02-05-2000

CONGRESS: A Satellite Bill, a Career in Orbit?

Last year, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., was frustrated because the House
had stalled on a telecommunications bill he had ushered through the
Senate. So Burns walked from his ground-floor Senate office to the House
side of the Capitol and sat down with the man responsible for delaying the
satellite privatization measure, Rep. Tom Bliley, R-Va., who championed a
competing bill.


It's a bit unusual for a member of the Senate, perhaps the world's most
egotistical body, to make such a trek. Burns' plea to Bliley for help
affirmed Bliley's rank as the chief of telecommunications policy on
Capitol Hill-and proved that Burns was still little more than a rookie.
But all of that is about to change.


Beginning this month and stretching for perhaps several years, a series of
political changes will rock the telecom policy hierarchy in Congress.
Bliley, 68, is beginning his final year as chairman of the powerful House
Commerce Committee and soon could begin to see his power over telecom
issues slip. Meanwhile, Burns, the 65-year-old chairman of the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Communications Subcommittee, is
slowly gaining influence and is positioning himself for a long-shot power
grab.


As one lobbyist put it: "If you look at a member's political
power as a parabolic curve during his career, Bliley has just passed the
apex of his power, while Burns has just begun to rise."


The political dynamic will be fascinating to follow in coming days as
Bliley and Burns square off over the satellite legislation in a
House-Senate conference committee. The showdown could be the first of
several bouts that will shape congressional telecom policy for the start
of the 21st century.


To be sure, Burns, an unproven two-term Senator, is far from the heir
apparent to Bliley's throne. Democrats could regain House control in the
November elections, after which the formidable Rep. John D. Dingell,
D-Mich., could reclaim the Commerce Committee chairmanship he once
held.


On the other hand, if Republicans keep the House majority and stick to
their pledge to kick out committee chairmen after six-year tenures at the
beginning of 2001, most of Bliley's power will pass to his GOP successor.
The Republicans jockeying for the House Commerce chairmanship are Reps.
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a Louisianan who chairs the panel's
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, and
Michael G. Oxley, an Ohioan who heads the Finance and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee. In either case, Bliley would continue to play an important
role in telecom debates-either as ranking Republican on a Dingell-run
panel or as chairman of the Telecommunications subpanel-but his influence
would fade.


Still, Burns could manufacture a stunning upset. If Senate Commerce
Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., abandons the Senate for the White House-or
is tapped for a Cabinet post-Burns is in line to take over the reins at
the committee. In that scenario, Burns could see his stock rise as fast as
the value of some of the Internet startups he now oversees. He might even
eclipse Bliley, Tauzin, Oxley, and Dingell.


Congressional insiders find such a changing of the guard intriguing
because Bliley and Burns are such contrasting characters. In terms of
experience, style, politics, and even appearance, the courtly Virginian
and the Montana rancher have as much in common as the fox trot and a
cattle stampede.


Bliley, a former Richmond mayor, is a calculating 20-year legislator whose
support of AT&T Corp. and the long-distance telephone industry is as
reliable as his trademark bow tie and spectacles. In his five years as
chairman, Bliley has chalked up a string of impressive victories,
including passage of legislation to block state and local governments from
taxing the Internet and to promote the growth of the satellite-television
business. His biggest win was the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996,
a law credited with fueling today's Internet economy, spawning billions of
dollars' worth of new telecommunications investments, and creating
thousands of well-paying jobs.


Burns, meanwhile, is an unpolished straight shooter who seems out of place
on the Senate floor in cowboy boots and an oversized blazer. Though he has
never won a major legislative victory, Burns has worked diligently to
raise his profile on high-technology issues. Last year, he unveiled an
ambitious "digital dozen" roster of high-tech measures
he would like to enact. (Though none has passed, the tactic earned him
some much-needed respect.) This year, Burns stands in the middle of the
two hottest telecom issues in Congress-the satellite privatization measure
and legislation to create government incentives for satellite television
companies to serve rural states.


