White House Threatens Veto for GOP Rate Regulation Bill
The No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act (HR-2666) would prevent broadband rate regulation “directly through tariffing or indirectly through enforcement actions,” Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said during a Tuesday session to set up a Friday House vote on the partisan measure. Sessions co-sponsors the bill. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., withdrew the amendment he filed to HR-2666 to set up a vote on whether Congress should condemn Communications Act Title II reclassification of broadband and say that the FCC lacks authority under Telecom Act Section 706 for 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.
It was one of five amendments filed Monday, the only one by a Republican lawmaker (see 1604110054). HR-2666 continued to attract pushback Tuesday, much as it had earlier this year during Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee markups. Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and John Yarmuth, D-Ky., all spoke at the Tuesday Rules Committee meeting. Kinzinger wrote HR-2666 and introduced it last summer. The White House issued a statement suggesting a likely veto, Eshoo said.
“The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2666," the White House said in a message Tuesday, saying it would "undermine key provisions" in the FCC's "Open Internet order and harm the Commission's ability to protect consumers while facilitating innovation and economic growth." The bill "is overly broad and extends far beyond codifying the FCC's forbearance from applying provisions of the Communications Act related to tariffs, rate approval, or other forms of utility regulation," the White House said.
The Commerce Committee held six hearings at which this topic came up, Kinzinger said. “I feel like this process was good for the bill overall as there were some very legitimate concerns,” raised both at hearings “and at private meetings,” he added. He defended the changes Republicans made to the bill during markup, which included carve-outs for consumer protections. “Did we put everything in the bill that they asked for? No,” Kinzinger said of Democratic concerns. “But that’s what happens in negotiation.” The FCC “will still be a cop on the beat when it comes to consumer protections,” Kinzinger said.
Democrats and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and President Barack Obama oppose broadband rate regulation of Internet access service, said Eshoo, ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee. But the bill is “far too broad” and “does interfere and get in the way of consumer protections,” she argued. She criticized the way the legislation defines rate regulation and said it could affect other FCC powers. Eshoo mentioned her “airtight” failed amendment that would prevent rate regulation that would have codified FCC forbearance of some Title II regulation. “This would have achieved the stated goal of his bill while keeping in place the FCC’s authority to protect consumers,” she said. Wheeler has advocated a similar approach.
The bill "is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem," Yarmuth said.
Fifty groups sent a letter Tuesday to House leaders slamming HR-2666. “H.R. 2666’s overly broad definitions and undefined language would create extreme regulatory uncertainty,” said the groups, which include Common Cause, Demand Progress, Engine, Free Press, New America's Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge. “It would hamstring the FCC’s ability to carry out its congressionally-mandated responsibilities. The impacts of this legislation are wide-ranging and difficult to fully enumerate, given the broad definitions of ‘rates’ and ‘regulation’ in the bill, which conflict with legal precedent. Yet several harmful impacts are readily apparent.” The legislation “would give a free ride to companies currently imposing punitive data caps and introducing zero-rating schemes, which the FCC has rightly questioned and continues to investigate,” they said.
“The FCC’s role in protecting consumers would be severely diminished with such a recklessly crafted bill,” said Public Knowledge Vice President-Government Affairs Chris Lewis. “We hope Congress will respect the FCC’s role as the guardian of the public interest and vote against this bill.”