[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  FCC'S VOTE ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise also to express my strong 
opposition to the recent vote that was taken today by the FCC. The 
three-two vote by the commission will allow for the concentration of 
media ownership in the hands of the very few and privileged and will 
reduce the diversity of viewpoints. This does not sound too American to 
me.
  The decades-old rules that will be altered under today's vote were 
intended to provide for multiple media owners and voices in our market. 
Today's vote that was taken will reduce the assortment of voices and 
opinions that are essential to our healthy democracy. Allowing one 
company in a city to control the most popular newspaper and TV station 
will give the company excessive control over the local news and the 
information that the public sees and hears. It would also reduce the 
diversity of cultural and political disclosure in our communities.
  Studies that I have seen indicate that, under these rules, mergers 
will be allowed in 140 local concentrated markets. In as many as 100 of 
these local markets, representing nearly half of the national 
population, there will probably be one dominant newspaper. A merger 
between a dominant newspaper and a large TV station would create a 
local news giant that would threaten alternative views and news.
  Today's decision will have a detrimental impact on minority 
communities, including the Nation's fast-growing Latino population, the 
Spanish-language population. It will dramatically reduce competition in 
Spanish-language media and opportunities for Latino media ownership. 
Dominance in the Spanish-language media by one corporation can have the 
same negative effects for many Latinos as the dominance of English-
language media can have for the general population.
  Today's ruling by the FCC means less diverse programming, news 
sources, and smaller points of view. We need to look only at the radio 
industry to see the ill effects that today's vote will have on the 
diversity in media.
  Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the overall 
number of radio station owners has decreased by at least 30 percent. 
And according to a study by the Department of Commerce, in the year 
2000 minorities owned 248 AM stations and 178 FM stations. That 
represented 4 percent of the country's 10,577 commercial AM and FM 
stations.
  I am especially disappointed that the public, the very people who own 
the airwaves, were not offered the time to express their concerns about 
this very important issue. How undemocratic of the FCC to keep the 
public in the dark on this very critical matter and not to afford the 
American people of this country, whom we represent, the opportunity to 
comment directly on the impact that the new specific policies will have 
on competition, localism, access to multiple sources of information, 
and minority participation.
  Unfortunately, the amount of network coverage on this important issue 
has been minimal. We could not even get people from the media to show 
up to cover a press conference that we had last week to disclose what 
was happening with this vote that was taking place today. The public is 
largely unaware of the possible impact these changes will have on their 
lives; and it is discouraging, especially when millions of Americans 
have reacted in recent days with amazement at the FCC's plans. The FCC 
should have listened to the public, not the megacorporations.
  Liberals and conservatives alike, consumer groups, labor groups, the 
National Rifle Association and others, have rallied around the cause 
and urged the FCC to allow more time for the public to comment on this 
critical matter.
  When it comes down to it, today's vote was just another example of 
the Bush administration's catering to corporate greed. It is one more 
example of corporate welfare. It is a Bush-backed gift to the major 
corporations and their bank accounts. At the expense of whom? The 
public.
  The FCC was created to serve the public interest and to ensure 
diverse voices in it. The commission failed on both accounts today. I 
urge this Chamber to consider legislation to reverse the commission's 
ruling and to allow the public greater opportunity to learn about this 
critical issue and weigh in with their important thoughts.

                          ____________________