[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 26 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H902-H906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 376, OPEN-MARKET REORGANIZATION FOR THE 
           BETTERMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
Senate bill (S. 376) to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 
to promote competition and privatization in satellite communications, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
March 2, 2000, at page H636.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the conference report on S. 376.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight the House will pass and send to the President 
the conference report on S. 376, very important legislation to 
privatize the intergovernmental satellite organizations.
  The bill lowers prices for consumers and promotes the free enterprise 
market. It opens new opportunities for American companies seeking to do 
business overseas. It creates new and better jobs. It breaks up a 
cartel. It ends a monopoly.
  I started working on this issue when I became chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce in 1995. The bill the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I introduced in the last Congress was 
reported out of the conference committee and passed 403 to 16. The bill 
we are considering today is based on and reflects the hard work we did 
back then.
  This bill will lead to the pro-competitive privatization of the 
intergovernmental organizations, INTELSAT and Inmarsat.
  INTELSAT, like the U.N., is a treaty-based organization, not a 
company. They cannot be sued, taxed, or regulated. Governments, not the 
market, determine its action.

  INTELSAT is like the oil cartel OPEC. It is run by a combination of 
the world's governments and owned by a consortium of national 
telecommunications monopolies and dominant players: by government 
monopolies, for government monopolies, of government monopolies. Its 
supporters call it a ``cooperative.'' Where I come from, that is called 
a ``cartel.''
  The INTELSAT system is like the post office. Its U.S. signatory 
COMSAT has a government-sponsored monopoly over access for its services 
in the U.S.
  Our legislation puts an end to all this. Our legislation requires 
privatization and an end of the U.N.-like intergovernmental structure. 
It also ends the privileges and immunities.
  Our legislation ends the cartel by freeing up the existing ownership 
structure.
  Finally, our legislation ends the monopoly over access to INTELSAT 
from the U.S. held by COMSAT.
  I should add that we do welcome a pro-competitive INTELSAT into the 
international marketplace.
  I urge all Members to support this consensus conference report and 
submit a joint statement on behalf of myself and the ranking democrat 
of the Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, 
Mr. Markey.

 Joint Statement of Primary Original Sponsors of Legislation Committee 
      on Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley and Ranking Democrat of the 
 Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Edward 
                               J. Markey

       The Conference Report the House is considering today is 
     based on the hard work we have done on this issue over the 
     years. As the primary sponsors of this legislation in the 
     House we believe it is important for us to clarify the 
     meaning of several provisions in this legislation.
       First, section 624(1) is, with one change discussed below, 
     identical to section 624(4) in H.R. 3261 and an identical 
     provision in the bill which passed the House in the last 
     Congress. Circumstances have changed with respect to this 
     particular section which require clarification of its 
     meaning. Last August, ICO, also known as ICO Global 
     Communications (Holdings) Ltd., declared bankruptcy and 
     bankruptcy proceedings have been ongoing since then. All 
     references in the Conference Report to ICO are viewed as 
     references to the entity formally known as ICO Global 
     Communications (Holdings) Ltd.
       The policy reasons for section 624 were that Inmarsat 
     should not be able to expand by repurchasing all or some of, 
     or control, its spin-off, ICO. A primary purpose of the 
     legislation is to dilute the ownership by signatories or 
     former signatories of INTELSAT, Inmarsat and their spin-offs.
       When the bankruptcy process is complete, the charter of ICO 
     is likely to have fundamentally changed. First, the ownership 
     structure is likely to be very different from that of 
     Inmarsat. Most importantly, ICO is likely to be liquidated in 
     bankruptcy and its assets and subsidiaries acquired by a new 
     entity with an ownership structure will be very different 
     from that of Inmarsat. This post-bankruptcy ``new-ICO'' will 
     be controlled by new investors. Thus the policy reasons for 
     the prohibition on ownership by ICO of Inmarsat no longer 
     apply if it does indeed emerge from bankruptcy in such a 
     reconstituted form. This would occur, for example, if

[[Page H903]]

