White House Seen Eyeing 2019 Return to Infrastructure Push; Hill Signals Interest

White House officials quietly floated the possibility of revisiting the Trump infrastructure legislative proposal next Congress, including at a late September 5G summit (see 1809280054). Special Assistant to the President for Innovation Policy Matt Lira raised the prospect of a revised proposal during a closed breakout session at the event, participants recalled. The plan Trump unveiled in February proposes $50 billion in federal funding for rural infrastructure projects allocated via state block grants that could be spent for broadband (see 1802120001).

Lira's message was the administration recognizes the February proposal “didn't go anywhere,” but “it's their hope some of these issues could have bipartisan appeal” next Congress, said a participant. The White House wanted to make clear its interest in infrastructure “was more than a talking point” and seemed to want to make it a “post-election priority,” another attendee said. Trump acknowledged in late March that serious Capitol consideration of a comprehensive infrastructure bill likely would be delayed until after the November election (see 1803290046). The White House didn't comment.

Hill Republicans and Democrats we spoke with all signaled interest in revisiting infrastructure legislation at the start of next Congress, though they indicated many of the policy disagreements seen to have scuttled the heart of Trump's proposal this year remain. “It's going to be a question of when is the right time” to return to infrastructure legislation, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., told us: “Some of that will be shaped” by the election results, though “most members on both sides of the aisle” are interested in turning back to the issue.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., noted “we got a lot done” on easing broadband-related regulations as part of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services (Ray Baum's) Act FCC reauthorization and spectrum statute in the FY 2018 federal spending law (see 1803230038). There will be opportunities to go further next year, including via NTIA reauthorization, Walden said. “It's important to be in partnership with the private sector and see what we can do to help them leverage their resources.”

“We'll have to have some combination” of direct federal investment and language aimed at easing regulatory barriers to encourage private sector-led initiatives, Thune said. “I think there's a high level of interest in broadband being a part of” any legislation and a commitment to funding, he said. The question is "how [are] you going to pay for it?”

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., forecast spending-related hurdles. “The main thing that's needed is a revenue source,” Wicker said. “When we’ve got that, we can do a lot" on infrastructure. Capito, who in March criticized the proposal's lack of dedicated broadband funding (see 1803010050), would welcome a White House shift on that matter “with open arms.” She said the “bigger question is going to be the one we could never quite get to, which is the funding issue.”

Democrats' Priorities

Hill Democrats are eager to revisit infrastructure legislation, provided the White House's next proposal shifts from the approach it took this year. Democrats criticized the plan for not including dedicated broadband funding (see 1802140064).

“Most Democrats have been clamoring for an infrastructure bill that actually has real money” to finance projects, “not just smoke and mirrors,” said House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa.

“There is an opportunity to do infrastructure right” in 2019, but if the administration is going to be “stuck on the Wall Street wizardry” that permeated the February proposal, “we're going to get nowhere,” said Senate Communications ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. Trump's plan “was not as robust” as Democratic proposals, which included a push for $40 billion in direct broadband funding (see 1803060056), said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.: Democrats' response to renewed White House overtures on infrastructure “would depend” greatly on details.

Schatz and Doyle cited potential budgetary hurdles. Schatz said the “main question is the means of funding.” The 2017 tax cut measure and more recent tax law changes “make it much more difficult to come up with revenue streams to fund these kinds of things,” Doyle said. “While the GOP is giving money back, it's robbing Congress' ability to pass a major infrastructure bill that can bring broadband out to areas that are unserved and underserved.”

Bipartisanship?

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Spectrum Policy Director Doug Brake and others told us they see a far greater likelihood of the Trump administration adding some form of dedicated broadband funding into a future infrastructure proposal if Democrats flip at least a chamber. Generic congressional ballot polls conducted since Sept. 19 give Democrats a two-to-12-point lead over Republicans. If Democrats win control of the House, “we're more likely to see an infrastructure package that does indeed focus more on actual spending of tax dollars” on broadband and other projects, Brake said. “It makes sense” that the administration would try to make a bipartisan appeal on infrastructure.

NTCA is among the stakeholders hopeful the administration seeks a modified proposal that includes dedicated funding, because that will be important for encouraging rural deployments, said Senior Vice President-Industry Affairs and Business Development Mike Romano. “If you don't have the business case to invest in rural broadband, it's not going to happen. These are areas where if you had to charge the full cost” of broadband deployment, “the customer wouldn't buy the service.” Any future infrastructure package also needs to be coordinated with existing USF and Rural Utilities Service programs, Romano said.

A White House overture to Democrats on their infrastructure priorities won't guarantee bipartisan agreement, especially if Democrats' primary campaign for the 2020 presidential nomination begins in earnest as the new Congress convenes, said Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Blair Levin and others. “I'm skeptical there will be much bipartisanship” on major legislative issues next year, Levin said. Partisan rancor over Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation process is likely a precursor to “political waters that will probably be much more poisoned by the time January rolls around," Levin said.

Conditions that would have made it easier to approve dedicated broadband funding as recently as 2017 have subsided, including rising interest rates and lower unemployment, Levin said. “It's much tougher now” even though “the need for public investment” has remained constant. Telecom lobbyists pointed to other potential avenues for broadband spending outside of an infrastructure bill, including the process for reconciling the House- and Senate-passed farm bills (see 1807160064).