[Page: H2969]
---

   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

[Page: H2970]

   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.

   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.

END