Hon. Michael G. Oxley: “Mr. Chairman, let me first indicate this bill was reported by the committee in a bipartisan voice vote. It was an…”

“Mr. Chairman, let me first indicate this bill was reported by the committee in a bipartisan voice vote. It was an amendment that we finally came to with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leading the way, that really set out, I think, the parameters of what this program is all about. It allows the LPFM to go forward in areas where it does not infringe on existing interference protections: in a lot of rural areas, in the New Mexico example, in many areas of the country that are underserved by FM radio. We bent over backwards to make certain that that could go forward. Then we also said, but it is important in these areas that potentially have interference problems to have a pilot study done and find out once and for all whether in fact these interference standards are adequate, or whether in fact the incumbent radio stations will have problems with interference and their listeners will have interference with that. This is really what this argument is all about. The Barrett amendment undercuts the purpose of this legislation by allowing the commission to go forward with full implementation of its lower-power FM rule, including the weakening of interference protections following the pilot program regardless of what the results of that program are. So we are saying there is the FCC. The Barrett amendment simply says, do not confuse us with the facts.”