulations in effect. What will happen with newspapers and 
television stations are owned by the same corporation?
  That is legitimate question. Capitol Broadcasting Company makes the 
following estimates for what will happen in Colorado under these 
proposed regulations:
  One company could own six Colorado television stations.
  One company could own an unlimited number of both daily and weekly 
newspapers in the Denver area or a combination of television stations 
and a majority of the print media.
  The local cable company serving every Colorado home could be owned by 
one company.
  The issue before the FCC and the Senate is not whether we need to re-
debate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or specific Joint Operating 
Agreements. The issue today is whether the public will be well served 
by another round of consolidation, particularly the wisdom of enhancing 
the ability of a large corporation to purchase broadcast outlets and 
newspapers in the same market. On several occasions I have contacted 
FCC Chairman Michael Powell to express my concern over the direction 
the FCC has taken and the speed with which it has moved.
  In my opinion the FCC did not give the public nor Congress an 
adequate chance to comment on changes of such enormous consequence 
prior to the adoption of the new regulations.
  I have been impressed and encouraged by the broad coalition of 
organizations expressing similar concerns over the FCC's press for 
action. The Consumers Union, National Rifle Association, Common Cause, 
the Traditional Values Coalition, CodePink Women for Peace, the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Future of Music Coalition are 
just a few of the organizations that share my concern for independent 
and diverse media in the United States. Given the actions of the FCC, 
we must carefully consider the prudence of these rule changes and the 
overall public interest at stake.
  Reed Hundt, FCC Chairman during the passage of the Telecommunications 
Act, stated well the intention of the Congress. ``The Commission's goal 
in this proceeding is to further competition, just as we seek to 
promote competition in other communications industries we regulate. But 
in our broadcast ownership rules we also seek to promote diversity in 
programming and diversity in the viewpoints expressed on this powerful 
medium that so shapes our culture.'' What we must encourage is locally 
driven news coverage as opposed to national news that attempts to find 
a local perspective. National news for the sake of simplicity or 
sensationalism never gives local communities the in-depth coverage they 
should have. Do we want top down coverage or bottom up coverage? I opt 
for local to national.
  I feel much more comfortable with news stories originating out of my 
hometown in Colorado and then, on their own merits, rising to the 
national level. I am not particularly comfortable with national news 
being created and local stations trying to find a local perspective for 
the national headline. So I think that the top down is a bad 
alternative; the bottom up is the best approach.
  It is my hope that this body will listen to the many voices that are 
asking us not to chart a dangerous, wholly business-driven course for 
media and consumers in the coming years.
  The FCC would have been wise to maintain the existing commitment made 
to the public, facilitating greater opportunity for Americans to do 
business, seek information, and enjoy entertainment from a vibrant, 
diverse, and healthy media. The FCC has failed in doing this by passing 
a sweeping slate of rules that will do only one thing for certain: put 
fewer hands in control of the Nation's media. Thanks to the tool at our 
disposal, the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the opportunity to 
prevent these rules from going into effect.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up and send a loud and clear message to 
the FCC by voting in favor of this resolution of disapproval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, and anyone who may be listening to this ``debate''--
which is really not a debate yet but probably will be a debate when we 
vote on Thursday when the time is allocated for Members to speak to 
present their positions on the resolution that is before the Senate--
let us remind ourselves that the resolution that has been introduced, 
S.J. Res. 17, is a resolution to completely throw out all the work of 
the Federal Communications Commission that they have spent 2 years in 
crafting. That is not something this body should consider doing without 
a great deal of thought and understanding.
  The Federal Communications Commission is a body of experts--people 
who have made careers of understanding the communications industry in 
this country--who are charged with looking after the best interests of 
the people of this country with regard to communications policy, and 
also to make sure that the system they devise, in keeping with what 
Congress has done, is a system that allows American industries to 
prosper, thrive, and to be successful in bringing about good 
communications to the people of this country, and at the same time try 
to create a level playing field that really balances the national 
interest with the public interest and with the interest of legitimate 
communications companies.
  It is no question that it is a public interest we are talking about 
because the airwaves do belong to the public; they do not belong to the 
companies. The real challenge the Federal Communications Commission has 
always had is to create the proper balance that protects the public 
interests for those who use the public airwaves and at the same time 
allows companies to be able to make a sufficient profit to be able to 
operate and provide the services which are expanding at an incredible 
rate.

[[Page S11392]]

  There is no question that America has clearly the best communication 
system in the world. We have more services available to more people at 
a price that is more affordable than any other country anywhere in the 
world. You can argue the Internet is not fast enough or we do not have 
enough choices between cable companies or that the rates are too high; 
those are basically issues we deal with through the commission, and 
they make recommendations.
  Congress has enacted overall communication policy and the FCC has to 
follow what the Congress has said. They have come up, after 2 years of 
study and hearings and public debate, with recommendations dealing with 
ownership rules as to who can own and in what degree of concentration 
television stations and radio stations and newspapers to try and make 
sure we do not get out of balance; that the American public is 
protected by having a different choice and fair choices about what they 
want to watch, what they want to hear, and what they want to read. That 
is what the Federal Communications Commission does.
  The resolution before the Congress says after 2 years and what has 
been presented as rules under the FCC, we will throw all of that out; 
that the Congress, in its wisdom, will take a couple of hours, debate 
this issue, and throw out 2 years of work by the FCC, 2 years of 
hearings, 2 years of debate, 2 years of discussion and we will have a 
hearing in the Commerce Committee that will last a couple of hours and 
debate it 30 minutes apiece on Tuesday and then vote on whether to 
throw out what the Federal Communications Commission has done for 2 
years as a matter of public policy.
  It is clear the administration says this is not the right thing for 
the Congress to do. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a statement of administration policy.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 11, 2003.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


   S.J. Res. 17--Disapproving the Rule of the Federal Communications 
                Commission on Broadcast Media Ownership

       The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. 
     Res. 17, a resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the 
     Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with respect to 
     broadcast media ownership. The Administration believes that 
     the new FCC local and national media ownership rules more 
     accurately reflect the changing media landscape and the 
     current state of network station ownership, while guarding 
     against undue concentration in the marketplace. S.J. Res. 17 
     overturns all of the FCC's new media ownership rules--
     negating almost two years of careful study, detailed 
     analysis, and thorough review; creating significant 
     regulatory uncertainty; and preventing the implementation of 
     important new rules which will improve the quality of local 
     news and support free over-the-air broadcast television. If 
     S.J. Res. 17 were presented to the President, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto it.
  Mr. BREAUX. It says if Congress passes this, we will veto it. It is 
very clear. The administration says the new FCC local and national 
media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media 
landscape and current state of network station ownership, while 
guarding against undue concentration in the marketplace. They point out 
this resolution throws all of that out the window, replaces it with 
nothing, and says we do not like it. Maybe some people like some of it 
and do not like other parts, but they got rid of everything the FCC 
recommended.
  That is bad policy and not something the Congress should do. I 
strongly oppose the resolution. I hope the Congress, in the wisdom of 
the Senate, will not adopt this resolution. Or at least I hope we do 
not adopt it in such a large margin that it prevents it from being 
successfully vetoed.
  Many of the arguments, when talking about television, newspapers, and 
radio come down to big is bad and small is good. That is obviously a 
simplistic statement and a simplistic argument.
  Many of the people who support the resolution talk about three areas: 
localism, diversity, and media concentration. In reviewing what the FCC 
has done in each of these areas, you will see we have a fair approach 
to guiding how the industries operate in the 21st century. This is not 
1930, before we even had television. When Americans finally got a TV, 
citizens had a choice of maybe one network and then three. We have so 
many choices now people do not know what to pick. I have 150 television 
stations I can watch with diversity and differences of opinion.
  When they talk of localism, they say we have to get rid of this 
resolution because of localism, we want to have more local people able 
to own the stations. I remember a group of businessmen came to me and 
argued about localism and how they wanted to make sure the networks did 
not own all the television stations because if the networks located in 
New York City owned all the local TV stations, everything would come 
out of New York. I am reminded of the television commercial. When they 
ask where they are from and they say New York City, they said, String 
'em up, as if people in New York cannot be fair and make sure that 
local people get what they want, because they can.
  They argued if the networks owned all the local television stations, 
somehow everything would be directed out of New York by the network 
owners who own the local station down in Louisiana. These people own 
stations in my hometown down in Louisiana. I asked them where they were 
from and they were from New York City. The idea that local ownership 
means a local group of people in the local town will own the local 
television station is not in keeping with the facts. Stations not owned 
by networks are not owned by a local mom and pop, people in the local 
community. They are, in turn, also owned by a large corporation, many 
headquartered in Los Angeles or New York or large entertainment centers 
around the country.
  The argument falls when you talk about localism by saying if networks 
could own stations, you are preventing local stations from owning a 
local station in a community. It is simply not true. It is very rare 
indeed when a group of local owners happen to be from the local 
community as opposed to being very large companies and corporations 
that own the stations themselves.
  They say if you have the local owners, you get better local news, 
because they will have more interest in providing what the local 
community wants. It is not borne out by the facts. In fact, studies we 
have received in the committee clearly show--and this is a factual 
determination--that the network-owned stations--ABC networks, NBC, CBS 
networks that own the local stations--on average present as much as 37 
percent more local news than the non-network-owned stations. That is 
important for those who argue you have to throw the rule out because we 
do not want the networks to own the stations, because if the networks 
own the station you do not get local news coverage. The actual facts 
show when you look at the programming, the network-owned stations, on 
average, show 37 percent more local information programming, more local 
community needs shows and information-providing shows on local events, 
and they provide 37 percent more coverage of local events than the non-
network-owned facilities. The fact is most of the locally owned 
stations are not locally owned but are owned by corporations all over 
the United States. The networks do a much better job of providing local 
input and local news than the network affiliates.

