[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13358-13365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN MEDIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the

[[Page 13359]]

gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is recognized for 60 minutes as 
the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are now going to be 
discussing, which is the concentration of ownership in the media and 
the implication of more media deregulation as proposed by the Bush 
administration and passed today by a three to two vote by the Federal 
Communications Commission, the FCC, is, to my mind, one of the very 
most important issues facing our country.
  The reason for that is very clear. Today, we have a handful of very 
large corporations who, to a very significant degree, control what we 
see, hear and read; and I think this chart tells the story, and it is a 
story that not a lot of Americans are totally familiar with.
  When people watch television they say, well, there is CBS, there is a 
company called CBS. Wrong. CBS is owned by Viacom, and Viacom owns not 
only the CBS network but UPN Network, MTV, Nickelodeon and many other 
television networks. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, MTV Films, 
Nickelodeon Films. They own Simon & Shuster, Nickelodeon Books, Pocket 
Books, Scribner, Touchstone, heavy into publishing.
  Viacom owns not only television and film and book publishing, they 
own 180 Infinity radio stations; they own television stations. And that 
is the same story that we see with all of the major media 
conglomerates, whether it is AOL Time Warner, which is heavy into the 
Internet, cable TV, TV networks; whether it is Rupert Murdoch's news 
corporation, owning 22 TV stations, owning Fox, owning various other 
types of publications. Clear Channel radio now owns 1,200 radio 
stations. Disney, that is the Mickey Mouse company, owns ABC; they own 
many, many other aspects of media.
  And as bad as the situation is today with a handful, it is likely to 
become much worse as a result of the disastrous decision, three-to-two 
vote, by the FCC earlier today.
  In terms of national concentration as a result of this vote, a 
national television network, we believe, may now be able to acquire 
dozens of lawful broadcaster stations and control up to 90 percent of 
the national television market. As a result of the decision today, as 
we understand it, a single corporation may now acquire in one city up 
to three television station, eight radio stations, the cable TV system, 
numerous cable TV stations and the only daily newspaper.
  I come from a rural State, the State of Vermont, and what we are 
going to see in rural America, in small city after small city, town 
after town, is one company owning the radio station, the television 
station and the newspaper; and that does not to me seem and feel like 
the democratic Nation that we are supposed to be, because what 
democracy is about and what the framers of our Constitution had in mind 
is a strong First Amendment, a country where people had different 
ideas, and those ideas clashed, and we learned from the differing 
points of view.
  Today, increasingly, we are hearing one point of view, and that is 
the corporate point of view, the point of view of large multinational 
corporations like General Electric who owns NBC or Disney who owns ABC, 
who have deeply vested conflicts of interest; and we will talk more 
about that later.
  The key issue here is, do we think it is a healthy situation for a 
democracy to have a handful of huge, multibillion dollar conglomerates 
owning and controlling what the American people see, hear and read. I 
think it is not healthy.
  There are many conservative organizations who, like the National 
Rifle Association, spoke out against it; Bill Safire, conservative 
columnist for New York Times; Trent Lott, conservative Senator, spoke 
out against it. Progressives, moderates, conservatives understand and 
appreciate that democracy is not about a handful of corporations 
controlling the media.
  I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), 
and I want to thank him for all of his good work on this issue.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am 
pleased to be here tonight.
  This was a very important decision that the FCC made today on a 
three-to-two party line vote, and I found one of the significant 
aspects of the decision was that it was made in spite of what the 
newspaper says is 500,000 comments in opposition, and it would have 
been fairly simple for the FCC to agree to hold a hearing, absolutely 
just to have a hearing so that people could speak out in public. But 
that is not way the chairman, Mr. Powell, decided to proceed. He wanted 
this over and done as quickly as possible so that it did not become an 
issue.
  It has not become a major issue in the major networks. I wonder why. 
Could it be that perhaps all those broadcasters, who pride themselves 
on their independence, are a little uneasy about telling a story that 
might be critical of their ownership? There is, as my colleague 
mentioned, increasing concentration in the major news organizations.
  It was just 1996 when the Telecommunications Act was passed. If we 
added together the two largest groups of owners of radio stations in 
the country, their collective ownership would come to, I think it was 
something like 214. I may have that a little wrong. That may be too 
high, but no more than 214 radio stations across the country. Today, 
Clear Channel alone owns 1,200 radio stations, and yesterday and 
Saturday evening Garrison Keillor on Public Radio had a comment about 
this.
  He was doing a little skit there, talking with someone who appeared 
to be complaining about Clear Channel Communications and changing over 
a local broadcast channel to Clear Channel. And he said, Look, Clear 
Channel owns 1,200 radio stations in this country; we cannot expect 
them to have a human being in every single radio station.
  That is the point. Those who have been advocating this, like Mr. 
Powell at the FCC, would say, Well, there will be inefficiencies of 
scale. There will be inefficiencies, and it will jeopardize the ability 
of small businesses to start up, to own radio stations.

