[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9420-9423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              DISAPPROVAL OF FCC OWNERSHIP RULE SUBMITTAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 28, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S.J. Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted 
     by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to 
     broadcast media donorship.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided. The 
Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. This is a resolution of disapproval of an FCC rule 
dealing with media ownership. The Commerce Committee has passed this 
out to the floor of the Senate. I will not go into great length on the 
merits of the issue except to say we have visited this issue 
previously. I think there is too much concentration in the media. The 
FCC rule moves in exactly the wrong direction, adding more 
concentration.
  I ask that Members of the Senate who wish to would be able to make 
statements that appear prior to this vote. I believe we have agreed to 
a voice vote.
  I yield the floor. I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I know we are going to have a voice 
vote. I ask unanimous consent I be recorded as a ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The record will so reflect.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish the record also to reflect I voted 
``no'' on S.J. Res. 28.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent statements in opposition to the 
resolution of the Senator from North

[[Page 9421]]

Dakota be printed in the Record at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Cross Ownership Rule

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from 
North Dakota for his work on media ownership issues and to engage him 
in a colloquy to clarify one point about the resolution of disapproval. 
I note that Senator Dorgan has long been a champion of media localism 
and diversity, issues that are quite important to me as well.
  Because I believe that the Federal Communications Commission ignored 
Congress's repeated admonitions about following appropriate processes 
in reaching the agency's new cross-ownership rules, I support this 
bipartisan resolution.
  Yet I believe that if the Senate adopts this resolution, the existing 
waivers contemplated under the FCC cross-ownership rule should be 
protected. This means that those waivers would not be a part of this 
resolution.
  I have significant concerns that if these waivers are not protected, 
this legislation could harm some media markets and constituents' access 
to news and information in my State of Virginia.
  I would like to confirm that this resolution, while it would nullify 
the revised version of the FCC's newspaper cross-ownership ban, would 
not undo or in any manner change the FCC's decision to grant permanent 
waivers to five existing newspaper-broadcast combinations, and thus 
grandfather them, as set forth in paragraphs 77 and 158 of the FCC's 
December 18, 2007 Report and Order. It is my understanding that this 
resolution will not affect these five specific waivers, and I would 
like to clarify this understanding
  Senator Dorgan, is it your goal and understanding that the waivers 
that the FCC granted in conjunction with the cross-ownership rule be 
protected?
  Mr. DORGAN. Under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution of 
disapproval is intended to overturn a specific rule, not other parts of 
an agency's order. The waivers are not rules.
  The resolution is written in a specific way referring to an order, 
but it is the rule that is nullified. These waivers could have been 
granted alone or under the previous cross-ownership ban. It is not the 
intention of this resolution to affect the waivers in the order.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution of disapproval that repeals the recent Federal 
Communications Commission's media ownership rulemaking.
  As an original cosponsor of this measure, I applaud Senator Dorgan 
for once again taking the lead in introducing critical legislation to 
overturn a misguided attempt by the commission to relax crucial media 
ownership rules--a move that will only lead to further consolidation 
within the industry that will ultimately harm consumers.
  As my colleagues are well aware, consolidation in the media market 
has led to fewer locally owned stations, and less local programming and 
content. Indeed, it speaks volumes that the number of independent radio 
owners has plunged in the past 11 years by 39 percent.
  Just in 1996 and 1997 alone, more than 4,400 radio stations were sold 
following the first round of consolidation following passage of The 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Between 1995 and 2003, ownership of the 
