House FY 2017 FCC Funding Bill Now Includes Limit to FCC ISP Privacy Regulation
The House’s FY 2017 FCC funding bill will retain an attack on the FCC’s net neutrality order and gain an attack on the proposed ISP privacy rules. Lawmakers approved the floor amendment from Commerce Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to stop any funding “being used to implement, administer or enforce any of the rules proposed in the [NPRM] adopted by the FCC on March 31, 2016 (FCC 16-39), intended to regulate consumer privacy obligations as necessitated by the FCC’s net neutrality regime.”
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.
The lawmakers continued debating the FY 2017 Financial Services appropriations bill Thursday, after Wednesday votes. Democrats are expected to oppose the base bill due to its funding levels and riders, which curb the net neutrality order, the agency’s set-top box proceeding and push back against possible limits to broadcaster joint sales agreements. The bill also would force the FCC to post items upon circulation.
“The FCC simply doesn’t have the requisite technical expertise to regulate privacy,” Blackburn said on the floor, calling that regulation the “domain” of the FTC. The FCC’s Communications Act Title II reclassification prevented FTC regulation of ISP privacy, meaning if Blackburn’s amendment were signed into law, neither agency could regulate privacy. She blasted the 147 pages of the FCC proposal. The rules are “extreme and go well beyond anything they should be doing in this space, and it is a bipartisan concern,” she said, citing Reps. Gene Green, D-Texas, and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., joining a GOP letter of concern.
But ultimately only two Democrats, Schrader and Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., voted for the amendment in the 232-187 vote that occurred after 11 p.m. Wednesday. Green voted against the amendment.
“We need strong rules to protect consumers’ most sensitive information and we need those rules to be enforced,” Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., countered on the floor. He called privacy “a fundamental right” and accused the amendment of doing less to protect it.
Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., failed by a vote of 181-238 to advance a floor amendment that would have stripped the measure of a rider that would freeze the net neutrality order while litigation is pending. Green and Costa were the only Democrats to vote against her amendment. Eshoo said such a rider is unnecessary, after June’s U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “clear and decisive” ruling upholding the order. The court “found that the FCC acted within its authority, acted consistent with Supreme Court precedent, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and consistent with the Constitution,” she said, noting last year a court ruling denied a stay of the order. “The courts have spoken, and legal scholars agree.”
Litigation “is in no way finished” and this is “just fair” to do before implementation, countered Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., responsible for the rider. “It is an issue for the courts to decide.”
“Yet again the majority is trying to hijack the regulatory process for its own ends,” said Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee ranking member Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. “This rule went into effect almost a year ago, and none of the fears that were raised about the net neutrality rule have come to pass. There have been increased investment and profits for Internet service providers.” The text “encourages the plaintiff” to “delay a resolution” to the cases, he said.
Lawmakers were still processing the Democratic amendments Thursday that would stop any funds from contravening Communications Act Section 317, addressing broadcast disclosure sponsorship, and one that would increase FTC funding by $1 million to boost do-not-call enforcement and telemarketing education outreach, both part of the 70 amendments made in order. They had not voted on the measure itself at our deadline. Serrano, speaking on the floor, emphasized his “strong opposition,” citing such issues as FCC funding and the anti-net neutrality riders. The White House threatened a veto, although it’s widely believed Congress may have to advance a continuing resolution for when government funding expires Sept. 30. Senate Democratic leaders sent a letter to senior Republicans worrying about the appropriations process and a potential break from last year’s two-year budget deal and regular order. “Each rider caters to a different special interest group that supports the other party,” Serrano said. ”Unfortunately the rest of the American people are seemingly out of luck.”