John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, persecution for one's religious beliefs is wrong. It should not be permitted anywhere, and this bill, the ``Freedom from Religious Persecution Act,'' has the important and laudable goal of intending to reduce and eliminate the widespread and ongoing religious persecution taking place throughout the world today. The United States, as a world leader, should do what we can to eradicate this human rights abuse. This Nation was founded on principles of religious freedom, and we have thriving faith communities today because of our commitment to those principles. Persecution is reprehensible, and we need to pursue all appropriate ways to stop it. The bill seeks to achieve its objective by increasing the priority attached in U.S. foreign policy to the problem of religious persecution. The bill would impose sanctions on foreign governments that carry out or condone serious religious persecution. Also, the bill would seek to increase the refugee and asylum protections available to victims of religious persecution. While I want to end religious persecution globally, there are defects in this bill that do not permit me to support the measure as reported to the House. The bill's automatic sanctions, which include restrictions on exports and foreign assistance would be counterproductive. Further, these measures will tie the President's hands in areas of foreign policy where the executive has traditionally had discretion in the exercise of his constitutional duties and powers to promote the full range of U.S. interests--including national security, economic prosperity, and respect for all human rights. Our laws and policies already give significant weight to human rights, and I would support strict and severe sanctions against repressive governments under current law. Further, it is unlikely that the imposition of sanctions, as provided in this bill, would have much effect on governments that are of a mind to persecute people on account of their faith. Such automatic sanctions risk strengthening the grip of those who permit or undertake religious intolerance in their countries. Sanctions may trigger reprisals against victims as well as an end to American engagement with offending governments. Furthermore, by establishing sanctions and preferential treatment for those fleeing religious persecution alone, the bill would signal to the world that this Nation believes in a an inappropriate hierarchy of human rights violations. What about our efforts toward universal respect for all civil and political rights? Severe and violent acts of persecution on ethnic, racial, or political grounds, for example, would not invoke these sanctions or bring about procedural advantages in the immigration context. Although some religious organizations have expressed their support for the measure, others have stated that this bill would do more harm than good for the very people it seeks to protect. Clearly, we need to foster religious tolerance and respect for all human rights around the world. But we must do it in a proper fashion that helps, not hurts those that deserve our help.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I would like to commend and compliment my colleagues. This has been one of the most constructive and, I believe, gentlemanly debates I have seen in my career in this Congress. And I particularly want to pay tribute to my friend from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and the other Members of the Congress who have participated. I would like to speak about the amendment, and I would like to point out several things. First of all, if my colleagues voted against the LaFalce amendment earlier, because it allowed for operating subsidiaries inside the banks to engage in nonbank activities, they should oppose this because this amendment does exactly the same thing. Now, a large number of my other colleagues voted for the LaFalce amendment because they said it kept intact the community reinvestment requirements that are in the CRA. That was a valid reason for my colleagues to vote that way, although I do not think that was controlling in that particular matter. I would observe, however, if that was the reason for my colleagues voting that way on that amendment, they should vote ``no'' on this amendment because this amendment removes the requirements of the CRA from community banks, small banks, it is said. But the number of the banks that are absolved of those responsibilities are 6,500. Sixty-five hundred banks no longer have to meet that requirement if this amendment is adopted. Now, this also violates the compromise which was achieved with the insurance agents and brokers. I would assume that if Members voted against the provisions of the LaFalce amendment, or if Members voted for it because they were concerned about CRA, they would vote against this amendment in the firm knowledge that they have every reason to so do. Now, there is one other point to be made. A lot of my colleagues are still troubled about the concerns of the banks, and very truthfully I am, too, because banks are important to this country and to the economy. But I would observe for my colleagues, clearly, that the banks have made it plain that the adoption of this or any other amendment is not going to make this bill acceptable to them.

