******************************************************** 
                      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 
             COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
          APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

     Re:  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.  

     I support much of today's action.  By admitting that 
certain broadcasts violated our indecency rules, by making a 
sizable contribution to the U.S. Treasury, and by entering 
into a company-wide compliance plan involving training, 
internal investigations and suspensions, and program delays, 
Clear Channel has shown that it understands its 
responsibility to prevent the broadcast of indecent material 
on its stations.  Faithful adherence to the compliance plan 
should obviate the need for Commission enforcement in this 
area.  

     Yet before the Commission enters into a settlement that 
seeks to resolve all pending matters involving a company's 
indecency compliance, it should have conducted at least 
preliminary investigations of those matters to understand 
the full extent of the possible violations and the 
suitability of the remedy.  With respect to many of the 
pending Clear Channel matters before the Commission, the 
staff has indeed investigated the nature of the complaint 
and in some cases sent out inquiry letters.  Yet some of the 
pending complaints have not even been investigated.  It's no 
threat to the First Amendment to, at a minimum, do some 
measure of investigation when we receive public complaints 
seeking to enforce a law that Congress tasked to us and that 
the courts have upheld under the First Amendment.  With 
respect to including these pending but uninvestigated 
complaints within the scope of this decree, I dissent in 
part.