[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3577-3578]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              ANTITRUST TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 809) to make technical corrections to various antitrust 
laws and to references to such laws.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 809

       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 ``Antitrust Technical 
     Corrections Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Act of March 3, 1913.--The Act of March 3, 1913 
     (chapter 114, 37 Stat. 731; 15 U.S.C. 30) is repealed.
       (b) Panama Canal Act.--Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act 
     (37 Stat. 566; 15 U.S.C. 31) is amended by striking the 
     undesignated paragraph that begins ``No vessel permitted''.
       (c) Sherman Act.--Section 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 
     3) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 3.'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to 
     monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or 
     persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in 
     any Territory of the United States or of the District of 
     Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or 
     between any such Territory or Territories and any State or 
     States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, 
     or between the District of Columbia, and any State or States 
     or foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, 
     on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not 
     exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other 
     person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three 
     years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the 
     court.''.
       (d) Wilson Tariff Act.--
       (1) Technical amendment.--The Wilson Tariff Act (28 Stat. 
     509; 15 U.S.C. 8 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by striking section 77, and
       (B) in section 78--
       (i) by striking ``76, and 77'' and inserting ``and 76''; 
     and
       (ii) by redesignating such section as section 77.
       (2) Conforming amendments to other laws.--
       (A) Clayton act.--Subsection (a) of the 1st section of the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``seventy-seven'' and inserting ``seventy-six''.
       (B) Federal trade commission act.--Section 4 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44) is amended by striking 
     ``77'' and inserting ``76''.
       (C) Packers and stockyards act, 1921.--Section 405(a) of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 225(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``77'' and inserting ``76''.
       (D) Atomic energy act of 1954.--Section 105 of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2135) is amended by striking 
     ``seventy-seven'' and inserting ``seventy-six''.
       (E) Deep seabed hard mineral resources act.--Section 
     103(d)(7) of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (30 
     U.S.C. 1413(d)(7)) is amended by striking ``77'' and 
     inserting ``76''.
       (e) Clayton Act.--The first section 27 of the Clayton Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 27) is redesignated as section 28 and is 
     transferred so as to appear at the end of such Act.
       (f) Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.--
     Section 5(a)(2) of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness 
     Disclosure Act (Public Law 105-271) is amended by inserting a 
     period after ``failure''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application to Cases.--(1) Section 2(a) shall apply to 
     cases pending on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), and (d) of 
     section 2 shall apply only with respect to cases commenced on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 809, the Antitrust Technical 
Corrections Act of 2001, which I have introduced along with the 
committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  This bill makes six separate technical corrections to our antitrust 
laws. Three of these corrections repeal outdated provisions of the law. 
One clarifies a long existing ambiguity relating to the application of 
the law to the District of Columbia and the territories, and two 
correct typographical errors in recently passed laws.
  This bill is identical to a bill which the House passed by a voice 
vote last year, except that two typographical corrections have been 
added. The committee has informally consulted with the antitrust 
enforcement agencies, the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission, 
and the agencies indicate that they do not object to any of these 
changes.
  In response to written questions following the committee's November 
5, 1997 oversight hearing on the antitrust enforcement agencies, the 
Department of Justice recommended two of the repeals and the 
clarification contained in this bill.
  First, H.R. 809 repeals the Act of March 3, 1913. That act requires 
all depositions taken in Sherman Act cases brought by the government be 
conducted in public. In the early days, the courts conducted such cases 
by deposition without any formal trial proceeding. Thus, Congress 
required that the depositions be open as a trial would be. Under the 
modern practice of broad discovery, depositions are generally taken in 
private and then made public if they are used at trial.
  Under our system, section 30 causes three problems: First, it 
maintains a special rule for a narrow class of cases when the 
justification for that rule has disappeared.
  Second, it makes it hard for a court to protect proprietary 
information that may be at issue in an antitrust case.
  And, third, it can create a circus atmosphere in the deposition of a 
high profile figure. In an appeal in the Microsoft case, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invited Congress to 
repeal this law.
  Second, H.R. 809 repeals the antitrust provision in the Panama Canal 
Act. Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act provides no vessel owned by 
someone who is violating the antitrust laws may pass through the Panama 
canal.
  The committee has not been able to determine why this provision was 
added to the act or whether it has ever been used. However, with the 
return of the canal to Panamanian sovereignty at the end of 1999, it is 
appropriate to repeal this outdated provision.
  The House Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction over the 
Panama Canal Act, and I appreciate the willingness of that committee's 
chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), to expedite this 
noncontroversial bill.
  Third, H.R. 809 clarifies that section 2 of the Sherman Act applies 
to the District of Columbia and its territories. Two of the primary 
provisions of antitrust law are section 1 and section 2 of the Sherman 
Act. Section 1 prohibits conspiracies in restraint of trade, and 
section 2 prohibits monopolization.
  Section 3 of the Sherman Act was intended to apply these provisions 
to the District and the various territories of the United States. 
Unfortunately, however, the ambiguous drafting in section 3 leaves it 
unclear whether section 2 applies to these areas. The committee is 
aware of at least one instance in which the Department of Justice 
declined to bring an otherwise meritorious section 2 claim in a Virgin 
Islands case because of this ambiguity.
  This bill clarifies both section 1 and section 2 apply to the 
District and the Territories. All of the congressional representatives 
of the District and the Territories are cosponsors of this bill.
  Finally, H.R. 809 repeals a redundant antitrust jurisdiction 
provision in section 77 of the Wilson Tariff Act. In 1955, Congress 
modernized the jurisdictional and venue provisions relating to 
antitrust suits by amending section 4 of the Clayton Act. At that time 
it repealed the redundant jurisdictional provision in section 7 of the 
Sherman Act but not the one in section 77 of the Wilson Tariff Act. It 
appears this was an oversight, because section 77 was never codified 
and has been rarely used.

