[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5468-S5472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMEMBERING DR. BARNETT SLEPIAN AND CONDEMNING ANTI-ABORTION VIOLENCE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, after the attacks against our country on
September 11th and with ongoing violence in the Middle East, we have
taken steps to remind Americans that not all Arabs and not all Muslims
are terrorists. And it is important to remember that not all terrorists
are Arabs or Muslims.
Terrorism is not an ideology linked to any particular religion, race,
or nationality; rather it is a tactic, a method deliberately chosen by
those who reject peaceful means of promoting their cause and instead
turn to violence. Obviously not all terrorists share the same goals--
indeed, there are many cases where terrorists with diametrically
opposed views are fighting against one another.
But terrorists seem to hold in common a belief that they are above
the law and a common disregard for human life.
Unfortunately, we have homegrown terrorists right here in America:
People like Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Federal building in
Oklahoma City and whoever is responsible for the anthrax attacks of
last year.
America has also been plagued by numerous acts of violence by
extremists in the anti-abortion movement. One of their victims was
Barnett Slepian, a husband and a father of four. He was killed in his
family's home in Buffalo, New York 3\1/2\ years ago shortly after
returning from synagogue where he had gone to mourn his father's death.
Barnett Slepian was a gynecologist and obstetrician. He provided
health care to women and delivered babies. And he also performed
abortions at a downtown clinic, because he wanted to make sure that
even poor women had access to safe, legal procedures. Because of this
he was killed.
I didn't know Dr. Slepian, but I learned after his death that he was
the uncle of a woman from Reno, Nevada who worked for me here in
Washington.
Dr. Slepian's killer is not only a cold-blooded murderer, but should
also be seen as a terrorist. The man police have identified as
responsible for killing Dr. Slepian was recently extradited from France
where he had fled. His name is James Kopp.
Kopp has been indicted for the shooting of a doctor in Canada and is
a suspect in 3 other shootings of doctors who provided abortions. While
Kopp alone might have pulled the trigger and fired the shot that killed
Dr. Slepian, we have learned that he was part of an organized network
of violent extremists, including a group that calls itself the Army of
God. (Imagine that a group would invoke the Lord's name and believe
that God sanctions their lawless violence. And this group of murderers
professes a respect for life!)
This group and others similar to it have engaged in a long campaign
of harassment, intimidation, and violence. Their crimes include
kidnaping, bombing, arson, assault and murder. They have targeted
health clinic employees, judges and other officials. And not only have
they attacked and killed doctors, but they have also threatened the
doctors' children. These groups have hosted Web sites that post the
names, addresses, license plate numbers of doctors and others on hit
lists and even put up pictures of their targets' family members and
identify where their children catch the school bus.
Fortunately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just last month
that targeting specific doctors in this way constitutes an illegal
threat, and found those responsible for the Web sites in violation of
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. I applaud the court's
ruling, and I am pleased that the FACE legislation we passed has helped
protect Americans. But we must remain vigilant and continue to take
appropriate action to prevent extremist groups from terrorizing
victims. Their intention is to intimidate and threaten, and sometimes
they succeed as some doctors have given up their practice due to the
emotional stress and constant fear they faced.
Dr. Slepian courageously endured threats for over a decade before he
was murdered. We must have the courage to condemn the violent
extremists in the anti-choice movement. Those who kill and commit other
heinous acts to express their opposition to abortion do so with the
support of many others people who fund their crimes, aid and abet them,
harbor fugitives. Others help create a climate that encourages this
violence through their hateful speech or by remaining silent.
We cannot remain silent. We must say loudly and unequivocally that
murder is wrong.
America is a nation of laws. I believe in following the law. You
might not always agree with the law or how it is interpreted. But that
does not entitle you to willfully violate it without
consequences. America instead offers you an opportunity to seek to
change the law through peaceful means.
