House Republicans Plow Ahead With Partisan FCC Funding Bill
The House Appropriations Committee cleared an FCC FY 2016 funding package Wednesday in a partisan 30-20 vote. The package includes several measures Democrats say will stall the net neutrality order, plus a new media provision that would grandfather in existing broadcaster joint sales agreements (JSAs) formed before the FCC limited them last year. Financial Services Subcommittee ranking member Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., dismissed the measure, subject to many White House concerns, as "veto bait." The measure had come under fire for including three telecom policy riders that would prevent the funding of the FCC net neutrality order during pending court challenges; require commission posting of items 21 days before a vote; and prevent commission broadband rate regulation.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The White House warned House appropriators of concerns, in a letter sent Tuesday night. Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan cited “highly problematic ideological riders,” including the net neutrality language, and the allocation of $315 million, about $25 million below the FCC’s current funding, and additional tens of millions below what the administration requested: “These cuts unnecessarily force the FCC to scale back important work on public safety, wireless spectrum, and universal service, while increasing overall costs for taxpayers.”
Two Democrats sought to strip the Financial Services bill of the GOP net neutrality provisions. Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., offered an amendment that would have nixed 20 “controversial riders,” including the FCC ones. Republicans defeated it 20-31. Serrano offered a narrower amendment targeting only the three “controversial FCC riders” and failed 19-31.
These are “three good-government provisions,” Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., shot back. The rider prohibiting rate regulation would “codify the FCC chairman’s own statements regarding rate regulation” and should be “noncontroversial,” he said, citing Tom Wheeler’s acceptance of the idea during a Senate appropriations hearing in an exchange with Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. Boozman also recalls the exchange and recently told us he suspects he’ll include a similar prohibition in the Senate appropriations companion (see 1506110046). Another rider provides what is simply “a legislative stay” on the FCC net neutrality order while court cases proceed, Crenshaw said. “We’re going to make sure the legality is determined before we implement the rule.” He also argued the rider about posting items shouldn't inspire objections. ”That’s when the public ought to see it,” Crenshaw said. “All this does is increase transparency.
Serrano disputed Crenshaw’s interpretations, saying the rider about posting items creates a “new procedural hurdle.” The rider on rate regulation “goes much further than that,” he said. He also worried about the effects of defunding the net neutrality order during court challenges. “I’m told by people who are lawyers that this is very important language,” Serrano said. “The corporations will just take out their slew of lawyers and keep postponing and postponing.” Serrano touted two letters, one from dozens of public interest groups and another from industry groups including the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Comptel, objecting to the riders.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., sided with Serrano’s amendment to strike the three provisions but said he backs Crenshaw’s language prohibiting broadband rate regulation and would support it if it stood alone. “The broadband industry spends tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure,” he remarked, also mentioning Wheeler’s answer to Boozman.
“This bill is a wish list from the tea party wing of the Heritage Foundation,” Serrano said. Lowey called the process a “charade” because the GOP appropriations proposal wouldn't be enacted. Lowey and Serrano criticized the low funding, with Serrano fearing a government shutdown beginning Oct. 1. “This funding is going to force the FCC to either expend more dollars later to move elsewhere, to spend more now to renew their lease, or to make more cuts to their core functions to pay for it,” Serrano added.
“This bill is an excellent bill,” said committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky. “It prioritizes funding wisely.” Rogers wants to send it to the House floor “promptly,” he said.
“House Appropriations Committee Republicans kept up their business-as-usual attack today on the [FCC], but these efforts hold the potential for extraordinarily bad outcomes for American consumers," warned House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., in a joint statement after the markup. "The appropriations bill approved by the Committee undermines the FCC’s consumer protection mission by slashing the Commission’s budget and attaching a litany of partisan policy riders, even on FCC issues that the Energy and Commerce Committee has addressed in a bipartisan manner. This is yet another attempt by House Republicans to wrangle a political win at the expense of good policy for the American people."
“This partisan effort to legislate FCC action through appropriations riders is a sledgehammer to the important work to ensure open access to broadband and communications networks,” said Public Knowledge Vice President-Government Affairs Chris Lewis. “It is out of touch with the American people who spoke loudly in favor of a strong FCC and net neutrality rules. Republican leadership in the House can’t continue to have it both ways by saying they are for net neutrality but actively working to eliminate net neutrality rules.”
A bipartisan manager's amendment that successfully advanced “includes report language about the recent data breaches of the OPM’s networks,” Crenshaw said. The Appropriations Committee approved that manager’s amendment by voice vote. Crenshaw said the Office of Personnel Management data breach affected millions of people and the appropriators have tried to provide full, needed cybersecurity and IT funding. “We expect OPM to provide transparency regarding these data breaches and keep the committee updated on its efforts and needs to secure OPM networks against future attacks,” Crenshaw said.
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., offered an amendment, approved 38-11, to grandfather in broadcaster JSAs “so they can remain viable, independent, and can continue to serve their communities.” He invoked similar Senate legislation from Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., which had no House companion (see 1505070034">1505070034). Harris slammed the “retroactive” nature of the FCC action last year limiting JSAs. NAB praised the amendment.
Serrano was one of the few opponents. The FCC’s “actions were cheered by a large number of people,” Serrano argued, saying JSAs let companies skirt rules on media ownership and allow for “the de facto consolidation” illegal under current law. The number of minority-owned stations has plummeted as the number of JSAs has risen, and the amendment “would perpetuate the very problems” that compelled the FCC to act in the first place, he said. Serrano also argued a grandfathering provision was unnecessary because broadcasters can file for waivers. Ruppersberger disagreed, backing the Harris amendment. “This time the FCC applied the order retroactively, and that is the problem,” Ruppersberger said, arguing the commission limits “will hurt small businesses.”