[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2850-H2859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1998

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Page 33, line 5, strike ``the Congress''; and insert ``the 
     Committees on Commerce and International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate''.
       Page 33, beginning on line 20, strike ``Committee on'' and 
     all that follows through ``of the Senate'' on line 22 and 
     insert the following: ``Committees on Commerce and 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate''.

  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley) for taking up this complicated issue of international satellite 
policy. Furthermore, I support the basic purpose of this measure, which 
is to move ahead with privatizing the intergovernmental satellite 
organizations. It is an important undertaking to meet the current 
telecommunications marketplace.
  However, in consultation with the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), I am offering an amendment to make a 
simple change to the bill before us. It merely adds the House and 
Senate Committees on International Relations to the committees required 
to be consulted prior to the meetings of the INTELSAT or Inmarsat 
Assembly of Parties, and revises the annual reporting requirement to 
also include these committees.
  We are interested in this legislation because changing international 
communication satellite policy has foreign policy implications. I want 
to be clear we are not seeking to interfere with the Committee on 
Commerce's jurisdiction to determine telecommunications policy, but the 
State Department is the lead agency in the negotiations with the 
intergovernmental satellite organizations.
  State traditionally has had the lead in multiagency teams negotiating 
with any international organizations. Inclusion of the Committee on 
International Relations in the reporting and consultative process 
allows the committees to perform their fundamental oversight 
responsibilities.
  I hope the chairman will be willing to accept this amendment. This 
bill raises other concerns, which were flagged in testimony by the 
administration last fall. These issues, such as including specific 
directives on the conduct of the negotiations, deserve further 
consideration.
  I have a concern about the expanded responsibilities given to the 
Federal Communications Commission in this bill for the multilateral 
negotiations aimed at privatizing INTELSAT. The President should have 
the discretion of ensuring that our State Department, and any other 
relevant government agency, plays a role in this process.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on Commerce 
as the bill proceeds through the process.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment and think it 
is a fair proposition. The State Department plays an important role in 
international negotiations, including regarding the intergovernmental 
satellite organizations.
  My understanding is that this amendment is not intended to and in no 
way does affect the jurisdictional interests of our committees in the 
bill. Does the gentleman agree?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment has no 
impact nor is it intended to have an impact on our committees' 
jurisdictional interest.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
with that understanding, I think we are prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the chairman for his considerable consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is amendment No. 
7.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Tauzin:
       Page 28, beginning on line 14, strike section 642 through 
     page 29, line 24, and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first apologize for the complexities 
in this bill. There is no way for us to deal with satellite policy and 
the extraordinary nature by which this highly technical industry has 
developed without some very technical provisions.
  Let me secondly again compliment the chairman and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the bill. It is a good attempt at 
accomplishing something which must be accomplished very soon, and that 
is the privatization of the government organizations, INTELSAT and 
Inmarsat, which service telecommunications needs across the world.
  Let me thirdly point out that the amendment I offer is in no way, 
shape, or form designed to gut this bill. It does not. It is a very 
targeted amendment which deals with a single provision in the bill, 
which many of us believe ought not be in the bill if we want a bill 
passed to accomplish its good purposes.
  Now, what is the provision that this amendment deletes? It is a very 
simple provision. It is a provision that says that the contracts that 
COMSAT has negotiated with companies like AT&T and MCI, those contracts 
to provide services over their network, could be abrogated by those 
customers unilaterally, at their own will, within a couple years. In 
effect, the provision in this bill is a grant of right by Congress to 
companies that have executed willfully, freely, contracts with COMSAT 
to then decide they will no longer keep

[[Page H2851]]

those contracts and move their business to another company.
  Now, is it our business to be abrogating contracts? Well, my 
colleagues will hear from the opponents of my amendment that this 
concept called ``fresh look'' is something that is often employed when 
monopolies are regulated and competitive market places are established. 
That is true, ``fresh look'' is a concept employed. ``Fresh look'' is 
available today to any competitor who wants to go to the FCC or to the 
courts and argue that it has a contract with COMSAT that was entered 
into in an anti-competitive mode.
  Companies have done that. In fact, PanAmSat, one of COMSAT's 
competitors, went to the FCC and argued that the contracts that COMSAT 
had signed with some customers were, in fact, anti-competitive 
contracts and the FCC ought to order them abrogated. They lost that 
case. They took it to the district court and the district court ruled 
against them.
  The district court ruled, in effect, that the contracts we are 
talking about here, signed by AT&T and MCI with COMSAT, were contracts 
that were willfully negotiated; that, in fact, contracts they signed on 
a long-term basis with COMSAT after turning down offers by PanAmSat and 
other competitors, willfully signed; and contracts that even allowed 
MCI and AT&T, indeed, to reroute their services when they wanted over 
their competitors. They were not anti-competitive contracts at all. The 
court ruled in favor of COMSAT that its contracts were valid, not anti-
competitive, and that they should be honored.
  Now, this bill does something very strange. This bill does not say 
that PanAmSat and others have a right to go and challenge these 
contracts. They now have that right. This bill overturns the district 
court, overturns the FCC, and gives to AT&T and MCI and the other 
customers the right unilaterally not to honor their contracts anymore, 
without any finding that COMSAT has done anything wrong or that these 
contracts are anti-competitive to any extent.
  In effect, this bill asks my colleagues and myself, as Members of 
Congress, to vote to abrogate private contracts that the courts have 
already determined were freely and willfully entered into. This bill 
asks my colleagues and I to abrogate contracts that should be honored 
by the parties to that contract.
  Now, why does it do that? Does it do it to punish COMSAT for bad 
behavior? No. The bill says that whether or not COMSAT does a good job 
in deregulating INTELSAT and Inmarsat, whether or not INTELSAT and 
Inmarsat do a great job of privatizing and deregulating their 
operations, if everything goes right, this bill still abrogates 
COMSAT's contracts with these people.
  Now, why would we want to do that? Are we just mean? Are we 
interested in special interest kind of laws that gives customers to one 
company instead of another? Has COMSAT done anything that requires us 
to take away their contract rights and to let their customers out? To 
all of these things I hope the answer is no, and I hope my colleagues 
will vote for this amendment which takes this single provision out of 
the bill and protects contracts that deserve protection in the free 
market.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  While I appreciate my colleague's support of the general goals of the 
bill, I cannot support his amendment. ``Fresh look'' is a policy used 
by the FCC in the past to foster competition in a market previously 
characterized as noncompetitive. Once the FCC removed a barrier to 
competition and enabled others to compete, in none of the previous 
instances did a court find the FCC's use of ``fresh look'' amounted to 
a taking, nor does our bill.
  First, our bill does not abrogate private contracts; it merely gives 
consumers who entered into contracts with COMSAT, when it was the 
monopoly, the opportunity to renegotiate those contracts once that 
monopoly has ended. Most customers will probably stay with COMSAT if it 
provides quality service at a reasonable rate.
  We have public statements of support for ``fresh look'' from a number 
of users, including the long-distance companies and the maritime users 
who have benefitted in the past when the FCC required ``fresh look'' in 
other instances.
  The gentleman notes that ``fresh look'' will enable the long-distance 
carriers to get out of their contract obligations with COMSAT. Those 
contracts for INTELSAT capacity were entered into when COMSAT was a 
monopoly for such capacity.
  To claim that these contracts were entered into voluntarily and, 
therefore, Congress should not permit their renegotiation, reminds me 
of a story I heard from a member of Parliament from another country. He 
was telling how he had flown to the States with his own country's 
government-owned airline instead of taking a U.S. carrier like he 
usually does. He asked the flight attendant if there was a choice for 
dinner that night. She paused for a moment and said, yes, there is a 
choice; you can either have dinner or not. Well, he voluntarily chose 
to take what was offered.
  And the carriers voluntarily entered into contracts with the monopoly 
distributor of INTELSAT services. They could have chosen voluntarily 
not to have satellite redundancy, and, if there was a failure on their 
own cables, risk losing their customers; but they chose instead to 
contract with the monopolist rather than risk losing their customers 
during cable outages.
  But that is not the kind of choice our bill is after. Under our bill, 
in January 2000, when direct access or competition to COMSAT for IGO 
access is permitted and COMSAT's monopoly is thereby terminated, then 
users will be able to negotiate with new interest. What is wrong with 
letting users negotiate lower rates? Their consumers will benefit from 
carriers' lower costs.
  Second, the provision in the bill would not result in an 
unconstitutional taking of COMSAT's property. Takings are most often 
found with real estate. COMSAT has no property right in its FCC 
licenses. While it may argue it has a property right in its service 
contracts, the frustration of contracts due to economic regulation by 
Congress is not a permissible taking of property.

