Democrats Protest GOP Plan to Revamp FCC in Floor Debate
The House was expected to pass FCC process reform legislation (HR-3309) that has little chance of moving this year in the Senate and is opposed by President Barack Obama. In debate Tuesday, members of the GOP-controlled chamber split by party, with Republicans supporting and Democrats condemning the bill by House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. The vote was expected to take place after our deadline.
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!
The goal of HR-3309 is to “avoid needless bureaucratic red tape and fix broken processes at the FCC,” said Walden. HR-3309 is a “very modest” and “good government” bill, said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. On the other side of the aisle, House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the bill would turn the FCC “watch dog” into a “lap dog for industry.” AT&T will “love this” because it will “tie the commission in knots,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
The White House opposed the Walden legislation. In a statement late Monday, the Office of Management and Budget said the bill would limit the FCC’s ability “to exercise its statutory duty to protect the public interest in its review of transactions affecting the vital communications industry.” But HR-3309 appears unlikely to make it to Obama’s desk this year. The Senate Commerce Committee has said it has no plans to take up FCC reform. However, the bill could be revived next year depending on the results of the November election (CD March 27 p1).
The FCC regularly issues final decisions without giving the public a chance to read the text, Walden said. “We don’t operate that way in the House, at least not anymore.” The FCC “never” assesses costs and benefits of regulation, he said. Obama requires that of executive agencies, and the FCC -- an independent agency -- should follow the same directive, Walden said. Also, the bill will stop the FCC from making “last-minute side deals” on merger transactions through voluntary commitments, Walden said. And the bill seeks to address through shot clocks a substantial backlog of applications waiting at the FCC, he said.
House Democrats sharply rebuked the notion that the bill would improve the FCC. The bill “guts” the FCC with onerous process requirements that will make the commission “less effective, less agile and less transparent,” said Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. Requiring cost-benefit analyses “ignores” that the FCC already considers impact on small businesses, she said. Implementing the bill will significantly increase FCC costs by requiring the agency to hire an additional 20 staffers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Eshoo said. The bill marks a “fundamental assault” on FCC authority to consider the public interest when reviewing transactions, Waxman said.
Walden said the FCC’s public-interest authority would remain under the proposed law. Also, he emphasized that the legislation doesn’t target any single FCC in history but aims to solve a “systemic problem,” Walden said. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has made several good changes but without a law they could go away when he leaves the commission, Walden said.
HR-3309 “would, in effect, create a separate Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the FCC,” OMB said. It “would also limit the FCC’s ability to impose conditions, or to accept commitments from transacting parties, as part of its review of transfers of licenses and other assets,” OMB said. “These restrictions would harm the Federal Government’s ability to promote the most effective competitive outcome in any given transaction involving communications firms.” In addition, the bill “would limit the ability of the FCC and the Justice Department to work together” on telecom matters, OMB said.
As he did in Commerce Committee markup, Walden opposed an amendment by Eshoo requiring that public inspection files of a broadcast licensee, cable operator or satellite broadcaster identify any donor who contributed $10,000 or more to political programming sponsors during the two-year period preceding a request to purchase programming time. Walden said he doesn’t oppose disclosure as a principle but the Eshoo amendment could have “lots of unintended consequences” and won’t accomplish its goals “in an effective way."
The amendment is about protecting “democracy,” Eshoo said. “There’s something very sick about our system today.” The amendment is not burdensome for the radio and TV providers because “only those who buy the time” have to disclose, Eshoo said. “How heavy of a burden is it … to report and disclose to the American people?”