[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5611-5628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              RADIO BROADCASTING PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3439.

                              {time}  1812


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3439) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio 
stations, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this moment to inform the House that I 
intend to make a formal request upon the Department of Justice 
regarding a potential criminal violation of our statutes to the extent 
that the FCC, through its director and associate director of their 
political office, has apparently transmitted faxes to Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection legislative 
assistants and legislative directors urging support or opposition to 
the bill that is before the House today, in direct contravention to 18 
U.S.C., section 1913, which provides that no part of the monies 
appropriated by Congress shall in the absence of express authorization 
be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, 
or other device intended or designed to influence any Member of the 
United States Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House considers H.R. 3439, the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act. At the outset, let me commend the 
sponsor of this bill the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his work 
on this legislation. Credit is also due to the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, for their extraordinary 
work in presenting the bipartisan compromise legislation that is before 
us today.
  This language passed our full Committee on Commerce by voice vote 
last month.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a true compromise. It allows for 
the FCC to proceed with plans to implement a low-power FM radio service 
to address the community needs of many localities.
  The original legislation introduced in January, which gained the 
support of over 120 cosponsors, would have prevented the FCC from 
issuing any of these low-power FM licenses and would have effectively 
killed the FCC's low-power program altogether.
  The language that the House considers today offers the FCC 
significantly more latitude than the original bill would have.
  First and foremost, the bill allows the FCC to immediately begin 
issuing licenses to low-power FM stations under the current 
interference standards used today to allocate spectrum on the FM dial. 
The FCC will thus be able to issue about 70 of these new licenses.
  Furthermore, the bill institutes a pilot program to test the possible 
signal interference in nine geographic areas under the relaxed 
interference standards that the FCC recommends now.
  Finally, and this is an important point, the bill maintains 
Congressional authority over any future changes made to the 
interference protections that exist in the FM dial today.
  Let me take a minute to expand on this issue. The FCC has proceeded 
full steam ahead to implement this new service, even after learning 
about substantial concerns from both Republican and Democratic members 
of the Committee on Commerce.
  We held a hearing to address these technical interference issues back 
in February. At that time, many members of our committee urged the 
Commission to proceed slowly with this program in order to carefully 
study the potential harmful effects on our Nation's airwaves. Without 
regard to these Congressional concerns, the Commission forged ahead and 
began implementing the program.
  The bill correctly recognizes the need for Congressional oversight 
when it comes to such important issues as spectrum management. Before 
the FCC changes existing protections, protections that are as important 
to radio stations, public and commercial, as they are to radio 
listeners across America, I think it is imperative that Congress must 
have the authority to review any FCC changes over existing protections.
  I will strongly oppose any amendment offered that would strip the 
Congress of its rightful oversight authority.
  I trust the House will agree with me and recognize the tremendous 
movement that has been made in this compromise language to give the FCC 
authority to roll out low-power FM where there will be no interference 
and yet to do a pilot program before Congress gives it authority to 
indeed change its interference rules and allow further roll out of the 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill and against any 
amendments that would weaken it.
  I want to point out again, Mr. Chairman, when the FCC uses money 
appropriated to it to lobby this Congress, my colleagues all ought to 
pay a lot of attention. It is a criminal violation, I believe, and I 
will ask the Department of Justice to investigate it. But when they go 
so far as to break the criminal laws of a country that prohibit this 
form of lobbying, we ought to really think about giving them authority 
to move forward before Congress says go forward on this important roll-
out program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is 
recognized.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill under consideration today, H.R. 3439, 
represents an extremely constructive and wise compromise reached in the 
Committee on Commerce over the future of low-power FM radio service.
  I particularly want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), as well as my good friend 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for a reasonable, common 
sense solution to the problem which existed.
  The compromise, which was entirely bipartisan, allows some low-power 
stations to be licensed under existing interference standards 
immediately,

[[Page 5612]]

some 70, and it then requires the FCC to establish a pilot program in a 
limited number of markets to determine precisely what the effects would 
be if these interference standards are relaxed in the future.
  This is to protect broadcasters. It is to protect licensees. And it 
is, above all else, to protect the listeners of the FM radio spectrum.
  By moving this theoretical question from the laboratory to the real 
world, all of us will be better able to judge whether or not permanent 
service, as envisioned by the FCC, should be permitted to move forward.
  It should be noted that the FCC has here moved without any 
consideration of fact and without any careful scientific work. They 
have no understanding of whether or not or how much interference will 
be caused by the order which they have brought forward.
  Great outrage existed throughout both the listener community and also 
through the broadcasting community. We are trying to see to it that a 
diversity of voices and views will be available to the American people, 
including a new low-power service. This, I believe, is beneficial.
  We do not debate the question of whether low-power service would be 
beneficial to our communities. I happen to believe so. I have not heard 
any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle to dispute the value 
of adding more diversity to the airwaves.
  Furthermore, I would note that neither the National Association of 
Broadcasters nor National Public Radio, both of whom are proponents of 
this legislation, have taken issue with the underlying goal of the 
FCC's recent order. But I would note that the legislation, as amended, 
does allow the project envisioned by the FCC to go forward under 
careful controls and under good understanding of the basic underlying 
scientific questions which have to be addressed.
  The issue under debate here is simply whether the FCC's order would 
cause an unacceptable level interference and thereby disenfranchise 
large numbers of existing radio stations and, more importantly, their 
listeners. Because it is the listeners that we protect.
  Put simply, we want to make sure that the FCC has done its homework 
and that it will do its homework and that no harmful interference will 
result from these new stations. The result, I think, is one that is in 
the public interest.
  In any event, the bill, as originally introduced by my friend the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), simply would have repealed the FCC's 
order. That, I believe, was unwise. Many members of the Committee on 
Commerce, including myself, were not convinced that that was a proper 
solution. So we have come forward with a compromise which allows the 
matter to go forward and ensures that the FCC will act wisely and well 
upon the basis of science and fact.
  Again, I want to compliment my colleagues who have made this 
possible, especially the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), my friend, the principal author of the legislation, 
the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and 
Consumer Protection.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I want to join the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, 
in expressing my concern also for some of the overt lobbying that is 
going on from the FCC regarding this issue.
  Virtually every Member of Congress has received this information from 
the FCC, which says, ``10 Reasons to Support Low Power FM Radio Service 
and to Oppose H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 
2000.''
  This, basically, is lobbying no matter how we paint it and it is 
clearly, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pointed out, 
against the law. This is something very, very serious when an 
independent agency can try to influence and ask for opposition to a 
particular piece of legislation.
  But not only did they talk about the 10 reasons to oppose my bill, 
but then they added a letter from a labor union, the Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Legislative Alert, 
saying, ``Oppose the Legislation. Oppose the Oxley Bill.''
  I do not think I can see any time in the 20 years I have been here a 
more blatant attempt to lobby this body by a so-called independent 
agency. It is an absolute outrage. I support the chairman for what he 
is trying to do in his referral to the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, when we teach our children about good behavior, we 
teach them not to interfere with what other people are doing. We teach 
them not to step on other people's toes. And there is a lesson there 
for us today as we consider the direction of the low-power FM program.
  The Chairman of the FCC, Mr. Kennard says he created this new, low-
power FM licensing program to add new voices to radio. Well, that is 
great. And I will enjoy the option of having more choices in radio. And 
clearly, many of us on the committee supported the advent of low-power 
television. It has been a huge success.
  But we also have to consider what happens to the incumbent stations, 
those people who have made an investment, many times their life 
savings, in a small radio station and what happens when those new 
stations may be developed impinge on their signal.
  First, to address the so-called diversity issue, have my colleagues 
ever heard such a wonderful cacophony of voices that we hear in this 
democracy? Have we ever had more information, more kinds of media, or 
more outlets for our views? Anyone who takes an objective look must 
conclude that our country is rich in information and rich in public 
debate, as it should be.
  So we are looking to add choices, not to subtract them. Remember, we 
are seeking to add choices in the consumers market without interfering 
with other existing services.
  What our bill sought to do, clearly and concisely as I can say, was 
to say to the FCC, before they run full speed ahead in granting these 
licenses, make certain that the interference standards are adhered to, 
the interference standards of long tradition.
  It is clear to me by the order of the FCC that they have ignored 
these requirements of making certain that we have a solid and 
significant sound for these people.
  The private studies that have raised the questions time and time 
again have indicated that the growth of these stations in some areas 
may very well impinge upon viewers' ability to listen to these new 
voices and to the old voices, as well.
  Clearly, there is enough evidence against the FCC's actions to be 
concerned. And that is why we have asked for this study.
  People are attached to their radios. I grew up listening to the 
Detroit Tigers baseball games, as the gentleman from Massachusetts well 
knows. I think that every person has a right to listen to that 
particular broadcast without fear of being overrun by another signal.
  Who would be harmed? Let us take a look at who would be harmed.
  I was initially contacted before I introduced this bill by several 
locally-owned radio stations in my district, one in particular, WDOH in 
Delphos, Ohio, an independent, locally owned station very proud to 
serve the needs of that community. Yet, these are the kinds of stations 
that the chairman of the FCC says he wants to encourage and they would 
be clearly vulnerable to interference.
  NPR is concerned about its member station and says that crowding 
leaves it vulnerable to interference. Kevin Klose said yesterday in a 
letter to the editor that the reading services for the sight-impaired 
are threatened.
  This, of course, would be the case for thousands and thousands of 
radio stations across the country. So I think we have to be very 
careful as to how we proceed and the FCC proceeds.
  This bill allows the FCC to proceed with a low-power program. It 
insists

[[Page 5613]]

that the Commission reinstitute the third-channel protections that are 
so important for current broadcasters and listening services and 
requires the FCC to conduct a pilot study on the impact on the study of 
radio broadcast and radio listeners.

