[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 SATELLITE REFORM LEGISLATION (S. 376)

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. SAM GEJDENSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 21, 2000

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on S. 376, international satellite reform. This bipartisan 
compromise legislation will reform 1960s era satellite policy and 
promote competition in international and domestic satellite services 
and technology. This 1962 Communications Satellite Act is woefully 
outdated. The time for overhaul is now.
  The 1960s were a time when the telecommunications sector was 
dominated by monopolies. We had no cell phones, no pagers, no personal 
computers and no viable commercial satellite industry. Our 
international satellite policy reflected the times. It was believed 
that only government-sponsored entities could provide global satellite 
services. That may have been true then, but in the past forty years we 
have seen enormous change. With the passage of this bill, our global 
satellite policy will finally enter the new millennium.
  INTELSAT and INMARSAT are cast in the old mold. For example, INTELSAT 
is an intergovernmental treaty organization dominated by 143 member-
nations, largely through government-controlled telecommunications 
monopolies. As an intergovernmental organization, INTELSAT is not 
subject to U.S. or any other country's laws.
  At the same time, we have many private satellite companies that offer 
high-quality international services. Two such companies have corporate 
ties to Connecticut--GE Americom and PanAmSat. These companies have 
launched private sector ventures that must compete with these 
intergovernmental organizations which enjoy advantages such as legal 
immunities which the private sector does not.
  I commend Mr. Bliley and Mr. Markey for their long work over the last 
few years to bring competition and privatization to U.S. global 
communications policy. This legislation eliminates the privileges and 
immunities that these intergovernmental organizations enjoy. The bill 
offers incentives for INTELSAT and INMARSAT and their successors to 
privatize in a pro-competitive manner. As a result, we can expect to 
see improved access to foreign markets for the U.S. satellite 
communications industry.
  I am particularly pleased that the final conference bill contains 
definite, clear criteria for the FCC to use in determining if INTELSAT, 
INMARSAT and their spin-offs have privatized in a pro-competitive 
manner. If they don't, there are real consequences in terms of U.S. 
market access. This feature of the legislation provides meaningful 
incentives to these two organizations to privatize properly. It also 
governs the market entry of their spin-offs, such as New Skies 
Satellites, a Dutch company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
INTELSAT and its signatories. Although we welcome New Skies into the 
U.S. market, strict compliance with the criteria of S. 376 is necessary 
to ensure that its market entry will benefit competition and will not 
serve as a trojan horse for the INTELSAT cartel.
  I am also pleased that the bill prohibits all satellite operators 
serving the U.S. from enjoying the exclusive right to handle 
telecommunications traffic to or from the U.S. and any other country--
no matter how the exclusive relationships were derived.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation promises to benefit the American public 
with lower costs, more innovative services, and more high tech jobs. I 
urge my colleagues to support S. 376 and to bring the full benefits of 
competition to consumers.

                          ____________________