We express policy differences civilly through discourse and resolve
them through the political process, not through violence. Here in the
Senate we debate passionately, but in a manner of respect and civility,
and attempt to persuade others of the merits of our positions.
Those who resort to violence are violating not only our laws but our
American principles and values.
We in the Senate must identify them as terrorists. The American
people must recognize them as terrorists. And law enforcement officials
must treat them as terrorists--for that is what they are.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the role.
[[Page S5469]]
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concerns about
the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and
its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
I will be introducing legislation to address these concerns in the
coming weeks, but wanted to make my colleagues aware of the seismic
changes that have taken place in the radio and concert industries
following the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a
number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership
rules because of concerns about the impact on consumers, artists, and
local radio stations.
Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of
soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I
have consistently said that this act was really in many ways bought and
paid for by soft money. Everyone was at the table, except for the
consumers.
In November, we will finally have rid the system of this loophole,
but we must repair its damage.
In just 5 years since its passage, the effects of the
Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I
opposed this act because of its anticonsumer bias, I did not predict
that one provision would have caused so much harm to a diverse range of
interests.
The provision I am referring to is the elimination of the national
radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps, which has
triggered a wave of consolidation and caused harm to consumers,
artists, concert goers, local radio station owners, and promoters.
To put the changes of the 1996 act in perspective, it is helpful to
compare them to other moves towards deregulation of radio ownership
that began in 1984.
In 1984, there were limitations on the total number of radio stations
that one company could own nationally and locally, and how long a
company had to hold a station before being allowed to sell. That year,
the ownership regulations were changed to allow one entity to own 12 AM
stations, 12 FM stations and 12 television stations--an increase from 7
to each type a year earlier.
The Federal Communications Commission again loosened the ownership
requirements in 1992 by allowing one company to own up to two AM and
two FM stations in a specific market, so long as they did not account
for more than 25 percent of the total listening audience. The national
ownership limits were also raised to 18 AM and 18 FM stations.
This change brings us to the seismic shift that shook up the radio
and live concert industries across the country--the passage of the 1996
Telecommunications Act.
This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits
on radio stations--it eliminated them altogether. It also dramatically
altered the local radio station ownership limits through the
implementation of a tiered ownership system which allowed a company to
own more radio stations in the larger markets.
The highest range was in the largest markets, those with 45 stations
or more. In those markets, one group could own up to eight stations,
with no more than five in either AM or FM. The strictest limit was in
the smallest markets with less than 15 stations, where one entity could
own five stations, but only three in any one service.
This change was not beneficial to consumers or local radio station
owners or broadcasters. It simply led to a number of national super
radio station corporations that now dominate the marketplace, and
allegedly engage in anticompetitive business practices.
The concentration levels of radio station ownership, both across the
United States and in most local markets, is staggering.
In 1996, prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, there
were 5133 owners of radio stations. Today, for the contemporary hit
radio/top 40 formats, four radio station groups--Chancellor, Clear
Channel, Infinity, and Capstar--just four control access to 63 percent
of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide. For the country music
format, the same four groups control access to 56 percent of the
format's 28 million listeners.
The concentration of ownership is even more startling when we look at
radio station ownership in local markets.
Four radio station companies control nearly 80 percent of the New
York Market. Three of these same four companies own nearly 60 percent
of the market share in Chicago. In my home State of Wisconsin, four
companies own 86 percent of the market share in the Milwaukee radio
market.
Let me repeat, four companies control 86 percent.
The list continues in almost every market across the United States.
The concentration of radio station ownership by a few companies is mind
boggling, and its effect on consumers, artists and others in the music
industry is cause for great concern.
Many of the same corporations that own multiple radio stations in a
given market wield their power through their ownership of a number of
businesses related to the music industry. For example, the Clear
Channel Corporation owns over 1200 radio companies, more than 700,000
billboards, various promotion companies, and venues across the United
States. Also, just three years ago, in 1999, Clear Channel bought SFX
productions, the Nation's largest promotion company.