                              {time}  1400

  Frustration of contracts is not unconstitutional, but I do not think 
a court would even find frustration or abrogation. A ``fresh look'' 
merely gives COMSAT's customers a chance to renegotiate once 
competitors are available.
  Third, COMSAT has no reasonable expectation in the status quo that 
would be tantamount to a property right, since COMSAT has been 
operating in a heavily regulated environment since we created it back 
in 1962, under a statute in which we expressly reserve the right to 
alter the regulatory landscape governing COMSAT at any time.
  Moreover, the provisions would not subject the U.S. Government to any 
liability under the Tucker Act or any other statute, because they do 
not result in an unconstitutional taking.
  Moreover, COMSAT still has a monopoly for INTELSAT and Inmarsat 
services. It makes eminent sense and is consistent with FCC precedent 
to enable COMSAT's customers to take advantage of the presence of new 
competitors once COMSAT's monopoly is eliminated under the bill. 
Without ``fresh look,'' the elimination of COMSAT's monopoly will have 
less of a competitive impact, since customers will be unable to take 
advantage of new opportunities if they are locked into long-term 
commitments entered into when COMSAT was the only game in town.
  There has been a lot of double-speak that COMSAT does not have a 
monopoly because of fiber optic and satellite competitors, and this 
Congress should not be adjudicating whether COMSAT has a monopoly but 
should leave it to the courts to decide. That is a whole lot of 
nonsense.
  Congress' action, in passing the Satellite Communications Act of 1962 
resulted in COMSAT obtaining a monopoly. And the FCC implemented that 
act so that today COMSAT and COMSAT alone may offer INTELSAT and 
Inmarsat services. Sure, COMSAT has competition from the long distance 
providers on their fiber-optic cables on certain routes and from some 
private systems with video and other services, but that does not mean 
they do not have a monopoly for INTELSAT and Inmarsat services. And 
only INTELSAT and Inmarsat have a global, ubiquitous reach that gives 
them a

[[Page H2852]]