                              {time}  1830

  It directs the FCC to place low-power radio in areas where there is 
plenty of room on the FM dial. This is solid legislation.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope we have the 
time for a colloquy between us. I thank him for his assistance in this 
matter as I brought it to his attention several months ago. As the 
gentleman knows, there was a technicality that did not permit this 
amendment to be considered in this bill. However, I am hoping that the 
gentleman will agree that this is a matter that can well be addressed 
in the conference. We are talking Bergen County, New Jersey, which is 
in a very unusual, if not absolutely unique situation with regard to 
the availability of FM radio. While there are dozens of FM stations 
across the Hudson River in New York City, there are no commercial FM 
stations in Bergen County, which is one of the most densely populated 
counties in the Nation.
  This is a unique situation because the New York stations provide all 
kinds of information and music and entertainment, but there are no 
local news and no public service data or emergency information for 
anything in this densely populated area, Bergen County. A little over 5 
years ago, this lack of local radio was partially remedied by the 
creation of Juke Box Radio. The gentleman knows the details of Juke Box 
Radio. We do not have time to go into it now, but it is highly regarded 
in this area and serves definite purposes. Despite that fact of the 
definite purpose it serves, it is not able under this legislation to 
operate. I believe Juke Box Radio clearly serves the public interest in 
the community; and if any way can be found to address this issue in 
conference, I would appreciate it if the gentleman could pursue it.
  I had hoped to offer an extremely limited amendment supporting this 
arrangement. Unfortunately, the Office of the Parliamentarian 
determined my amendment to be technically non-germane because Jukebox 
is a commercial station and the LPFM service is strictly non-
commercial. Despite that fact, I believe Jukebox Radio clearly serves 
the public interest in my community. If a way can be found to address 
this issue in conference, I would very much like to pursue it.
  I would ask the Chairman for his assistance and state that to my 
knowledge, Jukebox has never been accused of causing interference to 
any other station and is operating on a frequency where interference 
should not occur.
  Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey for pointing this out. The legislation before us deals primarily 
with safeguarding the existing full-power FM stations against 
interference from low-power stations.
  Let me say to the gentlewoman from New Jersey that we will address 
that in the conference committee.
  I can assure you that nothing in this bill is intended to create a 
disadvantage for any existing broadcaster or for radio service to any 
community. I recognize the importance of local radio in providing 
timely news and information, particularly emergency information and 
would be happy to work with you as this legislation moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the entire colloquy be 
made a part of the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that colloquies must be 
spoken, not inserted.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we need to keep this bill in context. The 
worst part, the most unhealthy part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act 
was the provision which allowed for the consolidation of the radio 
industry. Up until 1996, no one could own more than two AM and two FM 
radio stations in the same city, and no one could own more than 40 
radio stations across the whole country. Because of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act, this worst provision in it, we now have one 
group owns 512 stations, another 443 stations, another 248 stations, 
and another 163 stations. It is harder and harder for minorities to 
gain access to the airwaves, to own them. It is harder and harder for 
women. It is harder and harder for smaller voices to independently 
speak on the airwaves of our country.
  What the chairman of the FCC, what the commission was trying to do 
was to make it possible for 100-watt stations to be licensed, not the 
50,000-watt stations that we are all familiar with in our hometowns. 
100-watt stations. This is the kid across the street with an antenna. 
This is not rocket science. This is just radio. It has been around for 
80 years and the Federal Communications Commission has been doing a 
good job in sorting out these issues, these interference issues. The 
FCC's job is to supplement, not supplant competition. That is what they 
are trying to do here, supplement it.
  What are we talking about? Is your car radio going to be affected by 
this? No. Is your stereo going to be affected by this? No. Maybe the 
radio in the shower will have a little bit more interference, but we 
have the FCC to work it out. They have been doing it for 80 years. By 
the way, since the 1960s, 300 radio stations around the country have 
operated within the third adjacent channel proposed for low-power FM. 
By the way, those were full-power radio stations inside the third 
adjacent channel. Since the late 1960s, the FCC has worked it out. This 
is not a good bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley) for working together on a compromise substitute that we 
have worked on in committee to allow low-power radio to go forward.
  Our first obligation here is to protect the radio listeners. That is 
listeners with all kinds of radios whether they are in their shower or 
they are listening as I do on an old radio that I had when I was a kid 
that still has one of those really teeny-tiny switches on it to tune 
into my favorite station. We should not all have to have stereos and 
new cars to be able to hear the stations that we want to hear. We had 
hearings in the Committee on Commerce where the engineers did not agree 
on whether putting stations closer together would cause static and 
cross-talk and hums and things that would be really annoying to 
everyday people. But we do want to hear more voices on the radio.
  The idea of low-power radio is really kind of a neat idea that could 
open up radio to a lot more voices. So we have worked what I think is a 
good compromise in the committee. It is a little delicate, but I do not 
think it needs another amendment. It says, let us go forward with low-
power radio with the existing interference standards; let us set aside 
nine cities where we are going to test it to see if we can have these 
stations closer together and not have interference, we are not going to 
let pirates have licenses, and we are going to have the FCC in this 
independent review come back and tell us how it went in those nine 
stations, find out how it goes and see if it is okay, and then maybe we 
will be able to open up more low-power stations.
  I think this is a pretty good compromise. The FCC was moving too 
quickly and I believe compromising the quality of the radio reception 
that we get in our communities. We found an acceptable balance. I thank 
the chairman and the ranking member and my other colleagues for working 
together towards this solution.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

[[Page 5614]]


  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge support for this bill. I 
signed on as an original cosponsor not because I wanted to curb 
diversity or local interest but rather because I wanted to protect 
them. My home State of New Jersey is completely dominated by New York 
radio to the north or Philadelphia radio to the south and in between 
are the small local radio stations which strive to remain distinctly 
New Jersey in focus and content.
  Obviously, this makes for a fairly crowded radio dial already. 
Unilaterally adding more stations in my opinion is not the solution. In 
fact, in my State, low-power FM may even cramp local New Jersey 
stations and disrupt consumers by interfering with local broadcasts or 
by duplicating local services and formats. Even National Public Radio 
has concerns that the low-power FM program will hamper its broadcasts. 
Accordingly, NPR supports the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the goals of the low-power FM 
program. However, its application needs to be examined and evaluated by 
the Congress. The compromise we fashioned in the Committee on Commerce 
allows the FCC to move forward with the low-power FM as long as it 
protects existing third-channel interference protections. The 
compromise then allows for an independent party to determine once and 
for all how these pilot programs will affect current radio listeners, 
small market broadcasters and blind radio reading services. The FCC 
will then report back to Congress in 2001. I think this compromise is a 
good one. It passed the Committee on Commerce by a voice vote and in my 
view is the most responsible way to proceed with the low-power program. 
I would urge my colleagues not to support any amendments.
  I want to compliment the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, in forging the compromise and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and again urge support of the bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank 
the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor. This is important 
legislation that has real potential impact on many small businesses in 
America as well as many listeners to radio stations throughout the 
country.
  In January of this year, the five-member FCC issued rules creating a 
new low-power radio service. That is what we are talking about today. 
But two of those five members did not think this was a good idea. One 
dissented completely, one dissented in part, understanding as many 
Members of this body do that what this legislation really does is move 
the FCC into an area that is not yet ready. It moves many owners of 
radio stations, some part of large radio chains, some part of a station 
that a family has founded that they run, that they have done their best 
to build over the years, they have created identity with their signal, 
into an area that no one quite knows whether their station continues to 
work the way it has in the past or not, creating holes in the radio 
signal area, where if you are driving across the country and you are 
listening to a station and you suddenly come into one of these new low-
power areas and you assume the station you were listening to is gone, 
not knowing that a few miles down the road it would be right back, is a 
very harmful thing to businesses that have been built on a guarantee 
from the Federal Government and the FCC that they would have a position 
on the dial, that they would have a position on the band and on the 
spectrum that worked for them, that was theirs, that they could really 
gain listener respect, listener loyalty and a place that they knew they 
could be found.
  Inexpensive and older radios are particularly vulnerable to 
interference, meaning the proposal could have the effect of denying 
low-income and elderly listeners clear reception of their favorite 
stations. This is important legislation. I am glad it is on the floor. 
We need to pass it today.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for yielding me this 
time and for his hard work on trying to make this a fair bill. I still, 
however, must rise in opposition to H.R. 3439. The title itself is 
deceptive. The act seeks to preserve the status quo and to prevent 
others from having access to the airwaves.
  It is a fact that the four top radio groups own the majority of the 
Nation's radio stations and according to the Congressional Research 
Service between 1995 and 1998, the number of radio station owners 
decreased 18.8 percent. With the number of radio station owners 
decreasing and the consolidation of radio ownership growing, LPFM 
allows underrepresented groups and communities an opportunity to enter 
into the radio broadcast area. I support this new initiative because it 
will open doors of opportunity for our Nation. It adds to radio 
diversity and encourages alternatives to current commercial formats 
that dominate the radio.
  I have heard others say that we need to protect radio listeners, but 
we must also protect those who do not have stations to listen to. I am 
confident if LPFM were put in place that many would listen to the 
radio, if they had something to listen to. I contemplate in my own 
jurisdiction many of the wonderful stations that are on my son likes, 
the kids older than him like; but there are seniors and people who 
attend churches throughout my community who do not like any of it, and 
they should have an opportunity to be heard on radio as well.
  Who are we to delay or deny opportunity to community-based groups who 
have more than earned the right to take advantage of the technology? I 
have met with the members of the industry, and I understand their 
concerns; but here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, 
everyone should be able to reach the table, and they can do it by low-
power radio.
  Now, low-power FM radio has the support of the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights, the AFL-CIO, the Communication Workers of America, the 
United States Catholic Conference, and the United Church of Christ 
Office of Communications.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his efforts as 
well as members of the minority.
  There are two important aspects as I see it to this bill. One is that 
it will allow low-power radio to proceed. It will protect listeners, 
and it will prevent interference, which is something I think the 
American people are accustomed to and frankly want. That has been 
expressed through the Members of Congress in the last couple of years. 
Why we are here today in a somewhat expedited way is because the FCC 
overruled the will of the people. They overruled the will of Congress, 
which leads to a second and probably more disturbing portion of this 
debate and that is what the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman 
from Ohio alluded to at the very beginning. The FCC, for a lot of 
Americans who do not know, is a regulatory body and many businesses 
have to go before this regulatory body for satisfaction, for answers to 
really carry out their business plan, to bring products to the American 
people.

                              {time}  1845

  What we see too often, especially lately, is that good honest 
business people have to go on bended knee before the regulators, and if 
they do not get their way, the regulators, they take it out on those 
good honest American business people. We talk about the land of the 
free and the home of the brave, that is not the American way.
  The American people deserve honesty from people holding public 
office. They deserve to be treated fairly and openly, and not to be 
subject to idle or explicit threats.
  With that, I urge the adoption of this bill.

[[Page 5615]]


  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act. The bill would postpone the FCC's 
efforts to open our airways to small local community groups, churches, 
schools, volunteer fire departments, civic organizations. It would deny 
these groups the right to provide their communities with information of 
unique local concern. It would smother movements towards diversity on 
our airwaves.
  These are stations that would broadcast local ball games, municipal 
meetings, or anything else they think would be good for their 
communities and their communities wanted to hear.
  Low-cost, small-scale FM stations would play a vital role in the 
Hispanic community in my district by expanding the opportunities for 
local Spanish language radio service. Such stations would help to 
strengthen this community, unite it behind common goals.
  I have worked with the FCC on this issue for over 2 years. Exhaustive 
engineering studies have been completed. The experience of actual low-
power radio stations has been reviewed. The results are conclusive. 
These new stations will not interfere with the existing large radio 
companies that currently dominate our airways. This bill discourages 
expanding our educational and culture horizons. I urge Members to 
oppose it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for introducing and pushing this legislation and 
the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership in bringing it to the 
floor today.
  In January, the five member Federal Communications Commission issued 
rules creating this new low-power FM radio service with two members 
dissenting, two of the five, in whole or in part dissenting. In his 
comments, Commissioner Powell focused on the economic repercussions of 
low-power FM and the possibility that many independent and minority-
owned full-power stations could be forced out of business. Commissioner 
Furchtgott-Roth's dissent focused on interference and the Commission's 
uncharacteristic alacrity in considering low-power FM.
  This matter has not been properly reviewed by the FCC, and this 
legislation is vitally needed to stop this action from taking place.
  Existing broadcasters oppose the FCC's decision, with good reason. In 
establishing low-power FM, the FCC significantly relaxed its 
interference standards, meaning increased interference with existing 
radio services and a devaluation of the investments of current license 
holders.
  There is no question that eliminating the third adjacent channel 
safeguard, as the Commission is doing, will lead to increased 
interference. While the FCC claims that the weakened standards will not 
result in unacceptable--watch that word--levels of interference, this 
assertion is challenged by private sector studies.
  While the desire to provide a forum for community groups is laudable, 
a multitude of alternatives exist. Groups may obtain non-commercial 
licenses, use public access cable, purchase broadcast air time, publish 
newsletters and utilize Internet web sites and e-mails, among many 
other options.
  This is a country in which there are many ways to express yourself, 
but we should not do it at the expense of those who have already made 
investments and are already providing valuable services to citizens in 
this country.
  I urge the Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address this colloquy, if you will, to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and thank him for agreeing to 
participate.
  As the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and 
Hazardous Materials knows, I am extremely disappointed that the Federal 
Communications Commission's recent approval of non-commercial low-power 
LPFM radio stations did not address existing commercial low-power FM 
translators operating in counties where there are no allocated 
commercial FM stations and no commercial FM stations can be allocated.
  Although the residents of northern New Jersey can choose from dozens 
of New York City FM stations, those stations ignore Bergen County, New 
Jersey's need for local news, traffic reports, school closings, public 
service announcements and other important local information.
  Even though Bergen County, New Jersey, gave birth to FM radio in the 
1930's, Bergen County has no commercial FM station of its own and none 
can be allocated to Bergen County under present Commission rules.
  Commercial FM translator W276AQ in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in my 
district, Jukebox Radio, brings valuable local news, traffic, weather, 
public service announcements, school closings, and other important 
information unavailable from any other source on the FM broadcast band. 
It is translated into a Class A FM signal 75 miles away from Bergen 
County. Bergen County residents should not be forced to depend on FM 
service in this manner.
  I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), I believe 
that existing commercial low-power FM translators licensed in counties 
with a population of 800,000 or more, and where there is no licensed or 
commercial FM station, such as that in Bergen County, New Jersey, 
should have the opportunity to immediately begin broadcasting with 
local origination.
  Although we were not able to resolve this issue in this bill, I urge 
the gentleman to raise this issue in conference and include language to 
this effect when the House and Senate conferees meet. With that hope, I 
am going to support the bill, and thank the distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be 
pleased to work with the gentleman in the conference on that very 
issue.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to observe to the gentleman I think 
his complaint is a very legitimate one and thank him for raising it, 
and indicate that I know that the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee and my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
also and I will be trying to look after his concerns on this business 
of New Jersey having better and more adequate service, not only in the 
area of FM and AM, but also on broadcast television, which is very much 
in short supply from stations indigenous to that State.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of H.R. 3439. I 
want to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for their help 
in moving this bipartisan effort forward.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an impression in some quarters that this 
legislation will stop low-power FM licensing or prevent it from ever 
getting to the air. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple 
fact is that the radio spectrum is finite in size. Within this limited 
universe, commercial radio signals must be separated by at least three 
adjacent channels in order to prevent interference and crosstalk.
  Obviously, two stations serving the same market cannot be licensed to 
occupy the same frequency. Radio bandwidths can only be sliced up so 
many ways. We rely on the FCC to ensure that the radio pie is fairly 
divided. The FCC ensures that every radio station gets a slice of the 
pie with enough

