[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10268-10272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 REMEMBERING DR. BARNETT SLEPIAN AND CONDEMNING ANTI-ABORTION VIOLENCE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, after the attacks against our country on 
September 11th and with ongoing violence in the Middle East, we have 
taken steps to remind Americans that not all Arabs and not all Muslims 
are terrorists. And it is important to remember that not all terrorists 
are Arabs or Muslims.
  Terrorism is not an ideology linked to any particular religion, race, 
or nationality; rather it is a tactic, a method deliberately chosen by 
those who reject peaceful means of promoting their cause and instead 
turn to violence. Obviously not all terrorists share the same goals--
indeed, there are many cases where terrorists with diametrically 
opposed views are fighting against one another.
  But terrorists seem to hold in common a belief that they are above 
the law and a common disregard for human life.
  Unfortunately, we have homegrown terrorists right here in America:
  People like Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Federal building in 
Oklahoma City and whoever is responsible for the anthrax attacks of 
last year.
  America has also been plagued by numerous acts of violence by 
extremists in the anti-abortion movement. One of their victims was 
Barnett Slepian, a husband and a father of four. He was killed in his 
family's home in Buffalo, New York 3\1/2\ years ago shortly after 
returning from synagogue where he had gone to mourn his father's death.
  Barnett Slepian was a gynecologist and obstetrician. He provided 
health care to women and delivered babies. And he also performed 
abortions at a downtown clinic, because he wanted to make sure that 
even poor women had access to safe, legal procedures. Because of this 
he was killed.
  I didn't know Dr. Slepian, but I learned after his death that he was 
the uncle of a woman from Reno, Nevada who worked for me here in 
Washington.
  Dr. Slepian's killer is not only a cold-blooded murderer, but should 
also be seen as a terrorist. The man police have identified as 
responsible for killing Dr. Slepian was recently extradited from France 
where he had fled. His name is James Kopp.
  Kopp has been indicted for the shooting of a doctor in Canada and is 
a suspect in 3 other shootings of doctors who provided abortions. While 
Kopp alone might have pulled the trigger and fired the shot that killed 
Dr. Slepian, we have learned that he was part of an organized network 
of violent extremists, including a group that calls itself the Army of 
God. (Imagine that a group would invoke the Lord's name and believe 
that God sanctions their lawless violence. And this group of murderers 
professes a respect for life!)
  This group and others similar to it have engaged in a long campaign 
of harassment, intimidation, and violence. Their crimes include 
kidnaping, bombing, arson, assault and murder. They have targeted 
health clinic employees, judges and other officials. And not only have 
they attacked and killed doctors, but they have also threatened the 
doctors' children. These groups have hosted Web sites that post the 
names, addresses, license plate numbers of doctors and others on hit 
lists and even put up pictures of their targets' family members and 
identify where their children catch the school bus.
  Fortunately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just last month 
that targeting specific doctors in this way constitutes an illegal 
threat, and found those responsible for the Web sites in violation of 
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. I applaud the court's 
ruling, and I am pleased that the FACE legislation we passed has helped 
protect Americans. But we must remain vigilant and continue to take 
appropriate action to prevent extremist groups from terrorizing 
victims. Their intention is to intimidate and threaten, and sometimes 
they succeed as some doctors have given up their practice due to the 
emotional stress and constant fear they faced.
  Dr. Slepian courageously endured threats for over a decade before he 
was murdered. We must have the courage to condemn the violent 
extremists in the anti-choice movement. Those who kill and commit other 
heinous acts to express their opposition to abortion do so with the 
support of many others people who fund their crimes, aid and abet them, 
harbor fugitives. Others help create a climate that encourages this 
violence through their hateful speech or by remaining silent.
  We cannot remain silent. We must say loudly and unequivocally that 
murder is wrong.
  America is a nation of laws. I believe in following the law. You 
might not always agree with the law or how it is interpreted. But that 
does not entitle you to willfully violate it without consequences. 
America instead offers you an opportunity to seek to change the law 
through peaceful means.
  We express policy differences civilly through discourse and resolve 
them through the political process, not through violence. Here in the 
Senate we debate passionately, but in a manner of respect and civility, 
and attempt to persuade others of the merits of our positions.
  Those who resort to violence are violating not only our laws but our 
American principles and values.
  We in the Senate must identify them as terrorists. The American 
people must recognize them as terrorists. And law enforcement officials 
must treat them as terrorists--for that is what they are.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concerns about 
the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and 
its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
  I will be introducing legislation to address these concerns in the 
coming weeks, but wanted to make my colleagues aware of the seismic 
changes