special place in the international market.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to listen to the language of 
the bill that the amendment would strike. And it begins with the fact 
that every year everyone who has a contract with COMSAT may do 
something under this legislation which says, ``permit users or 
providers of telecommunications services that previously entered into 
contracts under a tariff commitment with COMSAT to have an opportunity 
at their discretion for a reasonable period of time,'' and I note each 
year they may do this, ``to renegotiate those contracts or commitments 
on rates, terms, and conditions or other provisions, notwithstanding 
any term or volume commitments or early termination of charges in any 
such contracts with COMSAT.''
  What we are literally doing is saying that COMSAT has no contract 
which will stand for more than 1 year and will be constantly subject to 
repudiation by every provider or by every customer.
  Now, if that is not a violation of the contract clauses of the 
Constitution or of the fifth amendment provisions with regard to the 
protection of property rights, then I am the Queen of the May. And I 
would remind all of my colleagues that this is going to subject the 
United States to enormous liability for being sued for having 
interfered with the rights under contract and for having interfered 
with the property rights of COMSAT. Imagine how we would run a 
corporation if we were afflicted with that kind of provision. Let me 
just read something else.
  PanAmSat, one of the well-known fat cats that is at the bottom of 
this mess and which is a major pusher of this legislation, sued COMSAT. 
A Federal judge considered all the pleadings, all the facts, and he 
decided in favor of COMSAT. Why? He said, and this is a quote from the 
judge, ``Moreover, although the record does not reflect that COMSAT 
entered into long-term contracts with many common carriers, nothing in 
the record suggests that COMSAT secured any of the contracts by means 
of any anticompetitive act against PAS. On the contrary, the record 
suggests that, for their own reasons, the common carriers elected to 
secure long-term deals with COMSAT only after considering and rejecting 
offers from PAS.''
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. I just heard from the 
chairman of the committee that this was like that meal on the British 
airlines, he either had to eat or not eat; there was no other option.
  Is my colleague telling me that the people who signed these contracts 
had other options to sign with PanAmSat and turned them down?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer to the 
question is yes. The answer to the question is also that the Federal 
judge involved here considered the questions in a much more thoughtful, 
careful, and responsible way after hearing all the pleadings than did 
my beloved friend, the chairman of the committee, who has not 
apparently been privy to the kind of information that the judge was.
  Here we had a fair hearing. Everybody had a chance to have their say, 
not something which we have seen here.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman would not want to 
mislead the committee.
  On page 28, section 642 of the bill, it says that they have a fair 
opportunity at their discretion for a reasonable period of time to 
renegotiate those contracts, a one-time deal.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every year.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman would further yield, no, 
not every year.
  And on page 62 of the report it repeats it again, a one-time 
opportunity to renegotiate contracts of commitments on rates, terms, 
and conditions.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the staff of this committee has been very 
good in changing the language of the bill in the report, something 
which regrettably they are not capable of doing.
  What we have here before us is a very simple matter. They are 
interfering here under this legislation with the rights of contract. 
They are interfering here with property rights. And they are going to 
have a liability for the taxpayers of this country under the Tucker 
Act, and it is going to be billions of dollars.
  They also have before them a case where the matters have been 
considered by a Federal judge, having heard from PAS, having heard from 
COMSAT, having heard all the facts. He said, people go to COMSAT after 
they have heard from the others and given them a full opportunity to 
compete.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first I think that, for all of our House colleagues, 
there was a statement that was made earlier that this is a very complex 
issue, and we owe it to our colleagues that were not part of the debate 
on the Committee on Commerce to offer them some clarity.
  What is this amendment about? This amendment is about a provision in 
the bill entitled ``fresh look,'' and what it would do is strike it; it 
would take it out of the bill. Now, why did the committee pass the bill 
out to the floor with this particular component, this element of the 
bill, and why did we find it important?
  First of all, ``fresh look'' is a critical component of the bill. 
Why? Because it is what will help consumers realize the benefits of 
competition and doing away with a monopoly. The service providers are 
going to have to be able to take full advantage of direct access to 
INTELSAT so that the bill provides consumers what we are promising 
them, and that is competition.
  It does not do any good to say to companies, ``Okay, go ahead, 
negotiate the best deal possible'' if, in fact, they are still locked 
into something that they agreed to when they were still a monopoly. And 
so ``fresh look'' is a provision in the bill that will allow companies, 
one time only in the year 2000, to take a ``fresh look'' and to move on 
from there into a procompetitive environment and leaving the 
monopolistic environment behind.
  ``Fresh look'' will enable companies to take advantage of 
privatization, which is really what the underpinnings of this 
legislation are all about. So again, if my colleagues support 
privatization and procompetition, then they will vote ``no'' on this 
provision.
  ``Fresh look'' is necessary. We must be able to take a fresh look in 
order to be competitive. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Tauzin amendment. 
I was also supportive of the amendment offered by my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  I rise in support of this amendment because I believe that a contract 
should have the highest regard by this body. In fact, the Constitution 
prohibits us from abrogating contracts.
  The fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and others 
have pointed out, the judge found that there were alternatives. In 
other words, there were parties with whom the parties dealing with 
COMSAT could have dealt with alternatively.
  The judge found that for economic reasons, obviously of their 
choosing, they did not do so. In fact, they made an independent 
judgment to enter into a contract. They may not like that contract now. 
This is not an unusual circumstance.
  On the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government, for instance, on the telephone contract that the Federal 
Government had, we were constantly looked to to abrogate the contract 
and allow new competition prior to the term of the contract expiring. 
So this is not unusual. Parties to contracts often come to the Congress 
or to the legislatures and seek for a new deal or, as this amendment 
says, a ``fresh look.''
  Well, ``fresh looks'' are nice. ``I liked the contract a year ago, 
but I do not

[[Page H2853]]

like it now. So how about a fresh look, troops? Let us look at it one 
more time, freshly.'' Well, the person that does not like the contract 
may think that is very nice, but the other person with whom the 
contract was made may think to themselves that is a jaundiced look, not 
a fresh look; it is a look that they have taken advantage of the 
contract for as long as they determined was advantageous to them, but 
now, ``Guess what? I want to change the deal.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues would support the Tauzin 
amendment. This ``fresh look'' provision that is contained in the bill 
is not fair. It is not fair because it says that the contracts that 
were entered into freely, as the judge said, do not need to be honored.
  It is my understanding from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), and I do not purport to be an expert on the technical nuances 
of this particular piece of legislation, but I am informed that in fact 
these contracts have a term. They are not unlimited. These parties are 
not bound by these contracts in perpetuity.
  In point of fact, the contracts have a term that will end; and at 
that time, under the contract, as is fair and every American 
understands, at that time the parties will have the opportunity to have 
a fresh look, not legislatively mandated but mandated by the agreement 
of these two parties in their contract.
  The sanctity of contracts is critical to the free market system in 
which we flourish. The sanctity of contracts is one of the things, as a 
lawyer, we learn to honor from the very beginning, which is why it is 
so important to make sure that a contract was in fact entered into, 
because once entered into, it cannot be abrogated by either party 
without damages occurring.
  Again, that is another reason, Mr. Chairman, we ought to adopt the 
Tauzin amendment and reject the provision of the bill. Why? Because 
these are private stockholders, who have invested their money, who are 
going to sustain a loss if these contracts are abrogated; and, if so, 
we may well subject the Government to over a billion dollars in damages 
I am informed. Think of that, over a billion dollars in damages. Why? 
Because this contract sought to give relief to parties who voluntarily 
entered into a contract and who now want a fresh look.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, we can change the policy, but we ought to change it 
prospectively. We ought to say we are going to change the rules and 
when the contract is over, you are going to play under these new set of 
rules. But the parties that entered into a contract under a set of 
rules will play under those rules for the term of the contract. That is 
elementary, my Dear Watson, if I can coin a phrase.
  I would hope that this amendment would pass, that it would pass 
handily, and we would send a message to those who enter into contracts. 
As long as those contracts are entered into freely, they will be 
honored by this legislative body.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tauzin 
amendment regarding fresh look. H.R. 1872 holds much promise for 
expanding consumer choices and lowering consumer costs of international 
satellite communications. This amendment would jeopardize all of that. 
A key reason H.R. 1872 will benefit consumers is that it will end the 
current monopoly that COMSAT enjoys by statute as the sole reseller of 
INTELSAT and Inmarsat services in the United States. Currently users of 
these satellite systems have no choice but to go through COMSAT to 
purchase INTELSAT and Inmarsat services. In some cases, such as some 
telephone and television services, there are few or no choices except 
to use the INTELSAT and Inmarsat satellites.
  A recent study estimated that U.S. customers would save $1.5 billion 
over 10 years once monopoly access to INTELSAT and Inmarsat ends. H.R. 
1872, the bill before us, permits COMSAT's customers to renegotiate 
their contracts once the monopoly is ended. Fresh look is an 
established way to transition from a monopoly market to a competitive 
market. The FCC has applied the fresh look policy before when new 
competitive choices were made available to customers. It has allowed 
customers to renegotiate long-term contracts entered into when no 
competition existed.
  Today COMSAT is the sole U.S. reseller or distributor of INTELSAT and 
Inmarsat services. Each and every user of those satellite systems in 
the United States has no choice but to enter into a contract with 
COMSAT for these services. These are long-term contracts. The bill will 
end this monopoly. Thus, it is critical to creating the new competitive 
environment that customers be given the opportunity to renegotiate, 
take a fresh look at the long-term contracts they entered into when the 
statutorily created monopoly was in force. Without fresh look, these 
customers will be locked into long-term contracts and denied the 
benefits of the new competitive choices. Competition will truly be 
meaningless if all customers are locked into long-term contracts.
  I know there has been a lot of smoke generated about this and how 
this would operate as a taking of property. I do not believe that 
giving customers an opportunity for a fresh look at their contracts 
would result in such a taking. This is not a new policy. The FCC has 
applied it successfully in several occasions.
  Moreover, the courts have never accorded contracts the status of 
protected property because contract rights are subject to changes in 
the law. COMSAT is a creature of Congress and Congress expressly 
retained broad rights over COMSAT and the right to change the 1962 law.
  Fresh look does not punish COMSAT. COMSAT and its customers are free 
to continue their contracts. As long as COMSAT provides high quality 
services at competitive rates, underlying competitive rates, it has 
nothing to fear. Customers will be the real winners here and whether 
they stay with a newly competitive COMSAT or choose a new alternative 
will be their choice.
  Fresh look is pro-consumer. It gives users the right, not the 
obligation, to renegotiate their contracts in light of the new 
competitive choices. It is essential to end the monopoly. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Let me just add. I was very pleased to see this, a letter from one of 
the satellites users, CSX and its subsidiary Sea-Land, a large maritime 
shipping company, recounting its use of fresh look regarding 800 number 
portability. When fresh look was implemented for 800 numbers, CSX saved 
$4.5 million per year. CSX wrote the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley) stating, ``We look forward to using the similar opportunity as 
provided for under H.R. 1872 so that we can pay competitive prices, 
rather than monopoly prices, for satellite services.''
  Any claim that users do not want fresh look is false. All Members 
should vote against this amendment. It will harm consumers and prevent 
competition from developing.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Tauzin 
amendment. It is fair, it makes sense, and it may well save us over a 
billion dollars; that is, the taxpayers.
  Fresh look really is not fresh look. It is really a fresh theft, as 
has been stated, because it is going to abrogate those contracts that 
had been willfully signed by an American company and its customers, I 
really believe, and others have felt the same way, legal authorities, 
that it is going to subject the U.S. Government to a successful takings 
claim.
  The opponents of COMSAT have said that it has locked up the market 
with long-term contracts and so therefore the customers should be 
afforded an opportunity unilaterally to breach their contract to take a 
fresh look at any available competitor in the marketplace. This is not 
a sound idea. It is wrong. Therefore, the Tauzin amendment will 
eliminate the unconstitutional provisions that would abrogate COMSAT's 
contracts, which are property, and it would preserve the integrity of 
COMSAT's carrier contracts. Those contracts were entered into 
voluntarily by COMSAT and the largest international carriers. The 
government may not nullify the express terms of a company's contractual 
obligations without compensation. This amendment with these provisions 
makes