[[Page 5616]]

calories to sustain its signal. This is the only way to make sure that 
we, the listeners, can receive our favorite programs without hinderance 
or hurdle.
  I take no issue with the FCC's goal of trying to add a new class of 
lower stations. Indeed, say adding more voices to the airwaves is a 
commendable goal. But, Mr. Chairman, not all radios are created equal. 
They are not endowed by their manufacturer with inalienable rights. A 
simple clock radio or a Walkman will not contain the same 
sophistication and filtering technology to combat interference between 
stations as would a hi-fi nor should they.
  This bipartisan substitute reported out of the Committee on Commerce 
strikes a reasonable compromise. If we are going to have low-power FM 
service, it needs to be done right. We want to give these micro-radio 
stations an opportunity, but we have an obligation to maintain the 
integrity of the existing spectrum. New Yorkers want to continue to 
listen without interference to stations such as Z-100, WBLI, and public 
radio, such as 91.1 FM.
  If the FCC is right and low-power FM does not cause interference on 
third adjacent channels, then they can proceed with this new service on 
a national scale. I am confident that should the test demonstrate 
listeners have nothing to fear from relaxing the interference 
standards, this body will look favorably to giving the green light for 
an expanded low-power FM service.
  I want to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and 
oppose the amendments that seek to undermine the consensus that has 
been reached.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett)
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I will be offering in several 
minutes with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), but I just want to 
address some of the concerns that I heard raised here tonight.
  The first one is several of the speakers talked about people driving 
their cars and how this would affect their driving. They would go into 
a neighborhood, they would lose a station, it would come out. Even the 
radio owners that I have talked to in my district have acknowledged 
that radios in cars are very, very precise and that that is not going 
to be a problem.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) before referred to the 
radio in the shower. Yes, if it is a very old radio, you might have a 
problem. But most of the radios in this country are going to be radios 
in cars. That is not where the problem lies.
  We have also heard a lot of FCC bashing, and I think that the FCC has 
responded to a lot of the concerns that have been raised here. This 
proposal that they have attempted to move forward on is a scaled-back 
version of their initial proposal. I think even the proponents of this 
bill would acknowledge that we are talking about very low-watt radio 
stations, 100-watt stations, and in some situations, maybe even 10-watt 
stations. We are not talking 50,000-megawatt stations. We are talking 
small, neighborhood, churches, minority, college stations. These do not 
present a serious threat to the large stations.
  I will address this in my amendment, but I am sensitive to the 
technical issues that have been raised regarding this, and I think that 
the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and I will 
propose in several minutes addresses that, but does not strip the 
authority of the FCC. We are talking about micro-stations here. I do 
not think Congress should be micromanaging these micro-stations.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that, first of all, that I have heard a 
lot of comments regarding the FCC and actions of the FCC, and I want to 
go on the record to inform everyone that I believe that the FCC has 
done a great service to the American people. I am an unmitigated 
supporter of the FCC, and I think that the FCC has done an outstanding 
job in terms of trying to ensure that all Americans have access to the 
airwaves of this Nation.

                              {time}  1900

  Regarding the low power FM stations, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
ensure that people understand that the American people and the Members 
of this Congress understand that the LPFM is a new noncommercial 
community-based radio service that will benefit local communities all 
across this Nation.
  It gives media access and broadcast voices to local churches, to 
schools, colleges, State and local governmental agencies, musicians, 
and nonprofit community organizations, those same organizations that 
have been excluded heretofore regarding having access to the air waves.
  LPFM adds to radio diversity and encourages alternatives to the 
commercial formats that currently dominate our radio.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been stated earlier, it is a fact that the top 
four radio groups own the majority of this Nation's radio stations, and 
according to the Congressional Research Service, between 1995 and 1998 
the number of radio station owners decreased by 18.8 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, with the number of radio station owners decreasing and 
the consolidation of radio ownership growing, LPFM allows 
underrepresented groups and communities the opportunity to enter the 
radio broadcast market.
  Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago Chairman Kennard visited my district, 
the Chairman of the FCC. We went to a high school, the Dunbar High 
School located in my district on the South Side of the city of Chicago. 
I just wish that Members of this body could have observed students who 
had never had the opportunity to participate in broadcast fields, the 
broadcast profession, who never had an opportunity to run a radio 
station nor a television station.
  These students were aggressively engaged in learning all that they 
could. What they asked us at that time, at that visit, they asked this 
body to give them an opportunity to really run a radio station, 100 
watts, that would have a radius of 2 miles within that high school. 
That is all they are asking for, so they in fact can learn more about 
the broadcasting industry.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill I think does not address that concern, and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and I will introduce an 
amendment to this bill in order to try to allow opportunities for 
unrepresented groups and citizens to engage in this process.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, let me place this in 
perspective. The bill we are discussing today does not stop the FCC 
from moving forward with this low power program. It simply says the FCC 
must only move forward with the 70 licenses that will clearly not 
interfere with current radio broadcast.
  It says, in those cases where the licenses may in fact interfere with 
current radio broadcasting, they have to do a pilot in nine different 
geographic regions of the country and then report to Congress about the 
results.
  What we are going to hear in just a minute is an amendment that would 
say, when that report comes to Congress, whether or not the report 
indicates interference, the FCC can then proceed to issue as many 
licenses as it wants to under its original proposal. I hope that we 
will defeat that amendment.
  The compromise carefully crafted in the Committee on Commerce, with 
the great work of the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) says in effect that the 
Commission must submit independent testing of interference, and then we 
get to say, based upon that report, whether they can move forward.
  Let me tell the Members why that is so critical. I want to read 
Members a

[[Page 5617]]

letter from the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation to our chairman. They 
are writing to express concern about the implementation of low power 
FM, and ask strong support for this bill, as we have compromised it.
  The author indicates, ``The FCC is moving forward with a low power FM 
plan that has not been thoroughly thought through. First, radio is on 
the verge of converting to digital.'' For television, we gave 
television new spectrum to move into digital. We did not do that for 
radio. Radio has to move to digital in the same spectrum they are 
currently located. That is going to be a tough trick.
  Before that happens, if the FCC moves forward with this low power FM 
radio issuance and in fact those stations interfere with that digital 
transmission of the radio stations that currently exist, like the 
Hispanic radio station, like the public radio stations, not just the 
private corporate radio stations, if the FCC moves forward and then the 
digital conversion does not work, there is all kind of interference. We 
just will not get static on the radio, we will get no signal at all. In 
digital, it just cuts out totally.
  We were told by the Commission that they would wait for the digital 
report to come out before doing this FM low power rollout, but they 
went ahead anyhow and did it regardless of that report. It is still not 
done. Hispanic radio is asking us, please pass this bill. Make sure 
there is no interference.
  They go on to point out, ``Furthermore, less expensive and older 
radios used disproportionately by minorities and older Americans,'' the 
walkmen, the boom box, the radio beside our beds, not just the radio in 
the shower, the radio beside our beds, for many older Americans, ``are 
more susceptible to interference from low power stations. Millions of 
Americans rely on low quality radios as their main source of news, 
weather, and sports,'' 65 million, to be precise.

       I am concerned that low power FM will disenfranchise the 
     very people it seeks to empower, underserved communities like 
     the Spanish language audience that we serve.