                              {time}  2130

  It will jeopardize the ability of people in a local area to hear 
local news, not something that is canned, prerecorded, from somewhere 
else in the country. This decision is basically starting to strangle 
the diversity of opinion that is fundamental to a democracy. It is 
ultimately a very dangerous decision; and we in the Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, need to stand up and say that at the core of 
this democracy, what makes it work is diversity of opinion.
  Thomas Jefferson said a long time ago, if I were given a choice 
between having newspapers and no government, or government and no 
newspapers, I should not hesitate to choose newspapers and no 
government. Obviously, we need both; but the media is, in all of its 
different forms today, absolutely fundamental to the health of this 
democracy. And with this decision today, the FCC has made our democracy 
weaker. It is a bad decision, and the Congress should reverse it.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 
long been involved in this issue, and we are pleased to have him with 
us this evening.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), on his leadership, his unparalleled 
leadership here in the Congress on the issue of a fair media, a diverse 
media with diverse programming, and a competitive media where a small 
number of large corporations do not make the decisions about 
information that the public and our country sees and hears.
  As the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) said, it was a 3-2 party line 
decision, similar to so much of what has happened from the Supreme 
Court in the year 2000 Presidential election, to vote after vote in 
this body. The Bush administration, the Bush Federal Communication 
Commission has thrown sound public interest and market principles out 
the window, allowing America's biggest companies to decide what

[[Page 13360]]

you hear, when you hear it, what you see, and, in some ways, what you 
think.
  Without a doubt, when you look at the kind of response that the FCC 
got to this issue, you can see that it really was back-room politics at 
its worst, as the gentleman from Maine mentioned, 500,000 postcards and 
e-mail messages almost uniformly against this rule change. A number of 
comments were examined by a group, a group called the Future of Music 
Coalition, a group representing artists from country music to rock and 
roll, artists that almost everyone in this country listens to. They 
released a report after examining 10,000 comments at random from the 
FCC that were made public on its Web site; and 9,065 of these 10,000, 
unaffiliated with any corporate media these 10,000, and 9,065 said they 
were opposed to changing the resume. Only 11 individuals wrote in 
support of the FCC.
  So on one side there were 9,065; on the other side 11 people. It was 
a ratio of 824 to 1. Nonetheless, the three Republican commissioners 
voted with the 11 rather than 9,065. As I said, 500,000 postcards were 
received overall, and they were equally uniformly against this rule 
change.
  As we said, it was another back-room deal. It only fuels the public 
perception that the Bush administration has a policy of giving 
corporations what they want regardless of consequences to the Nation. 
Enron writes energy policy for this administration. Wall Street writes 
Social Security privatization legislation. The insurance companies 
write Medicare legislation. The drug industry writes legislation 
overseeing the drug industry. It is issue after issue after issue. The 
chemical companies and the oil companies write legislation dealing with 
the environment.
  About 2 weeks ago, the group of us who opposed this rule, a group of 
about 15 Democratic Members of Congress and an Independent, held a news 
conference, a news conference which, if that many Members of Congress 
put one on almost always is attended by The New York Times; The 
Washington Post; the L.A. Times; a couple of networks, AP, Fox, 
perhaps. A whole group of what we would call the corporate media. And 
we held this news conference in the middle of the day when the media 
were not that busy, yet we had zero turnout from those corporate media. 
Congress Daily, a couple of in-house newspapers around here showed up; 
but none of the big corporate media, none of the mainstream, quoted-
unquote mainstream, generally corporate-owned conservative media in 
this Nation showed up.
  That tells you a little bit about how much press coverage they really 
want for this. The large corporate media in this country do not really 
want the public to think about this, do not really want the public to 
know about this because they are the ones lobbying the FCC, they are 
the ones contributing to President Bush's campaign, they are the ones 
that contribute to Republican campaigns and Republican leadership; and 
they want their way with the FCC. Their way with the FCC is fewer 
companies, fewer corporations controlling the largest amount of media 
in this country, 1,200 radio stations owned by one company. The CEO of 