[[Page H2854]]

sense, it is appropriate, and it will save taxpayers money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this notion of fresh 
look is already in the law. The notion of fresh look is already in the 
law. It is a remedy that already exists for the parties. If they think 
they have a contract that was entered into where they did not really 
have a choice, like some of these proponents of the bill have pointed 
out, then they can go to the FCC, go to court and have that contract 
abrogated. They can do that today. In fact, as I said, PanAmSat tried. 
PanAmSat is a private satellite corporation owned by Hughes Satellite. 
They went to court and argued that some of the contracts that COMSAT 
had signed were in fact entitled to a fresh look. The court threw them 
out on summary judgment. They did not even have a trial. The court 
threw them out on summary judgment and said, ``There are no facts here 
to indicate that your contracts ought to be abrogated. In fact if you 
signed it, you ought to live by it and you ought to honor it.''
  Why should we in this Congress overturn that court now and say it is 
okay for people to get out of their contracts? Did they have other 
choices? Yes. The court so ruled that they actually rejected other 
choices before signing up with COMSAT. Did they sign it willfully for 
their own reasons? The court so ruled. Were there other companies they 
could have gone to?
  In 1996, the FCC ruled that there was sufficient competition in the 
space segment service market and ruled in fact that ``we find 
substantial competition in that marketplace with the introduction of 
satellite cable systems that compete with INTELSAT.'' The companies who 
signed these contracts had other choices. They rejected them. They 
signed with COMSAT. Now they would like to get out of them. They went 
to court to say, ``Let us out of these contracts.'' The court threw 
them out on their ear and said, ``You're not even entitled to a trial. 
You're out on summary judgment. Your contracts are going to be honored 
by this court.'' But not by this Congress? Your contract is your word, 
your bond, you are going to live by it. But not by this Congress? What 
right do we have under our Constitution to tell some people it is okay 
to get out of your contracts? When you sign a contract to get some 
services for your company, would you like it if I told those people who 
signed up with you they can get out whenever they want? You would think 
I am out of bounds, and I would be. And Congress would be out of bounds 
if we in fact abrogated these contracts. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what happens every time this provision 
comes into play is that the competitors, the providers, the suppliers 
and the customers of COMSAT then get together and they renegotiate the 
contract, and COMSAT has got to constantly reduce rates, reduce rates, 
reduce rates.
  As the distinguished gentlewoman has said and as the gentleman from 
Louisiana has said, COMSAT now is subject to fresh look. The FCC about 
a week or 10 days ago took a look at this. What did they find? First of 
all, they found that COMSAT is not a dominant carrier. They are a 
nondominant carrier.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dingell, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Morella 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, they also did something else. They looked 
at whether or not the Commission should utilize this extraordinary 
remedy of fresh look. They said it was not necessary. They said it was 
not proper. They said it was not justified. Yet here we in the 
Congress, with no hearings, with no information, simply with power for 
prejudice and enormous lobbying effort by COMSAT's competitors are 
going to simply put into place this fresh look provision. And we are 
going to subject our constituents and the taxpayers to billions of 
dollars in liability for our stupidity.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the two speakers that just 
preceded me on my time, and I urge this body to vote for the Tauzin 
amendment.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I think this is a personal record. I do not think I have ever 
spoken on a bill on the floor of this House three times in one 
afternoon, but I am going to do that because some of the debate, some 
of the comments by other Members have done it at least three times as 
well.
  Just going through what the bill does and the present reality in the 
market I think is critical for everyone to have a very keen 
understanding before they vote. The legislation absolutely provides 
that people who have entered into a contract in 2000 would have an 
ability, a one-time ability to renegotiate that contract.
  Let us talk about why people entered into those contracts. They 
entered into those contracts because they had no choice. Today if you 
want to call from Washington, D.C. to Africa, there is only one way to 
do it, and that is through COMSAT. I do not know what definition of 
monopoly my colleagues are using, but that is a definition of monopoly. 
We keep hearing the fact, we have two sides of this debate, some saying 
there is a monopoly, some saying there is not a monopoly. Let me again 
talk in specifics. There are locations where there is underground 
cable. For instance, if you want to call from here to England, you can 
actually go through an underground cable. So in that market there is 
competition. But for a significant part of this market there is no 
competition at all but a government-granted monopoly that we as the 
United States Congress granted.
  Let me talk about abrogating contracts. It is a very serious thing 
that we ought to think about. In the State of Florida that I represent, 
there are only two times in the Florida judicial system that there is a 
12-person jury, when the death penalty is a possibility or when you are 
going to be taking someone's property. If someone has a potential 
penalty in Florida of life imprisonment, it is a six-person jury. But 
in Florida if we are going to take one foot of your property, it is a 
12-person jury.

