[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13307-13308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MEDIA OWNERSHIP

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning the Federal Communications 
Commission made some decisions I think were wrong-headed and 
counterproductive for this country. I would like to describe them just 
for a moment.
  The Federal Communications Commission, by a vote of 3 to 2, decided 
to change in a dramatic way the ownership rules with respect to 
broadcast

[[Page 13308]]

stations and newspapers around this country--radio, television, 
newspapers. Let me describe where we may end up as a result of the FCC 
decisions.
  As a result of what the FCC has decided today, it is likely that in 
the largest markets of our country, the same company will own the 
newspaper, three television stations, the cable company, and eight 
radio stations.
  I can't think of anything more destructive to the interests of 
localism and to the interests of diversity, both of which are hallmarks 
of what we aspire to have in American broadcasting, and the free flow 
of information and diversity of information in this democracy of ours.
  I don't understand why the FCC made this decision. The majority of 
the members of the Senate Commerce Committee signed a letter asking the 
FCC to delay and provide their recommendations to us first so we could 
perhaps have a hearing and discuss it with them. But they didn't do 
that. The first anyone knew of the specific recommendations was this 
morning at about 10 o'clock. There were somewhere close to 500,000 
communications from the American people to the FCC saying don't do 
this. Instead, the FCC took this action. They say they took this action 
because there are more voices, there are more outlets and more 
diversity; therefore, the old rules with respect to ownership are 
outmoded and old-fashioned.
  That is simply not the case. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable 
stations are owned by the top handful of the broadcasters. Twenty-five 
of the top Internet sites are owned by the same companies. In terms of 
diversity of thought in terms of where you get your news, it all comes 
from the same source--many voices, one ventriloquist.
  Is that in the public interest? In my judgment, the answer is no. The 
FCC held only one hearing in Richmond, VA, and the rest of their work 
was done largely in secret.
  There is a history to some of this. The FCC today said that one 
ownership group should be able to broadcast to 45 percent of the 
Nation's audience. It is actually going to be much more than that 
because they have a rule that counts UHF stations and only 50 percent 
of the stations.
  It is a complex system. But it is 45 percent of the national 
audience. It used to be 25 percent. In 1996, a piece of legislation--
the Telecommunications Act--came to the floor of the Senate taking that 
25 percent to 35 percent. I offered an amendment at that point to 
restore the 25-percent limit; take the 35 percent out of the bill and 
restore the 25-percent limit. We had a vote. The proponent on the other 
side in support of the 35 percent was Senator Dole from Kansas, a 
pretty aggressive competitor, as a matter of fact. We had a vote and I 
won. I was dumbfounded. I had no idea I would win. But I won by, I 
think, three or four votes. That was about 4 in the afternoon when we 
considered the act in 1996.
  On that same day, at about 7:30 in the evening, we had a another vote 
because Senator Dole was cagey enough to have another Senator change 
his vote, and then we came back after dinner and had a vote on 
reconsideration. Apparently, three, four, or five Senators had some 
sort of epiphany over dinner. I lost. I have no idea what they had for 
dinner, or who talked to them, or how far their arms were bent. But I 
won that vote for about 4 hours, and then I lost.
  The result has been that for 7 years we have had a 35-percent 
ownership cap with respect to a broadcasting company broadcasting 
television signals across the country, providing that there is a limit 
on broadcast stations--that you can't go over 35 percent of the 
national audience.
  Now the FCC this morning said they are taking that to 45 percent. 
They are eliminating the ban on cross-ownership between newspapers and 
television stations. This weekend one of the large newspaper chains was 
reported in a story that I saw to have said, Look, we intend to buy a 
television station in every city in which we have a newspaper. We 
intend to do that.
  I don't doubt it.
  Another story which I read this weekend talked about the plan of one 
of the large broadcasting enterprises and all the deals they had lined 
up anticipating the FCC was going to do what they wanted them to do. 
They have deal after deal. They are going to start. There will an orgy 
of concentration and mergers that start almost immediately.
  What I would like to say to all of those who are now celebrating the 
FCC's decision today is that Congress will have another bite at this. 
There are many ways to do it.
  No. 1, we have a Congressional Review Act which is a form of 
legislative veto dealing with rules that we don't like. It has been 
used rarely. But I think it should be used in this circumstance; it 
would provide a vote here in the Congress, up or down, on this rule.
  There are other approaches. Several of my colleagues--the Presiding 
Officer is one--have introduced legislation restoring the 35-percent 
cap. That is a bipartisan piece of legislation cosponsored by 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Of course, there is always the 
timeline tradition of, if everything else fails, attempting to 
legislate on an appropriations bill.
  But my point is this: I don't think the FCC decision this morning 
should be considered the last and definitive word. My own personal view 
is that I hope we will attempt a form of ``legislative veto'' which is 
provided for in law. But there will be attempts to overturn much of 
this decision.
  It makes no sense to me that we will have decided through a 
regulatory agency not to do effective regulation on behalf of the 
American public, and to say, oh, by the way, concentration is not a bad 
thing. Let us just allow in one big American city the same company to 
buy the cable company, buy three TV stations, eight radio stations, buy 
up the cable system, and buy the newspaper. It makes no sense to me 
that a Federal regulatory body ought to do that.
  I very much regret what the FCC did this morning. In the review 
mirror, this will be seen as a terrible decision that marches this 
country backward and not forward, and one that will well satisfy those 
who have billions at stake because they have lobbied very hard to have 
this kind of decision come from the FCC but one, in my judgment, which 
will detract from the interest of localism. Those big enterprises win 
and American communities lose. Who is going to broadcast basketball 
games? Who is going to broadcast the local baseball games?
  The fact is, we have had some experience with concentration in the 
media in recent years--since 1996--and it isn't working. We are 
destroying localism and destroying diversity. I think this Congress 
needs to weigh in now and deal with the FCC.

                          ____________________