[[Page 10269]]

that have taken place in the radio and concert industries following the 
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a 
number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership 
rules because of concerns about the impact on consumers, artists, and 
local radio stations.
  Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of 
soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I 
have consistently said that this act was really in many ways bought and 
paid for by soft money. Everyone was at the table, except for the 
consumers.
  In November, we will finally have rid the system of this loophole, 
but we must repair its damage.
  In just 5 years since its passage, the effects of the 
Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I 
opposed this act because of its anticonsumer bias, I did not predict 
that one provision would have caused so much harm to a diverse range of 
interests.
  The provision I am referring to is the elimination of the national 
radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps, which has 
triggered a wave of consolidation and caused harm to consumers, 
artists, concert goers, local radio station owners, and promoters.
  To put the changes of the 1996 act in perspective, it is helpful to 
compare them to other moves towards deregulation of radio ownership 
that began in 1984.
  In 1984, there were limitations on the total number of radio stations 
that one company could own nationally and locally, and how long a 
company had to hold a station before being allowed to sell. That year, 
the ownership regulations were changed to allow one entity to own 12 AM 
stations, 12 FM stations and 12 television stations--an increase from 7 
to each type a year earlier.
  The Federal Communications Commission again loosened the ownership 
requirements in 1992 by allowing one company to own up to two AM and 
two FM stations in a specific market, so long as they did not account 
for more than 25 percent of the total listening audience. The national 
ownership limits were also raised to 18 AM and 18 FM stations.
  This change brings us to the seismic shift that shook up the radio 
and live concert industries across the country--the passage of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act.
  This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits 
on radio stations--it eliminated them altogether. It also dramatically 
altered the local radio station ownership limits through the 
implementation of a tiered ownership system which allowed a company to 
own more radio stations in the larger markets.
  The highest range was in the largest markets, those with 45 stations 
or more. In those markets, one group could own up to eight stations, 
with no more than five in either AM or FM. The strictest limit was in 
the smallest markets with less than 15 stations, where one entity could 
own five stations, but only three in any one service.
  This change was not beneficial to consumers or local radio station 
owners or broadcasters. It simply led to a number of national super 
radio station corporations that now dominate the marketplace, and 
allegedly engage in anticompetitive business practices.
  The concentration levels of radio station ownership, both across the 
United States and in most local markets, is staggering.
  In 1996, prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, there 
were 5133 owners of radio stations. Today, for the contemporary hit 
radio/top 40 formats, four radio station groups--Chancellor, Clear 
Channel, Infinity, and Capstar--just four control access to 63 percent 
of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide. For the country music 
format, the same four groups control access to 56 percent of the 
format's 28 million listeners.
  The concentration of ownership is even more startling when we look at 
radio station ownership in local markets.
  Four radio station companies control nearly 80 percent of the New 
York Market. Three of these same four companies own nearly 60 percent 
of the market share in Chicago. In my home State of Wisconsin, four 
companies own 86 percent of the market share in the Milwaukee radio 
market.
  Let me repeat, four companies control 86 percent.
  The list continues in almost every market across the United States. 
The concentration of radio station ownership by a few companies is mind 
boggling, and its effect on consumers, artists and others in the music 
industry is cause for great concern.
  Many of the same corporations that own multiple radio stations in a 
given market wield their power through their ownership of a number of 
businesses related to the music industry. For example, the Clear 
Channel Corporation owns over 1200 radio companies, more than 700,000 
billboards, various promotion companies, and venues across the United 
States. Also, just three years ago, in 1999, Clear Channel bought SFX 
productions, the Nation's largest promotion company.
  A national group of organizations, recently joined together to voice 
many of the same concerns that I have heard from my constituents in 
Wisconsin--that the high levels of concentration are hurting the entire 
industry.
  This coalition of artists, labor groups, small businesses, and radio 
companies recently released a joint statement that expressed a number 
of concerns about the levels of concentration and the anticompetitive 
practices.
  These concerns included that a corporation that owns radio stations, 
promotion companies and venues has a conflict of interest in terms of 
promoting its own concerts and tours on its radio stations over those 
of any competition.
  They are also concerned about a corporation's interest in limiting 
the promotional support of bands and artists that are performing for 
other companies, performing at other venues or sponsored by other 
stations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint statement by this 
group be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  (See exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. After I began looking into the consolidation trends, I 
was taken aback by the diverse range of people that expressed concerns 
about the effects of concentration and consolidation. Concert goers 
talk all the time about higher ticket prices.
  Broadcasters, artists, and others in Wisconsin and across the country 
have told me about reduced diversity and local input in the music 
industry. And local businesses have spoken about anticompetitive 
behaviors that have put them on an unfair playing field.
  Following the passage of the Telecommunications Act, and the 
resulting vertical concentration, a number of trends have emerged. 
Ticket prices have gone through the roof, during the same period in 
which a few companies consolidated ownership of radio stations, 
promotion companies, venues, and advertising.
  This chart compares ticket prices during the period of consolidation 
following the 1996 act with the preceding 5 year blocks of time. Before 
the passage of the 1996 act, ticket prices rose slightly faster than 
the Consumer Price Index.
  For example, from 1991 to 1996, concert ticket prices grew by about 
21 percent, compared to the consumer price index increase of about 15 
percent. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket 
prices have increased almost 50-50--percentage points more than the 
Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices grew by 
more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by only 
13 percent.
  Ticket prices have gone up by nearly 50 percentage points more than 
consumer prices since passage of the Telecommunications Act, and that 
doesn't even include the facility fees, parking charges, box office 
charges, or food and beverage increases.
  I think we have to look into allegations that consolidation in the 
radio

