The publication is reproduced in full below:
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 64, Joshua David Jacobs, of Washington, to be Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Charles E. Schumer, Raphael G. Warnock, Ben Ray Lujan,
Tammy Duckworth, Jeff Merkley, Tim Kaine, Christopher
A. Coons, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Tina Smith, Tammy Baldwin, Catherine Cortez
Masto, Angus S. King, Jr., Mazie K. Hirono, John W.
Hickenlooper, Margaret Wood Hassan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Joshua David Jacobs, of Washington, to be Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:
YEAS--72
Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Booker Boozman Britt Brown Budd Cantwell Capito Cardin Carper Casey Cassidy Collins Coons Cortez Masto Cotton Cramer Cruz Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gillibrand Graham Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Hoeven Hyde-Smith Johnson Kaine Kelly Kennedy King Klobuchar Lujan Manchin Markey Marshall Menendez Merkley Moran Murkowski Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Romney Rosen Rounds Schatz Schumer Shaheen Sinema Smith Stabenow Tester Thune Tillis Tuberville Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden Young
NAYS--22
Braun Cornyn Crapo Daines Ernst Fischer Grassley Hawley Lankford Lee Lummis McConnell Mullin Paul Ricketts Rubio Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sullivan Vance Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Barrasso Blackburn Feinstein Hagerty Risch Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 22.
The motion is agreed to.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Diversity in Broadcasting
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to highlight what I consider to be a grave injustice, and I urge us to do something about it. I do so because I remain deeply concerned about an issue that often flies under the radar, which is our Nation's severe lack of diversity when it comes to broadcast station ownership.
Three years ago, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a report titled ``The Abysmal State of Media Ownership Diversity in America.'' That is an apt title, especially because, according to the Federal Communications Commission--the Agency responsible for regulating broadcasters--minorities in America make up less than 3 percent of all broadcast station owners. For women, the numbers aren't much better. They account for less than 6 percent of all station owners.
These abysmal figures from the FCC--consistently in the single digits--are unacceptable. They are an affront to the incredible diversity that makes America the exceptional Nation that it is. And simply put, we do ourselves an enormous disservice when the vast majority of TV and radio stations in America are predominantly owned by White men. This lack of diversity in broadcasting is a problem that materially affects the people I represent in New Jersey.
Even as trusted sources of local news continue to be decimated, broadcast media stations play a crucial role in educating the public. They are an invaluable source of information, a safe harbor, particularly for minority communities at a time when new consumers continue to be bombarded with misinformation and disinformation.
Very often--speaking in one element of the Hispanic community--radio is what the community turns to in the case of an emergency. During the pandemic, it is where they turned to to get trusted information about how to take care of themselves and their families. In storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes, they are the preferred entity.
So all of us in this Chamber have a duty to be responsible stewards of the public airwaves, and we do this by ensuring that the ownership of stations reflects the audiences they reach. When minority communities turn on the radio and the television, the programming should be about events in their community, very possibly in a language they understand, speaking about a culture they know, and addressing issues they care about the most. We can only achieve this by having broadcast station leaders with similar life experiences to their listeners and viewers alike.
Make no mistake, if we hope to raise the appalling numbers of minority-owned broadcast stations in America, it starts with seizing every opportunity in front of us to increase their ranks.
It is long past time that the regulators at the Federal Communications Commission prioritize diversity in broadcast ownership.
Right now, the FCC has before it the case of Soo Kim, a Korean-
American entrepreneur who has applied to acquire TEGNA Broadcasting. Should the deal go through, it would make TEGNA the largest minority-
owned broadcast station group in the country. However, for more than a year, this deal has been in limbo.
I am not here to speak about all the details of this deal or the pros and cons of its merits, but basic fairness dictates that the FCC should make a decision one way or another and not just veto it through, in essence, inaction. That is not the American way. A vote is a fair shot and a way to see how the Commission will react to diversity issues when they become available.
Diversity, for me, means the fullness of diversity. It means African Americans. It means Hispanic Americans. It means women. It means LGBTQ Americans. And, yes, it means Asian Americans.
We need the FCC Commissioners to commit to increasing diversity in media ownership not just in words but with actions. I, for one, will not support nominees for the FCC if they are unwilling to support diversity, including by acting in a way that denies a vote to a diverse applicant. They cannot argue that broadcast station owners should reflect their audiences, publicly saying--this is the FCC--``We need to do better.'' Well, that is great. Then you miss the opportunities to expand diversity in broadcasting when it is before you.
In the past, I have tried to address this issue head on through legislation. I will continue to follow that route as well.
Last Congress, alongside Senator Peters, I introduced a bill, the Broadcast VOICES Act, that would help address the lack of diversity in the industry through innovations in our Tax Code. Through a Federal tax incentive, our bill would ensure that women- and minority-owned stations can compete on a level playing field to provide a benefit to audiences.
It would reestablish a program in order to reincentivize broadcast ownership. I say ``reincentivize'' because Congress has actually done this before. During the nearly two decades that this tax incentive as outlined in the Broadcast VOICES Act was active, minority ownership and diversity in the broadcast media industry grew fivefold. It grew fivefold. So think about where it was when I referred to the earlier percentages and where we are today. This tax provision helped increase it from virtually nothing to fivefold. That is right--the number of minority owners quintupled when the incentive was in place.
So make no mistake, the task in front of us is clear. Government regulators at the FCC have identified that there is a diversity problem in broadcast ownership. As I have said, there are steps this body can take to address it through the Broadcast VOICES Act, but the FCC has its share of the burden as well. It must more than talk the talk; it must walk the walk on the issue of diversity in media ownership.
I pushed for diverse candidates at every Agency. I will continue to do so. I am hopeful that the administration seizes the opportunity before them to nominate a diverse candidate to the Federal Communications Commission because part of taking proactive steps on industry diversity is ensuring that the regulator itself is more diverse.
My first question to any FCC nominee I meet will be ``What actions will you take, if confirmed, to expand diversity in broadcast ownership?'' If they are a present FCC Commissioner seeking to be reestablished at the Commission, voted on again to return to the Commission: ``What actions have you taken to expand diversity in broadcast ownership?''
Only if we as Members press this issue will things change. It is time to afford our communities the representation in media they deserve, not just representation that others think they deserve.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 169, No. 69
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up