  The argument some make that we need this resolution to throw out this 
rule because we do not want the networks to own the stations because we 
want to have more localism is clearly not borne out by the actual 
facts, just by reading the schedules of the local news available on 
network programming and network-owned stations as opposed to non-
network-owned stations.
  The other argument is you have to have diversity. I mentioned a 
little bit about this in my first argument. They say if the networks 
own the stations, you will not have diversity; you will not have 
diversity of opinion; you will only have the network's opinion 
broadcast and no diversity or difference of opinion. What we have to 
look at is who actually owns the non-network stations. They are, 
indeed, large corporate entities. Nothing wrong with that, but large 
corporate entities,

[[Page S11393]]

many of them on the Fortune 500 list of some of the most profitable 
corporations in America. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not a lot 
of difference, if any, whatsoever, from the networks that own the 
stations.

  The Tribune Corporation, Gannett, Hearst-Argyle, Cox Communications--
are these mom-and-pop operations? Of course not. They are large 
corporations that operate all over the United States. They operate 
cable companies, newspaper companies, television stations all over the 
United States. They are not going to bring about any more great 
adversity than the networks that own their share of stations.
  The final contention is media concentration. The argument that some 
would make is, well, the amount of media concentration is so bad, when 
you have the network-owned stations, with a rule that says you can go 
from 35-percent penetration in the market to 45 percent, it would allow 
this media concentration to exist to a certain extent that would be 
very bad for the American public.
  We have about 1,721 full-power television stations operating in the 
United States of America. There are a little over 1,700 of those 
stations. The concentration of the networks owning these stations is 
indeed very small.
  CBS, through Viacom, owns about 3.4 percent of the total television 
households in this country. On average, their concentration of the 
network-owned stations is about 2.27 percent of the stations in the 
country. Fox--we all know the Fox network--owns about 2 percent of the 
stations. NBC owns about 1.69 percent. ABC owns .58 percent of the 
stations that operate full-time, full-power television in this country.
  Our hearing in the Commerce Committee showed very clearly that no one 
tried to defend this existing 35-percent so-called cap that we have as 
a rule right now; that the FCC moved up to 45 percent because the 
measurement of concentration is totally unjustifiable and 
unsustainable.
  The current rule says if you have a television station in a market or 
in several markets that add up to 35 percent of the population, you 
have reached the cap. That is absolutely a totally inadequate 
measurement of media concentration. It is like saying if I sold cars in 
New York City, which has 6 percent of the U.S. population, therefore I 
am selling cars to 6 percent of the population of the United States, 
when, in fact, I just have one car dealership in a city that has 6 
percent of the population.
  If there were no other car dealers in New York, yes, then I could say 
that I am selling 6 percent of all the cars in America because I am 
selling them in the city and I am the only dealer there. But that is 
the problem with the measurement we are using today and the reason 
moving it up to 45 percent certainly makes sense.
  If I had television stations in Los Angeles, New York, Houston, and 
Miami, I would probably pass the cap--even if no one in those cities 
ever watched my television station. The current measurement assumes if 
you have a TV tower and a station in each one of those cities, in those 
cities everyone is watching your station every day, all day, and only 
your station.
  Well, some of these cities have 150 television channels that people 
watch. They don't just watch NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox. They have 150 
stations they can look to. Yet the current rule says if you have one 
station in each one of those big markets, and the population of those 
markets adds up to 35 percent of the population of the United 
States, you have reached the cap, and you cannot go over the cap, and 
you can't have another TV station--when, in fact, no one in the city 
may be watching your station or maybe only a few people in the city 
watch your particular station.

  So when you are talking about concentration, it is not where the TV 
tower happens to be located; it is how many of the people in an area 
are watching your station. If you look at the ratings, you see that 
none of these operations in prime time come anywhere close to having 35 
percent of the people in the country watch their station.
  For Viacom, what, 3.4 percent is the amount of people watching. It is 
3.4 percent of total TV households. It is not 35 percent; it is not 45 
percent; it is only 3.4 percent. But the way the FCC and Congress 
measure it, because they have stations in large cities, such as Los 
Angeles, somehow they have reached the cap and they can't go over the 
cap, and, therefore, the idea of raising it to 45 percent some believe 
is so bad because of this media concentration; when, in fact, it has 
nothing to do with concentration. The current measurement is really 
outdated and makes no sense whatsoever.
  So when people say the FCC is raising the cap to 45 percent, and a 
station can have 45 percent of the viewing audience in the country, it 
has nothing to do with that. The measurement only indicates the number 
of people in a city who could possibly be watching the station. If they 
were the only station in Los Angeles, that may be true, but when they 
have 150 other TV stations they are watching--you see the highest 
concentration is CBS with 3.4 percent, Fox is 3.1 percent, ABC is 1.5 
percent, NBC is 2.8 percent--I think it really does not make the 
argument on the question of diversity and media concentration by saying 
that because you are located in a large city, you have media 
concentration merely because there are a lot of people in that city.
  It is just like back to my example of owning a car dealership in New 
York. Obviously, just because New York is 6 percent of the population 
does not mean because I own an automobile dealership in New York I have 
sold every single car that is bought in New York. If I did, I would 
have 6 percent of the concentration of car sales in the country. But 
there are probably 1,000 car dealers in New York, and, obviously, 
everybody has a little piece of the action, but nobody has 100 percent. 
Yet the measurement the FCC uses really measures not the amount of 
concentration, it merely measures the population of the city.
  So those who say what the FCC did was incorrect because it allows 
greater media concentration, that is simply not true. So I think the 
resolution should be rejected. If Congress does not reject it, this 
administration will veto it, and the result ultimately will be the 
same.
  But on the three principal arguments of localism, diversity, and 
media concentration that are used in order to say why this resolution 
should pass, I think the evidence and the facts, as opposed to the 
rhetoric, are very clear that those three reasons are not sufficient to 
overturn the Communications Commission that has spent 2 years in 
bringing this to us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BREAUX. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, let me begin with a chart that I had used previously. 
There is the suggestion that somehow concentration is not of any 
significant interest and, gosh, there is nothing wrong. This is all 
localism and mom-and-pop operations. I used this chart before. I 
mentioned Disney.
  Let me just say that although I picked Disney out, I happen to like 
Disney. Disney has given me some of the more rewarding moments of my 
life when I was young. Disney is a great company. But it is a very 
large company doing a lot of things.
  Let me go to News Corp: 22 TV stations including duopolies in New 
York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Washington, Minnesota, Houston, 
Orlando, Phoenix. They have newspapers: the New York Post, the Times, 
the Sun. They have books: Harper Collins, Regan Books, Amistad Books, 
William Morrow & Co. They have sports teams: the Los Angeles Dodgers, 
the Los Angeles Kings.
  I could go through all of this and describe the largest media 
companies, and you would see these are significant concentrations, 
dramatic concentrations in broadcast ownership, newspapers. And I don't 
know. Maybe some say it doesn't matter much.
  I think it does matter. Let me describe at least one part of why it 
matters. The issue of localism, by which we say you may use the 
airwaves--they belong to the American people, but you

[[Page S11394]]

and your radio or television company may use these airwaves--not own 
them, but use them--in exchange for certain requirements. One of them 
is localism. That means you have to serve local interests.
  The question is, how do you serve local interests from a thousand 
miles away, where you create some homogenized music and run it through 
a board and play it though your radio or TV operation in that hometown. 
Earlier, I described voice tracking. Someone may be driving down the 
road in Salt Lake City listening to the radio station, and the 
announcer, with a sonorous voice, says, ``Good morning, the sun is 
shining here in Salt Lake City; what a wonderful day to wake up and be 
in America.'' You would think, what a great resident to have 
broadcasting for our radio station.
  The problem is, that person isn't in Salt Lake City; he is in a 
basement in Baltimore, MD, in a studio, ripping off a printer something 
that came from the Internet that says it is sunny in Salt Lake City. It 
is called voice tracking--pretending there is a local announcer on that 
radio station. That is going on all over the country now.
  There is something called central casting on television. You can turn 
on two television stations in two cities and see the same television 
personality giving the news--homogenized regional news, because they 
cannot quite do it locally. They are trying to convince people this is 
a local news person. Let's pretend there is localism. That is what it 
is all about.
  When you have these concentrations of ownership, this orgy of mergers 
that has occurred in recent years in both radio and television, it 
hurts there isn't much localism. We have had testimony before the 
Commerce Committee by a man who runs a pretty substantial television 
station. He said:

       I can't decide that my viewers don't want to watch a piece 
     of trash that will come down from the network. Even though it 
     is awful stuff they say you have to run it.

