House GOP Lawmakers Eye Telecom Priorities for Coming Months
Three Republican House Commerce Committee members pressed Congress to consider certain telecom priorities, seeing some promise for next year if not during the upcoming lame-duck session. Speaking during an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators, which was scheduled for telecast Saturday, they touted their own legislation in separate interviews and bashed the FCC for consideration of new net neutrality rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"We're going to have a very short lame-duck session, and I don’t think telecommunications issues will be a part of it at all,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a former chairman of the Commerce Committee. But in the upcoming 114th Congress, he sees possibility, especially if Republicans take control of the Senate in the November midterm elections. He referred to the “very aggressive agenda” on telecom that current Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., want to pursue. Even with a Democratic Senate, “it’s possible,” said Barton, a co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, of telecom legislation. “Privacy’s an issue that could be handled in the next Congress.”
Barton and Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., stressed the ability of Commerce to get legislation passed. Telecom is often a space for bipartisanship, Barton said, praising cooperation with the potential next top Democrat on the committee, whether that’s Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., or Frank Pallone, D-N.J.
The Communications Subcommittee is “more bipartisan in its work product than any other committee in the Congress,” said Lance, citing his recent Anti-Spoofing Act (HR-3670). The House passed that bill by unanimous consent, and Barton and Lance are on that subcommittee. More legislation has passed out of Commerce and successfully made it through the Senate to President Obama’s desk “than any other committee of Congress,” Lance said. “Congress is keeping up on technology.”
All three lawmakers expressed concern about net neutrality rules, which Democrats widely support. “You don’t need Title II regulation of the Internet,” Barton said, slamming a recent net neutrality proposal (CD Oct 3 p1) from Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., as “frankly flat wrong” for its use of Title II authority. “It’s been proven over and over again that the best solution to the allocation issues and usage issues is an open, transparent market with appropriate oversight by federal and in some cases state and local government.” Congress would “certainly have the right to override” any FCC use of Title II, Barton said, though noting the difficulties advancing that through a Democratic Senate and a possible veto from President Obama: “It would be difficult to do but not impossible.”
"We ought to be relatively neutral in what we're doing on the Net,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. “I'm more for freedom than having the government controlling it or having corporations in control of that entity.” He called FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler “very bright” and “a good man to have in that position.”
"Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem,” Lance remarked. “We have a free Internet. It’s been exploding over the last 10 or 15 years and I personally do not think we really need to go down that route. … I want to work with the FCC on making sure that continues to be the case.”
All stressed different goals. Barton cited a recent GAO request he and Eshoo made on low-power TV and how the broadcast TV incentive auction may affect LPTV -- a request issued in lieu of introducing legislation, which he circulated in draft form this summer. The GAO study will “shed quite a bit of light,” Barton predicted, saying he, Eshoo, Upton and Walden don’t want “low-power television to just be left out in the cold."
Griffith touted his own kill switch-focused Cell Phone Freedom Act (HR-4952), which would “make sure the judicial process is used before we go killing somebody’s cellphone that hasn’t been stolen by a bad actor.” He backs the rise of kill switches and believes “we are headed in that direction” but wants law enforcement to have a court order before shutting off any phones: “There has to be a balance, and the balance is my bill.” The legislation “hasn’t gotten a lot of attention yet,” Griffith said, urging viewers to contact lawmakers about the issue.
The Senate should advance its own bipartisan Anti-Spoofing Act companion bill “at an early date,” Lance said, warning against new manifestations of fraud that his legislation targets. “Technology marches forward, and the bill in which I have been involved includes texting, which was not in the original [similar 2009] bill, and new forms of communications, such as telephoning somebody through an iPad,” he said. (jhendel@warren-news.com)