REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG TO INTV ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING JULY 12, 1994 Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to visit with you. I speak to you this morning as a real veteran. I have survived one Senate confirmation hearing, two open FCC meetings, an en banc Children's TV hearing, a Reauthorization hearing before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, and I am preparing for my third FCC meeting this week. All in eight weeks. I also have been lobbied by what seems like a "gazillion" lawyers, lobbyists, industry representatives, and two hand puppets -- Elmo from "Sesame Street" and Shari Lewis' Lambchop. I have been constantly amazed by the tremendous variety of issues facing the FCC. I can tell you that the past eight weeks have reshaped my definition of the term "crash course." I go to work each day, put in 10 to 12 hours, and go home to crash on my sofa. The truth of the matter is that this job is exhausting -- but it sure is fun. For those who haven't heard this yet, I thought I would first take a few minutes to share a bit about my background in order to give you better fix on who I am. I am a native Californian, born and raised in Stockton, California. I was educated at UC Berkeley, where I majored in Journalism and Political Science. In my early years, I wanted to be a radio broadcaster. In college, I got sidetracked into the law when I became intrigued with some First Amendment cases I read as part of a Media Law class. I entered Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco with the intent of becoming a First Amendment lawyer. While working as the Editor in Chief of Comm/Ent Law Journal, Hastings' communications and entertainment law journal, I began reading about the FCC and what was going on with the early licensing of the cellular industry. The concept of a small wireless phone really caught my imagination. I understood it would change how we communicated, both in business and in our personal lives. I became keenly interested in communications and decided to spend my legal career in this area. My first job after law school was here in Washington DC with the law firm of Kadison Pfaelzer. There, I worked on primarily mass media issues, representing TV and radio broadcasters before the FCC. Some of my former clients from that era are Edens Broadcasting and Pappas Telecasting of the Carolinas. After a little more than two years in Washington, I decided to return to the West Coast. I joined the international law firm of Graham & James. I became a partner there in 1992. My law practice at Graham was mostly before the California PUC. My clients were cellular telephone carriers, paging companies, and small companies developing innovative telecommunications devices. I also handled some international telecommunications matters for Pacific Rim clients. And then the call from the White House came, and here I am. Forsaking the cool summer fog of San Francisco for this lovely humidity. I intend to bring all my prior experiences to bear on my work as an FCC Commissioner. Certainly my background gives me a unique perspective. First, I've worked before both federal and state regulators of communications companies. Having cut my teeth at the FCC and then gone on to practice law before the California PUC, I have a good understanding of the interrelationship of federal and state agencies that affect the communications industry. Second, I have worked in both the mass media area and the common carrier area. I have represented communications businesses as their primary regulatory lawyer and I have gained an in-depth understanding of how regulations affect a licensee's business operations. I understand that, although the industries like broadcasting and common carrier appear very different, there are many regulatory issues that are common to both -- such as the notion that simple, common sense, pragmatic regulation is best. One of my goals as an FCC Commissioner is to turn the FCC's regulation further in that direction. Third, I come from an international law firm which gives me a global perspective on communications issues. I intend to use my knowledge in this area to further the interests of US companies that want to compete in global markets. After only eight weeks on the job, I cannot pretend to have any real grasp of the issues you face as independent broadcasters. I know that the prime time access rules, fin/syn rule, and multiple ownership rules are important to you. I have been working diligently to come up to speed on these and many other issues, but I have to beg for your indulgence for a little longer. One area that I have focused on is children's television programming. I want to state up front that I believe that over-the-air broadcasters have an obligation to serve the educational and informational needs of children. This obligation arises from a broadcasters' duty to serve all of its audience, including children. While some of you will say this is an onerous obligation, I must respectfully disagree. I believe that you as broadcasters can meet your obligation in ways that will advance both your societal interest and your financial interests. First, we must put creative minds to the task of producing programming that is both entertaining and educational. Educational programming need not be boring. But it must recognize that children are not miniature adults. Children need programs that talk to them in ways they can understand, and about things they encounter in their daily lives. I believe that with the right focus, we can produce commercially successful educational children's programming. Second, you as broadcasters must make a real commitment to promoting the programming by placing it in reasonable time slots, letting parents and children know when it is on, and airing the programs consistently without preemption. Third, we should all encourage the rest of America -- especially corporate America -- to get on this bandwagon. There is some corporate sponsorship of educational programming, but there could and should be more. Using over-the-air broadcasting as part of the educational arsenal for our nations' youth will benefit all. On a broader level, I want to raise a few questions about the scope of the FCC's regulation of television. How should the FCC regulate broadcasters given the increased competition you face? Are some of the regulations you currently live under outmoded in a 500 channel world? Which regulations, and why? These are questions on which I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the weeks to come. Over the years, Congress and the FCC have struggled to find the appropriate balance between the obligation of broadcasters to serve the public interest and the freedom of speech and of the press so clearly laid out in the First Amendment. As put so eloquently at the end of my Senate confirmation hearing by Senator Inouye of Hawaii, the First Amendment separates the United States from most of the world. The bulk of our rights as citizens were borrowed directly from the example of English history, and from the strong though unwritten traditions of the English constitution. Not so in the case of the freedom of the press. The United States is unique in the protections we give to speech and to the press. I view recognition of those protections as an important part of my job as an FCC Commissioner. I am committed to encouraging a strong free, over-the-air broadcast industry. I recognize the importance of your role as independents in providing community-oriented programming. As independent broadcasters, you face many programming issues not applicable to affiliated stations but you add much needed diversity to the television industry. You are the voices of your communities. I applaud your efforts. In closing, I would like to urge you all to seek innovative ways to improve broadcast service, to ensure that you remain competitive in the changing landscape of the communications world. I look forward to working with all of you during my tenure as an FCC Commissioner. Thank you very much.