PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Antitrust and Business.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 23, 1998
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1998 - Amends the Clayton Act to prohibit a large local telephone company (defined as a local telephone company that, as of the date of a proposed merger or acquisition (merger) covered by the Act, serves more than five percent of the telephone access lines in the United States), including any affiliate of such a company, from merging with or acquiring a controlling interest in another such company unless: (1) the Attorney General finds that the proposed merger will promote competition for telephone exchange services and exchange access services; and (2) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finds that each large local telephone company that is a party to the proposed merger, with respect to at least half of the access lines in each State served by that company of which at least half are residential access lines, has fully implemented requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 regarding interconnection (including duties of telecommunications and local exchange carriers) and regarding procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and approval of agreements, including FCC and State implementing regulations. Directs the Attorney General to report to specified congressional committees within ten days on the finding, including an analysis of the effect of the merger on competition in the U.S. telecommunications industry. Requires: (1) each large local telephone company or affiliate of such company proposing to merge with or acquire a controlling interest in another such company to file an application with both the Attorney General and the FCC on the same day; and (2) the Attorney General and the FCC to issue a decision regarding the application within the time period applicable to review of mergers under the Act. Vests jurisdiction in the U.S. district courts to prevent and restrain any such mergers that are inconsistent with the finding. Authorizes the Attorney General to institute proceedings in any U.S. district court in which the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent, and directs the court to order appropriate relief, if the Attorney General makes a finding that a proposed merger does not meet the applicable condition, or the FCC makes a finding that one or more of the parties to the merger do not meet specified requirements.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Antitrust and Business.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6886-6887)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2207 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2207 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2207 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2207 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.