Although Burns and Bliley agree on many issues, they often clash over
high-tech policy. "It is interesting that you have these two
Republicans who have very similar overall voting records, but when it
comes to telecom issues, they don't see eye to eye," said one
Senate aide.


Today's biggest telecom issue, broadband Internet service, may be the best
example of the contrast. Bliley believes that the so-called Baby Bell
phone companies should not be allowed to carry high-speed Internet calls
across state lines until they meet the 1996 Telecom Act's requirement to
open their local phone markets to competition. In the four years since the
law was signed, Bliley has muzzled those, including Burns, who want to
change the law to benefit the Bells. Burns, meanwhile, has partnered with
Tauzin and Dingell, either of whom could succeed Bliley at the Commerce
Committee, to support gutting key sections of the law and thus make it
easier for the Bells to offer high-speed Internet service.


But it is the fight over the satellite privatization measure that insiders
are using to measure the force and direction of the upcoming power shift.
At issue is an obscure bill to pry open the $66 billion worldwide market
for communications satellites. As it stands today, the international
quasi-governmental organization known as Intelsat controls most of the
world's communications satellites, while Bethesda, Md.-based Comsat Corp.
enjoys monopoly-like status as a government-sanctioned middleman to
Intelsat.


Bliley and Burns agree that the growing U.S. satellite industry should
have more access to the lucrative market, but they differ sharply about
exactly how to privatize Intelsat. Bliley supports setting rigid standards
for privatization and allowing Comsat's competitors, such as market-leader
PanAmSat Corp., to immediately tap into Intelsat's satellite system
without using Comsat as a middleman. Burns champions an approach that
would set flexible guidelines for privatization and allow Comsat merger
partner Lockheed Martin Corp., one of his key allies, to purchase Comsat
with many of its entrenched market advantages intact.


Aides to Burns and Bliley maintain that the two Republicans do not harbor
a personal rivalry and have worked closely on the issue. But a look at the
maneuvering in the final weeks of last year's session reveals a bitter
struggle. With two weeks remaining before Congress's long winter break-and
Burns and Lockheed Martin growing frustrated after a two-year
struggle-Burns devised a clever plan to enact his bill while Bliley was
distracted by other year-end priorities.


Burns planned to slip his satellite privatization bill into a little-known
public-works bill, called the Maryland Trails Act, and swiftly move the
package through Congress before his Republican adversary could react. But
Bliley, no stranger to old-fashioned political street fighting, had kept
an eye on Burns. Days before Burns concocted the plan, Bliley aides had
warned Senate allies to beware of such a move. When Burns sketched out his
plan, Bliley's Senate allies rejected it.


Then, just hours before Congress completed work on its massive year-end
spending bill, Lockheed Martin launched a last-minute effort to insert a
one-sentence provision to lift Comsat's statutory ownership cap and allow
the ailing defense contractor to complete its purchase of Comsat--without
further legislative action. Lockheed CEO Vance Coffman personally pleaded
with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and House Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. Again, Bliley blocked the deal, and the provision
was not inserted into the budget bill.


But this time, the pressure from the Republican leadership forced Bliley
to stop delaying. He agreed to move his own satellite privatization bill,
which the House approved unanimously the next day.


This month, Burns and Bliley are scheduled to sit down across from each
other in conference committee to begin hashing out a final bill. But much
more is at stake than which companies can turn a profit in a lucrative new
market. The struggle will also help mold several political careers and
perhaps shape telecom policy for years to come.


A victory for Bliley would prove that the venerable policy-maker will be
difficult to topple. On the other hand, if Burns outfoxes Bliley, he will
prove that he can play in the big leagues and has what it takes to lead
the Senate Commerce Committee and, perhaps, telecom policy on Capitol
Hill. But a Burns loss could doom him to obscurity-and increase the spoils
for Tauzin, Oxley, or Dingell.


Brody Mullins is a reporter for National Journal Group's CongressDaily.



Brody Mullins

National Journal