top 10 largest television stations increased from 104 owners to 299 
owners.
  At the same time, we know that locally owned stations aired more 
local news and programming than non-locally owned stations--and that is 
not just me talking. That is according to the FCC's own studies, which 
also found that smaller station groups overall tended to produce higher 
quality newscasts compared to stations owned by larger companies.
  So there should be no mistake--fewer independent, local stations mean 
less local content and programming.
  Minority and women-ownership of media outlets are also at perilously 
low levels--currently only 6 percent of full-power commercial broadcast 
radio stations are owned by women and 7.7 percent are owned by 
minorities. Ownership of broadcast television is even lower--5 percent 
for women and only 3.3 percent for minorities. Instead of being a 
catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC's action 
will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas.
  The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last 
fall held a hearing to consider these very issues, and the actions 
required for improvement. During that hearing, I and several of my 
colleagues voiced strong concern about Chairman Martin's intent to ease 
current media ownership rules, particularly because of the potential 
impact on localism and diversity in broadcasting.
  That is why I, along with many committee members, joined Senators 
Dorgan and Lott in introducing The Media Ownership Act of 2007, which 
was reported out of the committee favorably in December. This 
constitutes yet another step in the mounting opposition to the 
loosening of these crucial rules. We had hoped that Chairman Martin 
would heed not only our urgings, but the concerns expressed by the 
American public, and complete the 4-year-old rulemaking on localism.
  However, on November 13, less than a week after that hearing, the 
Chairman issued a new proposal to lift the 32-year-old newspaper-
broadcast cross-ownership ban in the top 20 media markets. Worse still, 
the FCC allowed only 28 days for the public to comment on the proposal 
when it has historically provided 60 to 90 days on pivotal matters such 
as this.
  Clearly, the FCC's actions demonstrate a litany of highly-misguided 
priorities that neglect to consider the full impact of the FCC's rule 
change on the American people. Therefore, this resolution of 
disapproval is necessary to rescind this haphazard approach.
  I must say it feels a little like deja vu all over again, when nearly 
5 years ago the FCC attempted a similar effort to relax another set of 
media ownership rules. And fittingly, the opposition to the 
commission's attempt then mirrors the opposition that is coalescing 
now. And the action we are considering now is reminiscent of the joint 
resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in September 2003, which I 
cosponsored, condemning the Commission's efforts to rewrite those 
rules.
  So that naturally begs the question--why would the commission 
continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American 
public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again? When the 
U.S. Congress in 2004 enacted a statute prohibiting the FCC from 
raising national ownership limits above 39 percent? When the Third 
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as arbitrary and capricious this 
attempt at revising the rules after finding the FCC had no factual 
basis for the limits it set? We deserve an answer.
  Many proponents for relaxing media ownership rules have pointed to 
the precipitous decline of the newspaper industry as the reason change 
is mandatory. They have even cited a recent report by the Newspaper 
Association of America, NAA, which found print ad revenue for the 
industry fell by 9.4 percent last year--the biggest decline since it 
started keeping records in 1950.
  However, what these proponents are neglecting to mention is that the 
NAA also found that online newspaper advertising revenue increased 19 
percent last year.
  Furthermore the NAA president and CEO John Sturm stated ``newspaper 
publishers are continuing to drive strong revenue growth from their 
increasingly robust Web platforms.'' This hardly sounds like an 
industry in irreversible peril if this longstanding rule remains in 
place.
  Opponents of this resolution will also argue that the FCC crafted a 
very narrow revision, lifting the cross-ownership ban for only the top 
20 media markets, so this resolution is unnecessary. However, the FCC 
also adopted ``four factors'' and two broad ``special circumstances'' 
that would allow this ban to be lifted for a station in any media 
market.
  These scenarios and factors include evaluating financial condition, 
possible

