This Wednesday, Congress will have its first chance to look under the hood of the proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T. The Senate will hold a hearing on the deal, featuring representatives from AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Cellular South, the Communications Workers of America, and Public Knowledge.

The hearing is a kabuki dance of sorts because, though the Congress plays an important oversight role, it has no formal part in approving (or not) the acquisition.  That job rests with the FCC and DoJ.

While no one knows if, when, or in what form the resulting approval will look like (if approval in fact occurs), the hearing will help all sides begin to put forward their best PR case to the American public.

I believe that the acquisition – though complex and challenging for policymakers – will benefit the public interest.  Yes, it will pare the market down by one, resulting in three major nationwide providers.  But the market will remain effectively competitive.  Consumers will benefit through the roll out of new and better mobile broadband services from a stronger AT&T.  And this will in turn spur direct competition from the major and regional wireless players, as well as in services that are considered substitutes.

But, as the existence of the hearing reveals, the acquisition is not a done deal.  Many questions abound, which Congress and the American public have a right to know about.

So, if I were a Senator sitting up on the dais – one who could see consumer benefit as a result of this acquisition – what top five questions would I want answered?

(more…)

In a rebuke to President Obama, a Senate panel last week gave a thumbs-up to the creation of an alternative Gulf oil spill commission to rival that previously announced by the President.

The bipartisan commission was approved by five Democrats and ten Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Its members would be determined mainly by Members of Congress, on a 50/50 Democrat/Republican basis, with President Obama retaining the power to appoint the Chairman.

The move followed intense criticism of President Obama’s own announced commission—composed in substantial part of anti-drilling members like Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, and several individuals professionally focused on environmental law— from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), one of those involved in the alternative-commission effort, said earlier this week that the Obama Gulf oil spill commission “appears to me to be stacked with people philosophically opposed to offshore drilling.”

(more…)

Press release from U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee:

Enzi Leads GOP HELP Committee Inquiry
Into Alleged NEA Political Activity

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today led his fellow Republican HELP Committee members in requesting an explanation regarding possible violations of federal law at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).  Enzi and his colleagues sent the request to NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman.

In the letter delivered today the Senators questioned the possibility of “taxpayer dollars to engage in lobbying activities to promote the President’s health care legislative agenda and other legislative priorities” during several August conference calls with NEA grant recipients and community stakeholders.

The letter also raises serious questions regarding how the NEA’s participation in these calls may have violated federal criminal restrictions on lobbying Congress, the Hatch Act, appropriations restrictions on spending funds for such purposes and possible contradictions with the entity’s mission under its authorizing statute.

“…The promotion to NEA grant recipients of topics that are at the top of the President’s legislative agenda and urging a call to action creates a serious conflict of interest,” wrote the Senators.

The full text of the letter to Landesman is below: (more…)