that company, the leaders of that company, good friends of the 
President from San Antonio, Texas.
  It makes you wonder if the FCC is maybe next week, after this 
decision, going to change its name to instead of the Federal 
Communications Commission, FCC, maybe to Furthering Corporate Control. 
Because furthering corporate control is what they have done. They have 
clearly acted against the public interest.
  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they really 
do believe in competition, if they believe in diversity, if they 
believe in a competitive leveling of the playing field in America like 
they say they do, then we should enact legislation undoing this FCC 
ruling.
  I thank my friend from Vermont for his terrific leadership.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio could remain 
for a moment on this issue, because I want to dialogue with him on 
something that is interesting.
  I think there may be citizens of our country who think, well, yes, 
this is an inside-the-Beltway issue; it really does not affect me very, 
very much. But I want to mention to my friend from Ohio on issues that 
I know he and I share similar concerns just what the implications of 
concentration of media are.
  I know that my friend from Ohio is deeply concerned about our trade 
policy, a policy which now has over a $400 billion trade deficit, a 
policy which has cost this country millions of decent-paying jobs as 
large corporations throw American workers out on the street, move to 
China, move to Mexico.
  I would ask my friend from Ohio, how often has he seen discussions of 
the issue of the deindustrialization of America and the loss of good 
paying jobs on television or in the editorial pages of newspapers?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is a very good question, and the answer is, 
rarely or never. The more detailed answer is lots of discussion about 
tax cuts, lots of discussion about Laci Peterson, lots of discussion 
about issues that really do not affect people's lives, but almost no 
discussion about York Manufacturing in my district, 400 good-paying 
jobs, closed shop, moved to Mexico. Little discussion about trade 
policy generally.
  In fact, if my colleague will remember, during the NAFTA debate, some 
of us did some surveys of editorials in this country; and we found that 
editorial opinion was almost unanimous in support of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, even though poll after poll after poll showed the 
majority of the public opposed it. The largest newspaper in the country 
that opposed NAFTA was the Toledo Blade, a fine newspaper in northwest 
Ohio, but perhaps the 50th or 60th size newspaper in the country, I am 
not sure, but clearly not one of the largest newspapers in the country. 
But that was the largest newspaper that actually opposed NAFTA.
  But it is not just the editorial policy. We also did surveys of The 
Washington Post; and if there is a corporate-controlled medium in this 
country, it is it; and The Washington Post op-ed pages were 
overwhelmingly in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
even though we sent in numerous articles. And to add to that, the 
Democratic whip, the majority whip, sent a letter to the editor of The 
Washington Post in those days outlining the number of articles, 
editorial opinions in support of NAFTA and against NAFTA; and they 
actually censored his letter to the editor and said we are not going to 
run that part, we will only run another part.
  So it is pretty clear that the editorial page, the other opinion 
articles, the letters to the editor, and even the news coverage is 
slanted towards a corporate media, because that is what it is. It is a 
large corporation. Of course, just like General Motors is a 
conservative company, they care about their profits, The Washington 
Post, The New York Times, and all these corporate media are similar.
  Mr. SANDERS. Just dealing with General Electric, the point here again 
is that sometimes people turn on the television and they say there is 
NBC. Well, no, it is not NBC. This is a subsidiary of General Electric.
  For many, many years, General Electric has been an anti-union 
company. The fact of the matter is that if you are a member of a union 
in the United States today, you earn approximately 25 percent more than 
an American worker doing similar work who is not a member of a union. 
That is just a fact.
  I would ask my friend from Ohio how often he has seen programs on 
General Electric's media or in fact any other media talking about the 
advantages of being a member of a union? Now, I myself have never seen 
a program like that. Maybe my friend has.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Well, I come from an area, Ohio, which is a pretty 
unionized State, but I do not see them there either. My colleague comes 
from a State that is a little more rural; maybe you would not see it 
there. You would think you would see it in Ohio, but you do not see it 
in Ohio. It is pretty clear there are not a lot of labor

