March House Save the Internet Act Markup Likely Despite Divide at Hearing

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., formed Tuesday what they termed a “bipartisan working group” aimed at creating a consensus net neutrality bill. Sinema is the lone Senate Democrat who hasn't signed on as a S-682 co-sponsor. The working group's mission “will be to put partisan politics aside in order to provide permanent internet protections,” Wicker said. “We need a modern, internet-specific framework that encourages the freedom and innovation that make the internet the vital tool it is today -- and consumers and providers need stability,” Sinema said. “We will only achieve those goals by working across party lines to find a bipartisan solution.”

Most House Communications Democrats supported HR-1644, though allegiances of a handful were unclear. Republicans uniformly opposed it. The rancor during the panel appears to portend a largely party-line vote on the measure if Democratic leaders bring it to a markup, lobbyists told us. Three of the four witnesses -- Fatbeam CEO Gregory Green, National Hispanic Media Coalition General Counsel Francella Ochillo and Free Press General Counsel Matt Wood -- strongly supported the measure, as expected (see 1903110074).

The hearing included a war of words among House Commerce Committee leaders about whether the majority Democrats were committed to seeking a bipartisan legislative solution. House Communications Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., started the panel by insisting HR-1644 was the only bill up for discussion that day but added he's “happy to talk” to subcommittee members about other bills and issues at an “appropriate time.” Committee Republicans filed a trio of their own net neutrality bills last month that don't use Title II: the Open Internet Act (HR-1006), Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act (HR-1096) and HR-1101 (see 1902070056). Democrats are unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001).

House Commerce ranking member Greg Walden of Oregon and other Republicans noted their dismay about Democratic leaders' decision to not take up the three GOP measures. Walden called his HR-1101 and the other Republican bills a “menu of bipartisan legislative proposals,” while HR-1644 is a blatantly “partisan approach” to addressing net neutrality. House Consumer Protection Subcommittee ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., was among lawmakers who said that bill had no chances of getting the needed 60 votes to pass the Senate.

Markup Coming

Doyle said after the hearing he still expects a House Communications markup of HR-1644 before the end of March despite Republicans' misgivings. Walden urged Doyle postpone any markup of HR-1644 until after lawmakers “hear directly” from the FCC about how the bill would “impact the vitality of the internet.” House Commerce hasn't held its first FCC oversight hearing in this Congress despite Democrats' initial plans to hold one early this year (see 1811070052). Capitol Hill's 2019 FCC oversight plans were initially put on hold amid the 35-day partial government shutdown that ended in January (see 1901160031).

Doyle resisted Republicans during the hearing, saying Walden and other committee GOP leaders filed their bills “without our knowledge, without us being informed in advance.” If Republicans “desire a bipartisan approach” and want to work with Democrats, “they should let us know about that,” he said. Anyone who “has suggestions on how [HR-1644] can be improved, if we think they're germane and actually improve the bill, we'll listen to that,” Doyle told reporters. “Every member has a right to do that.”

“I'm not anticipating any defections” against HR-1644 among Democrats on House Communications or at the House Commerce level, Doyle told reporters. Fourteen of the subcommittee's 18 Democratic members are among the bill's co-sponsors; the other four Democrats are G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, Tony Cardenas of California, Tom O'Halleran of Arizona and Kurt Schrader of Oregon.

Lobbyists suggested lack of unified support for the measure among subcommittee Democrats could complicate efforts to fast-track it to the House floor. “Just because someone didn't sign on as an original co-sponsor doesn't mean they don't support the bill,” Doyle said.

Pro-Save the Internet Act groups are beginning to pressure Democratic holdouts to support the measure. Demand Progress and 23 other groups began their bid Tuesday to increase Democratic support for the measure via the relaunch of StoptheFCC.net, previously used to campaign for the Congressional Review Act resolution that last year aimed to undo FCC rescission of the 2015 rules. Fight for the Future is crowdfunding a coming billboard in Phoenix aimed at pressuring Sinema to sign onto S-682.

Democrats' Signals

Cardenas and Schrader appear to be leaning toward supporting HR-1644. Comments by Butterfield and O'Halleran made it less clear where they stand on the bill.

“I'm probably going to vote for it, but hopefully there will be further discussion” to reach a bipartisan consensus, Schrader told us. The measure “is probably going to go forward anyway” and “then we'll have a discussion depending on what the Senate does.” He said the three GOP-led bills contain “a lot of stuff that we could work together on.”

Cardenas told us he's still analyzing HR-1644. His comments during the hearing favored the measure's approach to net neutrality.

Butterfield praised testimony by Cooley's Robert McDowell, a Republican former FCC commissioner, including his call “for a bipartisan approach” and marketplace “certainty.”

Butterfield focused on whether language in HR-1644 that would codify the FCC's forbearance from applying much of the language in Title II in broadband regulation “will make it more or less difficult for the FCC to use its forbearance authority on additional regulations in the future.” He noted ISPs' “anxiety” that the potential return of Title II-based enforcement of net neutrality could have a “chilling effect on their ability to invest in the expansion of their networks.” Butterfield said he understands the providers' concerns “even though I may not agree with it totally.”

“Everyone on [House Commerce] understands the necessity of protecting access to broadband for our communities and our economy,” O'Halleran said. “I want to see a permanent solution that's enforceable, robust and has lasting protections for consumers and our small businesses.” He was among lawmakers raising concerns about providing certainty to ISPs deploying rural broadband.