Mr. DINGELL. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Are we reading the amendment, or discussing the amendment which is authorized by the rule, or something different?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, bankers said it this morning, and I want my colleagues to hear what the ABA had to say. They said, ``No amendment or combination of amendments will be offered that will make the bill acceptable.'' Do not think, Mr. Speaker, that voting for this amendment is going to buy us any peace or approval from the bankers. I want my colleagues to understand that. Now, I want to say a word of respect and affection for my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the author of the amendment. I think that the bill is a good bill. It helps the banks. It allows them to underwrite municipal revenue bonds. It allows them to engage in all kinds of financial activity as the agent of the bank in an operating subsidiary. It knocks down current Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Act barriers against affiliations between banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and other firms. The bankers trade association, the ABA, does not want a bill. It never did. So voting for this amendment is not going to buy us peace with the banks. But voting for this bill and voting against the LaFalce amendment is going to buy us a bill which is good and in the public interest, which helps banks, and which does something else, which protects people against the abuses that the banks committed which brought about the crash of 1929. The Fed is right. Listen to Mr. Greenspan. Listen to Chairman Levitt. Listen to other former chairmen of the SEC, pointing out the need to have real separation between banks and between nonbank subsidiaries. Operating subs are permitted to do all kinds of interesting things: accounting games, shifting of assets back and forth between the sub and the parent company, and opportunities for committing all kinds of, quite honestly, improper and doubtful practices which are nonetheless fully legal. The simple fact of the matter is that just recently we saw an in- house subsidiary of a bank engaging in grotesquely improper practices, selling to old folks securities which they cast as being government guaranteed. They were not. And they wound up having to pay a $7 million fine. That tells us that bankers are willing to do whatever is necessary to make money and to compete in a hard world. The only way that we can protect investors against this is to see to it that the banks are situated in a situation where they can be fully observed, where their accounting can be properly watched, and where they cannot shift assets back and forth, and where the bank has no incentive to engage in either bad accounting practices, or to achieve the permission of the regulators to engage in special accounting practices, which will protect them against the failure or the loss of a subsidiary to the dissatisfaction of the public at large. Remember the abuses that brought about the savings and loan crash? They were caused by in-house actions by the savings and loans. Do not repeat it with the banks.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. I yield myself 3 minutes. Last month, Madam Chairman, USA Today carried an editorial with a title, ``Protecting Consumers Is a Big Part of Reforming Bank Laws.'' With this amendment, the House will say resoundingly, ``We agree.'' I would note to my colleagues that we have heard no condemnation nor criticism of the amendment. Consumers Union today submitted a letter urging Members to vote for the manager's amendment, and I will insert that letter, and an explanation of the manager's amendment, following my remarks. Breaking down the barriers between financial services industries raises serious risks to consumers. USA Today raised some of these. Rip-off risks. The big promise to consumers from merging banking, securities and insurance firms is one-stop shopping. But that opens consumers up to enormous pressure to absorb all of the services that the banks can give. Clearly, a person badly in need of a loan is going to be extremely responsive to that, hardly a situation which we want. The manager's amendment protects against that. Uninsured risks is another. Will bank customers be misled about which products are insured and which are not? Bank deposits are FDIC insured; if the bank goes under, taxpayers pony up to cover the deposits, as we had to do on savings and loans. Stock funds and other investment vehicles are not. Consumer groups complain that it will be too easy for banks to woo customers into higher-risk, higher-paying investments with consumers thinking that their assets are protected. Clear guidelines are a must, says USA Today. Our amendment provides them. Taxpayers' risks. Taxpayers are also facing heightened risks. Banks might be tempted to use insured deposits as leverage to make riskier investments, knowing that if the investments turn sour, taxpayers will bail them out. That is what happened to the savings and loans in the bailouts of the late 1980s. It cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. These are things against which the manager's amendment protects. The manager's amendment will also protect customers and consumers with strong protections against risks and abuses as banks move into other financial fields. Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and at this time I will include for the Record the previously referred to materials. Protecting Consumers is Big Part of Reforming Bank Laws For many, many years, overhauling the banking industry has been one of Congress' favorite pastimes. Just promise to change the nation's Depression-era banking laws, and a host of competing industries starts flooding campaign coffers with cash in an effort to protest their interests. The trick for lawmakers was to not actually pass anything. This week's announcement of an $83 billion merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group could bring that game to a halt. The marriage will likely prompt other banks to start courting insurance and securities firms. All of which will put intense pressure on lawmakers to get off the dime and kill the 1933 law that sought to minimize risks to depositors by preventing banks from underwriting securities or insurance products. But breaking down the financial service industry's firewalls also raises serious risks to consumers. Rip-off risks. The big promise to consumers from merging banking, securities and insurance firms is one-stop shopping. But will those looking for a mortgage be pressured into buying other services from the lender? Or will banks offer package deals that seem appealing but are far more expensive than if each were bought separately? Some consumer-protection ground rules are needed here. Uninsured risks. Will bank customers be misled about which products are insured and which aren't? Bank deposits are FDIC