[[Page 13361]]

unions owning newspapers or owning radio stations.
  There is a show once a week out of a Cleveland radio station, a small 
part of this radio station, that talks about unions and has a pro-union 
moderator. That is the only show I have heard, and that is 1 hour on 
one station out of 15 stations or so and maybe 20 stations in greater 
Cleveland. Half of those stations are owned by the President's friend 
from San Antonio, which is becoming less and less diverse in its 
programming, more and more single minded, more and more conservative in 
its politics; and it is continuing to move in that direction.
  But little or no discussion about the struggles people have, about 
unions, about work, about trade policy, about feeding their kids. Few 
shows devoted to single parents trying to struggle through life. Lots 
of shows about glamour, lots of shows about the rich, lots of shows 
about tax cuts; but nothing about the struggles of every day people.
  Mr. SANDERS. I think my friend from Ohio put his finger right on the 
issue, and that is in our country today, there are tens of millions of 
families who are struggling hard to keep their heads above water. These 
are people in my State, and I am sure in Ohio, who are not working one 
job; they are working two jobs, three jobs. They are working 50, 60 
hours a week. They are worried about their pensions, worried about 
their health care situation. It would seem to me that the media might 
want to focus on those issues.
  I have the feeling in the back of my head that truthfully General 
Electric is not particularly anxious to educate people on those issues; 
not to talk about the horrendously unfair distribution of wealth and 
income that we have in this country; not to talk about the fact that 
the United States is the only Nation in the industrialized world that 
does not guarantee health care for all people; not to talk about the 
fact that our pharmaceutical prices are by far the highest prices in 
the world because we are the only Nation that does not regulate the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  So the point that I am making here is that I do not want anyone to 
think this is some kind of abstract, obtuse, inside-the-Beltway issue 
that does not affect their lives. It does affect their lives. The 
media, to a significant degree, ignores the struggles and the needs of 
working families throughout this country, not giving them the 
information they need.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. My friend from Vermont mentions the drug 
companies. Now, the drug companies, how often in the newspapers or in 
TV or radio shows do we hear, unless maybe they quote one of us, and 
there are not that many of us talking about that, that the drug 
industry is the most profitable industry in America for 20 years 
straight; that they pay the lowest tax rate in America for 20 years 
straight; that taxpayers do almost half of all the research and 
development on prescription drugs; that Canada's prices are one-half or 
one-third what they are in the United States; that we are the only 
country in the world that does not do something to regulate or lower or 
try to push down drug prices? Not one story ever, almost never a story 
about that.
  Rarely is there a story about why drugs are cheaper in Canada, what 
the Canadian Government does. Rarely is there a story about what the 
French or the British or the Germans or the Japanese or the Israelis do 
to get drug prices down. There are a lot of advertisements on all those 
stations about prescription drugs, about arthritis drugs, about asthma 
drugs, about cholesterol-reducing drugs; and all that stuff is good 
information for the public, but millions, actually billions, of dollars 
going into the pockets of these corporations that own the media and few 
if any stories about how the drug companies really rip off the American 
public.
  When you think about that, all this money coming in to these 
corporations to advertise, of course they are not going to bite the 
hand that feeds them. Of course they are not going to expose the drug 
companies' kind of practices and decision-making. Of course they are 
not going to talk about 600 lobbyists in this town alone lobbying the 
United States Congress. Of course they are not going to talk about the 
$15 million that the drug companies are going to spend in my own State, 
in one State, to try to kill a ballot issue and to keep it off the 
ballot. Of course they are not going to do any of this because they are 
getting so much money from the drug companies.
  I do not accuse the media of being sleazy for that. That is probably 
a good business practice. But what I accuse as sleazy is the way they 
lobby the FCC and get the three Republicans on the FCC to do their 
bidding, to do whatever corporate America wants. That is what is 
outrageous.
  So point the finger at the drug industry and some of the media; but 
more importantly, point the finger at the people on the other side of 
the aisle, the Republicans, who stand by these decisions and do 
whatever corporate America wants them to.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman organizing this 
special order on a dark day for American democracy, because today the 
FCC, in almost a little hidden cabinet without taking adequate input 
from the American public, struck a low blow for information going to 
Americans.
  I have come to the floor because I am hopeful that the U.S. House 
will listen to the thousands of Democrats and Republicans who have 
barraged the FCC with e-mails and letters that were ignored, and will 
come to the rescue and change this rule in a way that is good for 
democracy.
  Since the FCC proposed this rule, they wanted to keep this as quiet 
as possible. They wanted to sweep it under the rug. They wanted as few 
Americans as possible to know what they were doing to America's 
broadcast rights. What they did was they decided to have the 
statutorily minimum number of hearings in a minimally accessible place, 
so they had one hearing in Virginia.
  Now to put this in context, when the Forest Service thought about 
changing a rule regarding the forest, they had 600 hearings around 
America so Americans could let Congress know what was going on.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and some people in Seattle 
initiated a public meeting in Seattle.
  Mr. INSLEE. And 350 people turned out, essentially spontaneously, 
with about 48 hours' notice to tar and feather the FCC commissioners 
who were going to ram this down their throats, and these folks were 
very, very angry. And the reason they were angry was, they understood 
the game being played by the FCC here. People are sophisticated enough 
to get this.
  The argument has been made if the anticonsolidation rules are 
removed, we would have a plethora of new stations to listen to, and 
radio is frequently used as an example. They say, There are still a lot 
of radio stations out there, which is true, but what Americans 
understand and what people in Seattle were so upset about, they realize 
there might be a lot of stations, but they are owned by the same 
people. One company owns 1,200 radio stations. Before these rules were 
relaxed, the most radio stations owned by one company was 65.
  It does not matter if we have 20 hoses all coming from the same 
spigot, and that is the situation that the FCC is allowing to take 
place.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, when people go to a newsstand and they see 
hundreds, if not thousands, of magazines, they say, Wow, look at the 
diversity of opinion. And we all know there are hundreds and hundreds 
of television stations out there.
  I would remind the gentleman that in the last days of the Soviet 
Union, which was a totalitarian society, some people had the impression 
that there was one newspaper and one television station and one radio 
station. Wrong. There were hundreds, if not thousands. The only problem 
was that all of them were either controlled by the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union or the government of the Soviet Union.

[[Page 13362]]

