Welcome to NAB '97 - an absolute kaleidoscope of achievements in the information age. Even though this is our 74th convention, I am always stunned by the magnitude of innovative technologies which enable us to serve the public better. Each year we look upon this event as a "family gathering" - a place where we can have an honest exchange of industry ideas and review the latest technologies.

First, news from Washington... We've had a breathtaking pace of issues affecting broadcasting.

Two major news events broke this week that have each been a decade in the making - two that we've struggled with mightily. I'm talking about the Supreme Court's decision on Must-Carry and the FCC action on digital television.

In Washington we like to say there are no final victories and no final defeats.

With must-carry, however, we'll make an exception and say this is a major victory. Just one week ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the must-carry rules of the 1992 Cab Act by saying, and I quote: "Broadcast television is an important source of information for many Americans. By tradition and use for decades now it has been an essential part of the national discourse on subjects across the whole broad spectrum of speech, thought, and expression."

I find those comments particularly relevant in a time when many in Washington are trying to mandate new regulations regarding content of broadcasting. Seems to me the High Court said the locally-based system of broadcasting is doing a good job without additional governmental mandates of programming.

The Supreme Court action means cable companies will no longer be able to drop local stations at will, or charge for carriage. Americans can count on getting their local news, local weather, and local information from stations serving their communities. By the way, it is our belief the same should apply for satellites, MMDS, or any other multichannel platform.

The second major victory this week was Thursday's action by the FCC in awarding the digital spectrum. This will allow an orderly transition for consumers and provide tremendous public benefits. While there are still many details of the FCC action which have not been released, it is clear the commission has introduced an ambitious schedule for the introduction of digital television.

We do know that at the end of the transition, we are the only spectrum users who will be returning one-third of our channel capacity for government auction. I want to express the industry's appreciation to ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and also the group executives of top 10 market affiliated stations who agreed to the FCC's ambitious build-out schedule.

We still have reservations about the FCC's table of assignments, power levels, and potential interference criteria, and will want to carefully validate these issues. The commission has yet to determine specific public interest obligations for digital, and we look forward to certifying that the current rules are serving Americans far better than Washington realizes.

Speaking of High Definition and Digital Television, be sure to see the live on-the-air broadcasts being shown throughout the convention at the new technology section in the Las Vegas Convention Center. These live broadcasts are originating from the model station, WHD-TV, in Washington. It's truly a look into the future, so don't miss it.

Indeed, we as an industry have made tremendous progress on a wide range of important issues. Speaking of progress, remember the Telecom Act of l996. It's just fourteen months old, and it has already been terrific for broadcasters.

For radio, the primary benefit was allowing the consolidation necessary to correct the errors of the old docket 80-90. Through consolidation, the radio industry can finaIly take advantage of economies of scale, and at the same time ensure diversity of formats in the marketplace. The result has been a new and unparalleled vitality for radio. Financial interests from Wall Street to local banks now recognize radio as an important player and a major communications outlet.

Unity of industry led to the passage of the Telecom Act - we spoke with one voice and we stayed together - forcing the government to recognize the unique place of broadcasting in every American community.

Last week the FCC auctioned spectrum for a satellite delivered digital radio service called DARS. While this service has many technical and operational obstacles, we're excited and enthusiastic about new developments of the In-Band On-Channel digital service for local radio. We call it IBOC.

Michael Jordan, Chairman of Westinghouse/CBS has made major commitments to IBOC. We're 100 per cent supportive of this new technology, which will allow local radio. stations to convert to digital without requiring new spectrum.

While our industry has recently enjoyed numerous major victories, I believe the challenges of '97 to be very serious - across a wide range of issues. The most formidable of those will be to keep the government out of our business.

One has to ask, why it is so irresistible for the governing elite to try to impose their will on the entire populace? Probably because most people ignore them - so now they want to commandeer broadcasting to solve all the problems on which they've dropped the ball.

• They can't reform the campaign system, so they want us to do it - with free campaign ads.
  
• They can't force parents to act like parents to monitor their children's viewing habits, so they want us to do it - with TV Parental Guidelines.
  
• They can't force schools or religious institutions to dictate the government's messages on morality, so they want us to do it -- in the form of quantifiable public interest programming of their choice.

They can't balance the budget, so they want the spectrum to be Washington's new Gold Card.

