[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 24 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. SPENCER BACHUS

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 27, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1542) to 
     deregulate the Internet and high speed data services, and for 
     other purposes:

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am in full support of H.R. 1542 including 
the Manager's Amendment, which includes an antitrust savings clause. 
That clause reaffirms that regulatory and antitrust laws play important 
but different roles in promoting competition in the telecom industry. 
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs the transition of local 
telecommunications from a heavily regulated environment historically 
dominated by incumbent carriers to a competitive environment in which 
new entrants and incumbents compete vigorously with each other. The 
1996 Act imposes on carriers special duties that do not exist under the 
antitrust laws and compels them to take actions firms in an unregulated 
environment would not undertake. Antitrust laws serve a different 
function. They protect competition by preventing firms from entering 
into agreements that prevent or restrain competition. They also prevent 
firms from unlawfully obtaining monopoly power or unlawfully extending 
existing monopolies into new lines of business. There should be no 
confusion about the differences in these laws or the roles they play in 
bringing the benefits of competition to American consumers.
  These laws are compatible and complementary for two reasons. First, 
they promote the same goal: vigorous competition in the marketplace. 
Second, to the extent that any potential inconsistencies may arise in 
the administration of these laws, antitrust courts resolve them through 
well-established antitrust doctrines recognizing that general antitrust 
laws will not be enforced in a manner that undermines the requirements 
of regulatory laws crafted to deal with specific industry situations. 
This savings clause does not repeal any portion of the antitrust laws 
or antitrust doctrines adopted by the courts under those laws.
  Neither this Act nor the 1996 Act change the manner in which the 
antitrust laws are enforced by antitrust enforcement agencies and 
courts. Rights, duties and remedies under the antitrust laws are 
preserved and not diminished in any way. Also preserved are the 
traditional antitrust defenses, exemptions, and immunities crafted by 
the courts to balance antitrust and regulatory objectives for more than 
100 years.
  This savings clause does not overrule any portion of the Seventh 
Circuit decision in the Goldwasser case. This savings clause is fully 
consistent with the learned opinion in that case.
  By not modifying antitrust laws, rights, remedies, defenses, 
exemptions, immunities, and procedures, we make it plain that antitrust 
courts should continue to do what they have always done--manage 
potential conflicts between the administration of antitrust and 
regulatory laws on a case-by-case basis with due regard for the intent 
of Congress in establishing specific regulatory processes. This savings 
clause achieves that effect.

                          ____________________