CHAIRMAN REED E. HUNDT
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                       WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
                             WASHINGTON, D.C.
                              August 24, 1995
 
                        (as prepared for delivery)


                         LONG LIVE FRIEDA HENNOCK


     Isn't it great to be here in the entertainment capital of the world -- Washington, D.C.

     Of course the entertainment is out of town right now, with Congress closed for
summer session. 

     When I grew up here in Washington the members of Congress usually left by early
July.

     They and the rest of the country had all summer to let the political rhetoric cool off
even while the weather hotted up.  A certain quality of dispassionate decisionmaking was
fostered.

     That was, I'm sorry to say, a long time ago.

     Now air conditioning has made Washington politics nearly a year-round affair.  So air
conditioning turns out to be one of those inventions that has had mixed results.  Another is
television.  

     In the long ago halcyon era during the sultry Washington summers a kid like me
could bike in safety all over the neighborhood from dawn to dusk with a worry only about
being home late for dinner.  Drugs and guns have destroyed that era more than any other
single factors in our changing culture.  But TV, radio, movies and video games are
contributors.  

     Here is a deeply disturbing statistic.  Eighty percent of Americans think TV is
harmful to society, and especially to children. 
 
     Let me quote from a New York Times poll released last weekend:  "Americans have
a starkly negative view of popular culture, and blame television more than any one single
factor for teen-age sex and violence."

     In my brief time in public service I have learned that the voice of the people, if it can
only be heard clearly, is never wrong.  When Americans rise up in protest against the effects
of television on our children they deserve respect and attention, not disregard and
manipulation.

     Furthermore, the American people have every reason to complain about the record of
the single agency with the responsibility under the law to make sure that the public property
of the airwaves is used for the public interest.

     The Federal Communications Commission has a long and undistinguished history of
failing to apply responsibly its mandate to make sure broadcasters use the airwaves to serve
the public, and specifically, to guarantee that television helps educate our children.

     But during the very infancy of television at least one Commissioner saw that the
public property of the airwaves should and could be used as a free medium for improving
our culture and educating our children.  I am talking about the first woman Commissioner of
the FCC:  Frieda Hennock.

     Frieda Hennock was appointed to the FCC by President Truman in 1948 - the year
I was born.  She was not only the first female to serve on the Commission, but also the first
woman to serve on any federal regulatory agency.  She had earned her law degree at the age
of 19, and had been a law professor, state government official and practicing lawyer by the
time President Truman appointed her to the FCC.  She was the second highest ranking
woman in the Truman administration. 

     Cary O'Dell of the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago has written
about Frieda Hennock in his forthcoming book in progress on "Women Pioneers in
Broadcasting." 

     As he reports, Hennock was known for her frank style and willingness to fight for the
public interest in the emerging business of broadcasting.  She believed that any radio or TV
station broadcasting excessively violent programming aimed at children should lose its
license.  She opposed mergers and multiple ownership that could lead to monopolies in
communications. 

     She championed these causes against overwhelming opposition from broadcasters and
other Commissioners.  

     On most votes, these forces beat Commissioner Hennock.  And in addition, they
called her "pushy" and made it clear that she was not part of the "club".  

     Nowadays I hope we are beyond this sort of derogatory stereotyping.

     But I know we are not beyond the important issues raised by Frieda Hennock.  

     And no matter what they called her, Frieda Hennock stuck to her guns.


     In 1951, even as commercial TV was just beginning the penetration surge that took it
into 70 percent of the homes by the middle of the decade, she declared:

     "Television has failed to live up to its promise.  American television, by winning
public confidence, also inherited a public obligation.  The airwaves are in the public domain. 
A television station operates in the public interest . . . making the broadcaster in effect a
trustee of a valuable public property."

     Frieda Hennock would be disappointed but probably not surprised to know that in the
last 15 years the FCC has not taken away the license of a single broadcaster for failure to
operate in the public interest.

     Does this statistic mean that TV hasn't gotten worse over the last 15 years?

     Or does it mean that the FCC simply gutted the public interest standard of all
meaning while pretending to enforce the notion of broadcasters as public trustees?

     I think that answer is fairly clear:  the FCC has not been straight with the people or
responsible in its effectuation of the command of Congress that TV and radio licensees
should act in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

     Frieda Hennock had at least one big victory in her time on the Commission.  She was
primarily responsible for the setting aside of 242 TV licenses for educational TV.  

     To win her crusade she enlisted strong public support for her ideas.  

     In his book O'Dell sums up her history as follows:  "By championing the educational
TV cause, Hennock sent a message to broadcasters and audiences, one which decreed
television for the common good, a responsible instrument not just a money-making tool." 