                              {time}  1430

  So let me tell my colleagues something. I come from a State where we 
take property rights very, very, very seriously. This is not an issue 
about property rights and taking. It is an issue of how are we going to 
implement a new competitive paradigm in telecommunications. And again 
the facts are that we have done this before. And for the third time, I 
am going to mention what we have done before; that when AT&T was broken 
up, the exact same procedure was used. Contracts that were in place 
were allowed to be renegotiated because of why and how those contracts 
were implemented.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment and passage of the 
bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to point out to the gentleman that not only 
can someone call Athens by many other providers other than COMSAT, 
COMSAT is not even a dominant carrier to Athens.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I said Africa.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Africa?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Africa.
  Mr. TAUZIN. To Africa, to many countries in Africa. They have 
fiberoptic services to many countries that compete with the satellite 
services.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. As my colleague knows, again my understanding is that on 
thin routes to Africa they are not classified as nondominant.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the rationale behind the ``fresh 
look'' provisions of this bill and I agree that the privatization we 
seek must be pro-competitive, it is my view that the abrogation of 
private contracts called for by this bill is simply not justified by 
the

[[Page H2855]]

admittedly worthy goal of accelerating the transition to a more 
competitive marketplace. It is not appropriate in my opinion for this 
Congress to allow corporations to simply walk away from legal contracts 
because we believe that there may have been better deals for them in 
the offing. With privatization the transition to a competitive market 
will come soon enough, and these contracts will expire and be 
renegotiated in the normal course of business without the kind of 
congressional interference in the process.
  My sense is that we should go very, very slowly when Congress is 
dealing with the issue of abrogating contracts. This is a very serious 
issue. Those of us who studied contracts in law school learned, 
probably on the first day, that contracts have a particularly 
meaningful role in our business world and that those contracts and 
particularly the breaking of those contracts should be taken very, very 
seriously and with a great deal of caution, particularly by the 
national legislative body, the Congress of the United States.
  We should allow the marketplace to work its will in due course 
without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. After all, the bill is 
premised on the idea that competition will cause market participants to 
realize new efficiencies and alternate ways of doing business. The 
incentives are already there for telecommunication firms to seek out 
the most efficient access to international communications. And while it 
may be tempting, Mr. Chairman, to try to jump start the competitive 
process through these ``fresh look'' measures, I think we are getting a 
little ahead of ourselves. We should allow the private sector to work 
its will and without abrogating the privacy of these contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, we can argue as to whether or not free agency has 
ruined baseball, but the truth is that telecommunication companies 
today are already free agents without ``fresh look.''
  I encourage support for the amendment to remove these provisions.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to congratulate the vice 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection for his excellent statement just now, not only in support of 
the motion that will not abrogate contract rights, indeed that is 
something we learned in law school, but to point out that the opinion 
of the Washington Legal Foundation went on to say that if we did that 
in this bill, that would amount to the most sweeping congressional 
abrogation of private contract rights of a single company without any 
judicial determination of wrongdoing.
  That is unprecedented in U.S. history. Not only are we doing 
something that I think we learned is wrong in law school, but Congress 
would be doing something, according to this report, that is 
unprecedented in terms of its sweep, in terms of how many contracts we 
would abrogate and declare illegal when the courts have upheld those 
contracts up until this date.
  I want to thank the vice chairman for his excellent statement and 
encourage him in support of this amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his 
comments and would simply point out that in this kind of area, we ought 
to walk very, very softly before we consider these kinds of abrogation 
of contracts. This is very serious business, and I would caution that, 
in fact, the marketplace is working, that those telecommunication 
companies out there will be able to renegotiate, will be able to sign 
new contracts in the due course of business. We ought not to interfere 
with that right of contract. It would be a serious mistake on the part 
of this Congress.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, one of the things, I just 
recently came back from a trip to Chile.
  Now we think Chile is a Third World nation stuck down the end of the 
Western Hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting things was we 
went to make a phone call in Chile. If we wanted to call the United 
States, we could call the United States cheaper from Chile then we 
could from the United States back to Chile.
  Now we always thought we had the best competition, the best system, 
the best service and the cheapest rates. If we wanted to call Japan 
from Chile, we have the best rates from Chile to Japan instead of Japan 
to Chile. If we wanted to call Argentina, which is right across the 
mountains maybe 45 miles away from Santiago into Argentina, rates were 
cheaper if we called from Chile into Argentina. Why? Because there are 
eight telephone companies, all with individual contracts. If we sign up 
for one phone company and somebody got a better price, we can arbitrate 
that contract and we can get with the next company. Why? Because they 
have the ability to hook up with those satellites, there is competition 
up there, and they go for the best price.
  Now we may want to protect some entities that made contracts before 
this system changed, but the system has changed. Competition is there. 
The world is opening up. And all we are saying is those companies that 
were tied into the old contracts under the old system before the 
universe changed, let them step back, let them take a fresh look, let 
them renegotiate, and let consumers win, because when we come down to 
it, ``fresh look'' is a simple concept.
  I say let consumers, that is right, consumers, negotiate their 
contracts with COMSAT once competition is permitted. It is a 
commonsense system, it is a situation that we ought to reject this 
amendment and stay with the good work of the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a statement the gentleman 
from Michigan in his previous statement said, that we had no hearings 
on ``fresh look.'' We had a hearing on September 30, 1997, in the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications Trade, and Consumer Protection, and 
indeed Mr. Jack Gleason from NTIA testified for the administration, 
testified in favor of ``fresh look.''
  Now let us talk about ``fresh look.'' ``Fresh look'' gives a customer 
the choice to renegotiate that contract once they have alternative 
providers to choose from. Now sure, AT&T has a cable, Sprint has a 
cable, MCI has a cable, but they have to sign up with COMSAT to get to 
INTELSAT because of redundancy. If anything happens to their cable, 
they have to have a backup, and the FCC has used ``fresh look'' on 
several occasions, most recently when implementing the 
Telecommunication Act of 1996, and no one ever thought of taking suit 
against them when they did.
  We had ``fresh look'' occurring annually in one version of this bill, 
but to accommodate the concerns of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) we revised the ``fresh look'' provision to tie it to the date 
of direct access. Direct access means allowing, for the first time, 
competition for access to INTELSAT and Inmarsat in the U.S., and if 
there is not the opportunity to take advantage of it, direct access 
does not mean much. ``Fresh look'' will allow customers locked into 
those long-term take-or-pay contracts, when they had no choice if they 
wanted to play in the game but to sign those contracts, the advantage 
of new competitors. And COMSAT will have the opportunity to renegotiate 
with them, and I suspect that will keep most of them.
  It is the job of elected representatives, not the FCC, to make sure 
that this happens. Moreover, the FCC may decide it is not worth 
fighting COMSAT in court, and since COMSAT sues at the drop of a hat, 
they may be able to fend it off. It is up to the FCC to implement it, 
but we need to tell them to do so.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana and really 
congratulate him because, as my colleagues know, together with the 
chairman and this gentleman, he brought an important issue before us, 
something that needs to be moved forward and talked, and I think we 
have to do it with a balance, and I would be happy to hear what the 
gentleman has to say.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out the gentleman from 
Michigan merely said that we did not have

