LOOMING OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL COULD BYPASS 35% CAP
Omnibus could become an ominous word for those that want to see Congress reestablish a 35% broadcast ownership cap. Despite the recent Senate passage of a “legislative veto” (S.J. Res. 17) of the FCC’s June 2 media ownership rules, most observers still see an appropriations legislation rider as the most likely vehicle to establish an ownership cap during this session. But with the appropriations process slowly trudging along, coupled with the need for supplemental appropriations for Iraq, some industry and Hill sources said the prospect of an omnibus appropriations bill is becoming greater.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
An omnibus appropriations bill could still contain language to preserve -- for one budget cycle -- the 35% broadcast ownership cap. But sources said omnibus bills are often stripped of extraneous and controversial measures and many speculate that the 35% cap is too controversial to be left in an omnibus package. Republican leadership in both chambers opposes any changes in the FCC’s rules. However, there’s significant Republican backbench support in both chambers -- particularly the Senate -- for changes in the rules.
House Commerce Committee Vice Chmn. Burr (R-N.C.), the sponsor of 35% broadcast ownership cap legislation in the House, told us he doesn’t support the use of the Congressional Review Act -- the so-called “legislative veto.” The Senate passed such a veto on Tues. (CD Sept 17 p1), despite a threatened veto from the White House and promises from the House that the bill wouldn’t be reviewed in that chamber. Burr is one of the leading Republican voices in the House pushing to roll back some of the ownership rule changes. House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) is staunchly opposed to any override of the FCC’s media decision.
Burr told us Congress needed to pass authorizing legislation and that the appropriations route was only a stop-gap solution. “If we used appropriations, we'd have to use it every year,” he said. “That wouldn’t be beneficial to the networks.” Burr said he believes the ownership cap should remain at 35%, but said he doesn’t support a ban on cross ownership. “There have been some very successful cross-ownership models” in communities where cross-ownership has been approved, Burr said. “I think there are additional communities where that model could work.”
Burr told us he’s confident that Congress would pass some ownership restrictions because of the interest the public has shown. He said the fact that the FCC received 2 million letters shows the American public is “engaged.” “Congress responds to the American people,” he said. Burr sponsored 35% broadcast cap legislation (HR-2052) that has at least 145 co-sponsors.
While the legislative veto appears unlikely to move in the House, a House source told us it would be significant, especially if the Senate CJS appropriations bill (S-1585) does make it to the floor. Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.), the sponsor of S.J. Res. 17 and the leading voice in the Senate on media ownership, has said he would try to add cross-ownership restrictions when S-1585 is debated on the floor. Senate Appropriations Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) has said he would oppose a cross-ownership cap amendment on the bill. Stevens voted against S.J. Res.-17, but he supports a 35% broadcast ownership cap.
Should S-1585 reach the Senate floor, the votes cast on the legislative veto could have an impact if senators change their position, said the House source, who’s closely following the ownership debate in Congress. The source said senators who voted for the S.J. Res.-17 (which many said was a “safe vote” because of the likely House inaction) but against a cross-ownership amendment to S-1585 could be questioned about their change in position. At this point, S- 1585 hasn’t been scheduled for floor debate.
There are other problems with the appropriations process, sources said. There’s at least a $500 million difference between the House CJS appropriations bill and the more expensive Senate version (S-1585), which requests $38.4 billion. Sources said the difference could be difficult to rectify in conference.
There are other controversial measures in the legislation that could stall the CJS appropriations process and lead Congress to use an omnibus bill for passage of appropriations process. The Senate bill includes an amendment that would affect how the U.S. Trade Representative negotiates immigration issues. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein (D-Cal.) is opposed by the White House and many Senate Republicans. The House bill includes an amendment, supported by the National Rifle Assn., that would loosen background check requirements for gun purchases. The House CJS appropriations bill also includes Patriot Act changes that are opposed by the Justice Dept.