  See, this is the problem, Mr. Chairman. It was minority radio 
stations and public radio stations, not just the private corporate 
radio stations represented by the NAB, who came to us and said, do not 
let this happen to disenfranchise our audiences and our radio stations. 
Make sure there is no interference.
  I wish Members had been in our committee room to hear the potential 
interference. As a beautiful song was playing, we could hear people 
talking over it. As a beautiful opera perhaps was being presented by 
National Public Radio, we could hear talking over it. As perhaps a 
Spanish language station was trying to do some cultural work in the 
community, we could hear somebody else talking over it.
  In digital, we would not even hear it at all. It would block the 
signal completely.
  Mr. Chairman, we have worked out a delicate compromise. This lets the 
FCC go forward where we know there will be no interference. It requires 
private, independent testing to make sure there will not be 
interference. If they want to go further, it requires them to come back 
and get permission from us after we know there will not be that 
interference.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) will offer an amendment in 
just a little while that will tell the FCC it can do what it wishes to 
do after 6 months, regardless of the interference problems. I hope we 
defeat that amendment. I hope we pass this good bill. The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have done some good work 
and put together a good compromise.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, these new Low powered stations 
will offer a voice to those who deserve to be heard, and will promote 
greater diversity and allow non-profit organizations, community groups, 
and churches an opportunity to reach their local constituents without 
paying huge fees to commercial radio stations.
  As more and more radio stations are bought up by large companies, it 
becomes more and more difficult for minorities and women to own or 
access a station. Its obvious to me why these commercial radio stations 
are opposing these additional stations, they just don't want any 
competition.
  It amazes me that the same people who chastised the FCC for trying to 
limit religious broadcasting are the same ones that stand on the floor 
here today trying to prevent churches and community groups access to 
the media. Its dishonest, and I encourage my colleagues to let the FCC 
do their job and defeat this bill.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3439, 
the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000. The House is rushing to 
judgment on this important issue and I regret we are considering this 
bill at this time.
  This bill would block the Federal Communications Commission from 
going forward with its plan to establish Low Power Radio which is a 
non-commercial, community-based radio service to give churches, non-
profit community groups, colleges and universities and state and local 
government access to the public airwaves. These stations would serve an 
audience within a 1.5 to 3.5 mile radius, which is not a very large 
area.
  Low Power radio is important because it will allow the sharing of the 
public airwaves with local community voices, voices left off the air 
because of the massive consolidation of the broadcast industry.
  I do not agree that broadcasters would be hurt by a local 
government's 100-watt radio station trying to inform its constituents 
about important local government services or events.
  I do not agree that anyone would be hurt by a college or university 
radio station that tries to inform its students about campus events.
  I do not agree that anyone would be hurt by a 10-watt church radio 
station wanting to offer mass over the airwaves to parishioners who 
cannot attend services.
  Nor do I believe that anyone could be hurt by a non-profit 
organizations' efforts to inform language minority groups about 
important community events or services available to them.
  It seems ironic that we would be voting here today on a bill to 
suppress the voices of those we've pledged to give a voice to. Voices 
that, had this bill been given a proper hearing, we would have heard 
from, such as the National Council of La Raza, the League of United 
Latin American Citizens, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the United 
Methodist Church, the National League of Cities, the US Conference of 
Mayors, among many others.
  Low Power Radio is critical and comes at a time when our communities 
are losing out to the massive consolidation taking place in the radio 
broadcast industry. This merger mania has left many of us with little 
choice about who or what gets to be heard today. We have to do 
something to protect the diversity of voices and opinions that are 
often suppressed by the giants in the field.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and help protect low 
power radio and the communities that would most benefit from this 
service.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3439, the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000, of which I am a co-
sponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this legislation would assure that 
the necessary steps are taken as the Federal Communications Commission 
begins licensing Low Power FM Radio stations. Low Power FM licenses are 
an opportunity for churches, schools, and other community groups to 
begin broadcasting their information to local listeners. While these 
licenses would open up the broadcasting industry to individuals and 
groups previously excluded, they should not be given out at the expense 
of existing stations and their listeners.
  The experimental program this bill establishes would study nine test 
markets to determine the impact of Low Power FM on radio broadcasters 
and radio listeners. I believe that testing the market is an important 
method of implementing and improving the Low Power FM program.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3439 promotes a more responsible method for the 
FCC to license Low Power FM and adopts the necessary safeguards for the 
radio broadcasters and listeners in my district.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will protect 
radio broadcasters and listeners from excessive static interference and 
which will promote the responsible licensing of Low Power FM.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act. This bill ensures that free over-the-air 
radio will remain free and uninterrupted.
  All too often, I hear from folks in my district concerned about the 
power grab of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 
Unfortunately, this is just the latest example. The FCC is moving 
forward with a low-power FM plan they have not thought through. The FCC

[[Page 5618]]

believes that this decision will allow the ``little guy'' to become a 
radio broadcaster. In reality, this decision will cause massive 
interference problems for FM listeners.
  The FCC's low power FM plan was approved without proper consideration 
of technical and other concerns raised by this new service. Radio is on 
the verge of converting to digital. Has the FCC really thought about 
the effect of low-power FM on the digital conversion process? No. 
Wouldn't it make more sense to rollout digital radio--which is even a 
larger project than the digital television rollout--and then focus on 
how to accommodate low-power FM? Yes.
  Has the FCC really thought about how the millions of Americans who 
rely on low quality radios as their main source of news, weather, and 
sports? No. Less expensive and older radios, used disproportionately by 
minorities and older Americans, are more susceptible to interference 
from low-power stations. Low-power FM will disenfranchise the very 
people that the FCC claims it seeks to empower, undeserved communities 
(including the blind and Spanish language groups).
  Did the FCC consider low power stations' interference with out public 
broadcasters? No. In yesterday's Washington Post, Mr. Kevin Klose, 
president of National Public Radio, made clear public radio's 
opposition to the FCC's ``rush to add low-power radio stations to the 
crowded FM dial.'' This year, we are spending more than 60 million 
taxpayer dollars on public radio. And the FCC is ready to throw that 
money down the drain.
  The FCC's low power proposal is a true disservice to current 
broadcasters' outstanding community service. Local radio and television 
stations provided $8.1 billion in public service just last year. That 
is more money than the total annual giving of the top 100 U.S. 
foundations. Full power radio stations across this country provide 
life-saving information on natural disasters, preventing drinking and 
driving, curbing drug and alcohol abuse, crime and violence prevention, 
just to name a few areas.
  The FCC proposal presumes that local radio stations no longer provide 
local service. That assumption is completely false. The FCC should be 
reined in and local broadcasters should be allowed to continue their 
good work.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act and the compromise bill reported out of 
the Commerce Committee. This approach will allow low power FM (LPFM) to 
move forward with proper safeguards against interference.
  I support providing new opportunities for community, public interest, 
civil rights and educational groups to be heard in the public forum. I 
do not dispute the potential that LPFM stations provide for under-
represented community and educational groups. However, we must ensure 
that in the process of providing a voice for these groups, we do not 
impair radio listeners' access to locally originated information and 
entertainment. By calling for a careful review of the LPFM plan, H.R. 
3439 allows low-power FM to move forward while protecting listeners 
from increased interference on the FM radio dial. The legislation does 
this by re-establishing previous FCC signal-interference standards and 
commissioning the FCC to study the extent to which signals of such low-
power stations interfere with the signals of existing stations.
  Millions of Americans depend on the radio for important information 
and entertainment programming. Thirty percent of this population, 
especially low-income and elderly listeners, access this programming 
via inexpensive and older radios. The level of interference these 
individuals will encounter due to LPFM is unknown. H.R. 3439, 
therefore, calls for field tests to determine how LPFM without third-
adjacent channel protection would affect current listening audiences. 
The FCC would then be required to submit a report to Congress on the 
results of these tests by Feb. 1, 2001, along with any recommendations 
for modifications to signal-interference standards.
  Also unknown is the impact of LPFM on existing public stations and 
small and independent commercial stations which already provide 
valuable services such as emergency warnings, weather and traffic 
information, community news and entertainment. Many of these stations 
depend on local resources to meet operating expenses through 
underwriting or advertising and may be placed into direct competition 
with LPFM stations in their struggles to stay afloat. This bill 
requires the FCC to conduct an economic impact study on incumbent 
broadcasters (particularly the economic impact on minority and small 
broadcasters), the transition to digital broadcasts, FM radio 
translator stations, and stations that provide reading services to the 
blind.
  I would like to see localized groups have station access and believe 
this communication will strengthen community bonds. However, I do not 
want new access to be gained at the expense of pre-existing stations. I 
am encouraged to know that the House Commerce Committee was able to 
work out this compromise. H.R. 3439 not only provides new opportunities 
for station access but also protects existing community broadcasters 
from interference.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, despite objections raised from many 
corners, the FCC has charged ahead with plans to immediately implement 
low-power FM. In the process it has ignored legitimate concerns about 
interference and the continued viability of small and independent 
commercial stations and existing public stations. H.R. 3439, the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act, pulls the FCC back from the edge without 
completely halting its authority to pursue low-power FM.
  The potential for interference has been a primary concern from the 
beginning. The available spectrum only stretches so far. While the FCC 
claims its plan will not cause interference on car radios and high-
fidelity stereo component systems, it does admit some interference will 
occur on clock radios and portable radios like the boombox and walkman. 
Considering these types of radios account for 65 percent of all radios 
in America, it makes sense that we should step back, take a breath and 
carefully consider all the consequences before taking drastic actions. 
We must also ensure that in its haste to implement low-power FM, the 
FCC does not overlook the impact on inexpensive and older radios, which 
are highly vulnerable to interference and are most commonly used by 
low-income and elderly individuals. H.R. 3439, therefore, requires a 
test of nine markets be conducted by an independent third party to 
determine how low-power FM without third-adjacent channel protections 
would affect current listening audiences.
  Another potential problem not explored by the FCC is interference 
with services for blind individuals. The International Association of 
Audio Information Services uses frequencies located on the outer edge 
of radio stations' spectrum to read books and newspapers to over 1 
million blind individuals, who listen to this service with special 
radios. The FCC did not test these radios. This bill, therefore, 
requires the FCC to explore the impact of low-power FM on stations that 
provide this important service.
  Interference is not the only issue about which we must be concerned. 
Small and independent commercial broadcasters who rely on local 
advertising to meet operating expenses face questions about their 
continued economic viability. These existing stations could be undercut 
by low-power stations siphoning off limited local resources for 
underwriting purposes. These existing local stations already provide 
many of the services low-power FM stations purportedly are being 
created to provide, including community news and emergency information. 
Many public radio affiliates share these concerns about increased 
competition for limited local resources. H.R. 3439 addresses these 
concerns by requiring the FCC to conduct an economic impact study of 
low-power FM on ``incumbent FM broadcasters in general, and minority 
and small-market broadcasters in particular.''
  Finally, this bill ensures former ``pirate'' or unlicensed 
broadcasters are not eligible for low-power FM licenses. These 
individuals should not be rewarded for previous unlawful acts that 
interfered with authorized FM broadcasts.
  Considering the many concerns at play here, the FCC should take a 
step back and reevaluate its plan for low-power FM. H.R. 3439 is a 
sensible approach to such a reevaluation. It protects existing stations 
from serious harm, guards against interference experienced by the 
listening audience, all while allowing new community broadcasters to 
enter local markets.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
bill.
  I was encouraged to hear last year that the FCC was initiating 
efforts to bring back community radio. After engaging in a public 
process that took into account thousands of comments from citizens all 
over the country, and after conducting extensive technical tests, the 
FCC issued its rule to establish lower power FM radio, a rule that many 
see as conservative. The FCC scaled back its proposal significantly in 
order to protect existing stations from interference, while at the same 
time maximizing the ability of local groups to gain access to the 
public airwaves.
  The FCC's rule is meant to help bring community radio to millions 
around the country, and thereby to address a need that is not met by 
mainstream broadcasters. It is meant to bring the voices of community 
groups, churches, educational institutions, and local governments to 
radio. Many of these voices have been lost through media 
consolidation--figures I've seen show the number of radio station 
owners decreased by nearly 20 percent