[[Page H2856]]

hearings on these contracts that we are abrogating, not on the issue of 
``fresh look''; and secondly, to point out when the administration did 
testify on ``fresh look,'' here is what they said.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Tauzin, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hastert was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, here is what the administration said. It 
said that even if a fresh look at INTELSAT and Inmarsat services, 
ordered hypothetically, were to allow the signatures and direct users 
to get a better deal, it is unlikely that consumers would benefit; and 
they said for the same reason that competition already exists at 
``fresh look'' at INTELSAT and Inmarsat contracts, in those countries, 
is unlikely to benefit consumers significantly. It seems to me they 
were testifying against the use of ``fresh look,'' not for it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. We have to 
understand that the whole field of telecommunications has been 
revolutionized since the early 1980s. We all operated in the United 
States and around the globe under the presumption that a monopoly was 
natural, that there was only one place we could go for everything that 
we expect as services in the telecommunications field. All of that has 
changed since the early 1980s.
  For example, in 1982 when AT&T was broken up, it was the largest 
company not only in the United States but in the world. We had one 
telephone company. There was no Bell South, there was no NYNEX. MCI and 
Sprint were tiny little companies. No U.S. West, no Southwestern Bell; 
it did not exist. We had one company, one-stop shopping. We all thought 
it was a natural monopoly.
  When the Justice Department broke it up even as Congress was 
beginning to move to break it up, we said to every customer in America, 
part of that consent decree, we can choose another long distance 
telephone company if we want, we can have a fresh look. We do not have 
to be tied into any long-term contracts we had with AT&T. We are 
starting a new world, one in which we are encouraging competition in 
the marketplace.
  Now this phenomenon manifests itself over and over again as we break 
down these monopolies. It happens in all kinds of service areas. And 
the FCC has taken the precaution where necessary in other areas in 
order to accomplish this goal. For example, when the FCC in 1992 
ordered expanded interconnection rules and allowed local telephone 
competitors greater ability to compete for special access services, the 
FCC allowed customers who typically had signed contracts for 6, 7, 8 or 
more years the opportunity to renegotiate their terms or switch to new 
competitors in the marketplace without termination penalties, because 
there was now competition in this marketplace. And maybe something that 
is even more familiar or typical in ordinary American life; that is, 
when people dial 1-800 The Card for American Express or 1-800 Flowers, 
and a customer has ever dealt with them over the years, they might have 
said, well, that is a good service; but what if I switch from AT&T over 
to MCI? Well, what we said through the FCC was they could take their 
number with them. There was portability. They were not going to be 
locked into AT&T. We had to create some means by which the newer 
companies could compete against the old monopoly.
  Now that is really intended to open up opportunities for dozens, for 
hundreds of new companies to get in and to compete, to break down the 
old models. We are not the Soviet Union, we are not Japan, we are not 
Germany. We wanted to be number one, and we wanted dozens, hundreds of 
companies out into these fields.

                              {time}  1445

  That is what is making us special in the world right now.
  As a matter of fact, if we look back at the 1980s, after the tearing 
down of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of AT&T might be looked back at 
historically as maybe the greatest and most important decision that was 
made in our country, because we were opening up opportunities for 
customers to have different choices and for more competitors to get 
into the marketplace. And the core, central part of looking at this 
``fresh look'' issue is that because COMSAT has been a monopoly, that 
when the monopoly goes away, the customers should be freed up to look 
for better opportunities, once. Take their one-time-only opportunity to 
look around, shop around.
  However, here is what we know: that because competitors to COMSAT 
have never had direct access to INTELSAT, according to the Federal 
Communications Commission, there has been a 68 percent markup in the 
price charged by INTELSAT, 68 percent. Now, when direct access is 
allowed, should not these customers who have been locked into the old 
monopoly have the freedom of going out and getting the best deal in the 
marketplace? Do we not want every company in the United States to have 
the lowest possible cost in all of their telecommunications services, 
so whatever they do inside of their company is much more competitive as 
they sell their product around the world.
  That is what this is all about, after all, lower energy prices, lower 
electricity prices, lower telecommunications prices; it is the cost of 
hundreds of thousands of companies in America in terms of the product 
they are trying to make. We are trying to lower the cost here.
  Give them a fresh look, let them go out. If NBC or CNN or any other 
company in the America that buys their telecommunications services 
wholesale who wants to get a fresh look, why should they not be allowed 
to get the benefit of this policy?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a one-time-only, free-agency 
ability.
  Mr. Chairman, for many years, major league baseball did not allow 
players to go out and contract with other clubs. Players were locked 
in. They might have signed a contract with the team they were with, 
like the Red Sox or the Yankees, in the 1930s and 1940s, the 1950s or 
the 1960s, but they were tied to them. A player could not sign with 
another team. But when free agency came around, you were free to look 
around; then a player signed a new contract and was bound to that 
contract.
  We have to have one-time-only free agency for all of these companies 
in America that have been tied into the monopoly. Then we can say to 
the rest of the world, tear down those barriers to the entry of 
American companies into free competition across the globe. This is the 
other wall that has been up to Americans going across the globe. The 
Berlin Wall came down; so too must these telecommunications barriers, 
because that is the area where America has to be number one if we are 
going to get the benefits of the post-Cold War era.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, not withstanding all of the grand rhetoric that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), just gave us, 
this issue comes down to perhaps two major points.
  Do we believe that COMSAT is today monopolizing the industry? Mr. 
Chairman, I want to include for the Record the FCC ruling of April 24, 
1998 that says, ``The commission declares COMSAT nondominant in 
competitive markets.'' The commission says, it ``granted the request of 
COMSAT Corporation for a reclassification as a nondominant carrier in 
five product markets, which account for 85 percent of COMSAT's INTELSAT 
revenues.''
  Now, will my colleague from Massachusetts agree that what is being 
done here is the equivalent of Congress going back and looking at 
Microsoft and saying, oh, Microsoft, you are a monopoly, and then 
mandating that any contract that Microsoft would sign would be open to 
renegotiation. I do not think Members of the Congress would agree to do 
that. I believe no United States court would allow the abrogation of 
Microsoft's private contracts, and I believe the U.S. courts will not 
let stand the abrogation of COMSAT's private contracts.

