[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Page 18114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor, with Senator 
Coleman, an amendment to prohibit the reimplementation of the Fairness 
Doctrine.
  As we may remember, over the past few weeks, the Fairness Doctrine 
has received a lot of attention. Some Senators spoke about the need to 
reinstitute this doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is a regulation the 
Federal Communications Commission developed to require FCC-licensed 
broadcasters to provide contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. 
However, the FCC conducted a review of this regulation in 1985, 
concluding that ``we no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine 
serves the public interest.'' In explaining why the FCC reached this 
conclusion, they wrote:

       The interest of the public is fully served by the 
     multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the 
     intrusion by Government into the content of programming 
     unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedoms of 
     broadcasters.

  The FCC's refusal to enforce the Fairness Doctrine was later upheld 
in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Why would a regulation that was found to be unnecessary over 20 years 
ago be controversial today? Well, we found out why. On June 22, the 
Center for American Progress issued a report called ``The Structural 
Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.'' Keep in mind that the Center for 
American Progress is a liberal think tank funded by George Soros and 
led by John Podesta and a lot of former Clinton White House people in 
it. The report issued was authored, in part, by a former Clinton White 
House adviser. This report, not surprisingly, found that 91 percent--I 
believe this to be true--of political talk radio programming was 
conservative and 9 percent was progressive or liberal. However, what is 
surprising is the report suggested antifree market and antifree speech 
recommendations to supposedly provide balance in talk radio 
programming. There is a very controversial statement I made in the 
presence of a couple of our fellow Senators not too long ago when they 
were talking about the fact that there is so much conservative bias in 
talk radio. I said it is market driven. That is what America is all 
about. It is market driven. There is no market for the progressive or 
liberal programming.
  I remember when the DOD was trying to feed the American Forces Radio 
and television services in the Armed Forces Network and have 50 percent 
of the programming be liberal. We fought that out on the floor of the 
Senate and we won because freedom of speech is more important. 
Consequently, we have gone back and let them decide--our troops--as to 
the programming they want. It is all done in a fair way so our troops 
at least can hear what they want to hear over talk radio.
  This is for those people who think they have balanced political talk 
radio. This is a report on that subject. As I go through this, first of 
all, it identifies the problem they consider--conservative bias. That 
is what the American people want. It says:

       If commercial radio broadcasters are unwilling to abide by 
     these regulatory standards or the FCC is unable to 
     effectively regulate in the public interest, a spectrum use 
     fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, 
     regional, and national broadcasting.

  That is this report. In other words, they are saying not only do 
these people who, because of their popularity, because of the content 
and the way they deliver it--not only would they lose their programs, 
but they would also have to give money to support public broadcasting. 
This is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen.
  I don't think this can happen in America. When you get John Podesta 
and the former Clinton White House team and their minds set to doing 
something, they are smart people, and I don't take this lightly. I ask 
as many people as possible to support our efforts to pass legislation 
to stop any effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I think we 
should call it something else, such as the Government-run broadcasting.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________