  Here is an interesting letter. It is dated July 25, 2003, by a 
television station in Kansas City, Missouri, to someone who complained 
to them:

       We received your letter dated June 30, 2003, regarding the 
     content of [a certain show] that aired on [this date].
       We forwarded your letter to the . . . Network. The Network, 
     not [our station], decides what shows go on the air for [this 
     network-owned station].

  So it says that they don't decide what goes on the air in Kansas 
City. You can complain to us, but we don't decide. The network does. Is 
there localism involved in that?
  One of my colleagues, on the floor of the Senate a number of years 
ago, when we were debating all of this, said something interesting. I 
decided to pull it out and read it today because it relates to this 
issue of localism. Should we care about whether someone in Bismarck, 
ND, or Chattanooga, TN, has an opportunity to decide this is not a 
program that meets our standards? Or should we say, look, let the 
networks decide, and whatever they decide to produce in New York or 
Hollywood is going to be shown in Bismarck, ND, or Chattanooga, TN, and 
it doesn't matter what the local folks think. My colleague, Senator Sam 
Nunn, in 1995, when we were debating this prior to the 1996 act, talked 
about violence on television, what was on television. He said:

  To follow up on this issue, one member of my staff voluntarily 
conducted an unscientific survey of the topics on daytime talk shows. 
Every hour or so, he would scan the television on his desk and see what 
the day's topics were for the daytime talk shows.
  The reason I point this out is this:

       The first day, one show was called ``Stop Pretending To Be 
     a Girl'' and featured young boys whose parents were upset 
     that their sons dressed and acted like a girl. Another show 
     offered a show entitled ``Boys Who Only Have Sex With 
     Virgins.'' Yet another show offered a girl dumping her 
     boyfriend on national television and asking her new 
     ``significant other,'' another girl, to commit to her.

  He said:

       Mr. President, I thought that surely the next day's shows 
     would pale in comparison to these. I was wrong. Subsequent 
     days' reviews of these shows found titles such as ``One-Night 
     Stand Reunions.'' Another show was entitled ``I Am Ready to 
     Have Sex With You Right Now.'' And another show was called 
     ``I Cheat and Am Proud Of It. One show featured a woman who 
     chose to tell her fiance on national television that she 
     cheated on him with her sister's boyfriend . . .

  It goes on and on. He said:

       Perhaps the most appropriately titled show of all was the 
     one entitled ``You Look Like a Freak.''

  Localism. Trash on television. Should someone who owns a television 
station in Tennessee have the ability to say, you know, what you are 
sending us in this time period is a show I don't think represents any 
kind of standard that makes sense for us. The answer is that too often 
the station are not allowed do that because someone else calls the 
shots, not the local folks.
  When you have this concentration, local standards no longer matter. 
Will there be more concentration as a result of what the FCC has done 
with its rules? Of course. In fact, I will read a letter written by 
W.B. Grimes & Company that was written before the FCC even ruled. They 
wrote it to the publisher of a newspaper in Seattle:

       As you know, the FCC is considering elimination of the ban 
     on cross-ownership of media properties within a daily 
     newspaper publisher's given markets.

  They can then buy the television station in the same market.
  It says:

       In anticipation of that ruling, several newspaper groups 
     are already forging alliances and cutting handshake 
     agreements with both radio and television broadcasters in 
     their markets. If you are considering broadcast acquisitions 
     to bolster your market presence, we believe the time to act 
     is now.
       We would like to be your broker.

  This was before the FCC acted. Most people thought the FCC was going 
to do what the big interests wanted them to do. Here is a broker 
saying, let us get involved so we can help you buy television stations. 
Once again, more and more concentration.
  I will talk about some of the voices opposed to this. Some of my 
colleagues talked about this. William Safire, a very conservative 
columnist, who worked for President Richard Nixon as a speech writer, 
and for the New York Times for many years, said:

       The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via 
     broadcast and print. Putting these outlets in fewer and 
     bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. Does 
     that sound unconservative? Not to me. The concentration of 
     power--political, corporate, media, and cultural--should be 
     anathema to conservatives. The diffusion of power through 
     local control, thereby encouraging individual participation, 
     is the essence of federalism and the greatest expression of 
     democracy.

  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

       Without diversity of ownership, our meaningful alternatives 
     to syndicated shows and info-mercials, and public affairs 
     programs, are in jeopardy.

  NRA's executive VP Wayne LaPierre said:

       Most cities have only one major newspaper to begin with. 
     Add ownership of the dominant local TV station, the top AM 
     and FM bands and the local cable TV provider. Then do the 
     same thing in 20 or 50 cities, and you see how a 
     multibillion-dollar corporation corners the market in the 
     marketplace of ideas.
       Minority or unpopular causes--think of women's suffrage in 
     1914, or civil rights in 1954--would be downplayed or 
     dismissed to keep viewers watching and advertisers buying. 
     That's no way to run a democracy.

  That is the executive vice president of the National Rifle 
Association. That is not a liberal organization.
  Walter Cronkite:

       The gathering of more and more outlets under one owner 
     clearly can be an impediment to a free and independent press.

  I could go on and on.
  Parents Television Council:

       Almost 80 percent of families rely on their hometown papers 
     and TV for local information. People can't turn to a national 
     news network over the Internet. They provide one-size-fits-
     all programming, controlled from an office hundreds, perhaps 
     thousands, of miles from your town.

  Barry Diller, former head of Universal Studios, who has acquired a 
rather substantial enterprise in information:

       The big, bad truth is--and I don't think it is given enough 
     importance--the big four networks have in fact reconstituted 
     themselves into the oligopoly that the FCC originally set out 
     to curb back in the 1960s. They may have controlled 90 
     percent of what people saw, but they operated with a sense of 
     public responsibility that simply doesn't exist for these 
     vertically integrated media conglomerates, driven only to fit 
     their next piece in the puzzle of world dominance.

  Let me speak for a few moments about my colleague, Senator McCain, 
someone for whom I have great respect.

[[Page S11395]]

 He gave a statement and I told him I was certainly not going to be 
supportive of his contention that anything we are doing here or any 
reason to come to the floor of the Senate on this issue has to do with 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That was his contention. Nothing could 
be further from the truth, in my judgment. I just disagree with that.

  In 1996, when we rewrote the Telecommunications Act, beginning in 
1995, we addressed these very issues. I offered an amendment on the 
floor of the Senate in 1995 to S. 652 during debate on the 
Telecommunications Act--an amendment by Senator Dorgan of North Dakota: 
To strike the provisions of the bill that would allow television 
networks and other chains to own no more than 35 percent of the 
Nation's households and take it back to 25 percent.
  We had a vote on that amendment. Guess what. I won the vote by three 
votes. Senator Dole was standing at that chair--at that point he was 
majority leader--and Senator D'Amato from New York was at the desk in 
the back. I won the vote by three votes, to roll back the 35 percent, 
which was in the telecommunications bill, to say: You can't own more 
than 25 percent of the reach in this country when you own television 
stations.
  Guess what happened? Dinner intervened. The worst thing in the world 
around here is dinner because over dinner--we call it supper back in my 
hometown--over that period when you eat your evening meal, although I 
had won by three votes at 4 in the afternoon, three of my colleagues 
had some sort of epiphany over their main course, apparently. Senator 
D'Amato came back and asked for reconsideration, and he and Senator 
Dole decided to overturn the vote by which I had won at 4 o'clock that 
would have prevented the 35 percent and gone back to 25 percent. They 
changed three votes. We came back 3 hours later and I lost. So I won 
for 3 hours.
  My colleague--incidentally, Senator McCain made the point I voted for 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I did, to be sure--my colleague 
Senator McCain voted against my amendment that would have rolled back 
the 35 percent back to 25 percent.
  I was fighting then to stop this gross concentration that is going on 
in the broadcast industry, and I won for 3 hours. Then I forgot, when 
you get people out of this Chamber and get arms twisted, you can have a 
re-vote and several people will apparently come here with a different 
mind-set. Winning is temporary in those circumstances, and it certainly 
was that day.
  This is a situation I understood then exactly what was going to 
happen, and it has happened wholesale. I mentioned earlier we have one 
company that has well over 1,200 radio stations in this country. The 
same is happening in television and happening very quickly.
  With newspapers, this new FCC rule says: Oh, by the way, in addition 
to allowing more concentration in radio and television, let's let the 
newspapers own the television stations and more radio stations in the 
same marketplace. I was taught long ago never argue with anybody who 
buys ink by the barrel. I guess I never quite understood that lesson.
  Here we take on the American Newspaper Association and the 
publishers, and they are lobbying furiously because they are opposed to 
what we are doing. They want to be able to buy television stations in 
the same city.
  I said the extension of what the FCC is going to allow to happen as a 
result of their rule is this: That in the largest American cities one 
company will now be able to own the dominant newspaper, the dominant 
television station, two other television stations, eight radio 
stations, and the cable company, and they can do that in city after 
city. If you think that is in the public interest, then I say look up 
the term ``public interest'' in the dictionary or understand the public 
interest in the context of what we ask of radio and television 
stations, of what we need for the free flow of information in our 
democracy. It is not in the public interest.

