[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 22767]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MODIFYING AND EXTENDING CERTAIN PRIVATIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE 
                  COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2896) to modify and extend 
certain privatization requirements of the Communications Satellite Act 
of 1962, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 2896

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PRIVATIZATION REQUIREMENTS MODIFIED AND EXTENDED.

       Section 621(5) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 
     (47 U.S.C. 763) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``June 30, 2004'' 
     and inserting ``June 30, 2005''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a 
     successor entity may be deemed a national corporation and may 
     forgo an initial public offering and public securities 
     listing and still achieve the purposes of this section if--
       ``(i) the successor entity certifies to the Commission 
     that--

       ``(I) the successor entity has achieved substantial 
     dilution of the aggregate amount of signatory or former 
     signatory financial interest in such entity;
       ``(II) any signatories and former signatories that retain a 
     financial interest in such successor entity do not possess, 
     together or individually, effective control of such successor 
     entity; and
       ``(III) no intergovernmental organization has any ownership 
     interest in a successor entity of INTELSAT or more than a 
     minimal ownership interest in a successor entity of Inmarsat;

       ``(ii) the successor entity provides such financial and 
     other information to the Commission as the Commission may 
     require to verify such certification; and
       ``(iii) the Commission determines, after notice and 
     comment, that the successor entity is in compliance with such 
     certification.
       ``(G) For purposes of subparagraph (F), the term 
     `substantial dilution' means that a majority of the financial 
     interests in the successor entity is no longer held or 
     controlled, directly or indirectly, by signatories or former 
     signatories.''.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2896 
and urge swift passage of this noncontroversial legislation. Earlier 
this week, the Senate passed S. 2896, to extend the deadline by which 
INTELSAT and Inmarsat are required to conduct an initial public 
offering (IPO) under the ORBIT Act and to further broaden the options 
available to these companies to divest their government shareholders. I 
commend my colleagues in the Senate for expeditiously addressing this 
important issue.
  The ORBIT Act was enacted in March 2000 to promote a competitive 
market for satellite communications through the privatization of inter-
governmental organizations. To achieve that competitive satellite 
marketplace, the ORBIT Act called on Inmarsat and INTELSAT to conduct 
an initial public offering (IPO) by a date certain--December 31, 2001. 
The purpose of this IPO requirement was to ensure independence by 
substantially diluting the ownership of these privatized companies by 
their former owners, many of which were foreign governmental entities. 
Such dilution would facilitate a more competitive satellite marketplace 
devoid of the perverse influences associated with government ownership 
and control.
  However, due to volatility in the financial markets, and the 
telecommunications sector specifically, Congress has repeatedly been 
forced to grant additional time for these companies to conduct their 
statutorily mandated IPOs. Unfortunately, the market conditions have 
not improved. Today, these companies, instead of going to the public 
equity markets, have opted to use private equity deals to divest 
themselves of government ownership.
  I fully supported the goal of independence and competition when we 
enacted the ORBIT Act, and I still do today. Indeed, the action we take 
today is fully consistent with this policy objective.
  This bill, while it does not eliminate the IPO requirement, allows 
other methods, which are currently being used in the marketplace to 
show ``substantial dilution.'' This bill makes the ORBIT Act consistent 
with what is happening today in the real world.
  There are certainly other issues in the ORBIT Act that deserve to be 
explored and I intend to ask Telecommunications and Internet 
Subcommittee Chairman Upton to hold a hearing on the Act early next 
year to examine what further needs to be accomplished. But today, I 
fully support S. 2896 and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________