[[Page 9422]]

increased local news, as well as existing market media concentration, 
and news independency. Given the vagueness and loopholes that exist 
with the rulemaking, the ``high hurdle'' that the Commission has 
supposedly set for proposed combinations could be easily cleared by 
using only a stepladder.
  Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort, 
and the resolution before us today is no different. We must not allow 
the indispensable role the media plays in promoting diversity and 
localism to be further marginalized and miniaturized by unchecked 
consolidation within the industry.
  We owe it to the American people to restore confidence in the FCC's 
commitment not only to uphold the public interest but to advance it and 
strengthen it. That is why it is undeniably incumbent upon the 
commission members to revisit these rules and establish a set of 
standards that will effectively promote localism and minority and 
women-ownership, not more media consolidation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today we are considering a critical 
piece of legislation. The resolution of disapproval is critical to the 
diversity of our media and I would like to thank Senator Dorgan for his 
leadership on the issue. In December, the FCC pushed through new media 
ownership rules on a partisan three to two vote. The proposal strips 
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules that have protected diversity 
for 32 years in the top 20 markets.
  This proposal has been described by the chairman as a modest rules 
change. That since it is restricted to the top 20 markets, and since it 
only applies to television stations not in the top 4 in ratings in 
those markets, its some sort of compromise. The reality is that is 
simply not true.
  To begin with, 44 percent of Americans live in the top 20 markets. 
This includes my State of New Jersey, which is split by two of the 
largest markets in the country. And there are a number of loopholes in 
the rule. Companies looking to consolidate either outside the top 20 
markets or to purchase one of the 4 largest stations need only be 
granted a waiver from the FCC.
  The standards for granting these waivers are vague at best. Here is 
an example: one of the standards a company must show in order for a 
waiver to be granted is whether the broadcast station has enough 
editorial independence. How does anybody quantify that?
  The fact is there is no way to objectively judge the parameters 
Chairman Martin's rule requires to grant the waivers. This means that 
depending on who is running the FCC, a waiver can be granted in any 
market or for any station. As Commissioner Adelstein put it so 
appropriately, this proposal is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
  While the FCC devotes its resources to opening up more loopholes for 
consolidation, the commission has done virtually nothing to address the 
issue of minority ownership. The reality of diversity in our Nation's 
broadcast ownership is a far cry from the reality in which we live.
  Despite making up 35 percent of the population and owning roughly 18 
percent of all nonfarm businesses, minorities currently own only 3 
percent of all broadcast TV stations.
  It is in the best interests of our democracy that media ownership 
reflect the wealth of this Nation's diversity. As a public trustee of 
the broadcast spectrum, it is the responsibility of the FCC to advocate 
on behalf of women and minorities.
  Yet this Commission under President Bush has failed in this pursuit. 
In fact, the FCC has so mishandled the issue, nobody even uses their 
statistics on minority ownership anymore. The best estimates we have on 
minority ownership have to come from outside groups because the FCC 
simply doesn't have accurate reporting numbers.
  In 2000, the FCC released five studies conducted to help the 
commission comply with its own regulations that require the elimination 
of market-entry barriers for small business. These studies largely 
found that media consolidation negatively impacted minority ownership, 
and noted that minority owners face historic barriers to accessing 
capital from lending institutions to purchase broadcast outlets. But 
rather than act on these studies to address the underlying problems, 
the FCC took 4 years to even issue a notice for public comment.
  So today we have a chance to overturn a misguided decision by the 
FCC. And we have a chance to tell the Commission that rather than spend 
their time on finding loopholes for major media corporations to buy up 
more outlets throughout our country, the FCC should be working to its 
charge as the trustee for America's airwaves.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 28, a 
joint resolution disapproving the Federal Communications Commission, 
FCC, rule relaxing newspaper-broadcast media cross-ownership.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the FCC's 
rulemaking that would allow greater consolidation of our media. The 
media is a tremendous force in our society. It can inform, educate, and 
entertain, as well as nourish our democratic dialogue. Unfortunately, 
the media also has less savory powers.
  In recent years, we have seen an increase in coarse and violent 
programming, coupled with a decrease in local news and hardhitting 
journalism. To say these trends are not in the best interest of the 
American people, and especially our youngest citizens, is clearly an 
understatement.
  In addition, as corporate ownership over our media grows more 
concentrated, we see less and less of the diversity of our Nation. When 
programming is the same from coast to coast, our airwaves will no 
longer reflect the rich mosaic of our country and our citizens. Such a 
landscape should prompt the FCC to act with an overabundance of 
caution, but it has not.
  Five years ago, the FCC substantially relaxed the rules that govern 
media ownership in this country. Millions of Americans contacted the 
FCC to complain. The U.S. Senate voted to support a ``resolution of 
disapproval'' in response to the FCC's decision. Next, the courts got 
involved, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals shipped the agency's 
handiwork right back to the FCC.
  In 2006, the FCC began a new rulemaking, and in November of 2007, the 
Commerce Committee held a hearing to discuss the effects of 
consolidation on localism and diversity in news and entertainment.
  Over the following month, the Senate made clear to the Commission 
that it had serious concerns about the FCC's process and its apparent 
rush to issue a new rule. But on December 18, 2007, over the objections 
of Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, the FCC approved 
a relaxed set of ownership rules under which newspaper- broadcast 
cross-ownership is permissible in the top 20 markets.
  I commend Senator Dorgan for introducing S.J. Res. 28, a joint 
resolution disapproving the FCC rule. I am pleased to join him as a 
cosponsor of this resolution. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting S.J. Res. 28.
  Together we can send a strong and united message that media diversity 
is clearly in the national interest and that the U.S. Senate will 
defend that interest with all the tools at its disposal.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that I be recorded as voting no 
on S.J. Res. 28, a resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the 
Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media 
ownership.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
of disapproval of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, recently 
issued rules on media cross-ownership. I want to commend my colleague 
from North Dakota for his leadership on this most important of issues. 
This resolution will nullify the ill-considered and hastily-passed 
rules pushed through by the FCC in December of last year.
  Over the last several years, the effects of media consolidation have 
become extremely clear to the American