  The gentleman's point exactly. All kinds of outlets; the problem is, 
controlled by, in that case, two institutions.
  Well, we do not have two institutions, we have more, six, eight, nine 
institutions. But every day, and as a result of this deregulation 
effort, that number is going to be smaller and smaller. So do not kid 
yourself when you say hundreds of television stations and radio 
stations; ask who owns them.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in response to this, and we have heard the 
response of the FCC who pushed through this rule, their response is we 
do not know that is going to happen. We do not know that consolidation 
is going to take place.
  I do not think that it is rocket science to realize, if we remove 
rules against consolidation, there is going to be consolidation. This 
is not rocket science, either, because we have had an experiment with 
this in radio. The largest number of stations owned was 65 before the 
anticonsolidation, and now it is 1,200; and that is why this is a 
bipartisan concern.
  It is interesting, groups as disparate as the National Rifle 
Association and William Safire have come out against this. I love to 
quote William Safire, at least when I agree with him. He said, ``The 
concentration of power, political, corporate, media, cultural, should 
be anathema to conservatives. Why do we have more channels but fewer 
real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication 
is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than 
they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity.''
  I think that is what happened to the FCC. They may have been stunned 
by this outpouring of concern, but it is there. Ninety-nine percent of 
all of the input they have received in the last several months on this 
issue is against the very rules they just shoved down America's throat.
  Mr. SANDERS. I think the gentleman is absolutely right in two 
regards. Number one, there is enormous concern over this issue from one 
end of this country to the other. Just a few days ago I was in San 
Diego, California, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who 
held a public meeting on this issue, and the problem was, he had rented 
a hall that could only seat 200 people and 400 people showed up, so 
half of the people had to be outside listening to the meeting via 
speakerphone.
  We held a meeting outside of Burlington, Vermont, we are a small city 
in a small State, and we had 600 people come out to hear Michael Copps, 
who has been one of the courageous commissioners on this issue, 
traveling all over the country.
  There is massive public concern, and your point earlier about the 
outrage that, on an issue of this significance, Mr. Powell did not have 
public meetings all over the United States; and if he had, no question, 
based on your experience and my experience, hundreds of thousands of 
Americans would likely have come out to say, No, we believe in a 
democratic society, and a handful of people controlling the media is 
not what a democratic society is all about. I suspect he knew that, 
which is why he held one public hearing in the daytime in Richmond, 
Virginia.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming 
forward this evening to spend a few minutes via one of the avenues of 
public expression that is still available to us to be able to talk to 
people about this. The gentleman's comments a moment ago with the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) touched a nerve with me.
  We have been watching this issue slowly bubble in the background, 
move into the public consciousness. We have all expressed and we have 
all experienced an outpouring in our own districts, our own 
correspondence, phone calls, e-mails. It is fascinating to me that over 
the last 6 months I have not had one Oregonian express to me support 
for the direction the FCC has taken, not one.
  One would think that for something that is this momentous, there 
would be at some point, on some level, some indication that ordinary 
men and women, that business people, government leaders, that somebody 
would be there expressing the case for this relatively radical 
approach.
  To the contrary, we have seen in our community the same deep 
bipartisan apprehension and opposition that has been expressed here 
this evening. People know on several levels that competition matters, 
that we benefit from a diversity of voices. Certainly, in this Chamber 
there are a variety of different points of view. I think on those 
occasions when we are actually able to express it, I think we do our 
jobs better and the American public is better served.
  But the people that I work with are aware that today almost every 
television station, whether we go to Nashville, Redmond, Washington, or 
Burlington, Vermont, the news sounds the same. They have the same air-
brushed approach. They have basically the same television accents. They 
use the same media consultants to craft the sets that they use. They 
all use the same gyrations, putting forth everything from the weather 
to on-the-spot news. The same formats ensue because people are being 
driven by the same media consultants and the pressures from 
advertisers.
  Now, as the gentleman points out, we are going to have the ultimate 
homogeneous force, and that is concentration of ownership into a 
handful of conglomerates that are going to be dictating it. It seems to 
me that there will be no reason for our news to be indistinguishable, 
distorted pabulum that is more entertainment than delivering 
information.
  I have one short, final point to make. I think the gentleman's 
expression here this evening, bringing forward others, indicates why I 
do not think this is going to be the last word on this subject. The 
House and the Senate have the opportunity. They were the ones that 
originally decided that the people's airwaves, the public airwaves, 
were going to be given to commercial broadcasters in return for some 
public benefit. Since we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we 
have seen these competitive forces eroded away, people forgetting the 
public benefit; and I think that the issues that you are focusing on 
here will produce such a backlash it will be possible for us to be 
responsive to the public, and hopefully we will see some action that 
will reverse this egregious act.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this issue, and 
that is the aspects of localism. Vermont is different from Oregon, and 
we should pride ourselves on our differences and not see us become 
homogeneous. From 1981 to 1989, I was the mayor of the city of 
Burlington, Vermont, and when I was mayor, there were four or five 
local radio stations who covered the news. We would hold a press 
conference, and there would be four or five takes on what we said. Now, 
if we are lucky, there is one radio station covering the news, and that 
phenomenon has gone on all over this country.
  I remind my friends and colleagues that as a result of the 
deregulation decision today, there will be hundreds of cities and towns 
in America where there will be one company owning the local TV station, 
radio station and newspaper; and if anyone thinks that is not a 
dangerous situation, I would strongly disagree with that person.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to respond to this 
bogus argument that the Republican FCC commissioners put up when they 
decided to repeal this fairly long-standing, common-sense approach that 
has enjoyed up to now bipartisan support, and I hope will again.
  They argued that, essentially, because we have had a technological 
revolution in the last decade or so, that removes the necessity of 
having rules against somebody getting too egregious a distribution 
proportion.