[[Page 5619]]

between 1995 and 1998. So at a time when even fewer voices are being 
heard, it is even more critical for us to be thinking about how to let 
more voices in, not keep them out.
  Although critics of the FCC claim the rule was made in haste, 
Chairman Kennard has said publicly that ``no service ever considered by 
the FCC has been as extensively studied as low power radio.'' He has 
said time and again that this was a ``responsible public interest 
decision that will not impact the existing radio service.'' I believe 
that if low power radio does end up having a negative impact on 
existing service, the FCC will step in to correct the situation.
  In the meantime, we should stop trying to legislate technical 
details. The FCC is charged with maximizing the public's use of the 
airwaves, encouraging the provision of new technologies and new 
services to the public, and providing new access to the airwaves for 
more people. We should let the FCC do its work, and oppose this bill.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, on January 20, 2000 the FCC adopted rules 
creating a new, low power FM radio (LPFM) service. This service creates 
two classes of radio service to operate within the FM radio frequency 
band with power levels from 1-10 watts (LP 10) and from 50-100 watts 
(LP 100).
  The rationale for creating this new class of radio service is to 
bring diversity to radio broadcasting and enhance community-oriented 
radio broadcasting. Those eligible for licenses for this type service 
can be noncommercial government or private educational organizations, 
non-profit entities with educational purposes; or government or non-
profit entities providing local public safety or transportation 
information, as long as they are based in the community in which they 
intend to broadcast.
  The problem with this new service is not with its intent. Seeking to 
promote diversity in broadcasting and enhancing community-oriented 
radio broadcasting are both honorable goals. The problem is these new 
stations will operate on the FM radio frequency band currently occupied 
by full power radio stations, and there is the possibility that these 
low power stations will interfere with these existing stations.
  Under current FCC rules for full power radio stations, interference 
between stations is avoided by preventing stations from sharing the 
same channel or the first, second or third adjacent channel. Under the 
proposed rule, however, low power FM would be allowed to occupy the 
third adjacent channel to an existing full power radio station.
  The FCC officially contends that allowing low power FM stations to 
occupy the third adjacent channel will not cause unacceptable levels of 
interference to existing radio stations. However, these claims have 
been questioned by various groups such as the National Association of 
Broadcasters, the Consumer Electronics association, and the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting (led by National Public Radio). Even the 
International Association of Audio Information Services, whose members 
employ local volunteers to read the local newspapers on air to over one 
million blind listeners nationwide, has expressed concern that these 
new low power stations could cause interference with their services.
  There is even some concern among several FCC commissioners that these 
new stations will cause interference. In the FCC's Report and Order 
concerning this ruling 2 of the 5 FCC commissioners expressed concern 
that these low power stations would interfere with existing stations. 
In dissenting statements regarding both the proposed rule and the final 
rule, Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth stated that although he 
was not opposed to the creation of low power radio service, he could 
not support the rule because he believed that suspension of the third 
adjacent channel protection would cause interference with existing 
stations. He feels the entire process was rushed to judgment and that 
the commission had not taken the time to do the right technical studies 
the right way. Furthermore, he believes any demand for lower power 
noncommercial stations could be met by the dispensation of licenses 
within existing rules--i.e., by giving out 101 watt licenses consistent 
with the 100 watt minimum requirement or get a waiver to the 100 watt 
minimum rule if someone really felt compelled to operate a 50-watt 
station.
  In his dissenting opinion Commissioner Powell echoed sentiments 
similar to those expressed by Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth. In light of 
lingering concerns about signal interference and his concern about the 
economic impact of the new service, Commissioner Powell regrets the 
``shot gun introduction'' of the rule and believes the service should 
have been introduced gradually with third channel adjacency protections 
intact. In his opinion, this would minimize the risk of interference in 
a manner consistent with existing services and it would introduce 
substantially fewer stations into the market, thereby allowing for the 
evaluation of the economic impacts of these new stations. If all goes 
well, he suggests a move to full service with less adjacency 
protection, as warranted by experience.
  H.R. 3439 follows the suggestions of Commissioner Power. Under the 
bill, the FCC may go forward immediately licensing LPFM stations as 
long as interference protections to existing stations are maintained, 
including protections to third adjacent channels. At the same time, the 
legislation requires the FCC to set up an experimental program in nine 
markets to test whether LPFM will result in harmful interference to 
existing stations if third channel protections are eliminated. 
Additionally, the legislation provides that an independent party will 
conduct a study of the affect of LPFM without third-adjacent channel on 
digital audio broadcasting and radio reading services for the blind.
  While the spirit of the rule allowing the creation of low power FM 
service may be commendable, we must not act in a rash manner and allow 
it to be implemented before we are positive that it will not negatively 
impact existing stations. Radio, particularly in rural areas, is an 
important source of information. For some individuals it is the only 
source of local news they receive. If we allow these new low power 
stations to co-exist with established stations without ensuring that 
there is no interference we may be doing more harm than good.
  H.R. 3439 provides an effective balance by allowing new low power FM 
stations to be established while simultaneously protecting existing 
stations from interference. Furthermore, the bill provides for an 
experimental program, in nine separate markets, to test the 
interference that will result if third adjacent channel protection. If 
the results of this test are successful it is foreseeable that these 
restrictions may be lifted sometime in the future. However, until we 
have conclusive proof that these low power stations do not 
significantly interfere with existing stations, we simply cannot allow 
them to share the same frequencies with existing stations. Existing 
stations provide services as valuable as those proposed by the new low 
power stations and individuals are entitled to receive them as clearly 
as possible. The channel adjacency rules apply to full power stations 
because of this and it should apply to low power stations until we can 
prove that the interference they generate is minimal to say the least.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act of 1999, H.R. 3439.
  This legislation sends a strong message that there will be no 
interference to free radio. H.R. 3439 would require the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain third-adjacent channel 
protection, and to consider independent analyses of potential Low Power 
FM (LPFM) interference before proceeding.
  In January 2000, the Federal Communications Commission voted to 
implement an expansive licensing process. Congressman Mike Oxley and 
John Dingell working with Congresswoman Heather Wilson, have fashioned 
legislation which would slow licensing from 400 stations to roughly 
seven. The FCC will then test and determine whether the broadcasts 
cause interference with mainstream stations. I want to commend these 
Members for their hard work on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in today's easy access to communication, there exists 
great belief that the average American should have the ability to 
``speak out and be heard.'' Talk radio, newspapers, magazines, 
television, public television and radio, and the Internet, all allow 
anyone to get a message across. How can the FCC say--with a straight 
face--there is ``no access?''
  ``Low Power FM'' is a ``social'' agenda based on the idea that 
everybody can own their own radio station. Of course this appears 
enticing--but the laws of physics have not been repealed and it cannot 
be accomplished. Low power radio stations signals will only cause 
interference to the radio stations already located on the spectrum. 
This latest effort being made will come only at the cost of severely 
damaging the most successful broadcasting system in the world--American 
FM radio.
  If you want to know that chaos is, then turn across the AM band and 
hear the vast amount of interference the FCC has allowed to creep into 
that brand. No wonder everyone wants FM; the FCC has virtually ruined 
AM band.
  The FCC was founded on administering basic principles of engineering. 
However, to meet the Administration's ``social agenda,'' the FCC has 
thrown engineering and testing out the window. The FCC promises it will 
``guard'' this new experiment. Mr. Chairman, you and I

[[Page 5620]]

both know the FCC does not have the manpower to take care of the radio 
stations currently out there, much less hundreds more. In addition, the 
FCC could severely hurt the long-awaited entry into ``digital'' radio 
by American broadcasters. Low Power FM is a bad decision that should be 
reversed.
  Mr. Chairman, today's legislation is a step in the right direction to 
protect the FM radio stations in Georgia and across the Nation. The 
importance of this issue came to my attention from my good friend, and 
a leader in the field of radio broadcasting, Mike McDougald, of Rome, 
Georgia. On behalf of all the individuals who have dedicated their 
lives for the advancement of FM radio, I call on my colleagues to 
support the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, H.R. 3439.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and is 
considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3439

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Radio Broadcasting 
     Preservation Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO LOW-POWER FM REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

       (a) Third-Adjacent Channel Protections Required.--
       (1) Modifications required.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall modify the rules authorizing the operation 
     of low-power FM radio stations, as proposed in MM Docket No. 
     99-25, to--
       (A) prescribe minimum distance separations for third-
     adjacent channels (as well as for co-channels and first- and 
     second-adjacent channels); and
       (B) prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM 
     license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the 
     unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section 
     301 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301).
       (2) Congressional authority required for further changes.--
     The Federal Communications Commission may not--
       (A) eliminate or reduce the minimum distance separations 
     for third-adjacent channels required by paragraph (1)(A), or
       (B) extend the eligibility for application for low-power FM 
     stations beyond the organizations and entities as proposed in 
     MM Docket No. 99-25 (47 C.F.R. 73.853),

     except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress enacted 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Validity of prior actions.--Any license that was issued 
     by the Commission to a low-power FM station prior to the date 
     on which the Commission modify its rules as required by 
     paragraph (1) and that does not comply with such 
     modifications shall be invalid.
       (b) Further Evaluation of Need for Third-Adjacent Channel 
     Protections.--
       (1) Pilot program required.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall conduct an experimental program to test 
     whether low-power FM radio stations will result in harmful 
     interference to existing FM radio stations if such stations 
     are not subject to the minimum distance separations for 
     third-adjacent channels required by subsection (a). The 
     Commission shall conduct such test in no more than 9 FM radio 
     markets, including urban, suburban, and rural markets, by 
     waiving the minimum distance separations for third-adjacent 
     channels for the stations that are the subject of the 
     experimental program. At least one of the stations shall be 
     selected for the purpose of evaluating whether minimum 
     distance separations for third-adjacent channels are needed 
     for FM translator stations. The Commission may, consistent 
     with the public interest, continue after the conclusion of 
     the experimental program to waive the minimum distance 
     separations for third-adjacent channels for the stations that 
     are the subject of the experimental program.
       (2) Conduct of testing.--The Commission shall select an 
     independent testing entity to conduct field tests in the 
     markets of the stations in the experimental program under 
     paragraph (1). Such field tests shall include--
       (A) an opportunity for the public to comment on 
     interference; and
       (B) independent audience listening tests to determine what 
     is objectionable and harmful interference to the average 
     radio listener.
       (3) Report to congress.--The Commission shall publish the 
     results of the experimental program and field tests and 
     afford an opportunity for the public to comment on such 
     results. The Federal Communications Commission shall submit a 
     report on the experimental program and field tests to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate not later than February 1, 2001. Such report shall 
     include--
       (A) an analysis of the experimental program and field tests 
     and of the public comment received by the Commission;
       (B) an evaluation of the impact of the modification or 
     elimination of minimum distance separations for third-
     adjacent channels on--
       (i) listening audiences;
       (ii) incumbent FM radio broadcasters in general, and on 
     minority and small market broadcasters in particular, 
     including an analysis of the economic impact on such 
     broadcasters;
       (iii) the transition to digital radio for terrestrial radio 
     broadcasters;
       (iv) stations that provide a reading service for the blind 
     to the public; and
       (v) FM radio translator stations;
       (C) the Commission's recommendations to the Congress to 
     reduce or eliminate the minimum distance separations for 
     third-adjacent channels required by subsection (a); and
       (D) such other information and recommendations as the 
     Commission considers appropriate.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question immediately 
following another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preprinted 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in the Congressional Record offered 
     by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin:
       Page 4, beginning on line 9, strike paragraph (2) through 
     line 20 and insert the following:
       (2) Required duration of modification: permanent 
     conditions.--The Commission shall not modify such rules to 
     eliminate or reduce the minimum distance separations for 
     third-adjacent channels required by paragraph (1)(A) until 6 
     months after the date on which the Commission submits the 
     report required by subsection (b)(3). No such elimination or 
     reduction may remove such separations with respect to third-
     adjacent channels occupied by stations that provide a radio 
     reading service to the public. The Commission shall not 
     extend the eligibility for application for low-power FM 
     stations beyond the organizations and entities as proposed in 
     MM Docket No. 99-25 (47 C.F.R. 73.853).
       Page 6, line 19, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, or 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     whichever is later''.

