Save Access

from: National Journal
Technology Daily
House Judiciary Chairman Demands Review Of Telecom Bill

By Drew Clark

(Thursday, May 4) The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is vehement that his panel be able to review a telecommunications bill passed late last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., added in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. that if his request is declined, Hastert should refrain from scheduling floor action on the bill until the Judiciary panel can consider telecom legislation of its own.

Sensenbrenner outlined 35 pages of arguments in a letter sent to Hastert earlier this week. Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, does not want the Judiciary Committee to consider his bill, and sought to craft the legislation in such a way as to keep it out of the Judiciary panel's jurisdiction.

The measure, H.R. 5252, would permit the former regional Bell operating companies to quickly enter the video marketplace. It has been publicly supported by Hastert, who played a significant role in crafting the 1996 Telecommunications Act as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee before he assumed the House speakership in 1998.

Sensenbrenner's letter details many reasons why he believes the Judiciary panel should have jurisdiction over the bill. He cited issues such as antitrust law, the province of Judiciary committees; pre-emption of consumer protection laws; administrative procedures; taxes on interstate commerce; rights to private property; child pornography; and civil rights.

Industry sources differ on whether the Judiciary Committee will be granted a referral. If the Judiciary panel receives a referral, House action on the Barton bill could be delayed until June. Otherwise, a floor vote could occur next week.

"My gut tells me that at the end of the day, the speaker will give the Committee of Judiciary a referral of a limited time period," said a source who has worked as a committee aide on Capitol Hill.

"Speaker Hastert has made clear that he wants this bill," this source continued. But "the normal give-and-take between speaker and committee chairmen would suggest that the speaker would give [Sensenbrenner] a referral but not an indefinite one."

The source had a different view two weeks ago, before seeing Sensenbrenner's letter. "For whatever reason, he is digging in," this source said, adding, "If anyone thinks Barton wouldn't be doing the same thing to Sensenbrenner, they are lying to you."

But other industry sources believe Sensenbrenner's letter is just clever draftsmanship. They believe the House parliamentarian's office will advise against a referral and Hastert will follow that suggestion.

Sensenbrenner is readying legislation dealing with "network neutrality," which would bar dominant Bell and cable companies from charging competitors more to transmit high-speed Internet content, a congressional source said.

The Judiciary Committee was not granted a referral over the 1984 or 1992 cable acts, which would be most affected by Barton's bill. The Judiciary panel had a referral over the 1996 Telecom Act and a portion of an Energy and Commerce Committee 2001 measure to liberalize broadband regulation.

Besides a referral or a vote delay, Hastert could promise Sensenbrenner an amendment or action on an unrelated priority, sources suggested.