insured--if the bank goes under, taxpayers pony up to cover the deposits. Stock funds and other investment vehicles aren't. Consumer groups complain that it will be too easy for banks to woo customers to riskier, higher-paying investments, with customers thinking their assets are protected. Clear guidelines are a must. Taxpayer risks. Taxpayers also face heightened risks. Banks might be tempted to use insured deposits as leverage to make riskier investments, knowing that if the investments turn sour, taxpayers will bail them out. That's what happened in the S&L bailout of the late '80s. It cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Firms also might be tempted to loan that money to struggling subsidiaries--again boosting taxpayer risk. Strong safeguards against this ``moral hazard'' problem have to be in place. It is nevertheless clear that banking laws designed for an economy 65 years ago don't work as well now. The goal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was to keep banks separate from insurance and securities firms as a way to protect banks. But the law has weakened banks. They've lost ground at home and abroad to more flexible foreign financial firms. Responding to this concern, the Federal Reserve Board over the past decade used its authority as regulatory of bank holding companies to chip away slowly at the Glass-Steagall wall, giving banks more leeway to set up securities subsidiaries. The Fed has gone about as far as it can under the law. Congress has to tear down the rest of the wall. As lawmakers remove obstacles to the brave new world of finance, they must take care not to leave the consumer behind.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, this is a remarkable day. I never thought I would live long enough to see us discuss this issue with such harmony on the House floor. We have a bipartisan bill. We have a bipartisan managers' amendment, and we have a result which is going to be in the public interest. I urge my colleagues to support the managers' amendment. I urge them to support the bill. This will resolve an issue which has cursed this Congress for better than 20 years, and it will do it on terms which meet the public interest. H.R. 10 provides a safe and sound framework for the financial services industries of this country. It does so in a way which protects consumers, which protects investors, and which protects the economy of this Nation. It also sees to it that the new global economy of the world is going to have active, vigorous, capable American participants in it. The legislation will not spur megamergers. Passing it will mean that we will assure that, if such occurs, there will be reasonable protection for investors and for consumers. H.R. 10 draws a clear line between bank activities, those which are going to be insured and subsidized by the taxpayers, and far riskier exercises, such as the sale of securities and other activities of that sort. H.R. 10, along with the managers' amendment, protects the consumer. Just last week NationsBank paid a large fine because their employees sold risky uninsured derivative securities to elderly holders of securities of deposit, telling them that their money was as safe as the Capitol of the United States. H.R. 10, along with the managers' amendment, protects the investor. It says you are not going to sell stocks or bonds or other instruments under conditions which are going to hurt the consumers, and you are going to have to make, if you do so, the same disclosures and satisfy the same regulatory requirements as everyone else in the business. It also says some other things which are important. With the managers' amendment, it will protect the taxpayer. It prevents FDIC insurance, which is paid for by the taxpayer, from being extended to cover the losses that might come from risky, speculative activities. I would remind my colleagues that not long back we passed legislation which unleashed the savings & loan industry, and that led to the problem which was called the savings & loan debacle, which cost the taxpayers of this country better than $500 billion. This will protect against that kind of exercise by bank management. It promotes fair competition. Banks have lower costs of capital. Why? Because they are taxpayer insured. That is an effective taxpayer subsidy. In fact, it might even be called corporate welfare. But, if it is, and if banks are going to function, they should see to it that that kind of exercise is kept separate from their other activities, so that they cannot use taxpayer subsidies to compete with others in the financial services industry, and also to see to it, as the Congress acted back in the thirties, to assure that banks do not put at risk Federal taxpayer financed insurance of their activities. H.R. 10, with the managers' amendment, will prevent an Asian banking crisis from spreading like Asian flu to the United States, by putting intelligent limits on the mixing of banking and commerce. Finally, H.R. 10, with the managers' amendment, does nothing to hurt the banks. It expands the range of allowable bank activities. Any bank can engage in any financial activity, so long as it sets up a separate affiliate. It creates, insofar as humanly possible, a fair, two-way street for all players. And it does something else: It sees to it that when bankers are engaged in these kinds of activities, they play by the same rules that everybody else does. It does not undermine the Community Reinvestment Act. That is left as it is. I would urge my colleagues to recognize that that is a good thing. The choice is clear. I intend to vote for the managers' amendment; I intend to vote against other amendments. I intend to try and see to it that we do not expand high risk activities of banks. I intend to try to see that we do not include operating subsidies inside the banks which can pervert the purposes of the managers' amendment or indeed to put at risk taxpayers' guarantees of bank deposits. I urge my colleagues to support the managers' amendment and to oppose other amendments. Madam Chairman, this is good legislation. With the managers' amendment, it is an excellent piece of legislation. It resolves the problems which banks complain about. To the degree that it is proper to do so, it protects competition inside the financial services industry. It protects investors, it protects consumers. I would point out that the bankers have said they are going to oppose this legislation, regardless of how amended, whether the amendment offered by my dear friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is included or not. I would point out that the consumers of this country, through the Consumers Union, have said that they support the managers' amendment. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan legislation and the bipartisan amendment. It is an opportunity to resolve a long- standing problem in honorable, effective, decent, public serving, and public interest ways.

Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, we have not had a chance to review this or what it means. The Committee on Rules has spoken rather clearly on it, and with great respect and affection for the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), I have to object. I do object.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, it is also no on the Korean system and the Thai system.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, we are happy to accept the amendment over here.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I want to express affection and respect for the authors of this amendment, but I want to differ with them strongly on its need. I talked to the distinguished chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He opposes this amendment, and he says this in his May 4 letter to me: ``There is every reason to move with caution in this area. The combining of banking and commerce is clearly irreversible. Once permitted, the Congress is unlikely to impose the costs and disruption of disentanglement.'' Let us look at Germany. Their financial institutions have been discussed. The German economy is stagnant. They are exporting jobs because they cannot start them up at home. Look at Asia, and look what is happening. Over there, a bank can do anything it wants. They own property, they own real estate, they own businesses, they own stock. When values start going down on those kinds of assets, the bank is in serious trouble. It happened in Thailand, it happened in Korea, it has happened in Japan, and all three economies are stagnant, in good part because of this. Listen to what Chairman Greenspan says: The current turmoil in some Asian economies highlights the risk that can arise from the interrelationships between banks and nonbank corporate entities. First, if the interrelationships are too close, the banks' decisions with respect to lending might be based, not on the underlying creditworthiness or other relevant characteristics of the borrowers, but rather on such factors as implicit or explicit subsidies, personal and business relationships, and common managers. That is exactly what has happened in Japan, Thailand and Korea. Listen further: Second, the interrelationships can become so complex and nontransparent that investors and counterparties cannot properly understand or assess the banks' financial soundness. Again, this is happening in Korea, in Japan, and Thailand, and in the Asian economies which are in trouble. This amendment would authorize a replication of that unfortunate situation. Continuing, Both of those risks are important elements in the problems now facing some Asian banking systems and are the reasons why banking and commerce have historically been separated in the United States. If Members want a more clear warning on the dangers of this amendment, check with Chairman Greenspan. Madam Chairman, the Chairman goes on to say this: Thus, it is critical that H.R. 10 retain its ongoing $500 million cap. Such a cap allows the controlled experimentation of the mixing of banking and commerce, without locking policymakers into one particular approach that, as noted, may be impossible to reverse and that could do more harm than good. . . . If the fundamental and longstanding structural separation of banking and commerce in this country is to be changed, the Board strongly believes that any modification should proceed at a deliberate pace, in order to test the response of market and technological innovations as well as the supervisory regimes to the altered rules. I urge my colleagues to heed the warning that is present in these words. Do not replicate the follies of Korean, Japanese, Thai banking. Let us use responsibility. The strength of this country has been that, although our banks have not been as big as they would like to be, they have been strong. I have heard the banks complain constantly about the size of Japanese and Korean banks and their ability to do all manner of things. It turns out that this ability to do all manner of things has created a disaster for these countries. We are being asked to bail them out. What are we going to do when our replication of their banking system creates the same abuses, the same hazards, and the same economic collapse for our constituents? I beg the Members, reject this amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support of the bill, and I rise in support of the manager's amendment. This is a fair rule. It deserves the consideration and support of every Member of the House. The rule makes in order 12 amendments to be offered by Members of the majority and the minority. These amendments deal with the major issues that were raised during the committee consideration of this legislation, and they make possible full and fair and open debate on an important piece of legislation. I am pleased to tell my colleagues that the process that has brought us to where we are at this moment is a fair, open, and bipartisan one. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), of the Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for their leadership and for their courage and for their willingness to work with me to build reasonable consumer and investor protection into this bill. I want to point out that the leadership of the majority has been fair in their actions on this matter and that we on this side should appreciate that fact. With the support of my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and many other Members on both sides of this aisle, I am pleased to be joining the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in offering the manager's amendment, which is made in order under the rule. That amendment includes the consumer and investor protections that I have sought throughout the process. It provides a safe and sound framework so that the financial services industry, which accounts for some 18 percent of the GNP of this Nation, can compete efficiently and effectively in the new global financial marketplace of the 21st century. With recently announced mergers, including giant banks and other large financial institutions, a lot of fear has been raised over what the new financial marketplace will look like. The truth is that, without H.R. 10, the financial industry megamergers and consolidations will continue. The regulators