A national group of organizations, recently joined together to voice
many of the same concerns that I have heard from my constituents in
Wisconsin--that the high levels of concentration are hurting the entire
industry.
This coalition of artists, labor groups, small businesses, and radio
companies recently released a joint statement that expressed a number
of concerns about the levels of concentration and the anticompetitive
practices.
These concerns included that a corporation that owns radio stations,
promotion companies and venues has a conflict of interest in terms of
promoting its own concerts and tours on its radio stations over those
of any competition.
They are also concerned about a corporation's interest in limiting
the promotional support of bands and artists that are performing for
other companies, performing at other venues or sponsored by other
stations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint statement by this
group be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. After I began looking into the consolidation trends, I
was taken aback by the diverse range of people that expressed concerns
about the effects of concentration and consolidation. Concert goers
talk all the time about higher ticket prices.
Broadcasters, artists, and others in Wisconsin and across the country
have told me about reduced diversity and local input in the music
industry. And local businesses have spoken about anticompetitive
behaviors that have put them on an unfair playing field.
Following the passage of the Telecommunications Act, and the
resulting vertical concentration, a number of trends have emerged.
Ticket prices have gone through the roof, during the same period in
which a few companies consolidated ownership of radio stations,
promotion companies, venues, and advertising.
This chart compares ticket prices during the period of consolidation
following the 1996 act with the preceding 5 year blocks of time. Before
the passage of the 1996 act, ticket prices rose slightly faster than
the Consumer Price Index.
For example, from 1991 to 1996, concert ticket prices grew by about
21 percent, compared to the consumer price index increase of about 15
percent. Following the Telecommunications Act of
[[Page S5470]]
1996, however, ticket prices have increased almost 50--50--percentage
points more than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert
ticket prices grew by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price
Index increased by only 13 percent.
Ticket prices have gone up by nearly 50 percentage points more than
consumer prices since passage of the Telecommunications Act, and that
doesn't even include the facility fees, parking charges, box office
charges, or food and beverage increases.
I think we have to look into allegations that consolidation in the
radio industry has triggered anticompetitive practices and raised
ticket prices.
A broad coalition, including the American Federal of Television and
Radio Artists, has also expressed concerns that consolidation in the
radio industry has led to reduced diversity and competition in local
markets.
As corporations buy stations in the same market, they combine
newsrooms and reporters and share playlists and radio personalities--
all with the same effect: less choice in music and less information for
consumers.
Radio airwaves are public property. Unlike other business ventures,
radio stations have acquired their distribution mechanisms--the
airways--without any expenditure of capital. They were given access to
the broadcast spectrum by the Government for free.
Since 1943, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have
tried to ensure that this medium serves the public good, but limiting
access to information and diversity on the radio does not achieve this.
I have also heard concerns from artists and radio stations about how
the vertically concentrated radio corporations leverage their market-
power to shake down the music industry in exchange for playing their
music.
As my colleagues are aware, payola--the practice of paying money to
get music played--has been prohibited under Federal law since the
1960s. I have heard a number of concerns, however, about the alleged
tendency of some owners of multiple radio stations to shake down the
music industry.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I will ask a question.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended
until the Senator from Wisconsin finishes his statement, which should
be a couple, 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I have a question for my friend.
I have been listening to the Senator from Wisconsin. I think maybe
there is one thing these people who own all this stuff have missed, and
that is the parking lots. They own about everything else.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am not certain they missed that.
Mr. REID. You have not mentioned that.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am still checking into all the different aspects.
Mr. REID. To go to a concert, you need a place to park, right?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am sure they will get to it if they haven't.
They are able to achieve this shakedown, it is said, by establishing
exclusive agreements with independent promoters that collect a fee in
exchange for access to the airwaves.
I am very troubled by these allegations. If true, they mean that
artists that can't, or don't, pay these independent promoters will not
be able to get access to the airwaves. Artists should not be required
to pay for access to the airwaves. I am continuing to investigate these
allegations of a new shakedown, but if they are true, this practice
should be prohibited.
