Lawmakers Hungry for Detail, See Promise in Clinton's Broadband Infrastructure Plan

“She clearly is going to push infrastructure, and broadband is certainly one of the infrastructures,” said Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla. “You’re talking about roads, bridges, you’re talking about other infrastructure like airports, next generation of air traffic control, and it ought to include broadband.”

Democrats have what some consider a good chance to win back the Senate in 2016, based on polling and analyst estimates. If Democrats win the Senate and Nelson becomes Commerce chairman, he told us he envisions hearings on such an infrastructure package and a role in legislation. Republicans are considered likely to retain control of the House, but some Democrats say a takeover is possible there, too.

“Sure, it’s very important to me,” said House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., saying he would help push through a broadband effort in his chamber. “There’d be a lot of support for something like that, even bipartisan. I think so. Obviously the Democrats are going to be more supportive, but I still think that it’s the type of thing [where] we could get bipartisan support.”

Clinton’s telecom agenda, initially outlined last year during primary season and formally offered in June (see 1606280071), aims to connect all U.S. households to high-speed broadband by 2020. Clinton started floating her infrastructure proposals last year and continued emphasizing the legislative package throughout this summer -- the largest investment since World War II, she said on the campaign trail, at the Democratic National Convention and in her policy book with vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine. The campaign began tying the broadband infrastructure plans to her broader $275 billion infrastructure package. The infrastructure focus of the telecom agenda cites “investments in the Connect America Fund, Rural Utilities Service program, and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program" (BTOP) and “directing federal agencies to consider the full range of technologies as potential recipients -- i.e., fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite -- while focusing on areas that lack any fixed broadband networks currently.” It would include a $25 billion infrastructure bank and involve expanding the number of anchor institutions hooked up to Wi-Fi. The BTOP program was a $4 billion broadband stimulus effort by the Obama administration that has largely concluded. The Clinton campaign doesn’t specify how much money would go to broadband and what agencies would be principally involved.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also says he’s eyeing an infrastructure plan but with no mention of whether it would or should include broadband, a policy area the Trump campaign has been silent about. “We are going to rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump told Fox Business last month, not specifying broadband. “At least double her numbers -- and we’re probably going to need more than that.” A Trump administration would “get a fund” to fuel this effort, a bond strategy funded by people and investors, he said. The Trump campaign website lists infrastructure under reforms “to be rolled out in the near future.” Neither campaign responded to requests for comment.

How to Pay?

The Clinton plan's funding component would be critical to winning buy-in, several members of Congress told us. The Clinton campaign promised business tax overhaul as the way to pay for her $275 billion package, without providing details.

Two Republicans seen as the likely potential leaders on the House Commerce Committee next Congress emphasized the need for fiscal discipline and details of the plan. They didn’t rule out considering it but said they want more information.

Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., burst out laughing when hearing that Clinton promised business tax overhaul as the way to pay: “Of course! Squeeze corporate America when it’s still in a malaise.” Shimkus said presidential candidates on both sides see it as “easy to throw around billions of dollars for infrastructure here, a billion dollars [there],” he said. “Remember, it’s all got to be paid for.” He wondered about addressing the issue through his own goal of an overhauled 1996 Telecom Act and the USF provisions there. “Remember, we legislate, they can propose, we dispose. They’re these presidential candidates that are going to accomplish the world. I think there is a public policy debate on getting high-speed internet broadband service to the country. And of course, I’ve always focused on not just the metropolitan areas -- there’s a market there -- but also making sure you can get it out to rural America, so there’s some equivalency of service. The overall thought process, not bad.”

“The last big Democrat spend-o-rama stimulus bill I think allocated $7 billion to build out broadband,” said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., referring to the total of BTOP and Broadband Initiatives Program grants. “They were in such a rush to get it out the door that they determined the underserved and unserved areas after they’d already put the contracts out. It was sort of cart before the horse. And so if you stand back then and look at the enormous amount of money that the private sector invests every year, it dwarfs whatever the feds would do. … It’s just multiples of whatever you can do out of the taxpayers that have to go borrow to do it. I think the better approach is to incent the industry and to take the money we collect now and incent it into filling out these underserved and unserved areas. And that’s a strategy you could pursue without burdening the next generation with greater debt."