will continue their turf wars. The new finance giants will overwhelm a regulatory patchwork process that lacks adequate authority. And U.S. taxpayers will probably face another savings and loan bailout situation and litigation will prevail. This time, however, it will be the banks. On the other hand, if H.R. 10 is enacted, clear regulatory authority will be present, boundaries will be established within which financial services firms will be free to compete in a fair and open manner, and litigation, confusion, and taxpayer exposure will be reduced. The choice, then, here before us is clear. I intend to vote for the rule on H.R. 10, and I intend to vote for the manager's amendment. I intend to vote against all other amendments, including amendments which would permit greatly expanded high-risk activities in bank operating subsidies, a real danger to our economic system, and greater mixing of banking and commerce activities than the bill allows. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge them to support the manager's amendment. And I urge my colleagues to oppose all those other amendments which I view as unwise. This is a good rule. The bill, if crafted according to the language of the rule, will be a good bill. Let us pass the rule. Let us pass the bill. Let us support the manager's amendment. And let us resolve an issue that has plagued this country for a long time, in an honorable fashion, in a way which serves the interest of the country. I want to again commend my colleagues who have made this possible, including my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, they also did something else. They looked at whether or not the Commission should utilize this extraordinary remedy of fresh look. They said it was not necessary. They said it was not proper. They said it was not justified. Yet here we in the Congress, with no hearings, with no information, simply with power for prejudice and enormous lobbying effort by COMSAT's competitors are going to simply put into place this fresh look provision. And we are going to subject our constituents and the taxpayers to billions of dollars in liability for our stupidity. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what happens every time this provision comes into play is that the competitors, the providers, the suppliers and the customers of COMSAT then get together and they renegotiate the contract, and COMSAT has got to constantly reduce rates, reduce rates, reduce rates. As the distinguished gentlewoman has said and as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, COMSAT now is subject to fresh look. The FCC about a week or 10 days ago took a look at this. What did they find? First of all, they found that COMSAT is not a dominant carrier. They are a nondominant carrier.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the staff of this committee has been very good in changing the language of the bill in the report, something which regrettably they are not capable of doing. What we have here before us is a very simple matter. They are interfering here under this legislation with the rights of contract. They are interfering here with property rights. And they are going to have a liability for the taxpayers of this country under the Tucker Act, and it is going to be billions of dollars. They also have before them a case where the matters have been considered by a Federal judge, having heard from PAS, having heard from COMSAT, having heard all the facts. He said, people go to COMSAT after they have heard from the others and given them a full opportunity to compete.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every year.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer to the question is yes. The answer to the question is also that the Federal judge involved here considered the questions in a much more thoughtful, careful, and responsible way after hearing all the pleadings than did my beloved friend, the chairman of the committee, who has not apparently been privy to the kind of information that the judge was. Here we had a fair hearing. Everybody had a chance to have their say, not something which we have seen here.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to listen to the language of the bill that the amendment would strike. And it begins with the fact that every year everyone who has a contract with COMSAT may do something under this legislation which says, ``permit users or providers of telecommunications services that previously entered into contracts under a tariff commitment with COMSAT to have an opportunity at their discretion for a reasonable period of time,'' and I note each year they may do this, ``to renegotiate those contracts or commitments on rates, terms, and conditions or other provisions, notwithstanding any term or volume commitments or early termination of charges in any such contracts with COMSAT.'' What we are literally doing is saying that COMSAT has no contract which will stand for more than 1 year and will be constantly subject to repudiation by every provider or by every customer. Now, if that is not a violation of the contract clauses of the Constitution or of the fifth amendment provisions with regard to the protection of property rights, then I am the Queen of the May. And I would remind all of my colleagues that this is going to subject the United States to enormous liability for being sued for having interfered with the rights under contract and for having interfered with the property rights of COMSAT. Imagine how we would run a corporation if we were afflicted with that kind of provision. Let me just read something else. PanAmSat, one of the well-known fat cats that is at the bottom of this mess and which is a major pusher of this legislation, sued COMSAT. A Federal judge considered all the pleadings, all the facts, and he decided in favor of COMSAT. Why? He said, and this is a quote from the judge, ``Moreover, although the record does not reflect that COMSAT entered into long-term contracts with many common carriers, nothing in the record suggests that COMSAT secured any of the contracts by means of any anticompetitive act against PAS. On the contrary, the record suggests that, for their own reasons, the common carriers elected to secure long-term deals with COMSAT only after considering and rejecting offers from PAS.''