[[Page 9423]]

people: Less local control and community-oriented programming; less 
independently produced programming; fewer divergent views and opinions; 
fewer minority-owned broadcast stations.
  And now, the FCC has green-lighted further media concentration by 
voting to overturn a 32-year-old rule prohibiting the cross-ownership 
of newspapers and broadcast stations--a rule that could impact markets 
in which nearly half of the American public lives and works.
  Put simply, the FCC rule change would harm local and independent 
owners and help big media owners. In particular, the change further 
disadvantages minority media owners. While such owners control a mere 3 
percent of the Nation's commercial TV stations, as many as 90 percent 
of minority media owners would be subject to these new rules. Further 
consolidation will simply reduce the number of opportunities for 
minorities to enter the market while putting those already in the 
market more at risk of being forced out by larger media conglomerates.
  The FCC argues that this rule is necessary to ``save'' the newspaper 
industry. But as an internal FCC study showed, despite all the stories 
we are hearing about newspaper cutbacks, publicly traded newspapers 
earn 16 to 18 percent annual rates of return. An internal FCC memo 
found the industry as a whole to be profitable. That is to say nothing 
of the fact that the FCC has given no compelling reason for it to be in 
the newspaper business in the first place. The FCC regulates the 
broadcast airwaves--and it should remain that way.
  Perhaps most disturbing is the way the FCC went about implementing 
this radical new rule. First, it completely ignored Congress's 
bipartisan bill, the Media Ownership Act, of which I am a proud 
cosponsor. Then it ignored the public. Indeed, the Chairman's proposed 
rule changes were first made public in an op-ed he published in the New 
York Times outlining the changes for the first time--which might have 
been helpful had the public comment period not already closed the day 
his column appeared.
  Public comments are not merely a formality, Mr. President--they are a 
vital piece of the rulemaking process and an integral part of 
responsive, open government. Five years ago, more than 3 million 
Americans spoke out when the FCC voted without any public input 
whatsoever to allow a single company to own up to three television 
stations, a local newspaper, a cable system, and as many as eight radio 
stations in a single media market. In large part because of the public 
outcry, the courts overturned the rules.
  Mr. President, it isn't more consolidation and homogenization the 
American people want from their media--it is less. No one can seriously 
argue that the consolidation of the media in recent years has been a 
good development for the fourth estate. As coverage has become 
increasingly superficial, people wonder more than ever about the 
quality of the information they are receiving from the media. And quite 
frankly, I do not blame them.
  Must we act to ensure the strength and vitality of the American media 
in the 21st century? Absolutely. But that should be accomplished within 
an open and transparent framework as prescribed in the Media Ownership 
Act--a process that gives the public a voice in this fight. As the 
Senator from North Dakota has said, ``Localism and diversity of media 
ownership is vital in a democracy.''
  Indeed it is, Mr. President. It is time to tell the FCC that this is 
no way to maintain a free, open and diverse media, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator from Washington to use the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise, obviously, to encourage my 
colleagues here. This is an issue we dealt with before. While media 
consolidation might be good for Wall Street, it is not good for Main 
Street. The diversity of voices has been a key component to our 
society, and preserving them by making sure we don't have a 
consolidation of media is very important.
  I urge my colleagues to disapprove of the FCC rule on media 
consolidation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 28

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
     Commission relating to broadcast media ownership (Report and 
     Order FCC 07-216), received by Congress on February 22, 2008, 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________