[[Page 10270]]

industry has triggered anticompetitive practices and raised ticket 
prices.
  A broad coalition, including the American Federal of Television and 
Radio Artists, has also expressed concerns that consolidation in the 
radio industry has led to reduced diversity and competition in local 
markets.
  As corporations buy stations in the same market, they combine 
newsrooms and reporters and share playlists and radio personalities--
all with the same effect: less choice in music and less information for 
consumers.
  Radio airwaves are public property. Unlike other business ventures, 
radio stations have acquired their distribution mechanisms--the 
airways--without any expenditure of capital. They were given access to 
the broadcast spectrum by the Government for free.
  Since 1943, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have 
tried to ensure that this medium serves the public good, but limiting 
access to information and diversity on the radio does not achieve this.
  I have also heard concerns from artists and radio stations about how 
the vertically concentrated radio corporations leverage their market-
power to shake down the music industry in exchange for playing their 
music.
  As my colleagues are aware, payola--the practice of paying money to 
get music played--has been prohibited under Federal law since the 
1960s. I have heard a number of concerns, however, about the alleged 
tendency of some owners of multiple radio stations to shake down the 
music industry.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I will ask a question.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended 
until the Senator from Wisconsin finishes his statement, which should 
be a couple, 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I have a question for my friend.
  I have been listening to the Senator from Wisconsin. I think maybe 
there is one thing these people who own all this stuff have missed, and 
that is the parking lots. They own about everything else.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am not certain they missed that.
  Mr. REID. You have not mentioned that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am still checking into all the different aspects.
  Mr. REID. To go to a concert, you need a place to park, right?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am sure they will get to it if they haven't.
  They are able to achieve this shakedown, it is said, by establishing 
exclusive agreements with independent promoters that collect a fee in 
exchange for access to the airwaves.
  I am very troubled by these allegations. If true, they mean that 
artists that can't, or don't, pay these independent promoters will not 
be able to get access to the airwaves. Artists should not be required 
to pay for access to the airwaves. I am continuing to investigate these 
allegations of a new shakedown, but if they are true, this practice 
should be prohibited.
  Finally, I am deeply disturbed about concerns that have been voiced 
by individuals and local businesses--promoters, radio station owners, 
and artists--that have been forced out of the business or have been put 
on an unfair playing field as a result of the concentration of market 
power caused by the deregulation of the 1996 act.
  These are local promoters and businesses who have succeeded through 
economic downturns, recessions and many other challenging times. But 
when placed on an unfair playing field, they are being pushed out of 
the market.
  Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public 
good. The concentration of ownership, both in radio and the other 
facets of the concert industry, has caused great harm to people and 
businesses that have been involved and concerned about the radio and 
concert industry for generations.
  It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to 
contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our 
society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed.
  This is about the very freedom of radio as a medium. Radio is one of 
the most important media we have for exchanging ideas and expressing 
our creativity. But that free exchange of ideas often isn't free 
anymore--if you want to get played, often it's going to cost you. And 
if you can't afford it, then you might not get heard at all.
  Being able to hear a variety of voices is fundamental to a free 
society. Concentration in the radio industry is diminishing the number 
of voices that get heard. And that risks diminishing our freedom.
  It isn't just about who is talented, and who deserves to be played. 
It is about a shakedown, and that is just unacceptable for the 
industry, for the artist, and for all of us who listen.
  While we took a step forward in reforming the campaign finance system 
earlier this year, we must fix the problems that the soft money 
loophole caused--including the gaping flaws of the Telecommunications 
Act that have hurt competition in the radio and concert industries.
  In the coming weeks, I will be introducing legislation to address the 
concerns about concentration and anticompetitive practices that have 
resulted from the Telecommunications Act. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I just want to alert my colleagues to this trend, and 
we will introduce legislation to deal with it. I am convinced the 
complaints I have heard from such a wide variety of Wisconsinites are 
the same concerns being raised in all the States in this country, and I 
look forward to submitting a proposal and a bill to my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1

        Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio, May 24, 2002

       We are a diverse coalition representing performing artist 
     groups, labor, record labels, merchandisers, songwriters, 
     community broadcasters, consumers and citizens advocates. We 
     urge the government to revise the payola laws to cover 
     independent promotion to radio, to investigate the impact of 
     radio consolidation on the music community and citizens and 
     to work to protect non-commercial space on both the 
     terrestrial radio bandwidth and the emerging webcasting 
     models.
       Radio is a public asset, not private property. Since 1934, 
     the federal government, through the Federal Communications 
     Commission, has overseen the regulation and protection of 
     this public asset to create a communications medium that 
     serves the public interest. Unlike other businesses, radio 
     stations have acquired their distribution mechanism--the 
     airwaves--without any expenditure of capital. The public owns 
     the airwaves. Owners of broadcast stations were given access 
     to the broadcast spectrum by the government for free. The 
     quid pro quo for free use of the public bandwidth requires 
     that broadcast stations serve the public interest in their 
     local communities.
       However, it has become clear that both recording artists 
     and citizens are negatively impacted by legislation, 
     regulatory interpretations and by a number of standardized 
     industry practices that fail to serve the public interest. We 
     call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 
     undertake a comprehensive review of the following aspects of 
     the radio industry that are anti-artist, anti-competition and 
     anti-consumer. Further, we call on Congress to be vigilant in 
     their oversight of the FCC to ensure the public interest is 
     being upheld in regards to radio.
       Specifically:
       1. We request that payments made to radio stations which 
     are designed to influence playlists (other than legitimate 
     and reasonable promotional expenses) be prohibited, unless 
     such payments are announced over the air, even when such 
     intent is subtle and disguised. This includes payments made 
     through independent radio promoters.
       2. We request an investigation of the impact of recent 
     unprecedented increases in radio ownership consolidation on 
     citizens and the music community.
       3. We request an examination of the way vertical 
     integration of ownership in broadcasting, concert promotion 
     companies and venues decreases fair market competition for 
     artists, clubs and promotion companies.
       4. We request that policies that protect non-commercial 
     space in the radio bandwidth and in the emerging webcasting 
     models be enacted, securing the benefits of programming 
     diversity for the music community and citizens.