     ICO emerges from bankruptcy in a structure that fully 
     reorganizes the corporation so that there is no governmental 
     ownership of the reconstituted company beyond the one percent 
     ownership by Inmarsat permitted by section 624(1), where no 
     officers or managers of the new company are simultaneously 
     officers or managers of any signatory or hold positions in 
     any intergovernmental organization, and where any 
     transactions or other relationships between this 
     reconstituted company and Inmarsat can be conducted on an 
     arm's length basis.
       Furthermore, the limitations of section 624 were never 
     intended to apply to a company acquiring the assets of ICO or 
     to investors in such a company. Thus the purchase of 
     interests in Inmarsat of greater than one percent by ``new-
     ICO,'' or by investors in ``new-ICO,'' would not be 
     prohibited by this legislation.
       The one change in section 624 from H.R. 3261 was to allow 
     the ownership of up to one percent of ICO by Inmarsat, which 
     was likely to be the result of the bankruptcy proceedings.
       Second, we have also inserted into the Record a letter 
     dated February 12, 1997 from United States Trade 
     Representative Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky which states 
     USTR's finding that ``[w]e have also concluded that the 
     United States cannot be forced to grant a license to a 
     privatized ISO (should the ISO change its treaty status and 
     incorporate in a country) or to a future privatized 
     affiliate, subsidiary or other form of spin-off from the ISO. 
     Existing U.S. communications and antitrust law, regulation, 
     policy and practice will continue to apply to license 
     applicants if a GBT deal goes into effect.''
       It is clear that this legislation's provisions are 
     consistent with the U.S. WTO obligations as applied to not 
     only INTELSAT and Inmarsat, but also to their privatized 
     successors and spin-offs.
       Third, it is important to clarify section 648, which 
     addresses exclusivity arrangements. This provision was 
     contained in H.R. 3261 as section 649 and was described in 
     Mr. Bliley's extension of remarks on that bill. This 
     provision applies to foreign market exclusivity whether it 
     was obtained by actively seeking it or passively accepting 
     it. This language is designed to prevent any satellite 
     operator who serves the U.S. market from benefitting from 
     exclusivity in any foreign market.

  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record correspondence regarding the 
conference report.

                                                February 28, 2000.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to support 
     international satellite telecommunications reform 
     legislation. As you are aware, Chairmen Bliley and Burns and 
     Representative Markey, principal sponsors of the House and 
     the Senate bills now in conference, recently announced that a 
     compromise has been reached on this satellite privatization 
     legislation. The bills in conference, S. 376 and H.R. 3261, 
     were quite different, although both had the stated purpose of 
     promoting a competitive global market for international 
     satellite communications. This is a very delicately balanced 
     compromise that may well unravel if it is reopened.
       The companies listed below represent every aspect of the 
     U.S. commercial international satellite industry, as well as 
     the largest U.S. users of international satellite services. 
     We firmly believe that the compromise is fair and balanced. 
     As with most compromises, none of the parties is entirely 
     happy, but the compromise has gained significant support for 
     being fair, reasonable, and timely. In fact, all of the U.S. 
     companies involved in this legislative effort support it. It 
     is critical that this long-overdue reform package, as 
     represented by the recent compromise, be passed by Congress 
     and signed by the President as soon as possible.
       We urge you to support this compromise without modification 
     and to expedite final enactment of this important 
     telecommunications policy reform that is key to promoting 
     U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace.
           Sincerely,
         American Mobile Satellite Corporation; AT&T Corp.; 
           Columbia Communications Corporation; Ellipso, Inc.; 
           General Electric Company; Hughes Electronics 
           Corporation; Iridium LLC, Level 3 Communications, Inc.; 
           MCI WorldCom; PanAmSat Corporation; Sprint, and 
           Teledesic Corporation.
                                  ____