Finally, I am deeply disturbed about concerns that have been voiced
by individuals and local businesses--promoters, radio station owners,
and artists--that have been forced out of the business or have been put
on an unfair playing field as a result of the concentration of market
power caused by the deregulation of the 1996 act.
These are local promoters and businesses who have succeeded through
economic downturns, recessions and many other challenging times. But
when placed on an unfair playing field, they are being pushed out of
the market.
Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public
good. The concentration of ownership, both in radio and the other
facets of the concert industry, has caused great harm to people and
businesses that have been involved and concerned about the radio and
concert industry for generations.
It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to
contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our
society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed.
This is about the very freedom of radio as a medium. Radio is one of
the most important media we have for exchanging ideas and expressing
our creativity. But that free exchange of ideas often isn't free
anymore--if you want to get played, often it's going to cost you. And
if you can't afford it, then you might not get heard at all.
Being able to hear a variety of voices is fundamental to a free
society. Concentration in the radio industry is diminishing the number
of voices that get heard. And that risks diminishing our freedom.
It isn't just about who is talented, and who deserves to be played.
It is about a shakedown, and that is just unacceptable for the
industry, for the artist, and for all of us who listen.
While we took a step forward in reforming the campaign finance system
earlier this year, we must fix the problems that the soft money
loophole caused--including the gaping flaws of the Telecommunications
Act that have hurt competition in the radio and concert industries.
In the coming weeks, I will be introducing legislation to address the
concerns about concentration and anticompetitive practices that have
resulted from the Telecommunications Act. I hope my colleagues will
join me in this effort.
Mr. President, I just want to alert my colleagues to this trend, and
we will introduce legislation to deal with it. I am convinced the
complaints I have heard from such a wide variety of Wisconsinites are
the same concerns being raised in all the States in this country, and I
look forward to submitting a proposal and a bill to my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit No. 1
Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio, May 24, 2002
We are a diverse coalition representing performing artist
groups, labor, record labels, merchandisers, songwriters,
community broadcasters, consumers and citizens advocates. We
urge the government to revise the payola laws to cover
independent promotion to radio, to investigate the impact of
radio consolidation on the music community and citizens and
to work to protect non-commercial space on both the
terrestrial radio bandwidth and the emerging webcasting
models.
Radio is a public asset, not private property. Since 1934,
the federal government, through the Federal Communications
Commission, has overseen the regulation and protection of
this public asset to create a communications medium that
serves the public interest. Unlike other businesses, radio
stations have acquired their distribution mechanism--the
airwaves--without any expenditure of capital. The public owns
the airwaves. Owners of broadcast stations were given access
to the broadcast spectrum by the government for free. The
quid pro quo for free use of the public bandwidth requires
that broadcast stations serve the public interest in their
local communities.
However, it has become clear that both recording artists
and citizens are negatively impacted by legislation,
regulatory interpretations and by a number of standardized
industry practices that fail to serve the public interest. We
call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
undertake a comprehensive review of the following aspects of
the radio industry that are anti-artist, anti-competition and
anti-consumer. Further, we call on Congress to be vigilant in
their oversight of the FCC to ensure the public interest is
being upheld in regards to radio.
Specifically:
1. We request that payments made to radio stations which
are designed to influence playlists (other than legitimate
and reasonable promotional expenses) be prohibited, unless
such payments are announced over the air, even when such
intent is subtle and disguised. This includes payments made
through independent radio promoters.
2. We request an investigation of the impact of recent
unprecedented increases in radio ownership consolidation on
citizens and the music community.
3. We request an examination of the way vertical
integration of ownership in broadcasting, concert promotion
companies and venues decreases fair market competition for
artists, clubs and promotion companies.
