Democratic House Appropriators Rebel Against GOP Telecom Riders

GOP appropriators have “strong concerns that the FCC seems to be prolonging their pattern of regulatory overreach with its recent set-top box proposal,” said Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., in his opening statement. “And so, we include language that requires the FCC to stop and study this controversial rule before they can move any further. The telecommunications industry is more competitive than ever. And yet, the Commission has been more active than ever in trying to exert regulatory control over market innovation. To return the FCC’s focus towards mission critical work and away from politically charged rule makings, the bill requires the FCC to do less with less.”

Some Democrats support pausing the FCC’s set-top proceeding to force such a study. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., lauded the rider Tuesday, while House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., called it “pathetic” (see 1605240064). They've sent competing letters to the FCC this year, each with some Democratic appropriators among the signatories. Eshoo’s set-top allies on the Appropriations Committee include Reps. Mike Honda, Barbara Lee and Sam Farr, all of California. Clarke’s set-top allies on the committee include Reps. Mike Quigley of Illinois and Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland.

Financial Services Subcommittee ranking member Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., opposes the set-top rider, one of his aides told us. Serrano backs the FCC’s efforts to open up the set-top box market, the aide said. Honda also opposes the set-top box rider, his spokesman confirmed.

“I’m against the whole idea of riders on that bill, so I’m sticking more to the overall tone of why we have all these riders on that bill, including that one,” Serrano said in an interview later about the set-top box rider. “I want those riders somewhere else because those riders divide and create problems, and that’s why we haven’t had an appropriations bill signed where we stand over the shoulder of the president as he signs the bill. That hasn’t happened in years! You were probably in high school. … I’m more focused on the process. This is not the place to put riders.”

“I think you’ll be surprised,” Crenshaw told us later Wednesday, predicting Democratic backing for the set-top box rider. “There’ll be quite a few supportive of that.” The FCC’s NPRM “looks like it’s pro-consumer but I think it might be anti-consumer,” he added.

During the markup, Serrano focused more on the riders that would curb the agency’s net neutrality order. The GOP funding bill has riders that would prevent FCC regulation of broadband rates and data caps and prevent implementation of the order while litigation is pending. It also included a rider that would force the FCC to publicize the text of items upon their circulation.

“The FCC is subject to numerous riders that restrict both implemented and proposed rules,” Serrano said in his opening statement. “Once again, the majority attempts to stop the FCC’s net neutrality rule. None of the fears that opponents of the rule advanced in the lead up to its implementation have come to pass. There has been increased investment, continued expansion and increased profits for internet service providers. There is no reason to continue the crusade against this rule.” He lamented the agencies that are “woefully underfunded” and pointed out the FCC’s budget would be “cut by $69 million below enacted, and $43 million below the president’s request.” The FCC’s FY 2016 funding is about $340 million, with an additional $44.17 million allocated for the agency’s headquarters transition process.

Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., called the riders curbing the net neutrality order “misguided provisions” undermining the measure, which she also said provides inadequate funding. “I wish my colleagues would just save those riders for the authorization process,” Lowey said. “Perhaps we can use those riders more effectively and have a real good debate on the authorization process.”

Crenshaw told us Wednesday’s 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the FCC’s limitations on broadcaster joint sales agreement (JSA) likely makes the GOP appropriations bill’s current JSA rider unnecessary. Appropriators successfully advanced a bipartisan rider into law last year that would grandfather JSAs that existed before the FCC limited them. This year Crenshaw included, and his GOP Senate counterpart told us he wants to include, language to clarify that the FCC can't crack down on JSAs through the transaction review process. “Sounds like it solves the problem,” Crenshaw told us of the court ruling. “If that’s the case, then that’s settled.” Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who introduced last year’s stand-alone legislation to grandfather JSAs, called the ruling “a stern rebuke of an FCC that has often put rural Americans at a disadvantage in their rulemaking” and he's “particularly pleased the court struck down FCC’s joint sales agreement order that blatantly ignored the bipartisan intent of Congress,” he said in a statement.

Public Knowledge is “disappointed that the majority has hijacked what should be a straightforward bipartisan appropriations process and used it as yet another vehicle for dictating policies that directly harm consumers and undermine competition,” said Government Affairs Associate Counsel Kate Forscey. “By significantly reducing funding by $69 million, the bill strips the FCC of critical resources needed to promote the public interest and in particular to prevent internet discrimination and protect consumers from price gouging. In addition, a new rider attacks the FCC's recent proposed rulemaking which seeks to revolutionize the video device and app marketplace, something consumers everywhere have applauded.”

Crenshaw predicted the full Appropriations Committee markup will “be one of those weeks in June” and felt positive about the subcommittee markup. “At the end of the day, I think we’ll prevail,” Crenshaw told us. Serrano lacked any hope his concerns would be resolved immediately. “Not by the full committee markup, but a lot will change when we get to the Senate negotiations,” Serrano told us. “It always does.”