                                       Telecommunications Industry


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2000.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) to urge you to 
     sign the Conference Report to S. 376, the Open Market 
     Reorganization for the Betterment of the International 
     Telecommunications Act (ORBIT). TIA represents over 1000 
     suppliers of communications and information technology 
     products on public policy, standards and marketing developing 
     initiatives. Our member companies manufacture or supply 
     virtually all of the products used in building and updating 
     global communications networks.
       We strongly support this important legislation. While the 
     House and Senate bills were originally very different, under 
     the leadership of Chairman Bliley, Senator Burns and 
     Representative Markey, principal sponsors of the House and 
     Senate bills, the conference managers were able to reconcile 
     the differences between the House and Senate bills in order 
     to achieve a truly bipartisan agreement. Not only is this 
     bill widely supported in the House and Senate, but also it is 
     strongly supported by every American industry group and all 
     interested companies, from service providers to the entire 
     satellite industry to all of the communications manufacturers 
     and suppliers of TIA.
       This consensus agreement is the key that will unlock the 
     international satellite sector to competition. Enactment of 
     this bill will create new jobs and new business opportunities 
     for domestic satellite companies, who will at last be able to 
     compete on a global scale. The manufacturers of TIA will only 
     benefit from the enabling effect that this satellite reform 
     legislation will have on the rapid deployment of new 
     communications technologies.
       TIA urges your swift approval of this bipartisan 
     compromise, which has already passed the Senate by unanimous 
     consent. After five long years of debate, the time for pro-
     competitive privatization is now. The sooner this agreement 
     is enacted into law the sooner the American consumer will be 
     able to reap the benefits of competition in the international 
     telecommunications marketplace.
       It is critical to American industry, consumers and workers 
     that you sign this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Matthew J. Flanigan,
     President, TIA.
                                  ____



                                                    New Skies,

                                                    March 8, 2000.
     Senator Conrad Burns,
     Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 
         Committee, Subcommittee on Communications, Washington, 
         DC.
     Representative Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, House Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns and Representative Bliley: On behalf of 
     New Skies Satellites N.V. (``New Skies''), I am writing to 
     endorse the version of S. 376, the ``Open-market 
     Reorganization for the Betterment of International 
     Telecommunications Act'' (the ``ORBIT Act''), that recently 
     was approved by the committee of conference and that was 
     passed by the Senate on March 2, 2000. Although New Skies had 
     concerns with earlier drafts of the legislation, I am pleased 
     that, as a result of constructive discussions with the 
     conferees and their staffs, these concerns have been 
     redressed in the current version of the ORBIT Act.
       New Skies believes that the ORBIT Act now provides an 
     appropriate framework within which to regularize New Skies' 
     continued access to the U.S. market and to foster a vibrant 
     and competitive market for international satellite services. 
     Specifically, the ultimate passage of the ORBIT Act will 
     ensure that New Skies will be able to provide high quality 
     satellite services to, from and within the United States on a 
     long term basis, thereby increasing competition and securing 
     the pro-competitive objectives of the authors of the 
     legislation. Plainly the true beneficiaries of this important 
     legislation are U.S. satellite users and the American 
     citizens they serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert W. Ross,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                             Chambers Associates Incorporated,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2000.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing on behalf of Inmarsat 
     Holdings Ltd. (Inmarsat) to say that Inmarsat now supports 
     the international satellite privatization bill, the ``Open-
     Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International 
     Telecommunications Act.''
       As Inmarsat's Washington representative, I am authorized to 
     say that in light of important changes made to the 
     legislation earlier today, Inmarsat now endorses the bill in 
     its modified form.
           Sincerely,
                                                   W. Allen Moore,
     Vice President.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of the United 
           States Trade Representative,
                                Washington, DC, February 12, 1997.
     Mr. Kenneth Gross,
     President and Chief Operating Officer,
     Columbia Communications, Bethesda, MD.
       Dear Mr. Gross: I am writing in reply to a letter of 
     January 31, 1997, from your legal counsel, regarding the 
     negotiations on basic telecommunications services at the 
     World Trade Organization. The U.S. goal in these negotiations 
     is to strengthen the ability of the U.S. satellite services 
     industry to compete globally, and on a level playing field, 
     with the inter-governmental satellite services organizations 
     and with satellite service providers of other countries.
       The United States has taken a number of steps to make 
     certain that our key trade partners provide market access for 
     satellite-based delivery of basic telecom services. Based on 
     a note issued by the chairman of

[[Page H904]]