In effect, the government acts as if we've come to a point in American history where we all have a like definition of morality and public interest - and in the view of the governing elite, we can now bypass localism in favor of Washington's politically correct point of view.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson - "Were it left for me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press, or a free press without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

My friends, there are those in Washington who are discounting the core constitutional distinction between public interest programing and government-mandated speech.

The same governing elite have made this the year of the beguiling "V" word for broadcasters - "V" for Voluntary. You probably thought I meant V-Chip. Well, it's also in there.

Voluntary has come to mean, "You could if you would but you won't, so we'll impose it".

I believe that's the essence of the government's attempt to redefine the First Amendment. There are those in Washington who would impose government-mandated speech to enhance their own personal or political agendas.

Fellow broadcasters, we cannot and will not let that happen!

The Telecom Act gave the TV industry the flexibility to develop voluntary program ratings. There's the "V" word. We responded in good faith, with an excellent system. It was also historic - it marked the first time all segments of the entertainment community agreed on anything!

But even before the system was implemented, it was under attack.

Remember, Big Brother knows best.

The FCC Chairman has called for a new era of quantifiable public interest programming requirements - according to Washington-dictated standards. I say to you today that you know more about the public interest in your communities than anyone in Washington ever will...

• You know which charitable institutions are in need;
  
• You raise billions for their causes;
  
• You know how best to take on drug abuse and crime;
  
• You know how to warn your citizens of the impending dangers from weather and other disasters, and you stay with them to raise money and provide aid for those displaced;
  
• You're the ones running the blood drives, supporting the arts, and helping those in need.

I submit that broadcasters commitment to public interest programming should not be measured by Big Brother. You are the ones on the front line, interacting with your communities. You are the ones receiving reams of correspondence from community leaders and organizations thanking local broadcasters for their unwavering support.

Talk to the folks in Arkansas and the Ohio River Valley who credit local radio and TV stations with saving their lives during the recent nightmare of tornadoes and flash flooding.

Washington should read those community letters describing broadcasters as their "heroes". The enormity of your impact on local communities is not recognized or acknowledged by the governing elite, and it's time for that to change. Right here is where the campaign begins to remind those who regulate our industry of what broadcasters mean to their local communities.

Campaign reform is now Washington's current buzz word, but the governing elite admit it's an "inside the beltway" issue. Even Reed Hundt has called on the industry "to save the democracy" by giving free time to politicians.

What the social engineers haven't learned is: mandatory free time for politicians won't stop illegal campaign contributions. It won't reduce campaign costs or stop negative campaign ads. Broadcasters know that their tradition of voluntarily - and in this case I really do mean voluntarily - offering free time for politicians has had a very poor response.

In the last election even President Clinton and Bob Dole chose not to accept an hour of free network time on the eve of the election. In all the preening and preaching in Washington, few have bothered to dwell on the most important part of the issue - that government-dictated free time is as unconstitutional as any of the other intrusions we've discussed.

If a category of political campaign programming is dictated by the government, coming on the heels of the children's three hour per week requirement an pressure for detailed TV Parental Guidelines, what government-selected programming will be next? If government dictates the type of speech that is "desirable", what will prevent a future FCC chairman or member of Congress from going even further?

Who will draw the line? Constitutionally, who can draw the line? ...and where? We're poised to enter the Digital Age - both television and radio. As we gear up the technology, our greatest challenges are unfortunately from the government.

Clearly a new generation of politicians has decided they can't solve the country's problems, so they have chosen broadcasters to solve the problems for them.

If the government treads on the First Amendment, either through redefinition or government - mandated programming, the American people will be the losers. Local programming will be replaced by Washington's "solution of the moment".

The time has come for those in our industry to speak with one voice and take our critics head-on - to remind them that we are something very special and very unique - a system that well serves every community in our great land.

That's why 100,000 people from all over the world have gathered here this week. To learn more about how our system of broadcasting is the envy of the world. It seems that the governing elite would like to migrate toward a state-controlled system according to the dictates from Washington. We are all aware that state controlled systems in other countries of have consistently fallen where a choice was offered.

Our great system will not be enhanced because of some Washington-mandated cookie cutter approach. It's the world's best because we've been given the freedom to serve our local communities without interference from Washington.

My message to the governing elite is we don't need, nor does the public want Washington telling us how to best serve local communities. If we as an industry, continue to speak forcefully with a unified voice, I predict we will not only endure, but in fact we will prevail. It's the American public who will continue to be the beneficiaries.

Thank you and on to a terrific NAB '97.