  I seldom ever come to the floor to say ``I told you so,'' but it is 
almost too tempting to avoid at this moment. In 1995, following what 
happened on the floor of the Senate when I was attempting to stop this 
orgy of mergers that was going to occur, when I won a vote for 3 hours 
and then lost because my colleagues left to have something to eat, this 
is what I said:

       If these changes are enacted, the media industry in this 
     country will be controlled by a handful of conglomerates in 
     the future. The long-held principles of localism and 
     diversity will suffer.

  I said that on June 15, 1995, when I was fighting then for the same 
principle I fight for today, and that is to stop the massive 
concentration. What the American people see, hear, and read will 
increasingly be controlled by a very few voices. That is not in the 
interest of this country.
  I have more to say. I believe the Senator from Virginia wishes to 
speak either perhaps strongly supporting this resolution or maybe he 
will oppose it. Perhaps the latter. What I would like to do is allow 
him to speak, and I understand the Senator from New Hampshire is also 
going to be on the floor. I am going to make some concluding remarks 
this afternoon.
  I yield the floor so the Senator from Virginia can make his 
presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to consume as much time as I may require to speak in opposition to this 
proposed resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution which will essentially throw out six media ownership 
regulations issued by the FCC on June 2. There are a variety of issues 
to cover, and I hope to do that in a coherent and cogent manner.
  Let me first say to my friend from North Dakota, the issues we are 
talking about are media ownership of 35 percent versus 45 percent; the 
issue of cross-ownership, whether newspapers and TV stations can be 
owned by the same entity or enterprise; and the other issue is whether 
medium and smaller sized markets are afforded the same opportunities 
for working together as are allowed in large media markets.
  Those are the three issues. A lot is focused on just one issue, but 
the cross-ownership and the so-called duopoly or multiple ownership 
issues are also very important.
  It was said by the Senator from North Dakota that the local TV cap 
and cross-media rule are going to allow one company to dominate sources 
of news and information in one community. This is simply not true. It 
is an alarmist argument that may get folks all fired up.
  The rules the FCC put forward modify the rules that represent long 
overdue reactions to very extensive and well-researched and documented 
changes in the marketplace. The new ownership rules that are being put 
forward ensure no company can dominate a local media landscape.
  In reality, the newspaper cross-ownership will continue to be 
completely prohibited in all markets with three or fewer TV stations 
while only cross-ownership will be allowed in midsized markets with 
between four and eight TV stations. Only in the Nation's largest 
market, representing approximately 70 out of the 210 TV markets in the 
United States, would cross-ownership restrictions be removed.
  Even in those markets, however, parties will continue to be subject 
to the FCC's separate local television duopoly and radio ownership 
limits. So any newspaper-broadcast combination thus will be subjected 
to competition from at least three and generally more independently 
owned television stations, numerous radio outlets, not to mention the 
wealth of cable, DSS, the Internet satellite print competitors, as 
well, that make up the contemporary media ownership spectrum that is 
available to consumers.
  From the very beginning, in the 1930s, the core principles that drove 
the Nation's communications policies were localism, competition, and 
diversity. Ownership rules are a byproduct of this public interest and 
in constructing rules, our Government seeks to preserve these 
principles, and they continue to be preserved with the FCC's 
regulation.
  After 20 months of decisions, comprehensive, exhaustive analysis by 
the FCC, they have finally done what the

[[Page S11396]]

courts and the Congress commanded them to do--to adopt new ownership 
rules that are based on empirical evidence and also the present 
marketplace.
  On June 2, the Commission made positive steps in crafting updated 
rules to take into account the new media outlets that are available to 
consumers for news information and entertainment.
  Every 2 years, the FCC is required by the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 to review the media-ownership regulations. Over the past 2 years, 
five of the six ownership rules were challenged in court. In each case, 
the FCC's prior regulations, or regulations at that time, were 
overturned. Indeed, both Congress and the courts have given the 
Commission a high standard of establishing legally sustainable 
ownership limits that most importantly remain in the public interest.
  Unfortunately, many have turned this important policy debate into a 
political one, substituting opinion for fact. Allegations that these 
rules will allow four or five companies to dominate all major sources 
of news and information in one community make for good headlines but 
are simply not grounded in fact.
  Over 40 years ago, in the era of black and white television, three 
networks controlled the TV airwaves, providing only 15 minutes of 
evening news and 5 minutes of brief news snippets throughout the day on 
an irregular basis.
  Today, the fact is there are more choices available to the consumer 
in terms of how they access information than any other time in our 
Nation's history--in fact, more than any time in the history of 
mankind. Even in small towns, the number of media outlets, including 
cable, satellite, radio and TV stations, has increased by over 250 
percent during the past 40 years.
  Independent ownership of these outlets is far more diverse with 
approximately 139 percent more independent owners than there were 40 
years ago. Today, there are three 24-hour all-news networks, seven 
broadcast networks, and over 300 cable networks. The multiple news 
programs, independent commentary, public affairs channels are all 
fueling our democratic economy and opportunities. There is more 
programming, more choice and more control in the hands of citizens 
today than ever before.
  Sure, times have changed, changed for the better, and the rules 
governing this burgeoning industry also ought to change to reflect the 
current state of innovation and new technologies. Otherwise, the rules 
that were once designed to help consumers, if this resolution passes, 
have the potential to harm consumers, limiting quality and 
opportunities for choice programming.
  Much of this debate gets focused on the 35-percent versus 45-percent 
broadcast ownership cap and whether that ought to be increased. Our 
opponents maintain that increasing the cap presents a problem because 
the five major broadcast networks already own 80 to 90 percent of the 
top cable channels. In truth, the five companies do not control the 
majority of the channels. Eighty to ninety percent, that statistic, is 
what the opponents refer to as actually related to viewership.
  Now, we heard earlier about Disney and we do not want to be against 
Disney. Well, let's just take last Sunday night's ESPN broadcast of the 
Raiders-Titans game which was played in Nashville, TN. I did not 
particularly like the results, but it sure did score big ratings, 
averaging 10.8 million viewers, averaging 7.8 million households. 
However, this number only amounts to approximately 11 percent of all 
households that subscribe to cable or satellite programming. This is by 
far the No. 1 for ESPN for an opening Sunday night game. At any given 
time, a consumer watching television actually has an opportunity to 
look at 54 different stations.

  Sunday night's game was the highest rated regular season game in the 
Nashville TV market since the Titans moved to Music City. Of the sixty-
eight percent of the televisions that were on in Nashville, two-thirds 
of them were watching the Raiders-Titans game. That is about 48 percent 
of all TVs, so not every TV was on. Nevertheless, those that were on, 
68 percent were watching that game. It was the sixth highest rated TV 
broadcast overall in Nashville since 1997. The top four, and five of 
the top six, highest rated TV programs in Nashville since 1997 are 
Titans games. That was led by last January's AFC championship game, in 
which case I was more happy in that the Raiders beat the Titans, but 
that was the No. 1 Sunday game of all-time back in January.
  With this approach, since people in the Nashville, TN, area, or maybe 
in the Oakland area or elsewhere, two-thirds of them wanting to watch 
that game, does that mean we ought to be prohibiting or regulating or 
punishing ESPN or ABC or Disney because they have programming that 
people actually want to watch? What do we want to make them do, watch 
something we think is better for them than popular programming?
  This is a rare situation that there is such viewership, but that will 
happen. It is consumer choice to see it. In my view, what we ought to 
do is trust free people. I would never advocate limiting consumer 
choice or American's ability to access information.
  We are all concerned about consolidation. We all are opposed to 
monopolies and care about antitrust. We want to preserve diversity and 
competition in the media marketplace, but if we look at the real number 
of options that are available to consumers today across media outlets, 
consumers have an unprecedented abundance of choices.
  We get statistics from 1943 to 2000, and there are obviously big 
increases. Newspapers are about the same or slightly less. In 1943 
there were about 1,700 daily newspapers. Now there are approximately 
1,500. In 1943 there were 931 AM stations. In 1978, there were about 
4,500. In 2001--the best statistics we have presently--it has gone up 
to 4,700-plus AM stations. In 1943, there were 59 FM radio stations. In 
1978, there were 4,069. It has doubled since 1978 to over 8,285 FM 
stations.
  Full-power TV stations have gone from 6 in 1943 to 988 in 1978, and 
in 2001, there were 1,686 full-powered TV stations. In 1978 there were 
zero lower powered TV stations. In 2001, there were 2,212 low-powered 
TV stations. Cable started kicking off in the 1970s, and it had about 
13 million subscribers. Now, in 2001, there are 69 million. DBS 
subscribers, of course, there were zero if we are talking about to 
1990. In 2001, there were 16 million plus.
  There are a variety of other areas: Internet access, big difference. 
Nobody was using Internet access back in the 1990s. Now there are 
literally hundreds of millions of people on the Internet, and Internet 
access is about 72 percent. Broadcast networks in 2001, 7 in English 
and 2 in Spanish; cable networks are now approximately 300; and there 
are over approximately 2,454-plus channel cable systems. That is what 
is in the power, in the discretion, in the choice of the American 
people. They are the ones who see the competition. They are the ones 
who have control and are making the choice as to what they want to 
watch.
  On the issues of newspaper cross-ownership and the local television 
ownership or duopoly issues, if the resolution were debated today and 
passed next week, we would be reverting back to the rules that were 
created in the 1970s. In both cases, the rules are outdated and largely 
unnecessary, given the increase in the number of media outlets. In some 
cases, cross-ownership may actually benefit consumers in smaller 
markets where broadcast companies and newspaper owners face financially 
challenging conditions. If this resolution passes, local television 
stations in smaller markets will be prohibited from combining to pool 
their resources to provide better programming and more local coverage.
  We all know local news and reporting is expensive to produce, both in 
getting digital equipment and quality news staff. Those are major 
expenses, especially in smaller markets where there is less 
advertising; therefore, less can be charged but there are still pretty 
much the basic same costs as a large market would have. And while the 
large market can get all that advertising revenue because they are 
potentially having contact with more people, they can get their costs 
recouped. In the smaller markets, there are pretty much the same costs 
with less of a revenue stream, which makes it more difficult to operate 
stations in those smaller markets.