     the negotiations in November, 1996, which has become part of 
     the formal record of the proceedings, we have clarified the 
     scheduling approach with regard to satellites. As a result, 
     close to forty countries have made offers that would provide 
     full market access for satellite-based delivery of all 
     scheduled services on an immediate or phased-in basis.
       WTO members that make specific commitments on satellites 
     will be subject to allocating and assigning frequencies in 
     accordance with the principles of most-favored-nation and 
     national treatment, as well as in accordance with the 
     requirement for domestic regulations in the General Agreement 
     on Trade in Service. Almost all of the countries making full 
     satellite commitments have also adopted the reference paper 
     on pro-competitive regulatory commitments. As a result, they 
     will be obligated to provide additional regulatory safeguards 
     with respect to allocation and use of radio frequencies.
       A successful agreement on basic telecom services would also 
     obligate those countries which have not made satellite 
     commitments to provide treatment no less favorable to 
     satellite service providers of the United States than the 
     treatment provided to service suppliers of other countries. 
     This would apply, for example, to how WTO members reach 
     decisions regarding new market access arrangements involving 
     service suppliers of other countries.
       I share your deep concern regarding the possible distortive 
     impact on competition in the U.S. satellite services market 
     of certain proposals for restructuring INTELSAT. The United 
     States has proposed a restructuring of INTELSAT that would 
     lead to the creation of an independent commercial affiliate, 
     INTELSAT New Corporation (INC). If made independent, the 
     United States believes that the creation of INC will enhance 
     competition and help ensure the continuation of INTELSAT's 
     mission of global connectivity for core services. As you 
     are aware, however, many INTELSAT members are resisting 
     the idea of independence for INC and we believe that a 
     failure to achieve independence could adversely affect 
     competition in the U.S. satellite services market. In the 
     WTO negotiations we have taken pains to preserve our 
     ability to protect competition in the U.S. market.
       Our legal conclusion, for which there is a consensus among 
     participants in the WTO negotiations, is that the ISOs do not 
     derive any benefits from a GBT agreement because of their 
     status as treaty-based organizations. The status of ISOs was 
     discussed in detail in the GBT multilateral sessions. No 
     delegation in the GBT negotiations has contested this 
     conclusion.
       We have also concluded that the United States cannot be 
     forced to grant a license to a privatized ISO (should the ISO 
     change its treaty status and incorporate in a country) or to 
     a future privatized affiliate, subsidiary or other form of 
     spin-off from the ISO. Existing U.S. communications and 
     antitrust law, regulation, policy and practice will continue 
     to apply to license applicants if a GBT deal goes into 
     effect. Both Department of Justice and FCC precedent evidence 
     long-standing concerns about competition in the U.S. market 
     and actions to protect that competition. We have made it 
     clear to all our negotiating partners in the WTO that the 
     United States will not grant market access to a future 
     privatized affiliate, subsidiary or other form of spin-off 
     from the ISOs, that would likely lead to anti-competitive 
     results.
       It has always been U.S. practice to defend vigorously any 
     challenge in the WTO to allegations that U.S. measures are 
     inconsistent with our WTO obligations. There is no question 
     that we would do the same for any FCC decision to deny or 
     condition a license to access an ISO or a future privatized 
     affiliate, subsidiary or other form of spin-off from the ISO. 
     For your information, section 102(c) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act, specifically denies a private right of action 
     in U.S. courts on the basis of a WTO agreement. Therefore, a 
     FCC decision is not subject to judicial review in U.S. courts 
     based upon a WTO agreement, such as the General Agreement on 
     Trade in Services.
       The United States is confident that it would win if a U.S. 
     decision went to WTO dispute settlement. If the United States 
     did not prevail, however, we would not allow trade 
     retaliation measures to deter us from protecting the 
     integrity of U.S. competition policy.
       I appreciate the support your firms' representatives have 
     expressed for our objectives in the WTO negotiations.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charlene Barshefsky,
                              U.S. Trade Representative-Designate.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.
  This bill would mandate privatization of two international treaty 
organizations, INTELSAT and Inmarsat, according to a specific timetable 
and criteria. Privatization of these organizations has been a goal for 
us in the Congress for a number of years.
  It is interesting to note that these treaty groups themselves have 
been working diligently towards privatization. They have demonstrated 
their commitment to this goal, because to do so is in their own 
interest. In fact, Inmarsat has already privatized and INTELSAT is well 
on its way to accomplishing this end.
  Any opposition I had to the House-passed bill was based on my belief 
that the privatization criteria carried in the legislation were too 
dictatorial and had little chance of being accomplished in their 
original form. I am happy to report that some of the more onerous 
provisions in the House bill have been removed in conference. I believe 
the conference report is now worthy of support.
  Specifically, I am pleased that the provisions were added in 
conference that protect national security and public safety agencies 
from losing the INTELSAT services they need to perform their missions. 
I am also satisfied that U.S. companies who rely on INTELSAT will be 
given a voice in the FCC licensing process before INTELSAT services may 
be curtailed. The bill was also improved by removing an 
unconstitutional provision that would have nullified existing legal 
contracts.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another important 
change in this legislation that persuaded me to sign the conference 
report. It involves the treatment of spin-off companies, or so-called 
``separated entities,'' from INTELSAT. The original House-passed bill 
inappropriately singled out a specific company that was already spun 
off from INTELSAT, has since been incorporated, and is known as New 
Skies Satellites.
  The earlier version contained provisions that would have been 
punitive towards that company, apparently because the drafters believed 
the company might not be a true competitor for INTELSAT. This is, of 
course, not so. In recognition of that impending IPO, and New Skies' 
clear demonstration to the marketplace of its independence, the 
majority of the conferees of the House, including myself, insisted on 
changes to remove any doubt that New Skies meets the licensing criteria 
contained in the bill.
  I would like to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley), and Chairman Burns, from the other body, for working with 
me to include these important changes and making it one we can all 
support. I am happy to have assisted in making the legislative history 
of this particular provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee 
on Commerce.
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to join my colleagues, the 
chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), 
who has made a very important announcement this week about his own 
retirement, in the success of this work and so many works that he has 
carried through our Committee on Commerce over the years of his 
stewardship. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to him for his 
leadership on our committee, and on this bill in particular.
  As the gentleman said, it has been a bill that he has worked on 
throughout his stewardship as chairman of our committee; and he has 
brought it to a compromise position now where Members on both sides of 
the aisle, antagonists for many years over this bill, have come to 
common agreement.
  I want to thank him in particular for working out the concerns that I 
have had over the years with the provisions called ``fresh look,'' 
which I believe would have abrogated contracts.

