The Committee is meeting today on two unrelated bills -- one dealing with an attempt to privatize satellites, and the other to authorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They have one element in common: both bills had problems identified in Subcommittee. In both cases, there was insufficient good faith negotiating.

In the case of the satellite bill, an amendment was offered by the Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, to eliminate the bill's arbitrary limits on Comsat's business. At the request of the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Wynn withdrew his amendment in return for a pledge to work to resolve the matter. Yet over the past week, the Majority refused to give any ground on this exact issue. The service restrictions remain.

Complicating matters, we once again are facing yet another amendment in the nature of a substitute, which Members received less than 24 hours before this markup, without any participation from the Minority in the drafting. I doubt any Member has had sufficient time to understand what little surprises are included in this latest substitute, and I intend to inquire about them.

In the case of the NHTSA reauthorization bill, an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, was adopted which amended the provisions of the American Automobile Labeling Act. At the time, I expressed concerns about the amendment, and these concerns have been echoed by the Administration, American automobile manufacturers, American parts suppliers, and American workers. In an attempt to correct the flaws in the Labeling Act, while preserving its intent, I provided the Chairman with a compromise proposal over a month ago. We were even complimented on the good faith effort displayed by our offer. Unfortunately, I never received the courtesy of a response other than to learn indirectly that my proposal had been rejected.

Turning to the substance of the satellite bill, H.R. 1872 appears at first glance to achieve a worthwhile objective. Nobody disagrees that more competition is better, whether it is in the satellite industry, the long distance business, local telephone networks or cable TV. These are worthy goals, and with that I have no argument. The crux of the problem with this bill is that it will not achieve what it sets out to do. In fact, it will accomplish precisely the opposite result. Less competition and higher prices are the unfortunate, but inevitable outcomes of H.R. 1872.

 Where does this bill, which appears so well-intentioned, suddenly jump the track and begin its headlong cascade in the wrong direction? I can point to one simple, but false premise underlying this bill that is the culprit behind all the infirmities that naturally flow from it. H.R. 1872 starts with the assumption that Comsat is a monopoly, and, as such, is deserving of all evils that may be bestowed upon it.

The simple truth is that Comsat is not a monopoly. Yes, it is true that the Government granted Comsat an exclusive franchise to provide satellite services using INTELSAT and Inmarsat facilities. But, that is not where the story ends. Today scores of satellite systems compete head to head with INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Comsat is not the only game in town by a long shot.

In 1984, President Reagan issued an executive order that put an end to Comsat's monopoly by authorizing competition in the satellite market. Today Comsat faces more than 20 highly effective competitors that have combined investments in satellites totaling over $14 billion. In the past four years alone, Wall Street has tripled the value of these competitors' stocks, and their owners now enjoy a combined market value of more than $40 billion. Clearly investors believe these companies are not shackled on the sidelines, unable to compete against an entrenched monopolist.

If you don't believe the investors, just take a look at Comsat's share of the market. These numbers positively refute any lingering doubt that the days of Comsat's monopoly status have long since passed. Since 1988, Comsat's market share for voice traffic has plummeted from 70% to 21%. Its share of the video market has dropped precipitously since 1993 from 80% to 42%. If Comsat is a monopoly, it certainly isn't a very good one.

All of this is not to say that satellite companies should not compete on an even playing field in the international market. If INTELSAT and Inmarsat have any competitive advantages, whether it be in obtaining orbital slots or exclusive access to foreign markets, the correct approach should be to put pressure on the international community to eliminate those advantages. Unfortunately, H.R. 1872 takes the opposite approach and places the burden on Comsat to correct the ills of the rest of the world, and punishes them if they don't succeed. The fallacy with that approach is that Comsat has no control over the actions of 141 foreign countries. Hence, the goal of the bill is doomed from the start.

Worse, if Comsat is punished for its inability to bring home the gold, the goal of stimulating more competition is compromised even further. By the terms of this bill, Comsat would be restricted from providing "non-core" services, which are defined as just about everything Comsat provides today to remain a viable competitor in the market. It is tantamount to imposing capital punishment on Comsat for a crime committed by somebody else. Through no fault of its own, Comsat's investment in satellites would be rendered virtually worthless, and an important competitor would be removed from the marketplace. Less competition would lead to higher prices, when the goal of the bill is to accomplish precisely the opposite result.

If this weren't bad enough, Comsat would have a legitimate claim for damages against the U.S. Government. Based on specific instructions from the Government, in reliance on a reasonable expectation of an investment return, Comsat's shareholders have staked billions of dollars on assets orbiting the sky solely for the purpose of generating revenues now and into the future. When the service restrictions contained in this bill kick in, and they surely will, those stranded assets will be looking for a home. And, of course, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to take them in, at no small cost to the Government treasury.

My good friend, Mr. Wynn, will be introducing an important amendment today to eliminate these punitive measures on Comsat, its customers, and the U.S. taxpayers. His amendment would redirect the punishment where it belongs on foreign countries that impede progress towards privatization. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Wynn amendment so we can avert the considerable harm this bill would cause in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Back to the Public Record Home Page