[[Page 10271]]




                               background

              Pay for Play and Independent Radio Promotion

       Payola--the practice of paying money to people in exchange 
     for playing a particular piece of music--has a long history 
     in the music industry. The practice didn't garner much public 
     attention until the late 1950s and 1960s when rock and roll 
     disc jockeys became powerful gatekeepers who determined what 
     music the public heard. Federal laws were passed starting in 
     the 1960s that forbid the direct payment or compensation of 
     disc jockeys or other radio staff in exchange for the playing 
     of certain records unless such payments were announced over 
     the air.
       The various laws and hearings from the 1960s-1970s muted 
     the prominence of payola for a while. However, payola-like 
     practices eventually resurfaced, but in a more indirect form. 
     Standardized business practices now employed by many 
     broadcasters and independent radio promoters result in what 
     we consider a de facto form of payola. Often, in an effort to 
     stay within the law, the payment is characterized as, for 
     example, payment to receive first notice of the station's 
     playlist ``adds.''
       The new payola-like practices take two primary forms. Radio 
     consolidation has created the first type. Radio station group 
     owners establish exclusive arrangements with ``independent 
     promoters,'' who then guarantee a fixed annual or monthly sum 
     of money to the radio station group or individual station. In 
     exchange for this payment, the radio station group agrees to 
     give the independent promoter first notice of new songs added 
     to its playlists each week. Stations in the group also tend 
     to play mostly records that have been suggested by the 
     independent promoter. As a result of the standardization of 
     this practice, record companies and artists generally must 
     pay the radio stations' independent promoters if they want to 
     be considered for airplay on those stations.
       The second payola-like practice occurs after the music 
     labels hire an ``independent radio promoter'' to legitimately 
     promote their records to specific stations for a fee. 
     Reportedly, certain indie promoters use the labels' money to 
     pay the stations for playing songs on the air.
       These practices result in ``bottom line'' programming 
     decisions where questions of artistic merit and community 
     responsiveness take a back seat to the desire of broadcasters 
     to gain additional revenue. As a result, many new and 
     independent artists, as well as many established artists, are 
     denied valuable radio airplay they would receive if 
     programming decisions were more objective. Furthermore, 
     whatever form the pay-for-play takes, these ``promotion'' 
     costs are often shared by the artists and adversely impact 
     the ability of recording artists to succeed financially.
       To protect the public interest, we request the payola 
     prohibition be revised by the FCC so that it cannot be 
     circumvented by any entity via the use of independent 
     promoters. If the music played on the radio has less to do 
     with the quality of the song than the economics of the 
     business arrangement, how does this serve the needs of 
     citizens? Also, when payments are not announced, isn't the 
     public misled into thinking that the station chooses which 
     songs to broadcast based on merit?

              Impact of Widespread Industry Consolidation

       The federal government must also examine the impact of 
     loosened ownership caps on the listening public. Until 1996, 
     the Federal Communications Commission regulated ownership of 
     broadcast stations so any company could own no more than two 
     radio stations in any one market and no more than 40 
     nationwide. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act 
     of 1996, the restrictions government ownership of radio 
     stations evaporated. Now, radio groups own numerous stations 
     around the country and exercise unreasonable control over the 
     airwaves. For example, in 1996, there were 5133 owners of 
     radio stations. Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40 
     formats, only four radio station groups--Chancellor, Clear 
     Channel, Infinity and Capstar--control access to 63 percent 
     of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide. For the 
     country format, the same four groups control access to 56 
     percent of the format's 28 million listeners.
       This consolidation has led to a new dynamic in the music 
     industry. Radio station groups have centralized their 
     decision-making about playlists and which new songs to add to 
     the playlist. These centralized playlists have reduced the 
     local flavor and limited the diversity of music played on 
     radio. Due to their sheer market power, radio station groups 
     now have the ability to make or break a hit song.
       With the increased leverage resulting from ownership 
     consolidation, at least one group owner is considering 
     charging labels for merely identifying the name of the artist 
     and song played. The CEO of Clear Channel told the Los 
     Angeles Times that it might sell song identification as a 
     form of advertising. This miserly practice would harm the 
     music community and citizens, as it would make it difficult 
     for radio listeners to identify new artists and purchase 
     music. Once again, this practice would impact the ability of 
     new and independent artists to succeed.
       We request that the FCC investigate consolidation of radio 
     ownership focusing on the public interest which radio 
     stations are supposed to serve. This investigation should 
     look at the difficulties small independent broadcasters face 
     when going up against large and powerful radio station groups 
     in a specific market. It should study the role that national 
     playlist decisions have had on the skyrocketing cost of radio 
     promotion. It should also take into account the impact of 
     reduced staffing levels on members of local stations and the 
     reduction of classical, jazz, bluegrass and other formats 
     from the airwaves.

