Amendments Fight Expected at House Save the Internet Act Markup

The Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644) remains likely to clear a Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee markup but by a potentially narrow margin, lobbyists told us. All sides of the net neutrality policy debate say the more dramatic aspect they will monitor is whether enough House Communications Democrats end up supporting an expected set of GOP-sponsored amendments aimed at altering the bill’s intent. The markup is to begin at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

House Commerce Committee Democrats released a briefing memo for the markup that said HR-1644 is needed to “reinstate and codify” the FCC’s rescinded 2015 net neutrality rules. HR-1644 and Senate companion S-682, filed earlier this month, would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC order rescinding its 2015 rules "shall have no force or effect." The bill retroactively would restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077).

Supporters and opponents of HR-1644 said they don’t expect more than a maximum two of the four potential subcommittee Democrats who aren’t co-sponsors of the measure to vote against its advancement, allowing it to still move forward. The four Democrats who haven’t co-sponsored HR-1644 are: G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, Tony Cardenas of California, Tom O'Halleran of Arizona and Kurt Schrader of Oregon. The lawmakers’ offices didn’t comment Monday.

The public interest community and other HR-1644 supporters “don’t expect to see any surprises” during the House Communications markup, said Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Phillip Berenbroick. “We have said we want and expect to see the bill be reported out of the subcommittee without amendments” and “we feel confident” that will happen. “We’re finally seeing some action at the committee level to act on this issue” and Republicans are delivering “potshots” in response to Democrats’ process, he said. The Computer and Communications Industry Association, Demand Progress and Incompas were among those rallying stakeholders online Monday for the markup.

American Action Forum Director-Technology and Innovation Policy Will Rinehart expects House Communications to advance HR-1644 on almost a straight party-line vote. He’s interested to “see how they respond to the bipartisan working group formed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., that aims to create a consensus net neutrality bill. Sinema is the lone Senate Democrat who isn't a S-682 co-sponsor. “There’s been acrimony” among House leaders over net neutrality policymaking in recent months, so it’s unclear whether the working group will renew the “desire for bipartisanship,” Rinehart said.

Butterfield and Schrader are the two House Communications Democrats considered least likely to vote for HR-1644 Tuesday, though it’s not guaranteed either will be crossovers, lobbyists said. Officials are confident based on conversations with aides to Cardenas and O’Halleran that both plan to vote for the measure. Rep. Darren Soto, D-Fla., is also considered likely to support HR-1644 despite saying during a legislative hearing earlier this month that he’s open to amendments (see 1903120078).

Republicans are viewing all five Democratic lawmakers as potential crossover votes for amendments they intend to propose at the markup, lobbyists said. House Commerce Republicans were expected to begin filing the amendments Monday night. They are expected to include language from the three bills House Committee GOP leaders filed in February (see 1902070056), said a telecom lobbyist who follows Republican lawmakers. Committee Republicans repeatedly touted the Open Internet Act (HR-1006), Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act (HR-1096) and HR-1101 as pathways to a compromise net neutrality bill that wouldn’t rely on Title II as a legal basis (see 1902250051).

“I completely expect we’ll see” Republicans offer amendments that incorporate language from HR-1006, HR-1096 and HR-1101, Berenbroick said. “We’ve been dealing with those sorts of bills” ever since now-House Commerce ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., and other Hill GOP leaders first proposed their 2015 draft net neutrality bill (see 1702130044). “It seems disingenuous” for Republicans to take “potshots” at Democrats for seeking to advance legislation now given they “had the majority for eight years” but never had any real interest in seeking a true compromise, he said.

“If Republicans want to alter” HR-1644, “tomorrow’s their chance,” said a GOP-centric lobbyist said. “They’re not going to get it” once the bill reaches the full House, when a House Rules Committee-imposed closed rule could bar amendments not favored by the House Commerce majority from coming up for a floor vote. The level of success Republicans achieve with their early marquee amendments will likely determine whether they make a strong push on all of their amendments or if some subcommittee members begin to leave over the course of the session, said a communications lobbyist.

Net Neutrality Notebook

Debate over net neutrality offers “more heat than light,” Barclays said in a Monday research note. “While Net Neutrality and related issues have evoked strong passions since the early 2000s, very little of the discussion has evolved despite significant technological and economic shifts.” Reinstating the 2015 rules, as proposed by House Democrats, would be bad for 5G, Barclays said. “Net Neutrality formulations as proposed in Congress are blunt tools to deal with a fast-changing technological landscape,” the firm said. “The entire premise of 5G is the ability to enable different network capabilities for different applications.”