[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7809-7810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           LOW POWER FM RADIO

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to today's front 
page story in The Washington Post entitled, ``Political static may 
block low power FM.'' The article paints a picture of what the new low 
power FM radio service may offer, but, Mr. Speaker, it does not 
properly convey why this Chamber, this House of Representatives, was 
compelled to overwhelmingly pass a bill introduced by my good friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). We did not pass a bill, as the 
article says, because of the influence of lobbyists or as a matter of 
politics. Quite simply, we passed a bill as a matter of good policy. 
That is why I am here this afternoon to point this out.
  When the FCC commission began its journey by adopting a notice of 
proposed rule-making designed to establish low power FM service, many 
of us voiced concerns about the potential interference larger 
commercial and public stations would face from this service. Surely, 
the FCC would not undertake and implement a service on such an 
important point as this without testing to be sure that interference 
was not involved.
  Well, our subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce earlier heard 
testimony that the FCC did just that, that they had not determined that 
no interference would occur between stations when they issued these low 
power FM licenses.
  So we think the FCC has rushed to judgment without resolving this 
critical part, which is the interference issue without fully consulting 
with us. Even the FCC witness testifying before our committee could not 
explain why the commission, the FCC commission, did not measure 
interference using signal-to-noise ratios. Simply put, the five 
technical studies analyzing the interference issue caused by low power 
FM stations have produced conflicting conclusions regarding 
interference on the third adjacent channel. The FCC, nevertheless, Mr. 
Speaker, is pressing forward with its own agenda, all the while 
steamrolling over the legitimate concerns of existing broadcasters.
  Instead, broadcasters who have invested millions and millions of 
dollars into stations with the assumption that the FCC would ensure the 
integrity of their spectrum now have to worry about interference from a 
project that the FCC has no idea whether it will work or not.
  Examples of interference are already clear. Let us say all of us 
drive along the Beltway here in Washington near the intersection of I-
66 and Route 50. We all know where that is. You can hear for yourself 
what third-adjacent channel interference sounds like. For there, two 
local FM radio stations, three channels apart, cross paths, and the 
interference is clear and apparent. That is the reality that we do not 
want to replicate in any sort of low power FM proceeding at the FCC. By 
dropping third channel interference rules, the FCC is creating an 
environment whereby it is clear that interference will increase. How 
much? The broadcast industry says a lot. The FCC, very little. So the 
question is who is right?
  Well, now we are going to find out. The independent third party 
testing provisions of the legislation we passed in this House allow for 
a 9-month, nine-market analysis of low power FM. Not only will that 
analysis look at existing FM stations, but it will also analyze the 
impact on reading services for the blind, FM translators and the advent 
of digital radio. These are the issues that the FCC decided were not 
important, so it never tested any of them.
  It is a shame that the FCC was not more aggressive in doing testing 
itself. After all, this agency is supposed to be the guardians of the 
spectrum. But by measuring distortion rather than using the 
internationally recognized standard for interference, the FCC cooked 
its own results in a way that allowed for it to move forward. That 
decision came even as Congress was out of town in January, as if our 
views on this subject did not matter. The fact is that low power FM is 
a symptom of this agency that does not recognize its responsibilities 
to Congress. This low power FM action is simply the latest in a series 
of FCC actions that call into question the whole notion of 
accountability at the FCC.

[[Page 7810]]

  I am not opposed to low power FM. I do oppose the way in which the 
FCC decided to move forward, and I will be watching the results of the 
third party testing that this bill mandates to see if low power FM can, 
indeed, coexist with full power stations. The FCC appears to be bent on 
providing the service whether or not it causes interference or other 
problems for FM listeners. Our responsibility here in Congress is to 
those listeners, our constituents. I congratulate my colleagues in the 
House for passing legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do 
the same.

                          ____________________