[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S1872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       JOINT RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING THE FCC MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on March 5, 2008, I introduced a joint 
resolution of disapproval stating that the December 18, 2007, vote by 
the Federal Communications Commission to loosen the ban on cross-
ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations shall have no force or 
effect. I am joined by Senators Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Dodd, Stevens, 
Obama, Harkin, Clinton, Cantwell, Biden, Reed, Feinstein, Sanders, 
Tester, Leahy, Feingold, and Boxer. We seek with this resolution of 
disapproval to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, 
fast march to ease media ownership rules.
  The FCC has taken a series of destructive actions in the past two 
decades that I believe have undermined the public interest. On December 
18, 2007, they took yet another step in the wrong direction. They gave 
a further green light to media concentration.
  The FCC voted to allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast 
stations in the top 20 markets, with loopholes for mergers outside of 
the top 20 markets. The newspapers would be allowed to buy stations 
ranked above fifth and above.
  The rule change was framed as a modest compromise. But make no 
mistake, this is a big deal. As much as 44 percent of the population 
lives in the top 20 markets of the United States. When nearly half of 
the people in this country are told that in their cities and towns the 
media will get the thumbs up to consolidate, they will not be happy. 
And with the loopholes in the rule, the FCC spurs a new wave of media 
consolidation in both large and small media markets.
  The last time the FCC tried to do this, the U.S. Senate voted to 
block it. On September 16, 2003, the Senate voted 55 to 40 to support a 
``resolution of disapproval'' of the FCC's previous decision to further 
consolidate media. We warned Chairman Martin that if he rushed this 
vote we would have to use the resolution of disapproval again.
  On December 4th the Commerce Committee reported out the bipartisan 
``Media Ownership Act of 2007,'' S. 2332 with 25 co-sponsors, requiring 
the FCC to give more time for public comment and study the issues of 
localism and diversity. The Chairman overlooked this bill.
  On the day before the vote, 27 Senators sent them a letter in 
opposition to such a rushed vote on the rules. He went ahead anyway.
  The FCC rushed towards a December 18th vote with a complete disregard 
for the process, let alone the substance of their ruling.
  They rushed to finish the localism and ownership hearings with as 
little as 5 business days of notice before the last hearings.
  The Chairman put out the proposed rule changes on November 13th in a 
New York Times op-ed--after the comment period had closed.
  He then didn't give the public nearly enough opportunity to comment 
on the actual rule changes that were voted on. He gave the public just 
28 days to comment on the proposed rules. While he likes to speak of 
giving 120 days and six hearings around the country, this was prior to 
the announcement of what rules would actually change. And he ignored 
the public testimony anyway.
  This was hardly an open and deliberative process. It is a massive 
rush and a big mistake.
  This rule will undercut localism and diversity of ownership around 
the country. Studies show that removing the ban on newspaper/broadcast 
cross-ownership results in a net loss in the amount of local news 
produced in the market as a whole. In addition, while the FCC suggests 
that cross-ownership is necessary to save failing newspapers, the 
publicly traded newspapers earn annual rates of return between 16 and 
18 percent.
  This Resolution of Disapproval will ensure this rule change has no 
effect. This is again a bipartisan effort to stop the FCC from 
destroying the local interests that we have always felt must be a part 
of broadcasting.
  It is time to ensure that we first protect localism and diversity, 
which the FCC appears to have long forgotten. Only then can we really 
review the rules of media ownership in a thorough process to see if it 
is actually in the public interest to reverse any of those rules, or if 
greater public interest protections are necessary.

                          ____________________