[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9520-S9521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1188. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 85 of title 28, United 
States Code, relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court for the 
District of Columbia, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


          THE COURT CONSISTENCY IN COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court 
Consistency in Communications Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is 
to bring consistency to the judicial interpretation of some of the 
central provisions of the Telecommunications Act, to make sure that an 
appellate court with broad and deep understanding of these issues can 
bring its expertise to bear on them, and to resolve related litigation 
as quickly as possible. In many other areas, such as bankruptcy and 
labor, strong precedent exists for consolidation of cases to bring 
about more efficient and informed judgments.
  This measure is simple, effective and straightforward. It 
consolidates in the District of Columbia Federal courts all appeals of 
FCC decisions under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and 
State commission decisions under section 252 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed.
  The telecommunications industry accounts for about one-sixth of our 
national economy. And almost 2 years ago we passed legislation designed 
to unleash competition in the industry. It was signed into law with 
great fanfare. As President Clinton said, ``Today with the stroke of 
[my] pen, competition and innovation can move as quick as light.'' But 
we are still waiting for lower rates, better service, and greater 
innovation that was promised when the Telecom Act was signed.
  The sad truth is that the promise of the Telecom Act has gotten 
bogged down in litigation. Lawyers are arguing about the meaning of its 
provisions in courts all across the country. Indeed, today a major 
challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction over long distance service is being 
filed in the Eighth Circuit. In my opinion, even under current law this 
case should have been filed in the District of Columbia.
  We don't, of course, want to take away people's ability to redress 
grievances through the courts. The right to sue is, for better or 
worse, almost sacred to American culture. But while some people may 
choose to wait for a resolution to emerge from the 93 different Federal 
district courts and 12 distinct Federal circuits, to my mind the better 
way to bring competition to telecommunications markets is to have some 
judicial certainty about the rules of the game--and to have it sooner, 
rather than later. This bill should create the necessary framework for 
predictability in the courts, so that companies can shift their rivalry 
from the courtroom to the marketplace.
  This proposal is not a panacea, but it does move us in the right 
direction. By streamlining the appellate process, the Court Consistency 
in Communications Act will speed the arrival of local and long distance 
telephone competition. It will help consumers--the people who pay the 
bills, who deserve more choice and who wonder why their rates aren't 
going down.
  Mr. President, this judicial reform bill does not alter the substance 
of the Telecommunications Act in any way--that is clearly in the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Nor does it affect pending 
cases. Finally, to those who have expressed concerns about the measure, 
let me remind them that this is not a final product, but a work in 
progress; in other words, we want to work with you.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, because all of us have 
an interest in reducing litigation and encouraging competition.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1188

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Court Consistency in 
     Communications Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) Jurisdiction of Review by District Court for the 
     District of Columbia.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1369. District Court for the District of Columbia; 
       review of certain communications determinations

       ``The United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a 
     determination as provided under section 252(j)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252(j)(2)).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 85 of title 28, United States code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1369. District Court for the District of Columbia; review of certain 
              communications determinations.''.

       (b) Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 83 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1297. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of 
       Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

       ``The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an 
     appeal as provided under sections 252(j)(2) and 402(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252(j)(2) and 
     402(b)).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 83 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1297. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
              District of Columbia Circuit.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--The Communications Act of 1934 is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 252 (47 U.S.C. 252)--
       (i) in subsection (e)(6), by striking the second sentence;
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
       (iii) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection (j):
       ``(j) Judicial Review of State Commission Actions.--
       ``(1) Review.--In any case in which a State commission 
     makes a determination under this section, any party aggrieved 
     by the determination shall bring an action for the review of 
     the determination, if at all, in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Appeal.--Any appeal of a decision of the court under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be brought in the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.''; and
       (B) in section 402(b) (47 U.S.C. 402(b)), by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page S9521]]

       ``(10) By any person challenging any other decision or 
     order of the Commission under title II.''.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to determinations of the Federal Communications 
     Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 
     and to determinations by State commissions (as that term is 
     defined in section 3(41) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 153(41)) 
     under section 252 of that Act on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______