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to put this debate 
into perspective.
  We have heard a lot about a compromise tonight. The party, of course, 
missing from this compromise is the administration. The President has 
told this body that he is strongly opposed to this bill and will veto 
it. I think that is something, when we talk about compromise and how 
there is peace in the valley, that we have to remember that there is 
something else that is going on here that is not really being fully 
explored tonight.
  What I am trying to do tonight, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), and I am pleased that he has worked with me on an 
amendment, is to offer an amendment that really is a compromise, that 
tries to respond to what I consider to be some of the legitimate 
concerns that have been raised by radio station operators in this 
country, but at the same time, not to have Congress step in, strip the 
FCC of its authority, and micromanage microradio.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is really the legislative equivalent of, 
your mother wears army boots. We have had fights for the last several 
months between the proponents of low power radio and the opponents of 
low power radio. They are fighting over a study. The FCC does not like 
the study that has been prepared by the industry. The industry says 
that the FCC has not done a good enough job in studying this issue. So 
they go back and forth, back and forth, yelling at each other.
  So the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and the gentlewoman from

[[Page 5621]]

New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) I think is a constructive amendment. It 
recognizes that in order for Congress to act intelligently on this 
issue, it has to have an independent study.
  I have no quarrel with that. I think it addresses the legitimate 
technical concerns that have been raised by people who run radio 
stations in this country. I say that as someone who is a strong 
supporter of low power FM radio. I want Congress to have an independent 
analysis of this issue.
  But this is where we separate, because the Barrett-Rush amendment 
makes one change and one change only to this bill. It would give 
Congress 6 months to act after the FCC submits its report. After 6 
months, if Congress has not acted, the FCC may proceed with low power 
licenses.
  Why is this amendment important? The reason why this amendment is 
important is because we do not have a level playing field here. On the 
one hand we have the radio stations, who have made it very, very clear 
that, regardless of the outcome of this study, they oppose having any 
type of expansion to low power FM stations.
  On the other side we have the FCC, but the FCC really is speaking for 
groups that have no voice, by definition. They do not have radio 
stations. They do not have a powerful lobbying organization. They are 
the churches, the high schools, the neighborhood organizations.
  What the bill does in its current form is it says even if this 
independent study comes back and says there are no interference 
problems, even if there are no interference problems, the FCC cannot 
continue to do the job it has done for the last 80 years, which is to 
make sure that the spectrum is filled in a fair way.
  Instead, it says that Congress has to act first. I do not think there 
is a person in this room who believes that the opponents of low power 
FM radio are going to come back and say, okay, go ahead, change the 
law. Because even though we have this study here, the bill ultimately 
still builds a very strong fence. This is a ``fence me in'' bill.
  It says to those people who currently have stations, we are going to 
build this big fence around you and we are not going to let anybody 
else in. That is wrong. The people in this Chamber who say they are in 
favor of competition, the people in this Chamber who say they believe 
in advances in technology I think should say, wait a minute, wait a 
minute.
  We recognize if this study comes back and says that there are 
problems with interference, this Congress can act in a week. It is not 
going to take us 6 months. If there is a problem this Congress is going 
to act very quickly, because frankly, we are going to have powerful 
forces, just as we have powerful forces right now saying, quick, make 
sure there is no problem.
  If there is no problem, my concern is those same forces are going to 
come in and say, yes, well, maybe it does not show this, it does not 
show that, but we are still concerned about that.
  What this amendment does is it allows this bill to move forward. 
Under its current form, it is going to be vetoed by the President of 
the United States. I think we should be addressing the legitimate 
concerns, the legitimate technical concerns. That is why I am offering 
this amendment.
  We have two choices, we can go forth with this bill right now, face a 
certain presidential veto, or we can accept this amendment. I think the 
President and the Senate will say, all right, that makes sense. Of 
course we want to have an independent study. Of course we want the FCC 
to continue its role. But there is no reason in the world that Congress 
should be micromanaging these stations.
  I would bet, Mr. Chairman, that the radio stations themselves would 
rue the day that they wanted this Congress to get involved in the 
small, technical matters of the FCC. They do not want us to do that, 
generally speaking. They want us to stay out of it. But in this 
instance, they think that they can benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a reasonable amendment. I certainly ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first indicate this bill was reported by the 
committee in a bipartisan voice vote. It was an amendment that we 
finally came to with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leading the way, that really set 
out, I think, the parameters of what this program is all about.
  It allows the LPFM to go forward in areas where it does not infringe 
on existing interference protections: in a lot of rural areas, in the 
New Mexico example, in many areas of the country that are underserved 
by FM radio. We bent over backwards to make certain that that could go 
forward.
  Then we also said, but it is important in these areas that 
potentially have interference problems to have a pilot study done and 
find out once and for all whether in fact these interference standards 
are adequate, or whether in fact the incumbent radio stations will have 
problems with interference and their listeners will have interference 
with that.

                              {time}  1915

  This is really what this argument is all about. The Barrett amendment 
undercuts the purpose of this legislation by allowing the commission to 
go forward with full implementation of its lower-power FM rule, 
including the weakening of interference protections following the pilot 
program regardless of what the results of that program are.
  So we are saying there is the FCC. The Barrett amendment simply says, 
do not confuse us with the facts. No matter how that pilot program 
comes out, one can go forward just as one is going forward now.
  Now, there is a certain reason why congressional intent is important, 
and that is why we are debating this today. Is it really realistic to 
have an FCC, an unelected Federal bureaucracy, a so-called independent 
agency set these kinds of important standards against the obvious 
intent of the Congress? I do not think so.
  The amendment allows the FCC to proceed with its rule as currently 
ordered, unless Congress enacts legislation to overturn this in a 6-
month period. Well, I have perhaps a little less faith in the alacrity 
with which this Congress could act or any Congress could act perhaps 
than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett). As a matter of fact, 
everybody knows that in this town it is a lot easier to play defense 
than it is to play offense.
  So my colleagues are asking the Congress to pass a bill that would or 
would not be vetoed by the President in that 6-month period. We do not 
know whether that happens or not.
  But to allow the FCC to go forward with the test and then, say, 
essentially thumb their nose at the test results and move forward with 
granting these licenses is the height of irresponsibility.
  So I would ask the Members to defeat this Barrett amendment, to 
support the bipartisan compromise that was crafted so well in this 
committee, and understand that this bill came out on a bipartisan voice 
vote in the Committee on Commerce with strong support on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Let us defeat the Barrett amendment and get to the real issue here, 
which is protecting incumbent stations from potential interference from 
these new low-powered FM stations.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of whether these low-power FM stations cause 
interference must be addressed. We sat in the committee, observed and 
listened to both the FCC and the broadcasters. We were privy to the 
debate, the unsettled debate about whether or not low-power stations 
actually cause interference.
  I am in support of a middle ground. I am in support of finding a 
middle ground, Mr. Chairman, so that we can move forward. The 
amendment, the Barrett-Rush amendment that we are offering today 
reaches a fair compromise. I think that it is fair, not only to the 
low-power radio, FM radio

[[Page 5622]]

station advocates, but it is also fair to the broadcasting industry. It 
is fair to the American people, and it is fair to the Members of this 
body. It provides 6 months for the FCC to conduct its pilot study and 6 
months for the Congress to create the study's results.
  Mr. Chairman, as the bill of the opponents of this amendment, the 
bill that they have crafted, if it goes forward, it does not give the 
FCC any opportunities to activate and to allow community organizations, 
hospitals, students across this Nation access to the airwaves.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the way that the bill is drafted now, 
the FCC would have to conduct a study by February 1, 2001. That is just 
a mere months away. If the FCC study or report indicates that there is 
no interference, the FCC still would not be allowed to act unless 
Congress specifically authorizes new legislation. So what this bill in 
fact does, Mr. Chairman, this bill actually kills low-power radio 
stations in this Nation.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, the Barrett-Rush amendment is fair. I would like 
to just remind my colleagues that low-power radio stations enjoy broad 
support from the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, the United 
States Catholic Conference, the United Church of Christ Office of 
Communications, the Consumers Union, the Minority Media 
Telecommunications Council, the National Federation of Community 
Broadcasters, the National League of Cities, and nationally known 
musicians, including Ellis Marcalis and Bonnie Raitt.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, to 
vote for this fair and reasonable amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Barrett). Not long ago, not very long ago, I read about a 21-year-
old man who built his own radio transmitter. He was able to broadcast a 
signal of a distance of just 2 miles. This was far enough to reach 
everyone in his community. The problem was, of course, he was the only 
one who had a receiver. That was back in 1895. The name of that 
gentleman was Guglielmo Marconi, who invented the radio.
  But if he were here today, he would have to overcome a lot more than 
just that obstacle of one receiver. For instance, he would have to come 
up with $80,000 to $100,000 before the FCC would even consider giving 
him a license. He would have to overcome something else that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) alluded to on the floor, and 
that is the continuing concentration of power in the broadcast 
industry.
  In recent years, the number of radio station owners in this country 
has shrunk by almost 20 percent. That is why the measure that we are 
considering today is so important and why this amendment is important. 
To the credit of the FCC and Bill Kennard, some new life is being 
breathed into a very old idea, an important idea, the public airwaves 
should be the public's interest. That is what the FCC did when it 
carved out a small piece of the broadcasting spectrum for community-
level low-power FM stations.
  Who will it help? It will help many community organizations who are 
now shut out, ethnic groups who want to broadcast their culture to the 
community, senior citizens who want to broadcast their concerns to the 
community, colleges and universities who want to talk to their 
students, city councils and villages who might want to broadcast what 
is going on in their committees and in their council meetings. It goes 
on and on of the groups that will have an interest in this issue that 
will be able to get into broadcasting that cannot today.
  Musicians who are locked out in a very profound way from 
experimenting and expressing themselves on radio today would have an 
opportunity to do so as well.
  So a forum for new music and new talent and new ideas, that is what 
radio should be all about. That is what the FCC plan I think will help 
achieve. That is why, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) said, 
low-power radio has earned the support of the cross-section of 
organizations throughout America today, including the Consumers Union, 
the United States Catholic Conference, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors.
  These are organizations that represent grassroots people who need a 
voice, who often do not have a voice, and who are now hopefully going 
to get a voice if they are not denied that by the powerful lobby that 
they are up against in this fight.
  It is time that we tune out the static and that we listen to the 
facts. This is a reasonable solution, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) have 
indicated, because the research shows that, even under the worst 
circumstances, low-power radio would create little interference and no 
cross-talk for conventional broadcasters.
  There are already almost 400 full-power FM stations authorized prior 
to November of 1964 who do not meet the current channel separation 
requirements. These full-power stations which operate with only one or 
two channels between them and the next station on the dial have 
consistently met the FCC's criteria for distortion-free signals.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good. It is 
fair. It meets the needs of our communities.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush). This amendment deals with the crux of the problem Congress 
is facing on low-power FM interference.
  The FCC chose to eliminate decades-old third-channel interference 
protections in order to shoehorn in more low-power FM stations. The 
House Committee on Commerce said wait a minute. After hearings and 
debate in subcommittee and full committee, my colleagues and myself 
said low-power FM can go forward and should go forward immediately, but 
Congress must protect all radio listeners by maintaining third-channel 
interference protections.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) have agreed that we should put into law third-
adjacent channel protections for any radio station that sublets, if you 
will, some of their spectrum to very important blind reading services, 
services that the FCC ignores in their ruling.
  So the authors of this amendment are saying that the FCC got third-
channel protections wrong for these unique and critically vital blind 
reading stations. But for all other broadcasters who may cover local 
high schools, sports, or provide Spanish language broadcasts, or our 
public radio affiliates, one cannot, and I repeat, cannot have third-
channel protections under the law.
  What if stations decide to offer some of their auxiliary spectrums to 
blind reading services? Does the FCC then have to go back and protect 
the third-channel from interference and shut down existing low-power FM 
stations?
  This amendment is ill conceived and flawed. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Barrett) is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to accept 
it. It is a modest change to H.R. 3439. It is a good amendment, and I 
only wish it went further.
  The promotion of competition and diversity in broadcast has been the 
guidepost of American communications policy for over 50 years. We are 
currently experiencing unprecedented consolidation in this industry, 
however; and we cannot ignore its implications. Today, broadcast 
remains the

[[Page 5623]]

way most Americans get their local news and information. Yet, there are 
fewer and fewer companies that control the content of the information 
they receive.
  That is why more than 2 years ago, FCC Chairman Bill Kennard proposed 
a new low-power FM radio service. It is a noncommercial service that 
will allow local churches, schools, community-based organizations, and 
governments to strengthen the ties in their communities. It is localism 
and diversity in the purest democratic sense.
  The FCC took its responsibility to protect the signals of incumbent 
broadcasters very seriously. They spent more than a year conducting lab 
tests and reviewing the potential for signal interference. It also 
extended its comment period in the rulemaking proceeding and scaled 
back its original proposal in an effort to address the incumbent 
broadcasters' concerns. For any objective viewpoint, the FCC bent over 
backwards to accommodate the concerns broadcasters raised.
  The FCC's extensive tests have shown that low-power radio will not 
harm existing signals. Chairman Kennard has vowed publicly time and 
again to protect every incumbent FM service from interference.
  H.R. 3439 effectively kills low-power radio. It prevents the FCC from 
issuing all but a small number of licenses and requires more studies 
into next year. New legislation would be required to permit the program 
to move forward once the studies are completed.
  The Barrett-Rush amendment would simply permit the FCC to implement 
the program 6 months after the new round of studies is completed, and 
it has demonstrated again that interference is not a problem.
  Passage of H.R. 3439 without the Barrett-Rush amendment will end the 
promise of greater localism and diversity that noncommercial low-power 
radio can bring.