                              {time}  2200

  I will be very careful in watching the implementation of this 
legislation to ensure that the FCC does in fact respect the sanctity of 
contracts as this legislation is implemented.
  But, most importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
ranking minority member, for the extraordinary way in which the final 
conference indeed answered the concerns

[[Page H905]]

of many of us with regard to the implementation of this legislation and 
has arrived at a point where we can all agree that this does in fact 
accomplish the goals of privatization and of open market competition 
and, more importantly, add new elements, new companies and new 
competition and choices for Americans in satellite service.
  This has been a long fight for the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Bliley). Tonight represents a very big victory for him in his efforts 
toward achieving open markets and satellite competition and for choice 
for consumers. I think we all owe him, as I said, a debt of gratitude 
and compliment him on his good work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this compromise agreement 
and conference report and urge all the Members of our body to adopt it 
and send it on to the President.
  I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
on both sides of the Capitol for their work on the compromise satellite 
privatization legislation crafted by this conference. The effort to 
create a new policy framework that more accurately reflects the 
emerging global satellite marketplace than does current satellite 
communications law, has been a bi-partisan one. I am pleased that we 
have finally reached this point where we have before us prudent and 
reasonable compromise legislation that will privatize INTELSAT and 
Inmarsat in a competitive manner, and will also ensure that the United 
States continues to enjoy its position as a world leader in global 
satellite communications technology and service. Moreover, this 
compromise legislation will enable the completion of Lockheed Martin's 
proposed $2.7 billion dollar acquisition of COMSAT, which will further 
enhance market competition.
  I am pleased that the legislation repeals unconditionally upon 
enactment the current ownership restrictions on COMSAT that have 
prevented Lockheed Martin from purchasing 100% COMSAT. COMSAT has 
carried out its job as the U.S. signatory to INTELSAT quite 
successfully. However, COMSAT's business performance acutely 
demonstrates that COMSAT must reinvent itself if it is to better react 
to the ever-evolving marketplace. Because of its inability to swiftly 
take advantage of new market opportunities, COMSAT, over the years, has 
experienced a steady decline in market share. This compromise 
legislation unshackles COMSAT from the antiquated regulatory burdens 
that have to date hampered its success. This legislation enables 
Lockheed Martin to complete its acquisition of COMSAT. By fortifying 
COMSAT, through an infusion of financial and human capital, Lockheed 
Martin will transform COMSAT into a vibrant commercial company, thereby 
introducing a new American company in the satellite services 
marketplace. Consumers will be the beneficiaries of this increasingly 
vibrant satellite marketplace as competition brings about lower prices, 
superior technology and greater choices.
  As a fervent protector of property rights, I am pleased to note that 
this compromise satellite privatization legislation recognizes the 
property rights of the industry participants. Specifically, the 
legislation does not contain any ``fresh look'' provisions. To include 
``fresh look'' would allow the Federal Government to permit COMSAT's 
corporate customers to abrogate their current contracts with COMSAT. 
The ``fresh look'' provisions were rejected by both chambers because 
they amounted to an unconstitutional takings of COMSAT's property and 
violated the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause which prohibits the 
government from taking private property without just compensation. No 
one can doubt that COMSAT has a property interest in its existing 
contracts. Indeed, this asset represented a significant portion of the 
$2.7 billion dollar purchase price of COMSAT offered by Lockheed 
Martin. This constitutional violation would have subjected the U.S. 
Government--and the taxpayers--to substantial claims for damages. In 
that same vein, this conference agreement wisely rejects Level IV 
direct access--a provision like ``fresh look'' that would have forced 
