Congressman Michael G. Oxley Fourth Ohio District Oxley Floor Statement on H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act   April 14, 2000  Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I want to join the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, 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, "Ten 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 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 ten reasons to oppose my bill, but then they added a letter from a labor union, the American 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 twenty 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.  There's 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 what he doesn't say is that, in order to do so, he want to infringe, literally, on the voices that happen already to be there.  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 that may be developed impinge on their signal.
 
And so we have this policy choice in radio:  do we damage what is already there in order to make room for the new?  Should the FCC favor these new voices at the expense of the established ones?  I say the correct answer is no.
 
First, to address the so-called diversity issue.  Have my colleagues ever heard such a wonderful cacophony of voice as you 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.  Anyone would conclude that ours is the most open and productive democracy in the history of the world.
 
As our telecommunications become more sophisticated, and as our airwaves become more crowded, we need to take great care not to detract from what is already there.  We are looking to add choices, not subtract them.  As I have said many times, if low-power FM can be accomplished without interfering with other, existing services, then I'm all for it.  I have long been a proponent of competition in all sectors, and this is no different.  But it's got to be done in a fair and equitable manner.
 
Let's address the interference question for a moment.  Chairman Kennard assures us that no significant interference will occur.  Why then, does the FCC specifically weaken the current standard of a signal on every fourth channel?  Logic would dictate that there had to be a reason why the FCC took this action, and the reason must be that the Commission expects interference and is taking steps to allow for it.  The step, of course, is just to declare that the standards will be compromised and lowered and radio listeners must accept the consequences.
 
Private engineering studies reach a completely different conclusion than the FCC's personnel.  So we have conflicting opinions from credible sources, and it's the job of Congress to set a reasonable course.  Clearly, there's enough evidence against the FCC's actions to be concerned.  And yet they have resisted every step of the way.
 
You know, people are very attached to their radio stations.  As a boy growing up in northwest Ohio, I lived for every Detroit Tigers game.  I think that every person has a right to listen to that particular broadcast without fear of being overrun by another signal.  We have to take great care with the radio broadcasting system in this country.
 
It's easy for the FCC to show us a community group and say that the big, bad Congress is going to deny this group a radio license.  But let's remember what is at stake here.  The FCC risks doing serious damage to broadcasting as we know it if they move too far too fast.
 
Who would be harmed?  Let's take a look at who would be harmed.
 
I was initially contacted about this issue by several locally-owned radio stations in my district.  One in particular, WDOH in Delphos, Ohio, is an independent, locally-owned station proudly serving the needs of the Delphos community.  Yet these are the kinds of stations that Bill Kennard says he wants to encourage, and they would be clearly vulnerable to interference.
 
National Public Radio is concerned about its member stations and says that crowding leaves them vulnerable to interference.  Kevin Klose said yesterday in a letter to the editor that 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.
 
H.R. 3439 is a reasonable way to proceed.  It allows the FCC to proceed with the low-power program.  It insists that the Commission reinstate the third-channel protections that are so important for current broadcasters and listening services.  It requires the FCC to conduct a pilot study in order to assess the impact of the program on radio broadcasters and radio listeners.  It directs the FCC to place low-power radio in areas where there is plenty of room on the FM dial.
 
It makes sense to proceed with caution on this program.
 
I thank all of the 165 cosponsors of this measure for their support.  Chairman Bliley helped move this bill forward through the Commerce Committee.  Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Dingell improved the bill significantly with their well thought-out compromise passed at full committee, and they have my thanks for their leadership and spirit of compromise.
  more Speeches, Statements, and Letters - home