[[Page S5471]]
4. We request that policies that protect non-commercial
space in the radio bandwidth and in the emerging webcasting
models be enacted, securing the benefits of programming
diversity for the music community and citizens.
background
Pay for Play and Independent Radio Promotion
Payola--the practice of paying money to people in exchange
for playing a particular piece of music--has a long history
in the music industry. The practice didn't garner much public
attention until the late 1950s and 1960s when rock and roll
disc jockeys became powerful gatekeepers who determined what
music the public heard. Federal laws were passed starting in
the 1960s that forbid the direct payment or compensation of
disc jockeys or other radio staff in exchange for the playing
of certain records unless such payments were announced over
the air.
The various laws and hearings from the 1960s-1970s muted
the prominence of payola for a while. However, payola-like
practices eventually resurfaced, but in a more indirect form.
Standardized business practices now employed by many
broadcasters and independent radio promoters result in what
we consider a de facto form of payola. Often, in an effort to
stay within the law, the payment is characterized as, for
example, payment to receive first notice of the station's
playlist ``adds.''
The new payola-like practices take two primary forms. Radio
consolidation has created the first type. Radio station group
owners establish exclusive arrangements with ``independent
promoters,'' who then guarantee a fixed annual or monthly sum
of money to the radio station group or individual station. In
exchange for this payment, the radio station group agrees to
give the independent promoter first notice of new songs added
to its playlists each week. Stations in the group also tend
to play mostly records that have been suggested by the
independent promoter. As a result of the standardization of
this practice, record companies and artists generally must
pay the radio stations' independent promoters if they want to
be considered for airplay on those stations.
The second payola-like practice occurs after the music
labels hire an ``independent radio promoter'' to legitimately
promote their records to specific stations for a fee.
Reportedly, certain indie promoters use the labels' money to
pay the stations for playing songs on the air.
These practices result in ``bottom line'' programming
decisions where questions of artistic merit and community
responsiveness take a back seat to the desire of broadcasters
to gain additional revenue. As a result, many new and
independent artists, as well as many established artists, are
denied valuable radio airplay they would receive if
programming decisions were more objective. Furthermore,
whatever form the pay-for-play takes, these ``promotion''
costs are often shared by the artists and adversely impact
the ability of recording artists to succeed financially.
To protect the public interest, we request the payola
prohibition be revised by the FCC so that it cannot be
circumvented by any entity via the use of independent
promoters. If the music played on the radio has less to do
with the quality of the song than the economics of the
business arrangement, how does this serve the needs of
citizens? Also, when payments are not announced, isn't the
public misled into thinking that the station chooses which
songs to broadcast based on merit?
Impact of Widespread Industry Consolidation
The federal government must also examine the impact of
loosened ownership caps on the listening public. Until 1996,
the Federal Communications Commission regulated ownership of
broadcast stations so any company could own no more than two
radio stations in any one market and no more than 40
nationwide. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, the restrictions government ownership of radio
stations evaporated. Now, radio groups own numerous stations
around the country and exercise unreasonable control over the
airwaves. For example, in 1996, there were 5133 owners of
radio stations. Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40
formats, only four radio station groups--Chancellor, Clear
Channel, Infinity and Capstar--control access to 63 percent
of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide. For the
country format, the same four groups control access to 56
percent of the format's 28 million listeners.
This consolidation has led to a new dynamic in the music
industry. Radio station groups have centralized their
decision-making about playlists and which new songs to add to
the playlist. These centralized playlists have reduced the
local flavor and limited the diversity of music played on
radio. Due to their sheer market power, radio station groups
now have the ability to make or break a hit song.
With the increased leverage resulting from ownership
consolidation, at least one group owner is considering
charging labels for merely identifying the name of the artist
and song played. The CEO of Clear Channel told the Los
Angeles Times that it might sell song identification as a
form of advertising. This miserly practice would harm the
music community and citizens, as it would make it difficult
for radio listeners to identify new artists and purchase
music. Once again, this practice would impact the ability of
new and independent artists to succeed.