     Frieda Hennock was ahead of her time in many respects, and her views on the public
interest responsibilities of broadcasters and the importance of using this vital medium for
educational purposes are still timely.  We could use her at the Commission right now.  

     One piece of good news for women, however, is that President Clinton has done
twice as well as President Truman in appointing women to the Commission.  Of President
Clinton's three appointments, two are women:  Susan Ness and Rachelle Chong.  Both are
extraordinarily able lawyers, and they are deeply committed to children's issues.

     Another piece of good news is that I and the other commissioners are able to count on
the help of extraordinary women who handle top responsibilities at our agency.

     We are organized by bureaus and offices.  Of our six bureaus, four are run by
women.  In the previous 60 years of the FCC's history there was only one women bureau
chief.

     I like to dwell on this fact because I had the honor of nominating the four women
bureau chiefs.  

      Meredith Jones, Chief of the Cable Services Bureau, delivered the largest consumer
benefit of any legislation in history:  a $3 billion rate reduction that in turn has led to huge
increases in affordable access to cable.  Gina Keeney as Chief of the Wireless Bureau ran the
largest auction in American history.  Kathy Wallman as Chief of the Common Carrier
Bureau is taking on the crucial issues of competition in the telephone industry.  Beverly
Baker, Chief of the Compliance and Information Bureau, is responsible for the national
monitoring and enforcement efforts of the FCC.

     Women also run three offices at the Commission.  Judy Harris, Director of the Office
of Legislative Affairs, Cathy Sandoval, Director of the Office of Communications Business
Opportunities, and Karen Watson, Director of the Office of Public Affairs.  

     But if we have made progress on many fronts where Frieda Hennock fought, we still
face two crucial children's issues which she would find strikingly familiar.  

     First, we need to pass new rules requiring all broadcasters to generate a certain
amount of children's education TV or else risk losing their licenses.

     Second, we need to develop a plan guaranteeing that the communications revolution
reaches every child and every teacher in every classroom in the country.  The tools of
modern communications are a computer hooked to a network.  These tools make every
American business more productive, more efficient, more successful.  They can also
revolutionize education and learning.  They can make schools not battlegrounds of defeat and
despair but centers of creative communities of learning and opportunity.  

     We need to commit to a national vision to put these tools into the hands of every kid
and teacher in every classroom.  And the great communications companies of our country
should be welded to the education sector so that they move together toward this goal.

     Both these goals the FCC can accomplish with sane, simple, sensible rules.

     We need your help, your ideas, and your advocacy to push industry to recognize
these imperatives.  And, just as Frieda Hennock 50 years ago needed public support to pass
rules licensing educational TV stations in the face of commercial broadcaster opposition, we
need public support to make sure the Commission acts wisely and promptly.

     It is good news that the American public in the 1990s is echoing Frieda Hennock's
cries for quality and sanity in television fare.

     What I hear from the people is this:  The FCC should help parents protect against
what they don't want their children to see and allow them to choose what they do want to let
into their household.

     And the FCC ought to help make sure there is something worthwhile to choose.

     To date, despite Frieda Hennock's efforts, the FCC has clearly failed to guarantee
that the airwaves are used to deliver the most important benefit possible:  educational and
informational TV for children.

     We know the medium can accomplish this goal brilliantly.    

     A recent study by Aletha Huston and John Wright at the University of Kansas proves
that watching educational TV increases performance on test scores and encourages kids to
read more books.  

     But even as the social science documents the value of children's educational TV, it is
disappearing from the commercial networks.  

     This spring, ABC canceled "Cro," one of two educational children's programs on its
Saturday morning schedule, and replaced it with a cartoon version of the hit movie "Dumb
and Dumber."  This is beyond irony:  Dumb and Dumber is a description of this decision,
not just a title. 

     And a high-level network executive was quoted recently in a newspaper as saying: 
"It is not the responsibility of network television to program for the children of America."

     As a practicing lawyer I used to hate giving advice for free, but I have news for the
executive.  He's wrong as a matter of law.  The Children's Television Act of 1990 imposes a
specific duty on broadcasters to provide programming that serves, and I quote, "the
educational and informational needs of children."  

     Now Rome wasn't rebuilt in a day.

     And we're trying to fix our sorry record in promoting children's educational TV.

     When I got to the Commission a notice of inquiry into the efficacy of our rules on
children's TV was moldering in a forgotten corner of our backlog jammed building.

     We brought that proceeding to life.

     We held a public hearing in 1994 to receive public views on children's educational
and informational programming.