[[Page S11397]]

  I am aware of at least two markets in Virginia--Harrisonburg and 
Charlottesville--that would benefit from the new media rules the 
Commission issued on June 2. Both of these markets are very small in 
comparison to the big markets of New York City and Los Angeles and 
simply don't have the same resources available for comprehensive news 
programming and so forth that the New York City and LA markets may 
have. But they still try to make it in a smaller market.
  Another interesting nuance, ignored in this, is what this does to 
some markets that were grandfathered, before the 1996 act. In some 
Virginia markets, and one shared with Virginia and Tennessee, back in 
1975 they were grandfathered, or waived, under the ownership rules. If 
this resolution passes, they potentially will no longer be able to 
provide local news--if this resolution passes. This is where you have 
cross-ownership. Previously, and currently under the present rules and 
law, both the Roanoke and Lynchburg markets as well as the Tri-Cities--
which, as the President knows, are Bristol, Johnson City, and 
Kingsport--were grandfathered. If this resolution passes, potentially 
they will no longer be able to provide local news.
  You also have in the Lynchburg market the local television station 
and the two local newspapers, the Lynchburg and Danville papers. Both 
of these media sources have been permitted to combine resources, and 
that has led to expanded news coverage and increased program offerings 
for their customers and constituents.
  I am increasingly convinced by these successful examples in 
Virginia--this is not theory but it is fact--that we should be relaxing 
the newspaper cross-ownership rules and regulations. If this resolution 
passes, it will harm the ability of these voices and these markets to 
be able to pool their resources for more effective and better reporting 
and production. I think these FCC rules, by the way, preserve the key, 
core principles of localism, diversity, and competition.
  A duopoly--local TV cap. I was visited by several constituent station 
managers from the Shenandoah Valley, Roanoke area, and Bristol. They 
raised the local television ownership rule which, if this resolution 
were to pass, would restrict ownership of more than one station in a 
market with eight voices or fewer.
  These small, local television managers confirm that revenue and 
facility sharing would help keep struggling stations afloat in small 
markets and actually, and logically, would improve the quality and 
diversity of programming currently available to viewers.
  It is certainly the prerogative of the Senator from North Dakota to 
use the Congressional Review Act and bring before the Senate this 
resolution of disapproval. At issue are some of the founding principles 
of government: Freedom of speech and the press, freedom to associate 
and to petition the Government, freedom to acquire and hold property in 
accordance with the law.
  Our Founding Fathers understood that government should not have the 
power to restrict speech without deeply compelling justifications. I 
believe the public interest is ill served when Congress forces the FCC 
to revert back to ownership rules that were overturned by the courts 
for being outdated and not guided by solid factual records.
  In my opinion, the congressional mandate established in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act and the court order forced the FCC, in a 
positive and proactive way, to conduct a thorough and exhaustive review 
of the media ownership rules. I am confident that the Commission's June 
2 order established legally sustainable ownership limits that 
accomplished these three goals: No. 1, promoting diversity, localism, 
and competition; No. 2, updating the rules to reflect a multitude of 
new outlets for news information and entertaining; and, No. 3, striking 
a careful balance that promotes the public interest while ensuring no 
one company can monopolize any one medium of communications or limit 
any American's ability to access information.
  I will conclude by asking my colleagues to oppose this resolution, 
stand strong for freedom, and support the FCC. Don't foul up. Look 
forward. Look forward into the reality of opportunity today in America. 
Let's move forward with that rational, logical approach promulgated by 
the FCC.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan 
resolution. This is a debate and an issue that does bring us in touch 
with a number of the important issues discussed by the Senator from 
Virginia: free speech, media concentration, consolidation. It certainly 
affects our media markets and the shape of those media markets for 
years to come. But, at its heart, this is really a question of 
regulation, a new set of regulations, a different set of regulations 
put forward by the FCC, dealing with who can buy, who can own different 
kinds of media outlets--newspapers, TV, radio stations, and the like--
and what kind of limits we are going to put on them.
  So it is a debate about regulation and how much regulation is the 
appropriate amount on the part of the Federal Government. To what 
degree do we want the Federal Government interfering with, limiting, 
and manipulating the media that we as consumers enjoy and use in our 
daily lives? What level of regulation is appropriate and is really 
required to uphold some very important principles that you have heard 
the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from North Dakota and many 
others speak of--principles of localism, competition, and diversity, 
principles that we support, that the FCC works to support anytime it 
looks at a regulatory issue such as this one?
  How much regulation do we really require to protect these important 
principles? This is not a debate about the poor quality of the TV that 
we might go home and look at, or look away from, every night. In some 
ways, I wish this were a debate about improving the quality of 
television because if we could just do that by a simple adjustment of 
these regulations, then we probably would all feel much better about 
the quality of television. But we can't.

  To suggest this is about the quality of the television we see in any 
part of the country is to suggest that you believe limiting, say, Fox 
Corporation to the 35 stations it owns today versus the 40 or 42 or 44, 
or some number it might own at a future date with the new regulations, 
that somehow that would affect the quality of the programming we see. I 
think that is ridiculous. I don't think that program quality would be 
improved if we forced NBC to get rid of 8 of its 29 stations or 10 or 
12 stations within the limits that we are talking about that any one of 
these companies owns. I don't think it would in any way affect the 
quality of television.
  I am the father of three children. I am as frustrated as any parent 
about the search for good quality programming. I am frustrated about 
the poor quality of programming that is often put on television in the 
prime time hour. But that is the nature of modern media--whether it is 
cable or radio or television or even newspapers. We are not all going 
to be happy as Americans with everything that comes across the 
channels.
  At the same time, I very much support the process that the Senator 
from North Dakota is using here, the Congressional Review Act. I think 
it does bear some emphasis because some people have come to the floor 
and have been somewhat critical of the process being used here--using 
the Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a regulation that a 
Member of Congress or a Member of the Senate doesn't like. But that is 
exactly what the law was intended to do.
  It is a law that was passed, I am pleased to say, when Republicans 
took control of Congress back in 1995. They said we ought to have as a 
Congress--as a House or as a Senate--a way to register disapproval; to 
repeal regulations that are put forward all the time

[[Page S11398]]

by very large bureaucracies, or different branches of the executive 
regulating commerce, or regulating the environment, or regulating the 
forestry issues, or, in this case, regulating the media. It is a very 
appropriate use of the act, but it is a resolution with which I 
strongly disagree. I will talk about those reasons this afternoon.
  We are here obviously because the Senator from North Dakota has 
submitted this resolution of disapproval, or rejection of these new 
regulations, but the regulations were put forward in the first place 
primarily because of a couple of issues.
  The first was in 1996. The Telecommunications Act sets the guidelines 
under which the FCC acts; that calls on the FCC to reconsider 
regulations that do not serve the principles of localism, competition, 
or diversity, and doesn't seem necessary to promote these competitive 
forces, or to serve the public.
  The 1996 act actually calls on the members of the FCC to do exactly 
what they did; that is, reconsider these regulations and modify them if 
they believe it is in the public interest and the right thing to do.
  Second, related to that legislation but even more current is the 
action of the courts recently. The courts struck down or remanded 
several of the media regulations--in particular, the 35-percent cap 
which we will talk about--and called on the FCC to either revise or 
justify the regulations that were on the books.