[[Page H2857]]

  We took an oath. When we came into Congress, we took an oath to abide 
by the Constitution. We are talking about the fifth amendment here.
  I can show my colleagues example after example where COMSAT is not 
the monopoly that my good friend from Massachusetts portrays it to be. 
But let me say in all deference now to the chairman, I am on his bill, 
his original bill. I think he is making a courageous stand to 
deregulate an industry that should have been deregulated some time ago. 
But notwithstanding that, this bill can be improved by the Tauzin 
amendment, and that is why I stand in support of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the FCC ruling of April 24, 
1998:

     Commission Declares COMSAT Non-Dominant in Competitive Markets

       The Commission has granted the request of Comsat 
     Corporation for reclassification as a non-dominant common 
     carrier in five product markets, which account for 
     approximately 85% of Comsat's INTELSAT revenues. 
     Specifically, the Commission found Comsat non-dominant in the 
     provision of INTELSAT switched voice, private line, and 
     occasional-use video services to markets that it determined 
     to be competitive. It also found Comsat non-dominant in the 
     provision of full-time video and earth station services in 
     all markets. In the markets where Comsat has been 
     reclassified as non-dominant, Comsat will be allowed to file 
     tariffs on one day's notice, without economic cost support, 
     in the same form as filed by other non-dominant common 
     carriers, and the tariffs will be presumed lawful. By virtue 
     of finding Comsat non-dominant in these markets, the 
     Commission is eliminating rate of return regulation in these 
     markets.
       The Commission also indicated it expeditiously would 
     initiate a proceeding to explore the legal, economic and 
     policy implications of enabling users to have direct access 
     to the INTELSAT system. Approximately 94 other countries 
     permit direct access to the INTELSAT system.
       The Commission denied Comsat's non-dominant 
     reclassification request with respect to switched voice, 
     private line and occasional-use video services to non-
     competitive markets where it found that Comsat remains 
     dominant. It also denied Comsat's request that the Commission 
     forbear under Section 10 of the Communications Act from 
     enforcing the Commission's dominant common carrier tariff 
     rules in non-competitive markets. The Commission considered 
     but rejected Comsat's three-year ``price cap'' and ``uniform 
     pricing'' proposals for these markets, and found that Comsat 
     did not satisfy the statutory requirements for forbearance 
     relief under the circumstances. The Commission indicated, 
     however, that it would favorably consider in its analysis of 
     any forbearance request a commitment by Comsat to (a) allow 
     U.S. carriers and users to obtain Level-3 direct access to 
     the INTELSAT system and (b) make an appropriate waiver of its 
     INTELSAT derived immunity from suit and legal process. Such 
     actions would promote competitive market conditions in the 
     INTELSAT markets in which Comsat remains dominant.
       The Commission also indicated that it will consider 
     replacing rate of return regulation for Comsat's dominant 
     markets with an alternative form of incentive-based 
     regulation and, as part of its reclassification decision, the 
     Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 
     public comment on its tentative conclusions that any 
     alternative incentive-based regulation plan to be adopted 
     should (a) enable users on non-competitive routes to benefit 
     from competitive rates; (b) remain in effect indefinitely; 
     and (c) allow users to benefit from reduced rates due to 
     increases in efficiency and productivity. Comsat will be 
     subject to alternative incentive-based regulation once such 
     regulation is adopted in this proceeding.
       Finally, the Commission found that Comsat's continued 
     dominance in the provision of switched voice, private line 
     and occasional-use video services to non-competitive markets 
     was an insufficient basis for continuing to require 
     structural separation between Comsat's INTELSAT services and 
     other activities. It concluded that the costs of imposing 
     such a requirement would exceed any potential benefits to 
     competition. The Commission granted Comsat's request for the 
     elimination of structural separation for its INTELSAT 
     services because structural separation is no longer necessary 
     to safeguard Comsat's competitors from Comsat leveraging its 
     monopoly jurisdictional services to gain an advantage in 
     competitive markets in which it is operating.
       The 63 countries in which Comsat will continue to be 
     considered dominant for switched voice and private line 
     services are: Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Armenia, 
     Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, 
     Burkina, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, 
     Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, French 
     Polynesia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, 
     Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Maritime-Atlantic, 
     Maritime-Pacific, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Midway Atoll, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, 
     Nauru, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Northern Mariana 
     Islands, Pacific Islands (Palau), Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint 
     Helena, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, 
     Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turks and Caicos Islands, 
     Uganda, Western Samoa, Zaire, and Zambia.
       The 142 countries in which Comsat will continue to be 
     considered dominant for occasional-use video service are:
       South America: Columbia, Grench Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, 
     Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago.
       Central America/Caribbean: Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, 
     Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman 
     Islands, and Chagos Archipelago, Costa Rica, Dominica, 
     Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gibraltar, Grenada, 
     Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Martinique, 
     Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Saint Kitts & 
     Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Turks & Caicos.
       Western Europe: Cyprus, Greenland, Iceland, Malta, and 
     Norway.
       Eastern Europe: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 
     Estonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, and 
     Slovenia.
       Middle East: Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, 
     Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab 
     Emirates, and Yemen.
       Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, 
     Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, 
     Chad, Congo, Dem Rep Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eq. Guinea, 
     Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory 
     Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, 
     Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, 
     Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao Tome, Senegal, 
     Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, 
     Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
       Central Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, 
     Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Mongola, Myanmar, Tajikistan, 
     Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
       South Asia: Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, 
     and Sri Lanka.
       Far East: Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, North Korea, 
     South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam.
       Pacific Rim: American Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia, Macau, 
     Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Midway Islands, Nauru, New 
     Caledonia, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, 
     Vanatu, and Western Samoa.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend for yielding and I thank him for his 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say too, this is not about whether we want to 
break up the old monopoly of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, these multination, 
governmentally owned cartels. This is not about that. We all agree that 
that ought to happen. This is not about that.
  This is simply about whether we in Congress are going to order the 
abrogation of contracts to an American company that have been tested in 
court and found to be voluntarily entered into when the people who 
entered those contracts had other options.
  There are several questions we ought to ask: Did they have other 
options? The answer is yes. The court found in summary judgment, they 
could have signed with PanAmSat, they could have signed with Loral, 
Teledesic, Columbia, Meridian, ELLIPSO. They could have signed with 
many cable companies that offer fiberoptic cable across the Atlantic. 
They chose to sign with COMSAT voluntarily.
  The second question that we should answer is, is, in fact, the 
``fresh look'' applicable to these contracts? The answer is yes, it is 
already the law. Anybody can go test them in court.
  The third question we should answer is, once they have been tested in 
court and found to be valid, voluntary contracts, should we in Congress 
substitute our judgments for the court's without a hearing on these 
contracts even, and declare that they can be abrogated? I suggest the 
gentleman put his finger on it.
  We took an oath. If there is something that makes us special, I say 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts, it is that we took an oath to live 
by a Constitution that sets the rules for all of us, and the rules are 
that when one signs a contract voluntarily, one has other options, one 
was not coerced, then that person ought to live by that contract. It is 
called honor. And we in Congress ought to have enough honor to let the 
contracts signed in America be honored by the parties who signed them 
and not abrogate those contracts by congressional fiat. That is what 
this is all about, our oath under the Constitution, and the honor of 
the contracts and the parties who signed them, voluntarily, tested in 
court, proven in court to be voluntary, whether or not those contracts 
will be honored.