     At that hearing we learned that education TV for kids on commercial networks was
dead or dying.

     We initiated a set of proposed new rules.

     We have three key ideas:

     --   a new definition of educational television.  As Commissioner Chong has said,
          the old one is so broad you could drive a truck through it.  

     --   second, a requirement that broadcasters provide this information to program
          guides and others.  How can parents select educational TV for their kids if
          they can't find it?

     --   and third, broadcasters should deliver a minimum amount of educational
          programming is aired each week. 
 
     In this regard, the Notice asks whether a minimum amount of children's educational
television, such as five hours per week, should be provided by each broadcaster.  Programs
of substantial length -- for example, a half hour -- would go a long way toward satisfying the
goals of the Children's Television Act.  One of my colleagues on the Commission also has
suggested that shorter segment programming should also count toward meeting the Children's
Act requirements.  A terrific example is Schoolhouse Rock, a series of short segments
broadcast in the 1970s by ABC.  They were brilliantly done and terrifically effective.  You
won't be surprised when I tell you that Schoolhouse Rock was a Michael Eisner project.

     But it's time to abandon the fiction that asking broadcasters to do better on a
volunteer basis has any chance of producing the desired results.  The intense competition
today among networks and stations for audiences and ratings is driving programs with
educational and family values off the air. 

     Comments on our proposals are due in the fall.  Even as everyone is watching the
new network lineups I urge you all also to watch what broadcasters are filing at the FCC.  

     You should also know that at least two commissioners, Jim Quello and Andy Barrett,
have already implied that they may oppose the concept of requiring broadcasters to deliver a
certain amount of children's educational programs.

     They are both concerned about constitutional challenges.  

     I have studied the legal issues and consulted with expert counsel.  


     The First Amendment's principal purpose is to preclude the government from
rewarding or punishing anyone for expressing opinions or asserting facts.  The First
Amendment was not intended to limit the capability of parents, adults or government to
protect and raise children.

     Notwithstanding First Amendment challenges, courts have repeatedly held that
government can require certain magazines on open newsstands to be in brown paper
wrappers.  Government can zone certain kinds of stores away from residential
neighborhoods.  Government can require kids on motorcycles to wear safety helmets.  The
FCC can forbid radio and television shows from broadcasting indecent material until after 10
PM, when almost all kids are or should be in bed.  None of these actions are inconsistent
with the First Amendment and reasonable steps to use the airwaves in a real, specific
concrete way to provide public interest programs are also not barred by the First
Amendment.

     I am firmly convinced that the Constitution supports, and in no way negates, the
people's right to make sure that the public property of the airwaves is used by commercial
broadcasters to deliver at least some specific amounts of children's educational TV.
     
     You and your organization need to join this debate.  At the June convention of
American Women in Radio and Television, Commissioner Chong urged women's groups to
join forces to pursue common interests in communications.  That's particularly good advice
in connection with children's educational TV.  

     The FCC has opened up a special electronic mail address for members of the public
to give us their opinions on children's TV, and suggestions for improving it.  Our E-mail
address is KIDSTV@FCC.GOV.  Just this week more than 35 messages that have been
electronically wired to this address.  They all say to us:  go for it - help us raise our kids the
right way.

     Let Frieda Hennock inspire you.

     Let me close on the other subject important to kids - the issue of bringing computer
technology into all our classrooms.  President Clinton in last year's State of the Union
address called upon the telecommunications industry to connect every classroom and every
library in America to the national information highway by the year 2000.  The Senate and
the House have each passed telecommunications reform legislation with a provision that
would give the Commission some leeway in making schools targets of our universal service
subsidy pool - allowing us to give schools discounts when they connect to the information
superhighway. 




     I hope all of you in this room will support this important goal.  The information
highway can be a bridge from disadvantage to opportunity, a bridge for our children to cross
into the 21st century economy. But we must start by giving every child, every teacher, and
every classroom the tools and capability of the classroom computers and phone lines that can
let them start this journey.

     If Frieda Hennock were alive today, she would also be leading the effort to wire the
classrooms.  Mr. O'Dell's book reports how she championed as early as 1952 an "electronic
blackboard" and a national "in-school viewing" system to expand on the capabilities of the
teacher in the classroom.  Once again she was ahead of her time.  She would fit in quite
comfortably on the information highway today.

     I would like to dedicate the Children's TV proceeding at the FCC to Frieda Hennock.
Her ideas from 1950 ring true today, and I hope the American public will also rise up today
to help us win an important victory for our children in improving the quality of television
today. 

                                  - FCC -