[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 11439]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FCC SHOULD ALLOW PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.) Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, this past Monday I hosted a forum in my 
district with Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps about 
his agency's rules on media ownership. We had nearly 400 of my 
constituents packed into an auditorium at Dominican University in San 
Rafael. As their attendance testified, the FCC rules on media ownership 
is an extremely important issue and an issue that, unfortunately, has 
been underreported by the very media that will be most affected.
  In fact, as proof of that, as proof of underreporting, today, just an 
hour or so ago, over a dozen concerned Democratic Members of Congress 
held a press conference on this very issue, the issue of media 
consolidation, and not one member of the press showed up, until, that 
is, a member of Roll Call, our newspaper here on the Hill, came to 
experience a press conference without press. We were glad that that 
individual showed, but that was as far as it went.
  So, what is this all about? Well, on June 2, the Federal 
Communications Commission has scheduled a vote on new regulations that 
have the potential to drastically change the face of broadcasting and 
newspaper ownership, and, in so doing, the flow of free information.
  First, the proposed changes to FCC rules would break down the 
decades-long firewall between media ownership in single markets. Gone 
will be the prohibitions against corporations owning newspapers and TV 
stations in the same town, or cable TV stations and TV stations in the 
same town. Gone also will be the limits on the number of TV stations 
and cable TV stations a corporation can own nationally. Also allowed 
would be cross-ownership of print media and broadcast media in the same 
media market.
  In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, similar rules were proposed, but 
they were stopped by the threat of a veto by President Clinton. Now, 
under the Bush administration, the FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, who is 
an avowed free marketer, has said that these proposed rules should come 
back. Chairman Powell has scheduled a vote on the rule changes in less 
than a month, and, with a Republican majority on the Commission, these 
changes are pretty certain to pass.
  It is a sham, and it is a shame, that the FCC has not scheduled 
official hearings across the Nation like the official one that 
Commissioner Copps and I hosted Monday in my district. The FCC has held 
only one, only one, official hearing on this subject, just outside the 
Beltway in Virginia.
  If it was not for FCC Commissioners Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, it 
is doubtful that this discussion would have gone beyond a few lobbyists 
and public interest activists in the first place.
  I am against the proposed deregulation, and I believe we should look 
back to the relaxation of radio ownership under the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996. We should use that for our guidance, because virtual 
elimination of radio ownership restrictions has resulted in a reduction 
of radio ownership by at least one-third across our Nation. In the San 
Francisco market alone, seven stations are now owned by Clear Channel 
Communications, seven by Infinity Broadcasting and three by ABC. Across 
the Nation, 10 companies broadcast to two-thirds of the Nation's radio 
audience and receive two-thirds of the broadcast revenues.
  Let me say that again: Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 10 
companies broadcast to two-thirds of the radio audience and receive 
two-thirds of the broadcast revenues nationwide.
  Has the quality of radio broadcasting improved because of these 
changes? Is there more local programming, more local news, a greater 
variety of programming? Is there free flow of information, or is there 
censorship? Ask the Dixie Chicks.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I are cosponsoring House Resolution 
218 that calls on the FCC to examine and inform the public of the 
consequences of the new round of deregulation. It asks that the FCC 
allow for extensive public review and comment on any proposed changes 
to media ownership rules before issuing a final rule.

                          ____________________