                              {time}  2200

  They said basically that the Internet solves all ills that humans 
will ever know. I am from the most Internet-involved part of the world 
probably. I represent the First Congressional District of the State of 
Washington. It is

[[Page 13363]]

where a little company called Microsoft is located, together with 
probably thousands of spin-off companies from Microsoft. I represent a 
community that are evangelists for the Internet, who really are 
believers that this is a way to change the way we do business in 
fundamental ways. But the people there have told me, do not let the FCC 
remove these anticonsolidation rules, the fans of the Internet, the 
fans of new technology, the believers in new technology.
  What they tell me is the reason we still need these rules is that 
even though we have now Web-based distribution systems, the Web 
distributors are owned by the TV companies. It is the same message. 
What they tell me, again coming back to this kind of host analysis, you 
don't get a new view just because it is a Web-hosted message if it is 
the same message you are getting on television or if it is the same 
message you are getting in the newspaper. And so what they have told 
me, do not let them remove these anticonsolidation rules. The Internet 
cannot solve the fact that democracy suffers when there are fewer 
voices to provide Americans the news. This is going to result, as God 
made little green apples, in fewer voices delivering news to Americans 
because that is exactly what has happened in the radio industry, and we 
know that that is going to happen.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would point out, my friend mentioned Clear Channel, 
which was the company that really sprouted after radio deregulation in 
1996 and now owns some 1,200 radio stations. It is important to 
recognize that Clear Channel not only owns radio stations; they own a 
lot more. Clear Channel is the largest concert promoter in the country, 
selling 66 million tickets in 26,000 events in 2001. Why is that 
significant? It is significant because if you are an entertainer 
promoted by Clear Channel, obviously you are going to get a lot more 
air time on their radio stations than somebody who is not. You could be 
the greatest singer in the world; but maybe if you are not promoted by 
Clear Channel, you might not get the opportunity to appear on those 
radio stations.
  So I think the issue here is like anything else. We are living in a 
country where fewer and fewer large corporations own more and more of 
our Nation. That is a bad situation in general; but I think what we 
recognize when it comes to the media, it is not just bad from an 
economic sense in terms of stifling competition; it is bad in what it 
does to the clash of ideas and diversity of opinions.
  We have heard from people, for example, who are involved in African 
American broadcasting, and what they are saying is they are losing 
their stations being bought out by the large conglomerates. The same is 
true with Latino stations. Again, fewer and fewer large companies, 
homogeneous-type broadcasting one end of the country to the other, 
fewer ideas for the American people.
  Mr. INSLEE. I think it is important to note, too, that there is an 
economic reason why this new rule, which is going to create these large 
concentrations of media power, is a bad idea. I think it is important 
to talk about the economic reason as well. The economic reason is that 
these megacorporation media conglomerates will have the ability to 
stifle entry of new businesses, particularly small businesses who want 
to break into the media market. One of the great things about the 
American economy is we have traditionally recognized having a dynamic 
economy which allows entry into the market is important so that people 
can get new ideas, new creative products and the like.
  Here is a fellow who is not exactly in William Safire's philosophical 
base, but he had an interesting comment. Ted Turner said, if these 
rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually 
impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to 
launch CNN. The reason it would be impossible is that these 
consolidations basically allow these companies to build these Chinese 
walls around their little media fortresses which prevents these small 
businesses from breaking into the market.
  So if you are a small business-oriented person who believes in a 
dynamic entry of markets, this is a mistake to allow these sort of 
giant conglomerates to take over. Fundamentally, though, the democratic 
argument and the damage to democracy is the one that is really 
bothering Americans tonight, because one of the things we have learned 
through history is that the paper on the parchment of the Bill of 
Rights and the U.S. Constitution are nice and they are important; but 
the Soviet Union had the same language in their Constitution, but they 
did not have a vigorous press or a vigorous independent judicial 
branch, and democracy never got going. We are very concerned that 
absent a vigorous, competitive, dynamic, change-oriented media in our 
democracy that our democracy will suffer. You can have the best Members 
of the U.S. Congress, the best Members of the U.S. Senate, and an 
enlightened President; but unless Americans can get the truth by 
looking at various different colors in the spectrum, this place is not 
going to work.
  And so, yes, there is an economic rationale; but people value 
democracy above everything, and they understand the threat that has 
happened in this rule. I believe, and I know that the gentleman and I 
and others will be working to pass legislation to reverse this rule. As 
you know, we have cosponsored a bill already to repeal the 45 percent 
national consolidation. Other bills will be introduced. We hope to 
attract bipartisan consensus. We hope Americans will let their Members 
of Congress know what to do here.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would just pick up on that point from my friend from 
Washington. If there is anything good about what has happened in the 
last few months, what has been good is that more and more people are 
now aware of what is happening in this issue than was previously the 
case. As my friend from Washington indicated, we are going to be 
introducing probably several pieces of legislation not only to undo the 
damage of today's decision but to create a situation in which we 
improve upon what existed yesterday.
  My friend mentioned earlier that hundreds and hundreds of thousands 
of people, progressives, moderates, conservatives, people in the NRA, 
people in the conservative President's Parents Television Council, 
people from all across the political spectrum have communicated with 
the FCC to the tune of some 750,000 communications. Yet despite the 
fact that the communications were overwhelmingly in opposition to more 
media deregulation, the FCC moved in that direction.
  My friend might be interested in knowing, why does that happen? How 
does it happen? I would point out one of many reasons and that is the 
power which is not limited just to the FCC but the power that the 
industry has over the regulators. Sometimes people think that the 
regulators regulate the industry. In truth, given the role that money 
plays in Washington, more often than not it is the industry that 
regulates the regulators. The Center for Public Integrity recently 
reported that over the last 8 years the FCC took staff and members on 
some 2,500 junkets that were paid for by the industry. Industry paid 
for trips for FCC commissioners and top staffers to be flown to 
hundreds of conferences, conventions, and broadcast industry events in 
Las Vegas, coincidentally Las Vegas, 330 trips to Las Vegas for FCC 
members and staff, New Orleans, New York, London, San Francisco, Miami, 
Anchorage, Palm Springs, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, all over the 
world. The industry was paying for the visits and the travel done by 
the members of the commission and the staff.
  Mr. INSLEE. And the reason that I think people are so upset about 
this, and they are upset, I have talked to a lot of people who are 
really hot about this issue, and I think justifiably because this has 
been one of the more outrageous instances of a public agency willfully 
and consciously, number one, shutting to the extent humanly possible 
the public out of the decision-making process of their government by 
holding one hearing in one part of the country. There were other 
members of the commission who begged the chairman, Mr. Powell, to hold 
multiple