  So you have two forces coming to bear. I am sure the FCC 
Commissioners weren't dying to throw themselves into the issue, but 
they were called upon effectively to do so by the courts and by the 
legislation that this very Congress passed in 1996.
  These are proposals--I think as the Senator from Virginia discussed--
which were very long in the making. It was not a spur of the moment 
recommendation or a spur of the moment change in regulations. For 20 
months, there were deliberations, collecting comments, soliciting 
comments, and several hearings that took place. People came forward and 
spoke for and against different rules and for and against different 
concepts for changing those rules and to argue their point of view--to 
argue the very reasons they thought a change in the existing rules 
might be in keeping with the goals of the 1996 act and the three 
principles of localism, competition, and diversity.
  There was a thorough process, not one that was without any 
disagreement but a great country, a strong country, and one where we 
take great pride in our ability to debate and discuss these issues with 
one another.
  Let me talk about three of the proposals and the reasons I think at 
the end of this very thorough and very complete process, resulting in 
the rules put forward by the FCC, the reason I think the rules make 
sense, and why I don't think we should be rushing to repeal them or 
reject them. I believe there are several negative consequences of 
repealing these rules, which I will speak about at the end of my 
presentation.
  First, we are talking about a proposal that will take the current 35-
percent cap to 45 percent.
  What does the 35-percent cap mean? Is it 35 percent of the television 
market share? It is not 35 percent of the television viewers on any 
particular night or any particular hour. It is not 35 percent of the 
television station. It is a cap on owning stations that can reach 35 
percent of the population, the immense concentration that we hear 
about. Take NBC, for example, which owns 29 television stations. That 
is less than 2 percent of the number of full-power television stations 
in the country. I think they are the largest owner of stations. Perhaps 
Fox Corporation may own 35 stations, close to 2.5 percent of the full-
power television stations. This is just a limit on the amount of 
viewers you can reach if every viewer out there happens to be watching 
your station.
  If you look at, as I said, the number of stations that are owned, we 
are talking about a very small number on a percentage basis. Opponents 
of the rules and supporters of this resolution will say, well, let us 
talk about the six big companies. Those six big companies control 75 
percent of the television viewers.
  First, to suggest you are being controlled when you choose what you 
want to watch on television any given night, I think, misunderstands 
what television viewers are all about. But even if you look at those 
numbers--six companies, 75 percent of the viewers--let us go back 20 or 
30 years; it used to be that there were three companies which had 90 
percent of the viewers. I think things have changed in that regard for 
the better. But the numbers are even more striking if you break them 
apart further.
  Those six companies may have 75 percent of the viewers because their 
shows happen to be popular, but they have fewer than 25 percent of the 
channels that would typically come through your cable or your satellite 
outlet.
  On that cable dial, all channels are created equal. We used to be 
segmented in VHF and UHF. But today a majority of people receive their 
television through cable or through satellite. Channel 85 and channel 
42 are just as likely to attract viewers, depending on the quality of 
their program.
  It is a pretty fair fight when you think about it--pretty fair 
competition among the dozens of stations on the dial. Those six 
companies only control or own fewer than 25 percent of the channels. 
There is greater competition in that regard and greater diversity in 
that regard not only than we had 30 years ago but, quite frankly, than 
most people could have imagined 30 years ago.
  With all the discussion about localism--it is a very important thing, 
indeed--there has been no connection shown between localism and a 
larger concentrated owner of these stations. Simply because a TV 
station is owned by one of the larger corporations does not mean it 
shows less local programming. It is a very important point. This has 
been studied. You can look at it empirically, look at NBC, Fox, or ABC-
owned stations, and measure how much local programming they put on any 
given day and compare it to independently owned stations around the 
country and measure how much local programming there is on any given 
day. There is no difference. To the extent there is a difference, one 
of the most comprehensive studies the FCC relied upon showed a slight 
increase in local programming among those owned by the larger media 
entities.

  Localism is important. To be sure, the FCC maintains its ability to 
press for and emphasize localism, diversity, and competition when they 
make decisions of who can and cannot purchase a license. And all of the 
purchases of licenses--radio, TV--are still subject to FCC review and 
still subject to antitrust laws that govern monopoly power in this 
country. So that is one of their regulations. Probably the one that 
gets the most discussion is the movement from a path of 35 to 45 
percent of the audience that could be reached by all the stations.
  The second regulation that received a lot of discussion is the issue 
of cross-ownership, whether you can allow a company that has a 
newspaper to also own a TV or radio station. Here we actually have 
cases we can look at. The FCC did look at it and asked the question, 
Where cross-ownership occurs, are localism, competition, and diversity 
poorly served? Do we have problems? Do we have conflicts of interest? 
Do we see a reduction in the responsiveness of the media outlets to 
local community needs? We can look at existing evidence because there 
were 40 markets that were grandfatherd by the FCC, 40 markets where 
entities already engage in cross-ownership. There was no harm found by 
the FCC. That certainly does not mean everyone is happy with everything 
that newspaper or radio station or TV that has cross-ownership 
produced. I am sure we will hear from Members that might in their 
remarks speak to personal experiences where they do not feel they were 
treated well by a newspaper or radio station. That is unfortunate for 
them.
  But that is the nature of the country's free media and free markets. 
It is something that ultimately, when we get over the personal 
feelings, every member of this Chamber is proud of, that this country 
allows such a free and open media.
  Again, where cross-ownership issues come into play and purchases of 
TV or radio station and all spectrum come into play, the principles of 
localism, competition, and diversity will be protected, but antitrust 
provisions still hold. That is important to remember.

[[Page S11399]]

  A third and final area of regulatory change or regulations that has 
been discussed in this debate is radio ownership. There is a little bit 
of irony here because this is something that cuts close to home for the 
Senator from North Dakota, the celebrated case in his State where one 
company was able to acquire six or seven radio stations that all 
covered one particular region of the State, a very clear case of 
dominance of radio in a particular region of the State. But with regard 
to radio ownership limits, the FCC actually tightened the regulations. 
There is no change to the regulations on the number of stations you can 
own in a particular market in an attempt by the FCC to actually tighten 
the definition of market areas in order to prevent that unfortunate 
situation from happening again.

  We can critique the radio stations or the large radio station owners, 
talk about their business practices or things we liked or disliked 
about them, and there are important points to make, but they do not 
really have any bearing on this debate because even if this CRA 
provision offered and were to pass, there would be no significant 
modification to the radio ownership structures.
  If the resolution passes, it does have a number of other 
counterproductive effects that concern me. First and foremost, it would 
surely send these issues back to the courts. That is one of the 
reasons--not the only reason but one of the reasons--the FCC acted in 
the first place because the courts had said there is no justification 
for the regulations as currently structured. So if this resolution 
passes and were to pass the House and get signed into law--which is 
unlikely to happen, and I certainly do not support it--if it were to be 
signed into law, this would all be thrown back into the courts and we 
would have a very uncertain environment for ownership, for media, for 
evaluation, and for business. Whether you are an entity large or small, 
independent or corporately owned, it would create an uncertain 
marketplace.
  Second, this resolution turns back the clock. I don't believe that is 
a good thing, in that turning back the clock would ignore the enormous 
changes we have seen to the industry over the last 10 years, let alone 
the last 20 or 30 years. A number of the regulations that are modified 
or adjusted by the FCC date back 30 or 40 years to their original 
crafting.
  I know it is difficult to picture what the state of television was 
for many of the younger Members of the Chamber, but I amaze my children 
constantly when I describe it in a world where you had to walk across 
the room to change the channel on your television. I am old enough to 
remember those days and they seem not so long ago, indeed. Times have 
changed enormously. Regulations dealing with this industry and with the 
media markets need to be updated to keep pace with the evolution of 
technology, to protect the values of localism, competition, and 
diversity, but they do need to evolve with the changes in technology.
  A third and final concern if this resolution were to pass was raised 
by FCC Chairman Michael Powell in a piece he authored yesterday or 
today for publication. That is, it could well portend the end of free 
TV. Rolling back these regulations with the passage of this act could 
result in the end of free TV. It sounds like a pretty dramatic claim. I 
think it bears some additional description. How could that be?
  Free TV depends on advertising for its revenues. Cable TV depends on 
both advertising revenue and cable subscriptions--monthly fees or per-
show fees paid to watch programming. Simply put, that is a better 
business model. Anyone can see that. Pay TV has a better, stronger, 
more robust business model. If you do not believe it, look at the 
migration of so-called quality programming--sports, entertainment, even 
certain forms of news programming from free TV to cable TV over the 
last 3 or 4 or 5 years, let alone the last 10 or 15 years. Go back 10 
or 15 years, it is a wholesale migration, but you can see changes in 
the last 3, 4, or 5 years.
  If we repeal the rules, we create a tougher competitive environment 
and more restrictive competitive environment for the free TV networks 
or stations. You put them at a competitive disadvantage relative to 
cable and pay TV. So the acceleration and the movement of that so-
called quality programming to cable TV will only accelerate and make it 
tougher and tougher to sustain any level of quality among free TV in 
the marketplace.
  I could be cynical and say, That is fine with me. I don't care. I 
have cable TV and I will still continue to get lots of channels, lots 
of entertainment, lots of news, and lots of sports. Many people would 
argue, and part of me certainly would argue, that there is a value and 
a benefit to free TV especially in those areas of our country that are 
at an economic disadvantage, where cable TV does not have the 
penetration of urban areas and where people simply cannot afford to pay 
for cable TV.
  Those are serious considerations. The effect of free TV, turning back 
the clock with regard to the evolution of technology and throwing the 
issues back into the courts, all of those would be cause to reject this 
resolution in and of themselves.
  But on top of that, we see that the radio ownership regulations are 
effectively untouched. Cross-ownership has already proven its ability 
to work in the marketplace without harming the principles of localism, 
competition, and diversity. And the adjustment from 35 percent to 45 
percent of national ownership cap, I would contend, is modest. It is 
very modest, indeed, when you look at what the true market share 
numbers are and the number of channels.
  This is an important debate. I appreciate being given time to talk on 
these issues. I do hope my colleagues step forward to reject this 
resolution, although, as I say, I certainly respect the way in which it 
has been offered and the process the Senator from North Dakota has gone 
through to get us to this debate.
  We respect the ideals of free speech, of democracy, and we work to 
promote the idea of competition and diversity in media ownership. I 
believe that is exactly what the FCC has done and attempted to do in 
crafting these regulations. I hope we will reject this resolution and 
continue to move forward in a thoughtful way, and to a world and to an 
age of technology and media that, frankly, we can't quite picture today 
which will be exciting, will provide opportunities, and will continue 
to promote the ideals of free speech upon which this country was 
founded.
  I thank you, Mr. President, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this has been an interesting discussion on 
the floor of the Senate today on an issue that I think is very 
important and one that will affect the life of every American citizen. 
It is complicated and difficult to understand. In some circumstances, 
it deals with cases of law in Federal court, ideals with arcane rules, 
and the history of the Federal Communications Commission with respect 
to broadcast ownership. So it has all of those aspects.
  I respect the fact there are those who feel strongly on the other 
side of the issue. I believe very strongly, of course, that the Federal 
Communications Commission has created a set of rules that will benefit 
the largest corporate interests in this country in broadcasting. I 
think they will, however, be a significant detriment to the American 
people.
  I was sitting here thinking about the issue of radio and television. 
Of course, we have not had radio and television in the lives of 
humankind for very long. It is a relatively recent phenomenon. And I 
was thinking of the statement that was attributed once to David 
Sarnoff. I don't know for sure that it was his. But he was asked to 
comment about the advent of the radio when he was presented with this 
new invention, and he said: ``The wireless music box--which he called 
it--has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message 
sent to nobody in particular?''
  That was his vision of radio. But, of course, radio has become a very 
significant feature in our lives, and television as well.
  Television is a central part of the lives of many Americans. I am 
told that when children go to school in this country, by the time they 
are a senior in high school and graduate from school, they have spent 
somewhere around 12,500 hours sitting in a classroom in our schools and 
around 20,000