Other Republicans also pressed on the question of funding. “On infrastructure, this is not a panacea," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told the Economic Club of New York last week. "We’re not a big believer in these multipliers. … There’s no substitute for organic economic growth, free enterprise, private sector growth.”

“I’ve got to take a closer look at what she’s proposing,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D. “I haven’t really looked at details yet.”

“As long as she’s elected president, I think that anything’s possible there,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., expressing interest in pursuing the plan and quickly naming off key policy questions: “Do you try and do tax reform and have one of the pay-fors being to bring back some of the money from overseas; does the infrastructure include broadband financing authority?”

There are “a lot of questions” about what business tax reform really means, said Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. “I look forward to working with President Trump or President Clinton on infrastructure issues but we have to make sure we have a steady, reliable revenue stream that’s going to be available to pay for it. When you look at infrastructure, no matter what it is, it’s long term -- it’s a long-term planning process, it takes too long to get through all the regulations, which add on to the money ... so you have to make sure you have a steady stream of revenue and have that guaranteed upfront so you don’t overspend before you even spend.” She cited her own background working on and leading on infrastructure proposals in Nebraska and the constitutionally mandated balanced budget process there, which demanded such revenue schemes be in place. “Proposals are good, but if you’re really, truly serious about it, you have to be serious about how you’re going to pay for it,” Fischer said.

“To get broad support, you have to be taking money from something else to pay for infrastructure,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. “The issue would come from how it’s paid for, if it’s paid for.” If the plan increased the road to deficit, “that’s a problem,” he judged.

'Smart' Start

Several Democrats said broadband infrastructure deployment would be a winning kick-starter issue for a Clinton administration. Republicans acknowledged the bipartisan appeal but warned of policy and trust battles advancing such a package would entail.

“Broadband deployment is bipartisan,” said Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “There’s support in the north and south, in the cities and in rural communities, and it’s a smart place to start because I think we can actually get something done together.” Funding would be a challenge, “but I think the will is there, and we have members on both sides of the aisle who will want to work with the next administration and get this done,” Schatz said.

Klobuchar cited the rise this year of the Senate Broadband Caucus (see 1609200057), led by a Republican and with co-chairs of both parties including Klobuchar. “This has tended to be, as you can see from the caucus, a bipartisan issue,” she told us. Several Democrats including Schatz, Klobuchar and Pallone said advancing Clinton’s infrastructure proposal would be easier with a Democratic Senate under the leadership of Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., but all said it would be possible in either scenario. “We have a better chance if the Senate turns Democratic, but again, this is an area that has potential for bipartisan cooperation regardless of who has the gavel,” Schatz said.

“There are a lot of Republican senators up here that represent rural states,” Nelson noted. “Broadband expansion is also rural as well as poor people.”

“There’s a broad sense from Republicans of the importance of investment in infrastructure, so I don’t think this is necessarily a partisan fight,” Moran said. He questioned the speed any proposal could advance and also emphasized the need for trust and relationship-building between Congress and the next administration. President Barack Obama “has done next to nothing to try to build a relationship with members of the Senate and I think that’s an important component of any kind of policy decision, those conversations,” Moran said.

“It’s in the details, it’s in how you’re going to pay for it,” Fischer said. “Everybody believes that a priority of government has to be infrastructure. … There will never be enough money to build everything that we need to build in this country, and that’s why we need to be sure we do have a consistent revenue stream to meet the really the most urgent needs first and hopefully have something sustainable.” She questioned how much such presidential campaign proposals really mean once a president wins office: “A president can set out a policy but he still has to work with the Congress in order to get things done, and that’s when you get into the details on it. That’s how I think the system needs to work. The president can come with details, but those are going to change.”