[[Page H2858]]

  This is a good bill, but this amendment improves a good bill by 
taking out a feature that I think is horrible, and my colleagues ought 
to think is horrible. No Member in Congress ought to go down to this 
floor today and vote to abrogate private contracts that have already 
been tested in court and proven to be honest and honorable and 
voluntary, and if my colleagues vote to abrogate contracts, I suggest 
that my colleagues have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying, I think if we 
listen to this debate, we will realize that COMSAT faces significant 
competition, competition from underseas fiberoptic lines for voice, 
video and data service. In fact, many argue that fiberoptic lines are a 
more productive infrastructure than satellites because of their 
reliability and because of their greater capacity.
  So after making these points, I think the Members have to decide if 
they think COMSAT is a monopoly, that is fine, but many of us have 
researched this and we do not think COMSAT is a monopoly any longer, 
and so that is why I support the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise really in support of the Tauzin amendment. If we 
go back to 1984, at that point the marketplace opened up. If we wanted 
to go pre-1984 and say we really need to take a fresh look, then 
perhaps this bill, as written, would make some sense.
  But the point is that in 1984, competition was arrived at. Other 
satellites were out there, there were other opportunities. So the 
concept of ``fresh look'' may make sense in some situations, but it 
does not make sense in 1998 in this instance.
  The idea that COMSAT should now be forced to renegotiate its 
contracts might make sense if COMSAT were a true monopoly, but as some 
have spoken before today, and I would like to add to it, they are not a 
monopoly. In fact, the FCC has declared COMSAT is a nondominant carrier 
in 85 percent of the business they do. Furthermore, there are a lot of 
competitors to INTELSAT satellites. COMSAT now carries 21 percent of 
the voice traffic. That is down from 70 percent just a few years ago, 
and it does not qualify as a monopoly. In video, COMSAT has only 42 
percent of the market share. Again, hardly monopolistic when, a few 
years ago, they had almost 90 percent of the video marketplace.
  In addition, if we were to require COMSAT to reopen all of its 
contracts, contracts that were legally negotiated in good faith, 
remember, we are then opening the Federal Government up to what I think 
are substantial damages. Now, do we want to send this bill before the 
taxpayers in our districts? Do we want to make them liable for the 
decision that we make here today? We should not try to privatize an 
international body, we should not try to privatize a communications 
industry in other countries by holding a gun to the head of an American 
company, a company that negotiated these contracts, that made business 
decisions based on requests of this Federal Government.
  We asked them to do this. Imposing harsh sanctions on a U.S. company 
in order to get other countries to do what we want them to do does not 
make any sense at all.
  I would go back to my comments a little earlier today about Cleavon 
Little holding a gun to himself in the movie ``Blazing Saddles.'' That 
is what we are doing. We are holding a gun to the head of an American 
company and telling the rest of the world, if you do not do what we 
want you to do, we are going to pull the trigger.
  ``Fresh look'' is a harsh sanction on a U.S. company. I say that we 
should support the Tauzin amendment and strike ``fresh look'' from this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80, 
noes 339, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 128]

                                AYES--80

     Baker
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Ford
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Horn
     Hoyer
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lazio
     Levin
     Linder
     Livingston
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mink
     Morella
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Redmond
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Stearns
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Watt (NC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

[[Page H2859]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Cardin
     Sawyer
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Fossella
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Skaggs

                              {time}  1518

  Messrs. CLAY, SPRATT, GALLEGLY, WATKINS and STOKES, and Mrs. CLAYTON 
and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL Explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on Rollcall No.'s 127 and 128 I was 
unavoidably detained on other congressional business and unable to be 
present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on both 
rollcall votes.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members for the debate. I want to 
thank the Members for their support of the bill. I particularly want to 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the others who took part in the debate.
  I would also especially like to thank my satellite team who labored 
very hard to open up the schools: Patricia Paoletta, Michael O'Reilly, 
Cliff Riccio, and Ed Hearst.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ewing) having resumed the chair, Mr. Snowbarger, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1872) to 
amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to promote competition 
and privatization in satellite communications, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 419, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 403, 
noes 16, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               AYES--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--16

     Berry
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Hamilton
     Hoyer
     John
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Morella
     Oberstar
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Taylor (MS)
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Cardin
     Sawyer
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Fossella
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Skaggs

                              {time}  1542

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________