                              {time}  1930

  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and to vote against 
the legislation if this amendment is defeated.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today first to declare a conflict of interest. I 
am a community radio broadcast station owner and operator and have been 
for 14 years. My father started in this business in the late 1930s. 
There has never been more diversity on the dial and more stations than 
there are today.
  Now, my stations are in a small community; 20,000 in the county and 
23 in the other. We do the very things that my colleagues are talking 
about today that they want: Spanish programming, programming for 
seniors, and so do my colleagues in the industry. And that is what I am 
standing up here today to talk about, is the public service and 
community service that is today provided to people in America by their 
community broadcasters.
  This amendment, though, is bad. Now, I am not a radio engineer, 
although I have spent time inside transmitters with my engineer. My 
engineer is a fan of low-power FM. He is very supportive of it. He and 
I disagree on this. But when it comes to the technical issue of LPFM, I 
want to read my colleagues what he said to me.
  ``My position on this is not to kill LPFM, but to pressure the FCC to 
consider revising at least the rules that would be most harmful to 
full-power FM stations. This rule appears to be the worst. Protecting 
against interference to a station's protected contour has been a 
bedrock issue with the FCC.'' He says, ``Perhaps most disturbing were 
the rules for future full-power FM's. It appears that predicted and 
actual interference would have to be caused within a future station's 
70dBu `city grade' contour, before the full-power station could have 
any relief from LPFM interference. Interference from there on out to 
the 60dBu contour would just have to be tolerated by the full-power 
station.''
  That is why the FCC was created in the beginning, was to sort out 
these technical interference problems. That is why this amendment is 
not a good one and why it ought to be defeated and why we ought to run 
out the test the way the bill envisions and do it in that respect.
  I have heard from community broadcasters; I have heard from Jefferson 
Public Radio concerned about the potential interference with their 
translator system on public radio. We have a great opportunity to move 
forward with the legislation that the chairman and the ranking member 
has offered, and I think this amendment is the wrong direction to go. 
From a technical standpoint, it is flawed and it will hurt the process.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barrett amendment. If 
we were going to take all of the red herrings that have been spread 
before this body in this debate, we would have to put an aquarium in 
the middle of the well. This is absolutely one of the most 
misrepresented Federal Communications Commission efforts of all time.
  Now, how do we know this? We know this because we have to test the 
hypocrisy coefficient. Now, how would we apply that in this particular 
instance? Well, what we would do is we would look at the 300 high-
powered FM radio stations that the National Association of Broadcasters 
asked to be grandfathered by the Federal Communications Commission in 
1997.
  Now, we are not talking about 100-watt radio stations, these small 
nonprofit community-based radio stations. Hundred watts. No, we are 
talking about 50,000 watt radio stations, 10,000 watt radio stations, 
5,000 watt radio stations that all operate within the second and third 
adjacent channels, just with these 100-watt stations.
  So the NAB did a big study of these 300, 50,000, 10,000 and 5,000 
watt stations. And after a completely detailed eye-watering analysis of 
the science of these radio stations, here is what they found: that 
every one of those 300 stations was a dues-paying member of the 
National Association of Broadcasters and they shall be grandfathered, 
regardless of their interference that they were going to be causing in 
the second and third adjacent channels.
  Now, who are these channels? Well, my colleagues might have heard of 
some of them: KCBS, KLAX, KBCD, KYCY. Fifty, 50, count them, 50 high-
powered radio stations in California, 24 in Illinois, 25 in North 
Carolina, 28 in Ohio, 24 in New York, 17 in New Jersey. Go right down 
the list. So KCBS, operating within the second and third adjacent 
channel, that is no problem. But a 100-watt station operated by a 
community church in South Central L.A., oh my God, stop the presses. 
Let us get the FCC out of this business and have an independent study, 
says the NAB. The NAB.
  Now, why is this? Well, it is very simple. Here is their philosophy. 
They already got theirs. They are in. They are the incumbents. Pull up 
the gang plank. There is no room for these poor community groups, 
churches, minority groups. Oh, my God, how can we figure this out? Let 
us study it for a year, and then even if they find there is no 
interference, and, by the way, if they use the same standard that the 
NAB used with these 300, and that is all we are really talking about 
here in low power, by the way, only about 300 low power, if they use 
the same standard they will not find any interference.
  But what does the Oxley bill say? Even if they do not find any 
interference, they still have to come back to Congress. They still have 
to come back and get permission. And when will that be? When do my 
colleagues think the NAB will let that happen out here?
  So what the Barrett amendment says is, study it. But if they do not 
find any interference, if they find the same thing that the NAB found 
in 1997, when they analyzed whether or not their 300 radio stations, 
the huge 50,000, 10,000, 5,000-watt radio stations caused interference, 
then license the little 100-watt community-based radio station. Why not 
do that? But, no, even the Barrett amendment is unacceptable to the 
NAB.
  My colleagues, unless we want to completely ignore the facts, unless 
we want to completely ignore the history

[[Page 5624]]

of FM radio in our country, and by the way these 300 stations that got 
their licenses back in the 1960s, they were only grandfathered. So they 
have been causing this interference or, more accurately, not causing 
this interference for 30 years now. So what is the likelihood that the 
FCC is going to be unable themselves, in order to determine whether or 
not 100-watt radio stations are causing this problem?
  So, my colleagues, I think if right now these 50,000-watt stations 
are not provoking any complaints in L.A.; if we are not hearing it on 
KCBS, if we are not hearing it on KLAX, we are not going to hear it on 
the 100-watt stations. The consumer complaints are not out there.
  So I urge a very strong ``aye'' on the Barrett-Rush amendment. It is 
wise, it is timely, it is important for us to get these small voices 
out into the communities of our country with the ever-consolidating 
huge radio industry making it harder and harder for minorities, women, 
and for smaller voices in our society to have their independent voices 
heard.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, the previous speaker, indicated the Barrett 
amendment provided that this test would go forward, and then if the 
commission did not find any interference, it could move ahead and grant 
these low-powered stations. That is not what the Barrett amendment 
says.
  The Barrett amendment says that in 6 months, regardless of whether 
the Commission finds interference, it can move forward with the 
issuance of these low-powered station licenses.
  Let me say it again. The bill says they have to do this study and 
report back to Congress and then Congress will say yes or no, proceed, 
based upon the results of that study. The amendment by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) says to the FCC that they can proceed in 6 
months regardless of whether the independent study produces a finding 
of interference. Do we really want to vote for that?
  Incredibly, the Barrett amendment makes one exception. It says even 
in 6 months the Commission cannot remove the protections against 
interference for radio reading services to the public. Now, that is a 
very important service, but if radio reading services to the public 
deserve this protection from interference, do we not think other 
minority stations deserve that protection? Do we not think National 
Public Radio deserves that protection? Do we not think the local radio 
broadcasting station deserves that protection? Or would we rather have 
this report come back to Congress saying there will be all kinds of 
interference, but the commission is going to move ahead anyhow whether 
or not it interferes with the local station, with the minority station, 
with the community broadcast station, or any other station that exists 
in our communities?
  The FCC came up with this proposal. This is not a legislative 
proposal. The FCC decided to propose this new service. The FCC decided 
to propose it and then decided to implement it in spite of the fact 
that radio stations across America expressed concerns to the Members of 
Congress, whom the FCC is supposed to be answerable to, to check it out 
first to make sure it would not interfere with listening audiences 
around the country.
  When we invited Chairman Kennard to come and tell us about it, he 
declined the offer to testify. He sent an engineer instead. So we had a 
battle of engineers. We listened to the FCC lab test, which said that 
it is okay to do this stuff. And then we heard from other engineers, 
who had test results that indicated all kind of talk-over, all kinds of 
interference problems on all kinds of cheap inexpensive radios; the 
Walkman, the boom boxes, the radios next to the bedside. And the FCC's 
answer was, oh, those radios are inexpensive. They are not designed 
well; and, therefore, we do not care whether it interferes with those 
radios. It is okay to interfere with those radios. To 65 million 
Americans, it is okay to interfere with their radio listening because 
they bought an inexpensive radio. Shame on them. That is the attitude 
of the FCC here.
  If we adopt this amendment, we give the FCC authority to move forward 
in spite of the fact that it interferes with these less expensive 
radios. We give them the authority to move forward in spite of the fact 
it might jam up in a digital age and completely block out the signal of 
National Public Radio stations in our communities, or our community 
broadcasters in our communities, perhaps our minority language 
broadcasters in our communities. We give them the go-ahead and say it 
does not matter that they are supposed to be subject to Congress; they 
can do what they want, when they want to do it.
  And guess what? Tick off the 6 months with me. This bill gets through 
the House tonight, and it goes over to the Senate. Maybe the Senate 
passes it in May. Count them off for me. All of a sudden we are in 
December. Are we in session? No. We are not in session in December. The 
FCC even may go out of office next year. We do not know who will be in 
the FCC next year. But in December the FCC proceeds with the issuances 
of all these licenses whether they interfere or not. We come back in 
session next year, and we have to start shutting licenses and radio 
stations down. Do we really want to be in that pickle? Do we really 
want to start shutting radio stations down across America because they 
were licensed incorrectly?
  We have an obligation in Congress. We have an obligation to direct 
the FCC when it comes to the way the spectrum is used in America. We 
have an obligation to every radio listener not to let them issue 
licenses that are going to interfere with their listening. And yet the 
FCC is asking us in this Barrett amendment to do what they want 
regardless of the test results, except to protect one small little 
provision of service called radio reading.
  I suggest to my colleagues this is an ill thought-out amendment. This 
undoes the bill. The bill does not shut down FM low power. It lets 70 
stations go forward immediately. Immediately. And it simply says for 
the rest, go the through not the lab test, the field test.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if we like careful regulation, if we like responsible 
behavior by the regulatory agencies, if we expect the regulatory 
agencies to do their job carefully, then we have no choice but to 
oppose the amendment offered by my good friends, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The simple fact of the matter is the FCC did several things. First of 
all, they changed the standard which was previously signal-to-noise 
ratio, which covered and described whether or not there was 
interference that was unacceptable. Second of all, they changed so that 
now we may no longer use the test of the third-adjacent channel.
  My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), said that 
the FCC was not opposed to this in that event by the broadcasters.