[[Page 13364]]

hearings, because he knew this was something that really people cared 
about around the country, not just inside the Beltway, and Mr. Powell 
refused. Because they are too busy? Excuse me, this is the single most 
important decision of the FCC probably in the last 10 years, but they 
only hold one hearing because they do not want to listen to Americans, 
and it is wrong. Then when the word snuck out through various efforts, 
including our own, they have been deluged with almost a unanimous 
position of the Americans who care about this.
  And what is their response to Americans who have taken the time to 
send postcards, to send e-mails, to call in? Their response has been, 
go fish. That is about what it boils down to. I heard Mr. Powell today 
briefly, I did not hear his whole comments, but I heard him say, if we 
don't do something, this rule will get changed anyway by the courts. 
That is true if you do not prepare a record; if you do not go out and 
ask people what is going on in America to prepare the record, then this 
rule might be subject to judicial scrutiny. He is correct. But the 
reason is that they did not go out and ask anybody around America. They 
held one lousy hearing. So if they want to preserve the rule which they 
had the opportunity to do, they needed to build a record. The reason 
they did not build a record is they knew the message they were going to 
get. They had a predisposed decision. These commissioners had made a 
decision before they opened up these hearings at all. It is pretty 
obvious when you see the railroad job that took place.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would say to the 750,000 people who communicated with 
the FCC, the 750,000 people who said do not deregulate the industry 
more so that a tiny handful of companies will control what we see, hear 
and read, I would say to those people and to the Members of Congress 
not to give up on this issue. We suffered a setback today which was not 
unexpected. I think we all knew what was going to happen. But the fact 
that so many people from the State of Washington or the State of Oregon 
or the State of Vermont and all the States in between, that so many 
people are now aroused about this issue, are upset at what happened, 
are going to fight for a more democratic media, is a positive thing.
  Clearly now the ball falls to the people in this Congress to undo the 
damage done by the FCC. I know that I will be working with my friend 
from Washington and my friend from Oregon and people from all political 
points of view to undo the damage done today so that we create a media 
that we are proud of, where the American people become not just the 
best entertained people in the world but the best informed people, 
where the media gives our democratic society the ideas and the 
information that people need in order to make informed decisions in a 
democratic society.
  We have got our work cut out for us. I have not the slightest doubt 
in my mind that the vast majority of the American people stand with us 
and do not want to see a few corporations controlling the media, and 
our job now is to take that support and to convert it into strong 
legislation.
  Mr. INSLEE. I just have a closing comment, which is that democracy is 
not self-executing. It does not get done by itself. Now is a moment for 
all men and women to come to the aid of their country on this issue. We 
need, those of us who care deeply about this, for everyone to let their 
Member of the U.S. Congress and Senate know how they feel about this 
issue, because we need to kindle and blow a little air on this fire to 
keep it going. We are going to hope that we will have enough support 
across the aisle of our good friends, the Republicans, that we are 
going to have enough Republicans who will join us in forcing a vote on 
this issue on the House floor. That is going to be very important. It 
will be a great victory on a bipartisan basis for American democracy. I 
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman 
from Oregon for their very thoughtful remarks. This is an issue of huge 
consequences. We have got to go forward together to undo the damage 
done today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to today's 
vote by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to relax 
limitations on media ownership.
  Apparently, the FCC has overlooked the fact that the airwaves are 
owned by the American public, just as the Commission has forgotten that 
its legislated mission is to protect those same airwaves for the 
public's use.
  Relaxing rules that have worked for decades in order to allow huge 
conglomerates to gobble up even more media outlets will certainly 
diminish the quality of our news and stifle minority views and 
opinions.
  I find it particularly interesting that while the FCC regulators and 
their staff were reviewing the changes, they took some 2,500 junkets--
worth almost $3 million--which were paid for by the media industry. 
During all that time, the Commission managed to hold just one public 
hearing. Does anyone have any doubt to whom the FCC was listening 
during its deliberation process--the media moguls or the public?
  I understand how the FCC decisions will benefit those media 
conglomerates. What I do not understand is how they benefit private 
citizens or our democracy, which can only survive on the free flow of 
information and diverse opinions.
  Now that the decision has been made, it will be up to Congress to 
review these rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
make sure that public interest will be heard--and that our airwaves 
will not fall victim to powerful special interests. I would like to 
share with my colleagues an op-ed I authored on this issue which 
appeared today in Rochester, New York's Democrat & Chronicle.

