Thank you, Patrick, for that introduction. NAB believes in the mission of the Media Institute. Patrick and his team have been on the front lines of many First Amendment fights -- and so has NAB.

I'm sure Patrick was wondering if I would ever deliver this speech. It was originally scheduled for February, but we've had to cancel twice. And what a two months it has been!

How many of us were using the word "embedded" two months ago? We've gone from Code Yellow, to Code Orange, and back to Code Yellow. We've even had a war -- and I'm not referring to Gary Shapiro vs. his own CEA members over the DTV tuner mandate. Or CNN vs. Fox News Channel.

And speaking of cable, Patrick told me yesterday that C-SPAN would be covering my speech. But once again, I see that the cable industry is absent without leave. If we could just get the cable gatekeepers to carry broadcasters, that would be a good thing.

All kidding aside, it has been an eventful few months. And regardless of our politics, I think we can agree that the men and women of our armed forces deserve a salute for their courage under fire. Certainly that bravery extends to reporters who accompanied the troops. A number of journalists gave their life to get the story, and to get it right, including NBC's David Bloom. David and his media colleagues won't be forgotten.

Now as most of you know, NAB represents thousands of over-the-air radio and television stations. Our members run the gamut from network-owned TV stations in New York and Los Angeles to independent radio stations in Horse Cave, Kentucky and Bad Axe, Michigan. The ties that bind all these stations is that they are locally-based, and they are free to viewers and listeners. Free, universal and local -- the three hallmarks of broadcasting. And that is what distinguishes us from our pay satellite and pay cable competitors.

The issue du jour, of course, is media ownership. It appears the FCC is on the brink of revising rules, several of which have remained unchanged for decades. Congress is watching closely, as are the interest groups. Certainly, local radio and television stations are watching.

Let me say up front that NAB has never sought wholesale deregulation of broadcasting. To the contrary, we recognize the unique role played by local broadcasters all over America. The public-private partnership that local stations struck with government to provide programming to serve the needs of the community is alive and well.

This partnership is a great deal for listeners and viewers, too. It is good business to be invested in the community, and the most successful stations understand that localism is our franchise, and ours alone.

I would also agree with my friend Stanley Hubbard -- the chairman and CEO of Hubbard Broadcasting -- who notes that the broadcast airwaves became valuable only through the vision and creativity of real-life broadcasters all over America.

Stanley's father was a broadcast pioneer and a risk-taker. He and others created out of thin air a local broadcast system that is the envy of the world. Unlike companies that take coal or oil out of the ground and deplete a resource -- broadcasters create a valuable resource without depleting anything. Without visionaries like Stanley Hubbard Sr., the airwaves would simply be vacant air.

I would submit that even with competition from cable and satellite, our system of free, over-the-air broadcasting is as valuable a resource today as it has ever been.

Never has that been more apparent than in the ongoing coverage of the Iraqi war, or the aftermath of 9/11, when broadcasters provided day after day of round-the-clock commercial-free coverage of the horrific attacks in Washington and New York. Stations raised hundreds of millions of dollars for 9/11 victims, and donated enormous amounts of airtime for public service announcements, blood drives, and other charitable activities.

Americans often take for granted all of the good things broadcasters provide free of charge, and occasionally, there are even those who question the relevance of broadcasting in a multi-channel universe. But in January, on the eve of war, 61 million Americans tuned in to President Bush's State of the Union address -- and 51 million of those 61 million watched on a local broadcast channel.

It was local broadcasters who launched the Amber Plan that helped rescue more than 50 abducted children nationwide. It was a radio station's broadcast of a vehicle description and license tag that led to the Beltway sniper suspect's capture. It is the local broadcaster that covers the school closings and traffic jams, the tornadoes and the terrorism alerts.

And let's not forget that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has urged Americans to buy battery operated radios and televisions for their "safe rooms." Secretary Ridge did not recommend the purchase of a satellite radio or an HBO program guide. He advised Americans to keep a radio and TV on hand, because local broadcasters are a trusted lifeline to citizens in need of critical information in a time of crisis.

Today, we're moving to a new era of digital radio and television. And the FCC is considering revisions to ownership rules that we believe could strengthen broadcasters' ability to serve the public.

Let's reflect on how the FCC got to this point.

Calls for media ownership reform are hardly new. Indeed, I served in the 1970s on an advisory committee to Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin when he attempted to re-write the Communications Act. Others will remember the Tim Wirth hearings in the House of Representatives in the 1980s. And in the 1990s, the debate continued.

I give you that history because there have been some overheated press accounts - certainly not from the authoritative reporters in this room, mind you -- suggesting the FCC is on a mad rush to toss out all media ownership rules. I don't believe that to be the case. Instead, the Commission is responding to five different appeals court decisions ordering it to better justify rules that can be justified, and to get rid of those that can't.

Some press accounts also suggest the FCC decision will unleash a handful of Citizen Kanes ruling the media universe. I don't subscribe to that one either.

