```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1698 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1698

  To ensure the application of the antitrust laws to local telephone 
                  monopolies; and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

    Mr. Cannon (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Issa, and Mr. Nadler) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the application of the antitrust laws to local telephone 
                  monopolies; and for other purposes.

    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 ``American Broadband Competition Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE CLAYTON ACT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE 
              ANTITRUST LAWS TO CERTAIN VIOLATIONS IN THE 
              TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``Sec. 28. (a) In any action based on a claim arising under the 
antitrust laws--
            ``(1) the court shall not dismiss such claim on the ground 
        that the defendant's conduct was or is subject to the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), or that 
        such Act takes precedence over, because of its specificity or 
        recency of enactment, the antitrust laws; and
            ``(2) the trier of fact may consider any conduct that 
        violates any obligations or requirements imposed by the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), or rules 
        adopted pursuant thereto, in determining whether the defendant 
        has engaged in anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct.
    ``Sec. 29. (a) If an adjudicatory body determines that an incumbent 
local exchange carrier in any particular State has violated section 
251, 252, 271, or 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, or any rules 
promulgated pursuant to such sections, such carrier shall be deemed to 
have violated the antitrust laws.
    ``(b) In addition to any penalty that may be imposed under any 
other provision of law, such carrier and all affiliates of such carrier 
may not jointly market in such State any advanced telecommunications 
service with any other telecommunications or information services 
offered by such carrier or by any of such affiliates.
    ``(c) Not later than 1 year after the enactment of the American 
Broadband Competition Act of 2001, the Attorney General shall submit a 
report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate--
            ``(1) identifying suits brought under this section; and
            ``(2) describing the effect that the enforcement of this 
        section has had on competitiveness in the telecommunication 
        marketplace.''.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES.

    (a) Amendment.--Title 9 of the United States Code is amended by 
inserting after section 16 the following:
``Sec. 17. Disputes arising under interconnection agreements
    ``(a) Interconnection Agreement Controversies Subject to 
Arbitration.--Any interconnection agreement entered into pursuant to 
section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252) shall be 
treated for purposes of this chapter as a contract containing a written 
provision to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out 
of such contract. Any such controversy shall be subject to arbitration 
in accordance with the alternate dispute resolution process established 
pursuant to this section.
    ``(b) Establishment Required.--Within 90 days after enactment of 
the American Broadband Competition Act of 2001, the Attorney General 
shall prescribe a multistate alternative dispute resolution process. 
The Attorney General shall not include either the Federal 
Communications Commission nor any State commission as a party to such 
dispute resolution process.
    ``(c) Criteria for Establishment of Process.--The multistate 
alternative dispute resolution process required by this section shall--
            ``(1) provide for a private, commercial arbitration process 
        that will permit a requesting telecommunications carrier to 
        resolve a dispute related to an interconnection agreement with 
        an incumbent local exchange carrier arising in 1 or several 
        States in an open, nondiscriminatory, and unbiased fashion 
        within 45 days after the filing of such dispute;
            ``(2) incorporate the Commercial Dispute Resolution 
        Procedures of the American Arbitration Association in effect at 
        the date of enactment of the American Broadband Competition Act 
        of 2001 to the extent consistent with the time limits imposed 
        in this section, except that all decisions of arbitration 
        panels constituted pursuant to this section shall be in 
        writing, publicly available, and posted on the Internet;
            ``(3) permit all parties to have the right to discovery; 
        and
            ``(4) ensure requesting telecommunications carriers do not 
        file frivolous disputes, and establish penalties to deter such 
        conduct.
    ``(d) Authority of Arbitration Panels.--Except as otherwise 
provided in this section, awards and decisions of such arbitration 
panels shall be enforceable in Federal district courts pursuant to the 
procedures of this chapter.
    ``(e) No Collateral Estoppel.--The parties to the controversy shall 
be bound by the decision of the arbitration panel as to the matter in 
controversy under the interconnection agreement entered into pursuant 
to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252), but 
otherwise such decision shall not have the effect of collateral 
estoppel in any other proceeding involving any of such parties.
    ``(f) Other Remedies Not Limited.--Except as provided in subsection 
(e), the availability of alternative dispute resolution pursuant to 
this section shall not--
            ``(1) limit any other remedy a requesting 
        telecommunications carrier might have for the same or similar 
        facts, including relief before the Attorney General of the 
        United States, the Federal Communications Commission or State 
        commissions (as defined by section 3 of the Communications Act 
        of 1934), courts of the United States, or any other appropriate 
        forum; or
            ``(2) modify, affect, or supersede the authority and 
        responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission to 
        expeditiously administer and enforce the Communications Act of 
        1934.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 1 of 
title 9 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 16 
the following:

``17. Disputes arising under interconnection agreements.''.
                                 <all>
```