SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 934 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE JUDICIARY

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY BROADBAND ISSUES

TESTIMONY-BY: F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. , CHAIRMAN

BODY:
MAY 22, 2001 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AT THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1698, THE "AMERICAN BROADBAND COMPETITION ACT OF 2001" AND H.R. 1697, THE " BROADBAND COMPETITION AND INCENTIVES ACT OF 2001" Today the Committee holds a hearing on H.R. 1698, the "American Broadband Competition Act of 2001," also known as the Cannon- Conyers bill, and H.R. 1697, the "Broadband Competition and Incentives Act of 2001," also known as the Conyers-Cannon bill. Last week, Speaker Hastert announced his intention to refer to this Committee H.R. 1542, the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001," also known as the Tauzin-Dingell bill. Shortly after the recess, we will hold a hearing on that bill. We are considering all of these bills because of our jurisdiction over the antitrust laws On this Committee, we do not look to regulation to solve economic problems. Rather, we believe in removing roadblocks to open competition so that markets will solve economic problems. It is with that in mind that we turn to the problem of broadband. I want to ensure that all Americans get high speed broadband service as quickly as possible while at the same time maintaining competition and choice in that market. Both of the bills before us today as well as the Tauzin-Dingell proposal seek that same goal. The question is which, if any of them, will work? Contrary to what some have suggested, I have not decided that question for myself. Rather, I want to hear all of the evidence. In the last couple of months, I spent a full day at AT&T headquarters in New Jersey and a full day at SBC headquarters in Texas trying to learn more about this question. I have also scheduled these two days of hearings. I am still learning. Above all, whatever legislation we pass must lead us to a world in which individual consumers with choices freely decide market outcomes. At a minimum, we must reverse the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in the Goldwasser case. That decision directly contradicts the clear congressional intent that the antitrust laws should continue in force in this industry. Goldwasser simply reads the antitrust savings clause out of the law, and it must be corrected. All who follow this issue should be on notice that the Judiciary Committee has always exercised its jurisdiction in this area, and it will continue to do so this year. This sector of our economy achieved its current vibrancy because of the application of the antitrust laws. Only through the continued application of the antitrust expertise of this Committee will that free market vibrancy continue. I fully intend to see that it does. With that, I will turn to Mr. Conyers for his opening statement, and in doing so, I would like to thank him and his staff for their contributions to our jurisdictional efforts in this area.

LOAD-DATE: May 24, 2001, Thursday