NAB, as you know, does seek modest changes in FCC rules. I stress the word modest, because we are not seeking radical deregulation. As I said earlier, we have never sought elimination of public interest obligations that set broadcasters apart from our pay competitors.

Nor do we seek changes in the rule barring a single broadcaster from owning television stations that reach more than 35% of U.S. homes. In our view, the 35% TV cap has been good for localism and diversity. It has helped preserve the network/affiliate relationship.

Now some have asked: How can NAB support a national ownership cap in television, but not radio? The answer is simple: radio and television are entirely distinct mediums. Moreover, there are 1,300 commercial TV stations, compared to 13,000 radio stations.

And speaking of radio, let's set the record straight on deregulation that Congress permitted in 1996. The plain fact is that because of deregulation, local radio stations are more competitive with other media. And it is because of deregulation that consumers have a wider array of formats from which to choose.

From hip-hop to gospel, from all-sports to all children's stations, radio format diversity has exploded.

There are 630 Spanish language radio stations today. Six years ago there were fewer than 400. Fifteen years ago in Washington, DC, there was one foreign language radio station. Today, there are 12. In my book, that's diversity.

Quite frankly, the radio business was in terrible financial shape a decade ago. Some 60% of stations were losing money, and scores of stations went dark because the economics of the business could not justify their existence. Given that backdrop, Congress concluded that radio deregulation was warranted. Lawmakers got it right. Radio broadcasters were afforded the opportunity to better serve consumers. And that is exactly what has happened.

How do we know? Because the American people tell us so. Arbitron surveyed 2,000 people and found that 79% of Americans believe they get more or the same amount of programming choice as they did five years ago.

This survey is remarkably consistent with separate polls conducted by The Mellman Group and Zogby International, two nationally-respected polling firms. All three surveys find that by overwhelming majorities, Americans give high marks to local radio stations for providing news, information and entertainment programming that they value. And all free of charge.

I'm not naive enough to think these surveys are going to convince strident critics who paint radio as a poster child for bad deregulation. But objective observers ought not cavalierly reject the fact that vast majorities of Americans hold their hometown radio stations in very high regard.

Even with deregulation, radio ownership remains far more diversified than virtually all media. There are 3,500 separate companies that still own stations in the U.S. The top 10 radio companies account for less than 45% of industry revenue. That's far less market power than in the record industry, the movie industry, or in cable TV. In cities like Philadelphia and Kansas City, independent, local operators like Jerry Lee and Michael Carter consistently are among the top rated stations.

Bottom line: Congress got it right with radio deregulation. Listeners are now better served by stronger companies, and program formats are as diverse as the American population.

Radio's revival is evident on both Wall Street and Main Street. But that revival could be jeopardized by an FCC initiative that would re-define what constitutes a local radio market. Congress did not change the FCC's existing definition when it enacted new local radio ownership limits in 1996. Broadcasters in large and small markets made significant business decisions based upon the existing market definition. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the FCC to change the definition. However, if there is a change, the Commission at the very least must grandfather existing combinations and permit licensees to transfer these combinations in future sales.

Now to television. The question here is how best to allow local broadcasters to compete in a world where TV networks have expanded through alignments with Hollywood studios, and where cable companies have become mega-giants?

The anwer, in our view, is through modest deregulation. For starters, we have offered a creative "10/10" proposal that would permit duopoly TV combinations in small and medium markets. Under the plan, two stations with viewing shares of less than 10% could be co-owned, or one station with a viewing share of 10 or higher could partner with another station with a share of less than 10.

The FCC has permitted duopolies in large markets, and that has resulted in increases in local news and public affairs programming. With small and medium market TV stations struggling to justify the financial strain of converting to digital, the "10/10" plan would provide a huge economic boost to markets like Boise and Bangor and Birmingham.

NAB also supports lifting rules barring common ownership of newspaper and broadcast properties in the same market, and the rule that limits local TV/radio combos. These rules date back to the early days of cable TV, and before satellite TV or the Internet even existed. They are relics of a distant era, and ought to be eliminated.

As many of you know, Chairman Powell discussed at the NAB Convention a so-called "diversity index" to assure that diversity is not abandoned by consolidation in local markets. While details are still being debated, he assured us that the test will be simple, easy to administer, and reasonable. We've examined this idea from many different perspectives, but we're concerned that applying such an index will be difficult, if not impossible, to administer. We look forward to learning more about this proposal.

I'll close by noting that through eight decades, local radio and TV stations have chronicled fireside chats and high school basketball games, presidential debates and emergency weather alerts. Broadcasters have been there for moon landings, shuttle disasters and unthinkable acts of terror.

Local stations face unparalleled competition. We encourage the FCC to adopt rules allowing free, local broadcasters to build on our record of bringing community service home. With adoption of modest deregulation, and with the ongoing transition to digital, the world's finest system of free, local broadcasting will only get better.

I want to close by again thanking Patrick for inviting me today, and to commend the Media Institute for your commitment to free speech. I'll be happy to take a few questions.