[[Page 3578]]

  Repealing section 77 will not diminish any jurisdiction or venue 
rights because section 4 of the Clayton Act provides any potential 
plaintiff with broader jurisdiction and venue rights in section 77. 
Rather, the repeal simply rids the law of a confusing, redundant, and 
little-used provision.
  Finally, the bill corrects an erroneous section number designation in 
the Curt Flood Act passed in 1998, and it inserts an inadvertently 
omitted period in the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure 
Act. Neither of these corrections makes any substantive change.
  I believe that all of these provisions are noncontroversial and they 
will help clean up some underbrush in the antitrust laws and recommend 
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in support of these 
technical corrections to antitrust law.
  The gentleman has described them adequately. There are six 
noncontroversial changes. We are in total support. And I might add that 
we have had a very bipartisan experience in the Committee on the 
Judiciary during the period of time that we have been working on bills 
together, so I am happy to join with the chairman in support of the 
measure.
  I am pleased to join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
in support of H.R. 809, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 
2001.'' The Chairman and I have worked together on this bill, and we 
have consulted with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and 
the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition to ensure that the 
technical changes made in the bill will improve the efficiency of our 
antitrust laws.
  When the gentleman from Wisconsin and I met at the beginning of this 
Congress, he spoke about creating a more bi-partisan approach on the 
Judiciary Committee. I am gratified that his conciliatory words were 
followed up by deeds, and I hope that this is the kind of cooperative 
relationship we can look forward to throughout the 107th Congress.
  To briefly summarize, H.R. 809 makes six non-controversial changes in 
our antitrust laws to repeal some out-dated provisions of the law, to 
clarify that our antitrust laws apply to the District of Columbia and 
to the Territories, and to make some needed grammatical and 
organizational changes.
  The bill will permit depositions taken in Sherman Act equity cases 
brought by the government to be conducted in private--just as they are 
in all other types of cases. It also repeals a little-known and little-
used provision that prohibits vessels from passing through the Panama 
Canal if the vessel's owner is violating the antitrust laws. With the 
return of the Canal to Panama in 1999, it is appropriate to repeal this 
outdated provision.
  H.R. 809 also clarifies that Sherman Act's prohibitions on restraint 
of trade and monopolization apply to conduct occurring in the District 
of Columbia and the various territories of the United States. It also 
repeals a redundant jurisdiction and venue provision in Section 77 of 
the Wilson Tariff Act. Finally, the bill makes two minor grammatical 
and organizational changes to the antitrust laws.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for his bi-partisan approach on 
this legislation, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Conyers for their work in bringing 
H.R. 809, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 2001,'' before 
the House for consideration.
  This bill seeks to make six technical corrections to United States 
antitrust laws. Three of these technical corrections repeal outdated 
provisions of the law, one clarifies a long existing ambiguity 
regarding the application of the law to the District of Columbia and 
the territories, one is organizational in nature, and one is 
grammatical. The Committee has informally consulted the antitrust 
enforcement agencies, the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission, 
and the agencies have indicated that they do not object to any of these 
changes. In response to written questions following the Committee's 
November 5, 1997 oversight hearing on the antitrust enforcement 
agencies, the Department of Justice recommended two of the repeals and 
the clarification contained in this bill.
  Those provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which deal with 
conspiracies regarding the establishment of monopolies have not been 
clearly defined as they relate to the District of Columbia. The changes 
being made by this legislation will make it clear that the District of 
Columbia and other U.S. territories are included under the preview of 
the Justice Department as it relates to Antitrust Law enforcement in 
the United States.
  Finally, this legislation will repeal the redundant Antitrust 
Jurisdictional Provision in Section 77 of the Wilson Tarrif Act. This 
repeal will not diminish any substantive rights because Section 4 of 
the Clayton Act provides any potential plaintiff with broader rights of 
jurisdiction and venue than does Section 77. This repeal will only rid 
the existing law of a confusing, redundant, and little used provision.
  I am in support of these minor changes to our Nation's antitrust 
laws, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in 
favor of this legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 809, the 
Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 2001. I want to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership in 
bringing this important corrective measure to the floor so early in the 
session. Because of the bill's beneficial impact on the District of 
Columbia and the territories, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.
  Section 2(c) of the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act would close a 
potentially dangerous loophole in the nation's antitrust laws with 
respect to the District of Columbia and the territories. Two of the 
most important provisions of the Sherman Act are 15 U.S.C. sections 1 
and 2. Section 1 prevents conspiracy in restraint of trade and section 
2 prevents monopoly, attempts to create a monopoly and conspiracy to 
create a monopoly. These provisions form the bedrock of our antitrust 
laws. However, section 3 of the Sherman Act, which was intended to 
apply these vital provisions to the District of Columbia and the 
territories, is ambiguous with respect to whether section 2, 
prohibiting monopolies, applies to these jurisdictions. Despite the 
ambiguous language in section 3 of the Sherman Act, we believe that 
Congress clearly intended the nation's antitrust laws to apply not only 
to the states, but to the territories and the District of Columbia as 
well. This bill would clarify that intent.
  The committee has found at least one instance in which the Department 
of Justice decided not to bring a potentially meritorious monopoly 
claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act because of the ambiguous 
language in section 3. Although this case occurred in the Virgin 
Islands and not the District, the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act 
is necessary to safeguard against a similar occurrence in the District 
and to ensure the seamless application of our antitrust laws not only 
throughout the nation but also in the territories and the nation's 
capital.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member once again for their 
attention to this important matter and urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 809.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1100