National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - July 13, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, in the interest of an educated electorate, whether he thinks Americans should hear both sides of the story, a fair and balanced approach when it comes to information?

Mr. COLEMAN. I absolutely believe Americans should hear both sides. Absolutely. But I believe--strongly believe--the Government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating ``now here is the other side.''

In the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of options to hear the other side. All they have to do is turn a dial, all they have to do is push a button, all they have to do is press a mouse, and they have that ability.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator concede that the airwaves belong to the American people?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I concede the airwaves belong to the American people.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a further question.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator concede that those who use the people's airwaves to make a profit have to do it with a license from our Government?

Mr. COLEMAN. I understand and agree we have a licensing process.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield, and I yield to the Senator from Illinois to present the entire question so I can continue.

Mr. DURBIN. I am not trying to delay the Senator from Minnesota. I will concede the sense-of-fairness doctrine has been set aside since the Reagan administration. Things have changed in broadcast journalism and many other aspects of journalism. I have not seen the Senator's amendment. I sense I know what it might be leading to, but I want to make sure the premise is something on which we may agree.

The airwaves belong to the American people. Those who profit from them do it by permission of the people through their Government and those who use those airwaves should do it responsibly and should seek to provide both points of view, both sides of the story so that Americans can reach a decision. I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he disagrees with any of those points?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my learned colleague from Illinois, here is our point of disagreement. There is no question, in fact, that there is a licensing process. I am a former mayor. We licensed a lot of things. But I think one of the basic principles at stake is we don't license and measure content when it comes to speech, and that is my concern. That, in fact, is because of the multiplicity of communications options that are available to citizens today--as I said before, blogs, Internet, broadband, and satellite--which we didn't have 20, 30 years ago.

Where my objection lies, and the importance of this amendment says Government should not be monitoring and regulating content. We are not talking about obscenity. There are things the Senator from Illinois understands the Government has an absolute right to monitor or to deal with. When we get to content--and that is my concern, that those who have raised the issue ``bring back the fairness doctrine,'' are bringing it back, and the cry then is to regulate content. And that is what I object to.

Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask the Senator to yield further for a question, there was a recent episode in the last 2 years when the Public Broadcasting Corporation took a show by Bill Moyers off the air and wanted to replace it with a show authored by the Wall Street Journal. There were complaints, obviously, that Mr. Moyers was too liberal in content.

Does the Senator from Minnesota believe that was a fair outcome or would he concede it would have been a fairer outcome to allow the American people to watch both shows, by the Wall Street Journal and Bill Moyers, and to hear both points of view and decide what they agree with?

Mr. COLEMAN. Two observations. First, I am thrilled I am having this discussion with the Senator from Illinois. My concern is that I just offered an amendment which was objected to. Had the amendment not been objected to, we would have time for a full debate on this amendment.

The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Dakota have a great interest in this issue. I presume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the junior Senator from Massachusetts has raised concerns that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine. He said that publicly.

I would love to have this debate, and yet I stand here offering an amendment which is being objected to and so instead we are having this colloquy. I appreciate the question and will respond. But I am disappointed that the other side of the aisle will not give us an opportunity for a full debate on this issue.

In fact, I want all sides to be heard. What I don't want, and the fundamental disagreement is, for the regulatory power of Government to sit in judgment as Big Brother, to oversee and take stock with pencil and pad and take notes: Well, we had Sean Hannity over here. Now we have to get somebody on the left over there.

Balance should be heard, but we have a marketplace that provides that opportunity. We have folks who support the perspective of the Senator from Illinois, and we have folks who support my perspective. Sometimes we are the same. But for Government to dictate, that is the concern. That is why the FCC got rid of the fairness doctrine in 1987. It is why the Supreme Court raised questions about the necessity of the fairness doctrine. I don't think it is constitutional. We have not gotten to that question.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I will yield for one further question.

Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry to interrupt. Through the Commerce Committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the Senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the Senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What if it doesn't provide the opportunity to hear both points of view? Since people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the Government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will respond to the final question. There is a very clear disagreement here. The Government does not have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That is what the first amendment is about. That is exactly what the first amendment is about. Government is not supposed to be regulating content, and at a time in 1949 when we had three-network TV stations, basically when we had limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that in fact Government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we are in 2007. I cannot even conceive that the market cannot provide opportunities for differing positions because it does.

In the end, consumers also have a right, based on the market, to make choices. So if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that is OK. I think it is very dangerous, I say to my friend from Illinois--I think it is very dangerous for Government to be in the position of deciding what is fair and balanced. As we see on the floor of the Senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, hopefully learned individuals who have the great and humble opportunity to serve in the Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced.

The reason we have a first amendment is we get Government out of measuring, controlling, dictating, and regulating content. That is my concern, and that is what this amendment is about.

I would love to have a debate with the Senator from Illinois. I would have hoped that this amendment would simply have been put in the queue, would have been heard. I think Americans love a fair fight. I think Americans love this kind of dialog. There is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. There is nothing fair if the intent--really, we have to lay it on the table--if the intent is to shut down or to limit the conservative talk radio. That is where the concern is. Yet, as I said before, one can raise questions about balance in the print media, one can raise questions about balance in the broadcast media, but I don't think it is the role of Government to be sitting there listening and then weighing, deciding what is fair and balanced, and then requiring, under penalty, a broadcaster to then have to present an opposing point of view.

What is going to happen--and history has shown this--broadcasters are simply going to say: Let's do something else. Why be in that position where there may be a line that may be crossed, and I don't know what that line is, and that line may change depending on who is sitting as FCC Chair.

As I said before, beyond first amendment principles, there are market principles. Talk radio has flourished because of the market. The consumer says, I want to listen, and they have been given choices. They can simply turn off the dial. They can shut off the radio if they don't want to listen, but it has flourished. It has flourished because of demand, and that is the market, not because of Government command, not because of Government control. We don't want the Government regulating content.

Source