ACP Supporters Temper Hopes for Hill U-Turn After Surprise Amendment, Vance VP Selection

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., believes Commerce’s advancement of S-2238 with the ACP amendment and language allocating an additional $3.08 billion to the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program “shows progress” given Congress’ stalled negotiations on a spectrum legislative package that would fund both initiatives (see 2407110049).

S-2238 “is a bill that will head to the floor, so that could be one of the solutions” to the ACP funding problem, Lujan said in an interview just before the Senate left town earlier this month for its five-week August recess. “But there’s still work that has to take place to get it through the House” in its current form. The underlying S-2238 and House-passed companion HR-4505 would require that the Biden administration develop a national broadband strategy. The House approved HR-4505 in May (see 2405160052) as part of the NTIA Reauthorization Act (HR-4510).

“It’s hard to get a floor vote on an individual bill, so all the usual obstacles will apply” to advancing S-2388 absent its inclusion in a broader legislative vehicle, said Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who sought the ACP amendment. “There is bipartisan support” for ACP despite Senate Commerce advancing the funding amendment 14-12 over unanimous opposition from all panel Republicans except Vance, who didn’t exercise a proxy vote.

S-2238 lead sponsor Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., doubts the measure can gain Senate approval as amended. The ACP proposal “would need a pay-for … unlike [the rip-and-replace] amendment,” which proposes offsetting the additional money by authorizing that the FCC reauction 197 returned AWS-3 licenses (see 2403220056), Wicker told us. “$7 billion is an enormous sum” for a divided Congress to allocate without a funding offset. Welch argued during Senate Commerce’s S-2238 debate that the AWS-3 sales could generate enough revenue to also cover some of the ACP cost.

Affordable Broadband Campaign Board Chair Greg Guice told us S-2238 “certainly presents us with another opportunity” to enact additional ACP funding, but the proposed AWS-3 revenue “isn’t going to be sufficient” to fully fund that program and rip and replace. “There are some ways to solve” the potential shortfall, including adding language before a floor vote that also authorizes the FCC to sell licenses on the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, he said.

Republicans Unmoved

Senate Commerce ranking member Ted Cruz of Texas and other top Republicans appeared unmoved from their opposition to stopgap ACP funding without major changes to its scope and eligibility rules, even amid the party’s initial positive mid-July response to Vance becoming Trump's running mate. Vance was the lead Republican co-sponsor on two bills earlier this year to allocate up to $7 billion in additional ACP money and an unsuccessful bid to attach $6 billion for the program to the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act (see 2405090052).

“I’m willing to find a way to extend at least some parts of [ACP] if it is combined with real and significant reform,” Cruz told us. “I don’t know” whether Vance's elevation will change that view. “We obviously are excited to have [Vance] on the ticket and … want to be supportive of his efforts” on a range of issues, but Republicans also believe “that ACP needs reforms,” said Senate Communications ranking member John Thune, R-S.D. The program “was supposed to be targeted at people who really need” the subsidy, but “40% of people in the country are eligible,” which is far too high.

Vance has “been a good ally” in the fight for ACP funding, so “I hope” having him on the GOP ticket can ease Republicans’ opposition to stopgap ACP funding, Welch said. “I’m not sure” whether it will, but it “can only help.” Lujan also believes Vance could persuade “more Republicans to come forward” to back the program.

Having Vance as Trump’s running mate could swing some Republican leaders toward supporting ACP funding “if he pushes that issue from his new leadership role,” Guice told us. He thinks Capitol Hill’s debate on keeping ACP “has been partisan for reasons unrelated” to the program’s efficacy.

“I deeply want” the view that Vance could sway congressional Republicans on ACP “to be true, but I think the answer is no,” said Brookings Institution senior fellow Blair Levin. Vance is “thoughtful and well-informed” about broadband affordability matters, but Republicans backing ACP “doesn’t seem like it would be politically coherent” given party-affiliated lawmakers want to defund other programs “to help low-income people.”