We request that the FCC investigate consolidation of radio
ownership focusing on the public interest which radio
stations are supposed to serve. This investigation should
look at the difficulties small independent broadcasters face
when going up against large and powerful radio station groups
in a specific market. It should study the role that national
playlist decisions have had on the skyrocketing cost of radio
promotion. It should also take into account the impact of
reduced staffing levels on members of local stations and the
reduction of classical, jazz, bluegrass and other formats
from the airwaves.
Vertical Integration of Radio Owners
Many radio groups are also vertically integrated companies
increasing their already substantial leverage and control.
For example, Clear Channel, a company that owns over 1200
radio stations, also owns tens of thousands of billboards,
and various promotion companies and venues. In 1999 Clear
Channel purchased SFX Entertainment, the nation's most
powerful concert promoter. This gave Clear Channel control of
the concert promotion industry in most of the key regions of
the US virtually overnight. Clear Channel therefore has a
direct economic interest in promoting its own concerts and
tours on its numerous radio stations over those of the
competition. It also has an interest in limiting the
promotional support of bands and artists who are performing
for other companies, at other venues or who are sponsored by
other stations.
Some of the remaining independent concert promoters have
alleged that Clear Channel is engaging in anti-competitive
behavior by using this leverage to force smaller companies
out of business. In particular, the mid-size promoter NIPP in
Denver brought suit against Clear Channel in 2001, alleging
that Clear Channel--which owns all three rock stations in the
Denver area--was not running the ads that NIPP paid for on
its stations to promote last year's NIPP-promoted Warped
Tour. There have been other allegations from bands and
performers--mostly off-the-record for fear of retaliation--
who have stated that radio station groups have pressured them
into playing shows for free in exchange for airplay, or who
have had their songs removed from playlists for playing non-
exclusive venues.
We would like to see the FCC investigate whether an
artist's choice to play or not to play in Clear Channel
venues or to use or not to use Clear Channel's promotion
company impacts the artist's positions on or removal from
Clear Channel playlists.
Community Radio
Rampant consolidation of commercial radio and increased
budgetary pressures felt by non-commercial stations have led
to a reduction in radio play for musical genres like
classical, jazz, opera and bluegrass. Congress needs to
reevaluate the current status of non-commercial radio,
including exploring new strategies for sustaining existing
community radio stations and moving forward with full
implementation of community-based Low Power FM radio. After
an intense lobbying campaign by the National Association of
Broadcasters and NPR, the FCC's Low Power FM plan was scaled
back significantly via an Appropriations rider in 2000. The
FCC is currently following Congress' request for additional
testing of the impact of these tiny stations on existing
broadcasters. Once the FCC report is submitted to Congress,
Congress must move forward by passing legislation to
authorize the FCC to license these stations in urban areas.
If consolidation in the radio environment has stifled
competition and reduced diversity of programming, low power
radio can begin to address the lack of community-based
programming.
conclusion
We are deeply concerned about payola and payola-like
practices, as well as the problems caused by radio station
ownership consolidation, and the vertical iintegration of
station ownership with venue ownership and concert promoters.
New rules must be written by the FCC to prohibit payments to
radio stations from ``independent promoters'' unless such
payments are announced. The FCC must seriously evaluate
whether a radio station is even satisfying the current
license requirement that sponsorship identification or
disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in
exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid
to a station, either directly or indirectly. The FCC should
also consider whether radio stations are serving the public
interest by contributing to localism, and independence in
broadcasting. Finally, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring
that the FCC is upholding the public interest in all of these
matters.
Respectfully submitted by the following organizations:
American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation
of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Association for
Independent Music (AFIM), Future of Music Coalition (FMC),
Just Plain Folks, Nashville Songwriters Association
International (NSAI), National Association of Recording
Merchandisers (NARM), National Federation of Community
Broadcasters (NFCB), Recording Academy, Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA).
[[Page S5472]]
____________________