[[Page S11400]]

hours in front of the television set. It tells you a little something 
about the importance of television in the lives of at least children.

  Let me respond to just a couple of the thoughts that have been 
expressed by my colleagues. My two colleagues who just spoke are on the 
Commerce Committee, and on the Commerce Committee they supported the 
FCC and believe these rules are appropriate. They indicated, for 
example, that in many ways these rules are for the purpose of 
protecting--they don't use the term ``mom and pop,'' but let me use 
it--this is really for mom and pop television stations--you know, the 
little guy. It is helping the little television station out there that 
you know is going to go by the wayside if we don't let the big guys buy 
them up, I guess is the contention.
  In fact, Commissioner Powell has an op-ed piece in the Wall Street 
Journal today. He begins his Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by saying: 
``The days of free television may be numbered.''
  That is Commissioner Powell in today's Wall Street Journal. And he 
uses the title ``And That's the Way It Is.'' I guess that suggests 
Walter Cronkite, who actually opposes what Commissioner Powell is 
doing. ``And That's the Way It Is.''

       The days of free television may be numbered.

  Interesting. This rule is nothing about free television. It certainly 
is nothing about mom and pop. It is nothing about saving small 
television stations. Its point is that we are in the midst of a lot of 
change that has a dramatic impact and the only way the television 
industry can make it is to allow this concentration.
  Well, perhaps we could just separate some fact from fiction. There is 
no evidence anywhere that the television industry or television 
stations or mom and pop stations are in any kind of financial trouble. 
We have a substantial amount of evidence, in fact, that that is not the 
case.
  Let me quote Barry Diller, who is a giant in this industry. He 
recently said: ``Anybody who thinks the networks are in trouble hasn't 
read the profit statements of those companies. The only way you can 
lose money in broadcasting is if somebody steals it from you.'' That is 
Barry Diller.
  The Wall Street Journal reports that:
  Fox's president for sales said, ``We all knew that it was going to be 
big, it just turned out to be the biggest year that we had ever had.'' 
The chairman of Fox Entertainment noted that Fox will generate 
significantly more revenue this year than in its previous 17 years, 
with revenue growth up more than 20%.
  So free television in financial trouble? I don't think so. It is 
interesting to hear this discussion, that somehow the rule the FCC has 
developed--that is really just a high dive on behalf of the largest 
corporate interests--is being done in order to save the little guy. I 
have heard a lot of things on the floor of the Senate but never 
anything quite as entertaining as that. But it is so far from fact that 
it is almost hard to respond to.
  The FCC, we are told, in another argument, did what the court said it 
had to do. The court said: The rules you have on broadcast ownership 
cannot be justified. You must change them.
  That is not what the court said. I have what the court said in my 
hand. The court said: ``It is entirely possible that the Commission 
will be able to justify a decision to retain the cap.'' It just said 
that in the response the FCC provided, it did not provide the 
justification. It did not say: Go change the rule and give the largest 
corporate interests everything they want. It said: Justify it.
  The FCC did not even appeal the court's ruling, and now has not tried 
to justify it. It just said: Well, apparently the court said we must 
cave in here and decide that there is a kind of ``Katie bar the door'' 
limit, and we will do what the big interests want.
  Again, this is a regulatory agency that ought to be concerned about 
the public interest but, in my judgment, with respect to these rules, 
is not concerned much about the public interest.
  My colleagues say: This is all about the market system and the 
Constitution. The first amendment says you have the right of free 
speech and the right to buy what you want to buy. One of my colleagues 
talked about being able to acquire property you want to acquire.
  That is not an inalienable right in this country. We have things such 
as antitrust. We have laws dealing with antitrust. When somebody wants 
to steal from you by creating a cartel and jacking up the price, that 
is called stealing. It violates the law, and we put people in jail for 
it. So you do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want in the 
marketplace.
  We have had some experience with this over time. The most recent 
experience, of course, is the Enron Corporation. And I suppose some of 
those Enron folks are going to get 2 years of hard tennis at some 
minimum-security institution some place.
  Some of them are still waiting to see if indictments and charges will 
come. Hundreds of millions of dollars were bilked from people because 
of concentration in the marketplace monopoly, pricing, and so forth.
  Look, the point is this: If, in this circumstance, what people see, 
read, and think is controlled by fewer and fewer interests, it is, in 
my judgment, detrimental to the democratic way of life and system of 
government that we have because the foundation of this system of 
government is the free flow of information.
  Now, if somebody decided tomorrow, look, we are going to buy up all 
the hamburger stands in America, and instead of driving down the street 
and seeing a McDonald's or a Burger King or a Wendy's, one company 
decides we want all the hamburger stands in our name. We just want to 
call all those hamburger stands ``The World's Best Burger Stands,'' and 
we are going to buy them all. That would be awful, would it not? It 
would not affect our lives very much. We might have indigestion once in 
a while, and there would be no variety. Somebody would probably say it 
violates the antitrust laws for a company to own them all, but I 
wouldn't have an apoplectic seizure on the Senate floor because I don't 
stop at those stands much.
  But what about instead of hamburger stands, we talk about 
information? Information is what makes a democracy work. What about the 
control of information in fewer and fewer and fewer hands? Is that 
something we should be concerned about? Yes, of course. That is 
something that is important. They say, well, but the market system 
should make this judgment. Look, that market system is wonderful; it is 
a great thing.
  I used to teach economics briefly. I taught about the market system. 
I love the market system. It is a wonderful allocator of goods and 
services. But it is not perfect. That is why we have regulators and 
regulations. Under the market system--Judge Judy, that woman on 
television with an attitude, gets $25 million a year. Good for her. 
That is the market system. Judge Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court, gets $180,000 a year. That is the market system.
  A shortstop for a Texas baseball team makes the same amount of money 
in a year as 1,000 elementary school teachers. Good for him. Is that a 
market system judgment that you think makes sense? I don't. But that is 
the market system.
  The market system is not perfect. In circumstances where you are 
dealing with ideas, and the free flow of information in a democracy, we 
need to be concerned about making certain that we don't have fewer and 
fewer people, fewer companies or institutions, determining what we see, 
read, and hear in this, the greatest democracy on Earth. That is what 
this is about.
  I mentioned earlier that there are some trashy things in the media. I 
talked about the television programs that my colleague, Senator Nunn, 
talked about on the floor of the Senate. I could have updated it and 
used the same things for this year or last year. I should hasten to 
say, however, there are also some wonderful things. I don't want to 
just tarnish an industry. I think there are wonderful things, gripping 
things, things with such incredible, utter beauty that you can hardly 
describe them, on television and on the radio. It is really quite 
remarkable.
  Some of the things that we are able to see and experience are great. 
I don't want anybody to think that I am somebody who doesn't watch 
television, doesn't appreciate television, or radio. I just want there 
to be some vibrancy with respect to the use of the airwaves,

[[Page S11401]]

which belong to the American people and are licensed to companies. I 
want there to be vibrancy with respect to serving the local communities 
they serve. The reason we license a radio station in a community is to 
be responsive to local needs and interests in that community. It 
doesn't attach at all when properties are purchased by companies that 
only want to run homogenized music from a thousand miles away. They are 
selling advertising and making profits, but they don't do anything with 
respect to the localism requirements in those local communities. That 
bothers me.