COMSAT to divest its investment in INTELSAT at fire sale prices before 
INTELSAT's privatization. I will watch the Commission closely as it 
implements this legislation to ensure that it does not force the 
abrogation of contracts or other such agreements.
  In fact, one of the primary marketplace successes that will grow out 
of this conference agreement will be the benefit to customers and 
consumers from unshackling a new competitor in the satellite industry 
from the restrictions placed upon it last summer by the FCC. Although 
at an earlier point in this process some Members viewed INTELSAT's 
spinoff of New Skies Satellites with suspicion, New Skies has proven 
itself to be a persistent and independent competitor--even in the face 
of limitations imposed by the FCC on its access to the U.S. market. By 
the time the conferees arrived at the negotiating table, New Skies was 
well on its way to an initial public offering of stock. If conducted 
within the broad time frame established by the conferees, the IPO will 
entitle New Skies to full and nondiscriminatory U.S. market access 
under the bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Bliley 
and ranking Member Markey, as well as to Chairman Burns, for responding 
affirmatively to the concerns of other House conferees that the New 
Skies issue be addressed. Once the New skies IPO is done and its stock 
is trading publicly, the underlying purposes of this legislation will 
have been met. Thus, I am confident that the FCC will respond by 
removing the discriminatory conditions it previously placed on New 
Skies' ability to extend the full benefits of vigorous market 
competition to American customers.
  Again, I commend my colleagues for their hard work in developing the 
proper framework to inject genuine competition in the international 
satellite marketplace by privatizing INTELSAT and Inmarsat in a 
meaningful way and for allowing the transformation of COMSAT, a company 
that has served this country well.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very historic evening. Tonight, as we 
pass this legislation, we break down the final governmentally-
sanctioned monopoly that had been granted over the last decades to 
private telecommunications companies.
  We did the bulk of the work in the 1992 Cable Act and in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act, but this was the last refuge of the last 
monopoly; and, as of tonight, it too has ended.
  I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley), for his excellent work on this bill. I have worked very 
closely with him over the last counsel of terms on this legislation. 
Although, I have to admit that I did introduce the first bill back in 
1983. Although, most of my last couple of decades was notable for its 
lack of success in legislating in this area. But I think the inexorable 
momentum of the move toward the privatization of telecommunications 
companies has in fact finally swept down this final barrier, as well.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Working together with them, 
we have been able to craft I believe a compromise that works for 
everyone. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has been there all the 
way. This is, without question, compromise at its best. Over in the 
Senate, Senator Burns, without question, was leading the way.
  Back in 1962 when COMSAT was formed, it would have been inconceivable 
that a private company would be able to launch satellites. So, as a 
result, the Government had to grant monopolies. But since the beginning 
of the 1990s, and really back in the 1980s, when Rene Anselmo of 
PanAmSat came on the scene, it was clear now we had reached the point 
where private sector companies could compete. And, in fact, the United 
States is far in the lead in these areas. And, so, this legislation 
really does help to make it possible to open up that competition even 
further.
  I want to congratulate the staffers, Ed Hearst and Mike O'Rielly, 
Cliff Riccio, Monica Azare, Andy Levin, and David Schuler, along with 
Collin Proel on my staff who has been working on this bill for 4 years. 
This has been a long, long effort; and I know, just through Collin's 
work, how much time and how much negotiation has gone into it.
  This is a good bill. And as we finish tonight, hopefully enacting it 
unanimously, we will open up a brand new era of competition in the 
skies of this world and that will be a good thing.
  I congratulate again the chairman, along with the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). This is a good bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from

