House Commerce GOP Leader Candidates Eye Walden's Telecom Stances

The three Republicans vying to succeed House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden of Oregon told us they intend to largely maintain his approach to telecom policymaking during the next Congress, which is expected to include more debate on net neutrality. Walden announced his retirement plans last year, sparking debate about Communications Subcommittee Republicans’ future path (see 1911260048).

Consumer Protection Subcommittee ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington is considered the front-runner for Commerce's top GOP seat, communications lobbyists and officials told us. Communications ranking member Bob Latta of Ohio and Health Subcommittee ranker Michael Burgess of Texas cite factors in their favor. The Republican Steering Committee is expected to decide contested ranking member races next month.

Commerce Oversight Subcommittee ranking member Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., was initially interested in seeking Walden’s seat. He later decided against it.

Burgess, Latta and McMorris Rodgers cited GOP surprise House gains in the election this month (see 2011040052) as a factor the Republican Steering Committee will need to consider as they decide the leadership contest. The Democrats definitively won a majority in the chamber and will hold at least 219 seats to Republicans’ minimum of 206. Republicans were forecast before the election to end up “so far in the minority as to be absolutely irrelevant,” Burgess said. “That the majority is much narrower” than expected “provides us an opportunity to do a great deal more than we've been able to do” this Congress.

The next Commerce ranker will essentially be in a “two-year job interview” for the chairmanship given GOP hopes they can parlay their 2020 gains into reclaiming the majority in the 2022 election, said Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute Senior Fellow Mark Harkins. “Being in the House minority” is typically “the worst job in Washington” and the prospect of taking on a committee leadership role now would in theory be a waste of two years of the House Republicans’ self-imposed six-year term limit for their committee leaders. “It’s a quite reasonable expectation that the Republicans have that they could win the majority” in 2022, but it “doesn’t always happen,” he said. “For these next two years, it’s not going to be fun” to be the ranking member, but it will determine whether that person will become GOP leader after 2022.

Contenders

It’s “important for the Republicans to win back the majority” in the 2022 election and “I am uniquely prepared” to be the GOP’s lead House Commerce member ahead of that contest, McMorris Rodgers said. She noted her six-year stint as House Republican Conference chair under Speakers John Boehner of Ohio and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, which “gives me a unique perspective as to what it takes to get big things done” and enact legislation. “I've worked on a whole host of legislation that I've gotten through” House Commerce and “signed into law, and I've also consistently led to help this team win,” McMorris Rodgers said.

Burgess is touting his seniority on House Commerce, a committee he has been on since 2005. Latta joined the panel in 2009, McMorris Rodgers in 2011. Republicans “don't go strictly on seniority” in deciding who becomes the party’s committee leaders, but “it is important,” he said. “I've seen a lot of stuff come through” House Commerce and “it's important to be able to enter the debate with the facts at your disposal.” Republicans for now remain the House minority party and are “not likely to win the votes, but we've got to win the debate” not “just in the hearing room, but with the public.” He has been active during the current Congress on telehealth and anti-robocall policymaking.

“I've been privileged to be able to serve on all six” Commerce subpanels since joining the committee, and during the last Congress chaired the then-Digital Commerce Subcommittee, Latta said. It’s important for whoever leads Commerce Republicans to have experience in “the issues that we're going to be working on in our six subcommittees and what we want to get done.” He said the unanimous 2017 House passage (see 1709060035) of his Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution Act to create a legal framework for autonomous vehicles is an example of his ability to secure a consensus on a “complicated piece of legislation.” He refiled the measure this Congress, but progress stalled (see 2001100042).

All three lawmakers believe there’s no reason to diverge from Walden’s telecom policy approach. “I largely agree with the direction” Walden took on those issues as both House Commerce chairman and ranking member, McMorris Rodgers said. The COVID-19 pandemic “underscored the importance of closing the digital divide, which has been a priority” under Walden’s leadership, as has “the continued focus on winning the race to 5G” and protecting “a free and open internet.”

Latta noted his past role as House Communications vice chair when Walden led that subcommittee, and that he got many opportunities then and as the subpanel’s ranking member to collaborate on the House Commerce’s telecom policy priorities. “We’ve got a lot of work to do” even though the committee accomplished many “great things” under Walden’s leadership, Latta said. “We’ve got to” expand broadband access because “sending kids home with laptops and everything else doesn't do them any good” without connectivity. If people “can't connect,” that “doesn't help businesses” nor “our hospitals,” he said.

Burgess thinks it would “be presumptuous” for him to stake out a different path for Commerce Republicans on telecom issues “because just as I spent my life in healthcare," Walden’s pre-congressional career focused on telecom “and radio stations.” Burgess has “learned from watching” Walden, which showed him work on those issues “really can be bipartisan, but then sometimes they veer off into the partisan sphere.” Lawmakers must “be careful to keep” work on those policies “centered,” he said.