  I offered this amendment with my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats. This isn't a partisan or political issue in any way. Senator 
Lott from Mississippi and I, and many others, including Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison and others, have been very concerned about what is 
going on with respect to concentration in the media. This battle that 
has shaped up in the FCC to write a new rule is a battle between the 
public interest and the special interests.
  Frankly, the special interests won everything. They won the whole 
pot. By that, I mean it was put in the middle of the table and they 
turned over a card and the FCC said: You win, big interests; you get it 
all.
  We have a procedure called the Congressional Review Act by which we 
can, as the Senate, vote on whether we want to disapprove this rule. I 
want the Senate to decide that now in this time we will say to the FCC 
that we disapprove of that rule. That rule is not in the public's 
interest. That rule is not what we expect this regulatory agency to do 
on behalf of the American people.
  I mentioned earlier, I come from a very small town. We didn't have a 
radio or television station. I come from a town of 350 people in a 
southwestern corner of a sparsely populated State. North Dakota is a 
wonderful place, but we have 640,000 people spread out in a landmass 
the size of 10 Massachusettes. The nearest television station to where 
I grew up was 125 miles away. The first television in our little town 
was at a place called the Regent Garage. The people in town--at night, 
especially, because that is when you can catch disparate signals being 
broadcast--would gather at the Regent Garage. With this one television 
set--the only one in our town, they would all peer into that set and 
see this grainy, snowy vision coming from Bismarck, ND, 125 miles away.
  Occasionally, there would be some sort of a skip and they would pick 
up professional wrestling from West Virginia, or a strange program from 
way out East. The people in my hometown thought it was just incredible. 
The people began to get television sets. It wasn't just the Regent 
Garage; they got sets in their homes. So it has gone for some 60 years.
  There wasn't any question years ago about localism. When stations 
were developed, one developed closer to my hometown. It is still the 
closest television station now. It was 60 miles away--KDIX television 
in Dickinson. As television stations developed, they were locally 
owned. The only way they got a television station in Dickinson is folks 
in the region put in money. They asked people to contribute $100. So my 
dad contributed $100. He was one of a lot of people who contributed to 
building a television station in Dickinson, ND. So we had localism, 
local ownership.
  But that has changed dramatically. The question is, Do we want it to 
change more? Do we want most of our properties in broadcast radio and 
television to be owned from a thousand miles away? Do we want, in most 
of our big cities, the dominant newspaper to own the dominant 
television station? Do we want, in most big cities, to have one company 
own three television stations, eight radio stations, the dominant 
newspaper, and the cable system? Does anybody think that will benefit 
the consumers of this country? The answer ought to be no to those 
questions.

  That is not what we want or expect from the FCC. It is not the 
direction that we anticipated when we created the 1996 
Telecommunications Act.
  Mr. President, there is a lot to say. I want to correct one other 
thing with regards to the discussion about the quality of programming. 
Somebody talked about the quality of programming and said network-owned 
stations, where you have one big owner, you get higher quality 
programming from those folks because they have the money and they are 
big shots and they have it all going. They are producing great things.
  Well, here is something I think is interesting. Two organizations, 
NASA (Network Affiliated Stations Alliance) and the National 
Association of Broadcasters (NAB), were highly critical of a study that 
the FCC did on the quality of news programming between affiliates and 
network-owned stations. While the original study indicated that 
network-owned stations did better than affiliates because they won more 
awards, NASA and NAB demonstrated that the conclusion was untrue once 
the study was adjusted to take market size into account. After 
controlling for market size the data showed that independent affiliates 
outperformed network-owned stations on all measures of news quality. 
Affiliates win substantially more Dupont awards and substantially more 
Peabody awards. In addition, the Project for Excellence in Journalism 
study showed that affiliates are superior to network-owned stations in 
terms of news quality. I think that is important.
  Finally, it is also important in the context of what kind of program 
is going to come into your community. Is it going to be programming 
that someone in your community can decide they do not want? We see the 
programming these days on some of the national shows. It is almost 
embarrassing to read the names of the programming, and yet if you tune 
in some evening, when your television set comes on you will see someone 
standing in front of a bowl of maggots and they are beginning to eat 
this bowl of maggots. I forget the name, ``Fear Factor''--it is one of 
those shows. I have only seen it momentarily.
  When I saw somebody trying to eat a bowl of maggots, I thought: It is 
a good thing there is an off button on the television set. Maybe there 
ought to be an off button with the person who owns the local 
broadcasting company saying: I happen to think that is not the program 
I want to sell in Tallahassee, FL, or Chattanooga, TN. What I would 
like to do is put on an alternative program that I think is better than 
someone eating maggots.
  You know what. They cannot do that. I described earlier letters from 
local stations who say: We can't do that. So the more stations you get 
under this umbrella, under single ownership, the less opportunity 
anybody anywhere at any time will have to say: I don't happen to like 
that program. You might have put it together in the recesses of a 
closet in Hollywood someplace where you thought it was wonderful, but 
back in our hometown, we think it is trashy. I don't want to play it. I 
want to play something that more reflects the values of our hometown.
  They cannot change it. If you want more of that, if you want to move 
more in that direction, then you ought to vote to sustain the FCC. Like 
a cheerleader, shake some pom-poms, jump up in the air and say: We 
really like what you do; bigger is better. Katie bar the door, let them 
have anything. Let's have one big company give us a crooked smile every 
morning and say: We are for America, and we decide what you ought to 
see, what you ought to hear, and what you ought to read from Sunday to 
Saturday. Don't like it? Tough luck, we own it all.
  If that is your philosophy, then you need to vote for this resolution 
of disapproval. But if you believe in enterprise, in local control, in 
owning up to the responsibility we have given those who own local 
stations, if you believe in that, then you ought to vote for this 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission 
regulations must serve the public interest by guaranteeing that a wide 
range of local voices can be heard and by promoting competition in the 
marketplace.
  As a public trustee, the FCC has a duty and obligation to include the 
public in its decisionmaking process. That was not done in this case.
  I support this resolution that has been engineered by Senators Dorgan 
and Lott because the FCC did not hold a single public hearing to 
present its proposed rules for comment. Chairman Powell refused to hold 
a hearing even after Commissioners Copps and Adelstein personally 
requested such a hearing.

[[Page S11402]]

  Even though the FCC's flawed process makes it impossible for me to 
support its action, I am deeply concerned about the situation in rural 
communities where many TV and radio stations are struggling.
  The FCC cross-ownership provisions would enable a newspaper to more 
easily acquire a troubled and failing broadcast station in situations 
where it might not be cost efficient for another entity to purchase the 
station.
  Newspapers have the business expertise, the financial stability, and 
the news-gathering resources to supplement local news and informational 
programming. If the FCC and Department of Justice have determined that 
a transfer of title would serve the public interest and would not 
present an unfair market advantage, newspapers should be permitted to 
use these strengths to serve their communities.
  Although pre-June 2 newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibitions 
provided for a waiver that would allow a newspaper to purchase a 
failing broadcast company, only four such waivers have been granted in 
the past 28 years.
  Under the current cross-ownership provisions, the smallest broadcast 
markets would be protected from monopolies, and a limited cross-
ownership rule will remain in effect in markets of between four and 
eight broadcast companies.
  The FCC newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules will benefit 
communities in Nevada. For this reason, I support the cross-ownership 
part of the FCC's action.
  I hope the final outcome of this will be to drop the number of 
stations a company can own but allow the cross-ownership. This will not 
only stimulate competition but will allow rural America to have some of 
the programming that simply will not be available unless a newspaper 
and/or a TV station join together. This is the way it is all over 
America, not just Nevada.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 17, 
the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators Dorgan, Lott, and others 
that would repeal rule changes recently adopted by the Federal 
Communications Commission that, if allowed to go into effect, could 
dramatically alter the shape of the American media landscape.
  The foundation of our democracy is based on the free flow of 
information guaranteed by the first amendment. As the Supreme Court 
explained more than 50 years ago, the first amendment ``rests on the 
assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from 
diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the 
people.'' Unfortunately, the FCC's recent changes to its broadcast 
media ownership rules call into question that agency's commitment to 
this fundamental principle.
  On June 2 of this year, the FCC voted to significantly relax rules 
that protect the American people from the ill-effects of concentrated 
media power. Already, in television and in print, large media 
conglomerates control an alarming amount of what Americans see, read, 
and hear. In fact, 75 percent of what Americans watch during prime time 
and 90 percent of the top 50 channels on cable are controlled by just 5 
media companies.
  Against this backdrop, the FCC's decision to allow greater 
concentration of ownership is clearly a step in the wrong direction. If 
allowed to go into effect, these rules will result in fewer creative 
outlets for independent television and content producers; higher ad 
rates for large and small businesses; fewer antagonistic sources of 
news and opinion; and less air time for community groups. In addition, 
there may be growing reluctance by local station operators to take on 
network executives in rejecting nationally produced programming that 
violates community standards.
  Some Members contend that ``[t]here should be reasoned debate on each 
of the rules'' rather than disapproving the entire package. I fully 
agree that there should be reasoned debate on each of the rules. That 
is exactly what I, along with 14 other Senators, asked FCC Chairman 
Michael Powell to do--to given Americans the opportunity to review and 
comment on the specific rule changes before any final decision by the 
FCC. Our request was denied.
  While recent action by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in staying 
the implementation of these new rules is an encouraging sign that these 
changes may not survive judicial scrutiny, we in Congress should not 
rely on court action. Instead, we must act decisively to protect the 
public interest and to rescind these recently adopted rules.

                          ____________________