                              {time}  1945

  In point of fact, the broadcasters oppose the grandfathering of those 
higher powered stations.
  Now, the issue here, and I want my colleagues to understand this very 
clearly, is not the question of interference as it impacts upon the 
broadcasters. Although that is important. It is the interference as it 
impacts upon the listener.
  In 1927, the Radio Act was set up to assure that we restored order to 
the broadcast channels by eliminating the wild interference and the 
wild placement of stations, which made the entire spectrum almost 
useless and impossible to listen to.
  What the traditional standard was, then, was the third adjacent 
channel. In addition to that, it was signal-to-noise ratio, which 
enables them to tell what in fact is going on from the standpoint of 
the listener. No test on these points was made by the FCC.
  The FCC simply wants to disregard the traditional standards and the 
traditional methods of measuring whether

[[Page 5625]]

or not interference exists and will impact upon the listeners.
  Now, everybody is making the great pitch that this bill here is going 
to hurt minorities. In point of fact, it is going to impact most 
heavily upon benefitting, if we pass this legislation, minority 
listeners and minority broadcasters because they will receive the 
assurance that they will get proper protection of both broadcasting and 
the listeners' concern.
  Now, the point has been made, well, if they have got an expensive 
radio, they do not have to worry. Well, that is an argument that I find 
very distasteful, because the simple point of fact is that the 
minorities and the poor and the people who have most need of radio 
service are the people who can least afford an expensive radio.
  We are not talking about shower radios or things of that kind. We are 
talking about clock radios, inexpensive radios, radios that are used by 
minorities and by people of limited means.
  What the amendment does is it assures that the FCC will have to make 
a proper test and that the test will be accomplished by an independent 
testing entity. I think that is fair and proper. And then it lets the 
Congress make the decision.
  Now, I want to remind my colleagues of something that Sam Rayburn 
told the chairman of the FCC when he got out of hand. He said, Now, 
son, remember that you work for us and everything will be all right.
  The Congress is the body that has created the FCC to function under 
delegated authority. It is our responsibility to look after the FCC and 
see to it that their proceedings are fair, to see that their 
proceedings consider all the questions and are conducted in the proper 
fashion, and to see to it that the people who are dependent upon radio 
service get fair treatment.
  Remember, at stake here are rights of minorities, people of limited 
means, and public broadcasting. That is what really is in question, and 
the question of whether or not proper service is afforded the people.
  There will be literally hundreds of stations which will go on the air 
of low-power character. There will be at least 70 of them in major 
centers. And in areas below 50,000 markets, we will find that there 
will be an awful lot of broadcasters who will go on and utilize these 
low-power systems.
  That is the way it should be done. And then we can have a fresh look; 
we can come to a judgment as to whether or not the test says that we 
ought to permit the FCC to go forward. At that point a proper decision 
can be made.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and their interest in 
protecting the minority community. And I am sure they are sincere. I 
just happen to disagree with them on this issue about whether this is 
protective of the minority community or not. But that is not the point 
that I rose to make.
  Actually, some of my very best friends are owners of commercial radio 
stations and own interests; and they deserve to have their signals 
protected, which is why the underlying purpose of the bill is a good 
purpose. There needs to be a study.
  But I will guarantee my colleagues that, at the end of that study, 
those same friends of mine will, regardless of the outcome of that 
study, even if it says that there is no interference, they will be here 
saying do not take action because they will be trying to protect their 
own economic interest. And I do not have any problem with that.
  But I know that they have enough power in the process to keep any 
kind of bill from coming that will allow these low-power FM stations to 
go forward even if the study says there is no interference. And that is 
why I support the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). Because this is 
really a question of who is going to play offense and who is going to 
play defense.
  I know the commercial stations have the power to play offense. If 
this study shows that there is any kind of interference, this Congress 
will respond to the commercial radio stations, and I know that.
  But I do not have that same kind of assurance about the minority 
community and small institutions and small colleges having the power to 
move Congress to do something to respond. And I think we ought to put 
the burden on the commercial stations, which is exactly what the 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) does.
  If there is a finding that there is really interference, I guarantee 
my colleagues they will be here and their interest will be protected. 
And I will probably be on their side because a lot of them are my good 
friends, and my supporters I might add.
  But in the absence of some overwhelming finding, the burden should be 
on them and not on the community. The airwaves belong to the community 
in the final analysis.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, does the Chair think that we might obtain the 
vote faster if it were indicated that a number of us are inclined to 
vote for whichever side stops talking first?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, recognizing my colleague's last statement, I certainly 
will not take the entire 5 minutes. But I do believe I would like to 
comment on this bill.
  I sat in on the committee hearing and I listened intently. This is a 
very important issue. Clearly, we do need more diversity of voices in 
the media.
  Mr. Chairman, at the same time, however, it came to light in the 
committee that there were concerns and legitimate concerns about the 
quality of signals and the possibility of interference. And so, the 
concept of a study I think makes eminent good sense.
  The concern I have, as has been articulated by my colleague the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is simply this: Why should we 
absolutely have to come back to Congress before any action can be 
taken?
  Let us put the burden on the broadcasters to say this is a bad idea. 
If the study comes back and shows that we can have diverse voices think 
low-power radio without any significant interference, then we ought to 
move forward.
  My father is blind. He listens to the radio as his primary source of 
communication with the outside world and certainly wants a clear 
signal. But I think I also want the opportunity to have other voices 
heard if they could be done without interfering with my father's 
portable radio.
  With that in mind, I support this amendment. I believe it is a fair 
and reasonable approach that will allow us to move forward if there is 
no interference with the signal and allow these diverse voices.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Barrett/Rush Amendment to the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. 
I believe that the Barrett/Rush Amendment will strongly expedite the 
availability of low-power licenses to local communities.
  This Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act would require the FCC to 
modify its low-power FM rule by establishing signal interference 
standards for low power FM stations that are equal to existing 
standards for full power FM stations. On January 20, 2000, the FCC 
adopted a new category of radio services that permits the issuance of 
licenses for low-power, non-commercial community FM radio stations. 
Under the FCC's rule, the new service would consist of 10-watt and 100-
watt stations with a broadcast radius of about 1-2 miles and 3.5 miles.
  For many years, the FCC received thousands of inquiries annually from 
individuals and groups wishing to start low-power radio stations for 
small communities. The FCC decision to offer low-power licenses will 
enhance community oriented radio and increase diversity in our Nation's 
communities.
  Local communities and historically underrepresented groups such as, 
civil rights groups, students and educational organizations, labor

[[Page 5626]]

unions, churches and religious groups, and many other community 
organizations have expressed support. In addition, many nonprofit 
entities providing public safety announcements and local transportation 
have also expressed support.
  However, organizations and some broadcasters are opposed to the low-
power FCC license rule, because hey have expressed concerns that low-
power frequencies will cause interference with existing broadcasters. 
For instance, many popular FM stations may experience static and 
unclear reception. Opponents have stated that the FCC acted hastily to 
appease the groups applying for low power licenses and that they did 
not fully consider the technical as well as economic consequences to 
established broadcasters.
  I believe that the granting of low-power licenses by the FCC will 
offer significantly more opportunities for average Americans to become 
involved in broadcasting and spread their messages. In fact, many local 
minority broadcasters will have the chance to provide information to 
the communities where they operate. The Barrett/Rush Amendment will 
address the interference issue and speed up the availability of these 
coveted frequencies to those who may greater benefit from low-power 
access.
  The Barrett/Rush Amendment permits the FCC to proceed with its plans 
to issue low-power licenses six months after the conclusion of the 
interference test period, unless Congress expressly takes action to 
prohibit it. The Radio Broadcasting Protection Act was introduced in 
order to curtail the FCC's ability to provide new licenses for non-
commercial low-power FM radio stations to empower churches, schools, 
and other community groups to gain access to the airwaves.
  The FCC proposal is intended as a response to the alarming trend of 
ownership consolidation in the radio industry, which has drastically 
decreased the number of local broadcasters on the air.
  The Commerce Committee adopted a substitute to the Radio Broadcasting 
Preservation Act that would allow the FCC to grant low power radio 
licenses only in those 70 markets which satisfy the ``third adjacent 
channel'' protection from interference that applies to existing full 
power stations, and to test 9 markets whether low-power radio causes 
interference without the ``third adjacent channel'' protection. Once 
this testing is completed, the FCC must report the results to Congress.
  The bill in its current form does not allow the FCC to act on issuing 
new low-power licenses, unless Congress specifically authorizes further 
action with additional legislation; even if the FCC studies find no 
interference is found in independent testing.
  This bill also fails to recognize and inhibits the FCC's expertise in 
analyzing FM radio issues, including signal interference and spectrum 
management. Without the Barrett/Rush Amendment this bill is nothing but 
an unnecessary infringement on the FCC's ability to adapt decades-old 
rules to ever changing technology. This amendment is a fair compromise: 
it provides for Congress to exercise timely oversight, but removes an 
unfair impediment to legitimate action by the FCC with an issue clearly 
under its jurisdiction.
  We can do better and we must do better. We owe it to the many 
churches, schools, non-profit community groups, colleagues, as well as 
state and local government agencies to go forward with providing access 
to low-power frequencies and to increasing diversity among our Nation's 
airwaves.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the Barrett/Rush Amendment and in support of the FCC's Low-Power FM 
radio station proposal. The Barrett/Rush amendment is a reasonable 
compromise to this legislation that would allow the FCC to continue 
work toward establishing these important communications tools.
  Mr. Chairman, low-power FM stations would give churches, schools and 
local community groups access to the radio spectrum at a cost they can 
afford. These stations will only reach a couple of miles, but the 
message they will carry will reach many people. These stations will 
give churches a greater voice in the community. These stations will 
allow schools to set up in-house radio stations. Schools can train kids 
for a career in the radio industry, as well as provide announcements of 
school closures and after-school events. Local community groups will be 
able to contribute to the diversity of voices in their community while 
providing important information.
  The bill we are considering today will effectively give Congress the 
ability to kill the low-power FM program. The Barrett/Rush amendment 
forces Congress to act on this proposal instead of allowing it to 
wither away. My colleagues and I have heard the concerns of 
broadcasters that these new stations will interfere with existing 
stations. This amendment will allow for further study to ensure that 
the integrity of the spectrum is maintained. However, it mandates that 
Congress will act on this proposal after the independent study on 
interference is completed. This amendment represents a more responsible 
compromise to allay the concerns of broadcasters while giving the FCC 
the ability to move forward with this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment and low-power FM 
radio.
  Let's give new strength to the voice of the people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 245, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               AYES--142

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--245

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett

[[Page 5627]]


     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Baker
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Borski
     Callahan
     Canady
     Clay
     Clement
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Crane
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Houghton
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez
     Shuster
     Stark
     Vento
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2014

  Messrs. LaHOOD, BARCIA and WATKINS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. METCALF changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 129, 
the Rush/Barrett Amendment to HR 3439, I was unavoidably detained. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 129 on April 13, 
2000 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House of today, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3439) to 
prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from establishing rules 
authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio stations, pursuant 
to the order of the House of today, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the order of the House of today, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 110, not voting 50, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               AYES--274

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--110

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--50

     Baker
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Borski
     Callahan
     Canady
     Clay
     Clement
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Dicks
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Houghton
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Quinn
     Rangel

[[Page 5628]]


     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Vento
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2032

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission 
     to revise its regulations authorizing the operation of new, 
     low-power FM radio stations.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 130, H.R. 3439, Radio 
Broadcasting Preservation Act, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 130, 
Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, H.R. 3439, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 130 on April 13, 
2000, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''

                          ____________________