[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.
____________________