[[Page H906]]

Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the full committee, who has 
shown immense leadership in this issue and one that we have dealt with 
for a number of years.
  I did not realize it was 1983 when the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) first introduced his legislation. But in the true spirit 
of the Committee on Commerce, we were able to craft a compromise that 
will truly change the satellite industry for the better based on 
competition, new technologies, and breaking up the last monopoly, as my 
friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said.
  So my hat is off to the chairman on his efforts in this very 
important piece of legislation, along with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and Senator Burns and others on 
the Senate side for bringing us to where we are tonight.
  There were times when I did not think we were going to be successful 
in our efforts. Too many times this bill reached a Sisyphus proportions 
where we were perhaps doomed to roll that rock up the proverbial 
mountain and have it rolled back, as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) reminds us so many times on some of these pieces of 
legislation.
  But I guess if it was easy, we would have done it long ago. And so 
our hats are off to the chairman; and as he is a retiring Member, this 
will be perceived as one of his greatest triumphs for our committee and 
for the entire country and for this he is to be congratulated.
  So I thank everyone involved with this.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank again the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) for his cooperation and particularly thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who labored on this long before I got 
really into the picture and has been invaluable in his help in moving 
us to this time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the efforts of Chairman 
Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Oxley and our friends 
in the other body for reaching a consensus on legislation to promote 
more competition in the satellite communication industry. The 
conference agreement on S. 376 is landmark legislation that will 
finally update our nation's satellite communication laws for the 21st 
century.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement is a bipartisan bill that 
will encourage the privatization of INTELSAT without imposing 
unreasonable restrictions or penalties that will hurt consumers. Of 
course, if INTELSAT thumbs its nose at the standards set forth in this 
bill for a pro-competitive privatization, its ability to offer services 
in the United States could be hindered dramatically. However, this 
leverage is necessary to ensure that INTELSAT truly privatizes, and to 
ensure that we finally have a level playing field in the satellite 
services market.
  I am also pleased that the conferees made several necessary changes 
to the conference agreement to ensure that the Department of Defense 
and other agencies that protect our national security would not be 
harmed by any limitations imposed upon INTELSAT if it were to fail to 
privatize in a timely manner. This bill is explicit in its protection 
of our national security interests, and I especially want to thank Mr. 
Dingell, the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, for including 
this language in the bill.
  It is also important to note that this bill eliminates several 
antiquated statutes that have hindered the growth and expansion of 
satellite communications companies. In particular, this bill will 
enable Lockheed Martin to complete its acquisition of COMSAT 
Corporation. I am confident that this merger will enhance competition 
in the satellite services market, and I urge the FCC to act on this 
merger as soon as possible. American companies like Lockheed Martin and 
COMSAT deserve the right to compete in the global satellite market now 
without any further delay.
  I want to thank all of the members and staff who worked so hard on 
this important legislation. I urge its immediate adoption.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 376, the 
Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act, and commend 
House Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley and Congressman Edward Markey for 
their work in crafting this important legislation. This bill is yet 
another feather in their cap--another important step in Congress's 
ongoing efforts to deregulate the telecommunications industry.
  S. 376 will enhance competition and open foreign markets for U.S. 
companies by promoting the privatization of the intergovernmental 
satellite organizations--called Intelsat and Inmarsat--that dominate 
international commercial satellite communications. These organizations 
operate as a cartel-like structure comprised of the national telephone 
monopolies and dominant companies of its member organizations.
  The provisions contained in S. 376--which will update policies dating 
back to 1062--are long overdue. I don't think anyone in this Congress 
needs to be told the extent to which communications technology has 
changed in the past 40 years.
  Back in 1962, it was widely believed that only governments could 
finance and manage a global satellite system. Today, however, two 
companies in my own district--GE Americom and PanAmSat--are among the 
private companies that offer high-quality international services. These 
companies have launched private sector ventures that must compete with 
Intelsat, an intergovernmental behemoth.
  Yet, we still have the same structure for international satellite 
communications that was designed before Neil Armstrong walked on the 
moon. The result is a distorted marketplace, stifled competition and 
innovation, and increased prices for consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, the promotion of a competitive satellite communications 
marketplace is a goal we should all support and I urge my colleagues to 
support this pro-trade, pro-consumer bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________