Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule

DISAPPROVING FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BROADCAST MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULE

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, like many Americans, I was disappointed by the Federal Communications Commission's recent order on media ownership. As my colleagues know, on June 2 the FCC voted to relax the rules on media ownership.
That order could reduce local news coverage and could hinder the diversity of views presented in the news media.

I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators Dorgan and Lott to invalidate the FCC's media ownership order. Passage of this resolution will help ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few corporate conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy.

Since its founding, our Nation has always recognized the importance of a free press in helping citizens make informed decisions on critical public issues. Over the past few years, we have seen massive mergers take place in many industries, but Americans recognize that the news media are different. They don't just produce a product to make a profit. They also provide a vital public service that could be undermined if just a few mega-corporations control what we can read, see and hear. That is why the FCC's order has provoked such a large public backlash.

By a 3-2 vote, the FCC made two major changes. First, it lifted a restriction that prevents mergers between newspaper and television stations in the same market. This is known as the cross-ownership rule. Until now, that restriction has ensured that one company does not control both newspaper and television coverage in an area. That helps ensure that consumers have access to diverse sources of information.

By eliminating this cross-ownership rule, however, consumers could end up with fewer voices and perspectives on the public airwaves and in the newspaper. The number one television station in a market could be owned by the dominant newspaper or even the only newspaper in that same market. We are not talking about something that could happen in just one or two cities. This could happen all over the country. Down the road, the order could encourage just a handful of powerful corporations to own nearly every media outlet. That could hinder diverse and alternative viewpoints. It could also mean fewer reporters and resources for covering local and community events.

The newspaper market is already much less diverse than it was 25 years ago. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have disappeared. The FCC's first order sets the stage for a further reduction in independent newspaper ownership.

The FCC's second order would allow broadcast networks to own more stations across the country. Currently, one broadcast network cannot own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the public. The FCC just raised that limit to 45 percent. This order threatens to reduce the amount of local news coverage available to citizens. Just look at what has happened in the radio industry. National radio networks have gobbled up local stations. Many have consolidated their news operations to the detriment of local consumers. Getting rid of local news coverage is not good for our local communities and their residents. This change could be especially troubling in rural areas.

I have been working on this issue for several months, and I believe we have reached a critical juncture that calls for Senate action.

On April 9, nearly 2 months before the ruling, I sent a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell along with 14 other U.S. Senators from both political parties. We asked the FCC to let the Congress and the public review and comment on the proposed changes before they were enacted.

When the order came out in June, I expressed my concerns.

A couple of weeks ago in the Appropriations Committee, I echoed the comments of Senators DORGAN and HUTCHISON on the need to either fix or eliminate this order through action on the Senate floor, and that is why I'm here today in support of this resolution.

The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 4, but was postponed when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay. This stay could be lifted if the FCC meets the court's requirements, so the Senate needs to act quickly.

One option before the Senate is to pass a law invalidating the FCC's order. Unfortunately, that approach would still leave the door open for the FCC to simply rewrite the rule and do an "end run" around Congress. A better way to invalidate the rule is to use the Congressional Review Act, CRA. It would stop the rule and would also prevent the FCC from re-imposing it later under a different name.

In the Appropriations Committee, we included a provision that would lower the media cap back to 35 percent. That mirrored a similar provision in the House's Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill. We must finish the job today by using the CRA to invalidate the whole rule.

Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans get their news from local TV and newspapers. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to dictate what all Americans can see, hear, and read as they make decisions on critical public issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for diverse media ownership by supporting this resolution.