                  Vertical Integration of Radio Owners

       Many radio groups are also vertically integrated companies 
     increasing their already substantial leverage and control. 
     For example, Clear Channel, a company that owns over 1200 
     radio stations, also owns tens of thousands of billboards, 
     and various promotion companies and venues. In 1999 Clear 
     Channel purchased SFX Entertainment, the nation's most 
     powerful concert promoter. This gave Clear Channel control of 
     the concert promotion industry in most of the key regions of 
     the US virtually overnight. Clear Channel therefore has a 
     direct economic interest in promoting its own concerts and 
     tours on its numerous radio stations over those of the 
     competition. It also has an interest in limiting the 
     promotional support of bands and artists who are performing 
     for other companies, at other venues or who are sponsored by 
     other stations.
       Some of the remaining independent concert promoters have 
     alleged that Clear Channel is engaging in anti-competitive 
     behavior by using this leverage to force smaller companies 
     out of business. In particular, the mid-size promoter NIPP in 
     Denver brought suit against Clear Channel in 2001, alleging 
     that Clear Channel--which owns all three rock stations in the 
     Denver area--was not running the ads that NIPP paid for on 
     its stations to promote last year's NIPP-promoted Warped 
     Tour. There have been other allegations from bands and 
     performers--mostly off-the-record for fear of retaliation--
     who have stated that radio station groups have pressured them 
     into playing shows for free in exchange for airplay, or who 
     have had their songs removed from playlists for playing non-
     exclusive venues.
       We would like to see the FCC investigate whether an 
     artist's choice to play or not to play in Clear Channel 
     venues or to use or not to use Clear Channel's promotion 
     company impacts the artist's positions on or removal from 
     Clear Channel playlists.

                            Community Radio

       Rampant consolidation of commercial radio and increased 
     budgetary pressures felt by non-commercial stations have led 
     to a reduction in radio play for musical genres like 
     classical, jazz, opera and bluegrass. Congress needs to 
     reevaluate the current status of non-commercial radio, 
     including exploring new strategies for sustaining existing 
     community radio stations and moving forward with full 
     implementation of community-based Low Power FM radio. After 
     an intense lobbying campaign by the National Association of 
     Broadcasters and NPR, the FCC's Low Power FM plan was scaled 
     back significantly via an Appropriations rider in 2000. The 
     FCC is currently following Congress' request for additional 
     testing of the impact of these tiny stations on existing 
     broadcasters. Once the FCC report is submitted to Congress, 
     Congress must move forward by passing legislation to 
     authorize the FCC to license these stations in urban areas. 
     If consolidation in the radio environment has stifled 
     competition and reduced diversity of programming, low power 
     radio can begin to address the lack of community-based 
     programming.


                               conclusion

       We are deeply concerned about payola and payola-like 
     practices, as well as the problems caused by radio station 
     ownership consolidation, and the vertical integration of 
     station ownership with venue ownership and concert promoters. 
     New rules must be written by the FCC to prohibit payments to 
     radio stations from ``independent promoters'' unless such 
     payments are announced. The FCC must seriously evaluate 
     whether a radio station is even satisfying the current 
     license requirement that sponsorship identification or 
     disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in 
     exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid 
     to a station, either directly or indirectly. The FCC should 
     also consider whether radio stations are serving the public 
     interest by contributing to localism, and independence in 
     broadcasting. Finally, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring 
     that the FCC is upholding the public interest in all of these 
     matters.
       Respectfully submitted by the following organizations:
       American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation 
     of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Association for 
     Independent Music (AFIM), Future of Music Coalition (FMC), 
     Just Plain Folks, Nashville Songwriters Association 
     International (NSAI), National Association of Recording 
     Merchandisers (NARM), National Federation of Community 
     Broadcasters (NFCB), Recording Academy, Recording Industry 
     Association of America (RIAA).

[[Page 10272]]



                          ____________________