Net Neutrality

All three contenders are wary about the likely prospect that an incoming Democratic FCC majority will move to propagate net neutrality rules similar to the rescinded 2015 ones and reclassify broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 2010290001). They're watching closely to see whether a legislative deal with House Commerce Democrats is possible. Latta and McMorris Rodgers led filing last year of two of committee Republicans’ three alternative net neutrality measures (see 1902070056) to counter what eventually became the House-passed Save the Internet Act (HR-1644): Latta’s Open Internet Act (HR-1006) and McMorris Rodgers’ Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act (HR-1096).

“I would be very concerned if the FCC decided to return” to the 2015 rules, so it remains “important that Congress act,” McMorris Rodgers said. “Republicans are going to continue to advocate for a free and open internet” without “the utility-style regulations” that would come with Title II but also rules to ensure there’s “no blocking no throttling or paid prioritization.” She’s eyeing whether to refile HR-1096 next Congress, and that “depends on how things play out over the next few weeks.” HR-1096 mirrors a Washington state law that restored net neutrality protections in the FCC rescinded rules for state-level purposes (see 1802280027).

Latta “would be happy to” refile HR-1006, which mirrors a 2010 draft measure pushed by then-House Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to enact net neutrality rules with classification of broadband as a Title I information service (see 1012070091). “It’s important” any future net neutrality rules the FCC institutes don’t use Title II as a legal foundation because “we don't want the heavy hand of government” and “we want investment” in broadband infrastructure “to go up,” Latta said. “During this whole campaign cycle, I didn't hear one person say the word net neutrality. Not one.”

House Commerce “tends to be a little more collaborative” than other panels and that’s likely to be even more the case in the next Congress given Democrats’ narrowed majority, Burgess said. “That should give us an additional place or two in the committee. And there'll be some” instances when Republicans “can actually win … if we convince some” Democrats “to come with us. So, it's not a foregone conclusion” that Democrats can pass legislation like HR-1644 again. The presence of former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn on the Biden transition’s commission review team (see 2011160048) may mean a return to the 2015 rules, which could be counterproductive amid the pandemic, Burgess said.

Spectrum Dysfunction

The three Republicans are eyeing ways to address the dysfunctional relationship between the FCC and other federal agencies on spectrum management, given public disputes like the multiagency opposition to Ligado’s L-band plan. There was bipartisan interest in fixing perceived fractures no matter who won the presidential election (see 2010260001).

“We need to focus on a more efficient use of spectrum within the federal government” since it’s “the largest holder of usable spectrum licenses by far,” McMorris Rodgers said. “Certainly, there's a lot of important uses of spectrum by federal agencies, but I also believe that with technology they can be used more efficiently.” She cited her sponsorship of the Government Spectrum Valuation Act (HR-8244), which would require the FCC, NTIA and OMB jointly determine the value of each agency's assigned frequencies. The Senate Commerce Committee in September advanced Senate version S-1626 (see 2009160072).

Spectrum management is squarely in “the FCC’s bailiwick,” Latta said. He’s leery of making “massive changes” to the balance between the FCC and other agencies that potentially gives veto power to entities that don’t “have quite the expertise” on spectrum matters. It's “very important to listen” to what the FCC “has to say” about any such legislative proposal, Latta said. He’s the lead GOP co-sponsor of the House-passed Spectrum IT Modernization Act (HR-7310), which would require NTIA to develop a plan for modernizing its IT systems (see 2011170055).

Congress must get “more information before” it can make “the correct diagnosis” about what ails the spectrum management relationship, Burgess said. There’s a “very valid, valuable discussion” that needs to happen about what DOD spectrum could become available for commercial use. He wants “to listen to the people that are in charge of defending our country and if they can articulate why that spectrum must not be tampered with, OK.” Burgess unsuccessfully sought to remove (see 2007170059) anti-Ligado language from the House-passed FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (HR-6395).

Each lawmaker is eyeing other telecom and tech priorities for the coming Congress, including the push for a legislative revamp of Communications Decency Act Section 230. McMorris Rodgers sees that as a “top of mind” priority due to Republicans’ concerns about social media platforms’ censorship of conservative voices. “I absolutely believe that we need to be looking at Section 230 and making sure that we're protecting free speech online,” she said. The issue took center stage during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (see 2011170061).

Burgess and McMorris Rodgers cited communications network security as a major priority. The outcome of efforts to fund U.S. communications providers’ removal of Chinese equipment determined to threaten national security under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act (HR-4998) remains “a bit of a question mark,” Burgess said. Burgess wants House Commerce to continue working toward a consensus federal privacy measure and examine the efficacy of the $200 million Congress appropriated via the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act for the FCC telehealth program (see 2003250046).