******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                        STATEMENT OF
                 CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL

Re:  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

     Today's consent decree marks a significant victory for 
the Commission and the American public.  Through the consent 
decree, we have secured the highest enforcement concessions 
by a broadcaster in Commission history.  Clear Channel has 
agreed to make the highest enforcement-related payment to 
the Treasury by a broadcaster in Commission history--$1.75 
million.  In addition, Clear Channel has now formally 
admitted that it violated the law and has made binding 
commitments to clean up its act, including preventive 
measures such as training for on-air personalities and 
employees that participate in programming decisions and the 
use of time delays in its broadcasts.  In addition, those 
accused of violating the Commission's rules will be 
suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will 
be terminated.

     Notwithstanding these accomplishments, the government's 
involvement in content regulation can be a dangerous game.  
Even where well intended, in our desire, for instance, to 
protect children from indecent broadcasts, encroachments on 
content can have adverse affects on the public interest.  By 
its very nature, government action, or even mere threats, to 
quell protected speech can have the unintended consequence 
of depriving the public of a speaker's artistic, literary, 
scientific or political viewpoint.  

     Grounded in the First Amendment is our forefathers' 
concern that the policymaker could be tempted to misuse 
power for their own self-interest.  They knew that the sword 
that wields the power to intentionally abridge speech and 
information is the most potent instrument of all.  As the 
Commission is tasked with walking the delicate balance of 
protecting the interests of the First Amendment with the 
need to protect our children, it is incumbent upon us to 
make best efforts to avoid the realization of our 
forefathers' concerns.

     This task is made easier when our licensees wrestle the 
difficult decisions away from the government and take the 
responsibility for what they broadcast over our nation's 
airwaves.  In the case of Clear Channel Communications, they 
have done just that through the substantial commitments 
agreed to in this consent decree.

     Oddly enough, these actions are not sufficient for some 
on the Commission.  In their zealousness, they would prefer 
to expend valuable Commission resources to fully investigate 
each complaint against Clear Channel only to inflict more 
punishment.  Enforcement of our regulations is not, however, 
simply a matter of punishment for past behavior.  More 
importantly, our enforcement regime is designed to deter 
future illegal behavior. 

     Where, as here, the licensee has taken significant 
steps to guard against future violations, the benefits of 
entering into a consent decree for the government and the 
public are obvious.  Not only will a substantial amount of 
money be submitted to the Treasury by the company, but we 
achieve significant commitments from the company that the 
fines are intended to produce.  In addition, the government, 
and therefore the public, will save time and resources, 
which can be redeployed to focus on more egregious violators 
that are less willing to take preventive steps.  Finally, 
the government gains an admission of responsibility from the 
licensee without going to the laborious and expensive 
process of prosecuting these actions in court.

     For one to toss aside these public benefits and demand 
another pound of flesh suggests that nothing short of 
economic ruin or license revocation will truly satisfy.  I 
believe such stances are excessively chilling of protected 
speech in this country and fail to be respectful of the 
limits imposed upon us by the First Amendment.