House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) outlined a broad agenda for the committee and its Communications Subcommittee on Tuesday (Feb. 14), with items ranging from legislative action on Title II to a comprehensive examination of FCC and NTIA "reauthorization" to accelerated rural broadband deployment to increased oversight of federal cybersecurity initiatives.

At the monthly luncheon of the Media Institute, Walden (pictured) endorsed the "process reforms" that FCC chairman Ajit Pai (who was in the audience) has already introduced. Walden complimented Pai for successfully doing administratively "what Congress has been trying to do legislatively." He singled out Pai's decisions to revoke recent regulations over broadcast joint-sales and shared-service agreements and to rescind certain requirements for noncommercial TV ownership reports.

"We want this business to be vibrant and competitive," Walden said, noting that he expects to "see additional deregulation."

"We don't need antiquated rules like cross-ownership," Walden said.

As for the Open Internet rules, the Commerce chairman said, "Republicans are open to legislative solutions" and that net-neutrality decisions "should be done legislatively." But he acknowledged "it will take time" to develop new procedures, saying, "We have draft legislation" in the works.  

Walden did not respond to queries about a timetable for the congressional review. He chastised the previous FCC leadership's "over-reach" in the Open Internet process.

Although he glazed over his agenda for what he called a long-overdue comprehensive reauthorization of both the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Walden said he believes the FCC should be restored to its five-member level (currently the agency has only three Commissioners).

"The Commission should be filled out, the sooner the better," Walden insisted.

On the broader issue of a comprehensive update to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Walden said he "resists the notion that it will be one bill," preferring to "look at this in modules" affecting various industries, he said, emphasizing that Communications Subcommittee chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) will lead the group's decisions on a rewrite.

"If the marketplace can handle [conditions], it should," Walden said. 

Walden called deployment of rural broadband a top priority on the Committee's communications agenda, pulling in examples of the need for wireless broadband. In particular, he emphasized the need to "lower the cost of broadband development."

He told a homespun tale of the need for such capabilities coming up this summer, on Aug. 27: the date of a total solar eclipse where a prime viewing area will be in small towns within his central Oregon district. Walden said there is almost no wireless capability for a stretch of nearly 30 miles around the eclipse epicenter. Then he wondered aloud, looking directly at Pai,  if he "only knew someone who had administrative authority to require coverage in that region." (At that point, Pai jokingly stood up and started to walk away from his table, to the gleeful laughter of the audience.)

Regarding cybersecurity, Walden indicated that the Commerce Committee will examine the ways in which various agencies monitor activities within their sectors to avoid duplication. Citing the threats to power utilities as well as commercial and communications facilities, Walden vowed to work with industry and to "incentivize" the entire ecosystem to prepare for possible digital assaults.

"We don't need every agency to grab a piece of cybersecurity," he added.  "The goals should be how to share information and avoid cyberattacks."

"Process reform" may be the ultimate arcane topic for policy wonks, but coming from the tongue of Republican FCC commissioner Michael O’Rielly, the lengthy list of proposals and gripes emphasize the politicization that permeates the commission today. In his mildly-titled presentation “Implementing Regulatory Reform at the FCC,” the junior-most commissioner explained his views about the "weaknesses" and ways to correct "the flaws in the mechanisms for decision-making at the commissioner or 'Eighth-Floor' level."

O'Rielly cautioned that an ad hoc Process Review Task Force, established to help the commissioners "better ...govern together," has already turned into "a mere diversion, or worse a time suck." He fretted that the disagreements within the task force "could ironically bury internal agency process reform in a death spiral of its own process."

The commissioner went out of his way to assure the friendly audience at a Free State Foundation seminar in Washington today that he did not consider the issue "as a revenge maneuver for net neutrality," and he acknowledged that "many of the procedural concerns arose prior to the current administration or chairmanship." Nonetheless, it was clear that many of O'Rielly's beefs have emerged during the heated political divisions of the continuous commission's 3-2 votes since he and chairman Tom Wheeler arrived there simultaneously nearly two years ago.

O'Rielly enunciated four "principles" for procedural reform, including improved functionality and elimination of "shortcuts" that "do not make good precedent nor promote the sustainability of decisions." He also called for greater transparency and ideas that "focus on ways to improve the process without disrupting the balance of power."

All of those points have roots in recent skirmishes at the FCC that resulted in partisan votes about spectrum auctions, broadband lifeline, IP transition and robocalling/texting.

O'Rielly also outlined nine ideas for "substantive reform," most of which again are drawn from recent political feuding about commission actions. For example, he would like to see the posting of detailed meeting items publically released in advance of the monthly FCC Open Meetings, not just distributed to the commissioners and their staffs. He also suggested that the commission "should publish any rules adopted in an Open Meeting on the same day," tied to his recommendations about restricting the "editorial privileges" and post-adoption process that allow Commission decisions to be interpreted and delayed substantially.

O'Rielly scorned the effort to "enliven the scripted open meetings by bringing in special guests," an effort he said appears to be "an attempt to further promote the viewpoint" of the commission's majority and "dilute dissenting opinions." And he challenged the "predictive judgment" process by which the agency "sometimes makes predictions about how markets will evolve and about the impact of its rules or policies."

"Enforcement accountability" also drew O'Rielly's wrath.

"The commission has no idea whether parties are actually satisfying the terms of its enforcement actions," he said. He described "a simple fix" in building a "sufficient relationship with the Departments of Treasury and Justice, without undermining our independence as an agency."

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Communications Subcommittee, has signaled she can accept an FCC reform bill with a delay on a provision letting more than two FCC commissioners meet outside of public meetings, but can't accept it if it includes Republican-backed amendments she has already said she opposes.

That message came in prepared text for her opening statement for a markup of H.R. 2583, the FCC Process Reform Act, in the House Energy & Commerce Committee Wednesday (June 3). Eshoo had been a co-sponsor of the bill, but wanted her name removed, said one committee source, to avoid having to vote against her own bill, which has the Republican votes to be amended to include their proposals.

Those include requiring the FCC to publish text of draft decisions when they are circulated (customarily three weeks before a vote), to publish its decisions within 24 hours of a vote, and to publish 48 hours beforehand decisions be granted on delegated authority.

Eshoo said while she continued to support the underlying bill, even with the delay on commissioners meeting, she also suggested the above requirements were essentially poison pills.

"What I cannot support are attempts to stack this bill with partisan amendments that have the effect of tying the FCC in knots," she said. "Proposed under the guise of improved agency transparency and accountability, what these bills actually do is prevent the FCC from being fast, efficient and transparent.

"After four years of debating FCC process reform, the Committee can take one of two routes," she added. "If the Majority wants to offer its partisan amendments, Democrats will oppose final passage and this bill will once again fail to become law. Alternatively, we can adopt the Democratic substitute amendment which incorporates the areas of bipartisan agreement into the underlying bill and join together in urging the Senate to expeditiously pass the FCC Process Reform Act."

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the full committee, concurred.

"While I support H.R. 2853 in its current form, I have been clear that I cannot support the other Republican drafts I anticipate will be added as amendments during markup," Pallone said. "Experts have said, quite simply, that it would result in confusion, litigation, and delay.  So I will oppose those bills and any final bill that includes its provisions."

The Republicans support the Democratic amendments, so on alternative would be for them to vote on the base bill without the Republicans amendments, which would be bipartisan, and then vote separately on the Republican proposals. They almost certainly have the votes to pass them.

Also look for the Democrats to try to amend the base bill legislation mandating that the FCC require more detailed on-air disclosures from the funders of political ads.