Compromise Elusive for House Rate Regulation Bill Going Into Markup
Amid negotiation struggles over HR-2666, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., plans to file an amendment to try to resolve some of the subcommittee Democratic concerns, and Democrats are planning to file their own amendments to counter the bill. That is one of two House measures on the FCC net neutrality order poised to advance this week. Commerce Committee lawmakers delivered opening statements Monday for a full committee markup of what has been the partisan No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act (HR-2666), with a vote set for Tuesday at 10 a.m. The full chamber is geared up for what is likely a Wednesday House vote on the bipartisan Small Business Broadband Deployment Act (HR-4596).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“At the subcommittee level, we heard some concerns over the way this bill would impact the FCC's authority over truth-in-billing, universal service, and fraud,” said Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., in his opening statement Monday on HR-2666. “I understand that Chairman Walden plans to offer an amendment to address these concerns. Unfortunately, in our negotiations we were asked to accept modifications that would still allow the FCC to rate regulate at its discretion. These changes would be inconsistent with the president's statement, with Chairman [Tom] Wheeler's statements, and would ultimately create an exception that swallows the rule.” Upton said the bill shouldn't be controversial.
Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., dismissed HR-2666 as an “unnecessary and dangerous” measure and said compromise efforts failed. “While the Republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, we have heard over and over that their draft could swallow vast sections of the Communications Act,” Pallone said in his opening statement. “Democrats have repeatedly offered to help improve this bill. I continue to be willing to work on a bill that prevents the FCC from setting rates. But I have also said that I cannot allow the bill to undermine the FCC’s core mission. For instance, I cannot support a bill that prevents the agency from acting in the public interest. I cannot support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting consumers from discriminatory practices. And I cannot support a bill that undercuts the FCC’s net neutrality rules.”
Pallone urged support for amendments from Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif. “These amendments can accomplish many of the Republicans’ goals without the same risks to consumers,” Pallone said. “These amendments offer a fair compromise, but without these changes I cannot support the underlying legislation.”
The Commerce Committee Democratic staff memo slammed HR-2666, which Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., introduced last year. “The central issue raised by H.R. 2666 is the bill’s failure to define what it is prohibiting,” the Democratic memo said. “Without defining the term ‘rate regulation,’ experts have asserted that the bill could result in vast unintended consequences.” The Republican staff memo didn’t address those concerns or mention the Walden amendment. The bill “would prohibit the FCC from regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service, whether directly through tariffing or indirectly through enforcement action,” that GOP markup memo said, defending the measure’s necessity.
Both bills were subject to bipartisan negotiation. Those discussions apparently fell apart for HR-2666, possibly due to the departure of a senior Eshoo staffer (see 1603110077).
Earlier negotiation yielded a bipartisan draft for HR-4596, a bill from Walden that would now exempt for five years ISPs with 250,000 or fewer subscribers from the net neutrality order’s enhanced transparency requirements. It cleared the Commerce Committee without contention. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, filed an amendment to the act as it advanced to consideration by the Rules Committee Monday. The short amendment would require the FCC to examine whether a permanent exemption to the enhanced transparency requirements would increase access to services of ISPs.
Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, joined the Rules Committee Monday to speak about the act. “I’m proud our committee achieved bipartisan support for this common-sense proposal,” Latta told Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas. Pallone also spoke before the Rules Committee about this bill and urged Sessions against accepting any amendments to the measure, given the delicate nature of the compromise about the language. The negotiation produced a “fair balance,” Pallone said. Sessions cited a message from the Obama administration saying it wouldn't oppose the bill but won't support any attempts to undermine the net neutrality order. The Rules Committee advanced the measure and deemed all amendments in order.
HR-4596 is set for a House vote Wednesday. The consideration isn't under suspension of the rules, the method reserved for uncontroversial legislation.