   Too Little Discussion Has Preceded FCC Decision on Media Ownership

                (By Representative Louise M. Slaughter)

       What if one person controlled all the information in the 
     newspaper you are reading, on your favorite radio station and 
     on the TV channel you watch nightly?
       It could begin to happen today, when a five-member panel at 
     the Federal Communications Commission votes on relaxing 
     regulations governing media ownership in this nation.
       Sixty years ago, when television was just a fledgling 
     invention, the FCC was created to ensure that our airwaves--
     which the American public owns--would not be dominated by a 
     few large corporations that could control information and 
     news.
       Our government rightly recognized that the free flow of 
     ideas, opinions and information is central to the ongoing 
     national dialogue that drives this great democracy. 
     Protecting local and minority ownership of media outlets is 
     also crucial to guaranteeing coverage of local issues and 
     diverse viewpoints.
       As time passed, a few large corporations began to acquire 
     more newspapers, radio and TV stations across our nation. 
     Thirty years ago, there were 1,500 locally or regionally 
     owned newspapers. Now, there are only 281 such independent 
     papers. Six large companies control most of the media in this 
     nation, while three corporations control all the cable news.
       After 1996, when the FCC relaxed ownership limits for radio 
     stations, 90 percent of radio stations were bought or sold 
     within five years. Hundreds of stations have been 
     consolidated since then: Clear Channel now owns more than 
     1,200 radio stations. Before, they could own only 40.
       In Rochester alone, six of our radio stations are owned by 
     Clear Channel. Four more are owned by Infinity Broadcasting. 
     Thus the information and music aired on 10 stations in 
     Rochester are controlled by two conglomerates that are based 
     nowhere near here and have little concern for our local 
     issues.
       The FCC is now considering relaxing its regulations even 
     further, which will certainly lead to a dangerous 
     concentration of media ownership. The proposed changes would 
     allow networks to own stations reaching as much as 90 percent 
     of the country, allow companies to own three television 
     stations in some markets and would do away with a 28-year ban 
     on companies owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the 
     same market.
       What is perhaps more egregious is the secretive process 
     through which these changes have been considered. The FCC 
     tried to keep the plan's details secret and refused to have 
     more than one, barely publicized hearing on the issue. FCC 
     Chairman Michael Powell has rejected requests from two of his 
     own commission members to delay the vote for more public 
     comment.
       Fortunately, even though this issue got relatively little 
     media coverage, the American public has taken action. 
     Progressive and conservative interest groups, artists and 200 
     communications academics have protested the new rules. Of the 
     9,000 e-mails the FCC has received on the issue, only 11 
     supported relaxing the rules. I, along with 100 of my 
     colleagues in Congress, recently wrote to Chairman Powell 
     expressing our opposition

[[Page 13365]]

     to the proposed rules. Unfortunately, the FCC is not 
     listening.
       Owners of media outlets are obliged to serve the public 
     interest--not just their own financial interests. Our 
     Founding Fathers created this democracy to give us the right 
     to debate ideas openly and make informed choices. If these 
     changes go into effect, a few huge, powerful corporations 
     could gobble up even more media outlets to control most of 
     the news we get.
       Be grateful that today you had the opportunity to read 
     about these proposed changes, supported by the powerful media 
     conglomerates. If they have their way, the next time the FCC 
     decides to change the rules, you may not be informed at all.

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to discuss an 
issue that is very important to many men and women in my district and 
to the men and women working in the telecommunications industry.
  The FCC is preparing for a release of their Triennial Review of the 
UNE-P and I want to weigh in with my colleagues as to the fundamentals 
of how the UNE-P pricing model works, or as I see it, doesn't work.
  Suppose you, an entrepreneur, go in to manufacture candy bars and you 
invest significant capital to create this wonderful factory and 
generate candy bars. You operate for 30 years, during which you must 
buy new equipment, and maintain that equipment. The bottom line of your 
costs is say, $.75. You determine to sell them in the retail market for 
$1. Then you discover that there is a regulatory body empowered by the 
Congress that regulates candy bars and one of their missions is to 
promote competition. One day, these regulators come to you and they 
say, ``You know what? We think since you're the largest candy bar 
manufacturer, you should have a competitor. And we have someone that we 
want to be your competitor.'' Then the regulators tell you one way in 
which they've determined to promote competition is for you to allow 
this competitor to sell your product from your machinery and buildings 
at $0.75 or in some cases less than $0.75, so they in turn can resell 
it in the market for a profit to them, and a loss to your company.
  All the money you just spent to build a building which stores the 
machinery you use to make your product, package your product, 
distribute you're product, and maintain all of this, is used to provide 
a product to your competitor for the same price or less of a price that 
is costs you, only they don't have any risk.
  I pose the question to the regulators and my colleagues. What would 
you do as CEO of this candy bar company, what do you feel is the right 
thing to do? I see it to be wrong and think the regulators should take 
steps to mitigate this wrong or change it while they still have a 
chance.

                          ____________________