Wicker Pessimistic on Spectrum Pipeline Reconciliation Ahead of Senate Hearing
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told us last week he is pessimistic about the chances that talks aimed at easing DOD supporters’ objections to repurposing the 3.1-3.45 GHz band and other military-controlled frequencies will lead to a deal in time to allow congressional leaders to include expansive spectrum legislative language in a budget reconciliation package. Other congressional leaders in the spectrum talks noted ongoing efforts to assuage DOD backers. Lobbyists expect the DOD factor to come up repeatedly during a Wednesday Senate Commerce Committee hearing on spectrum legislative issues (see 2502130041).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Wicker told us he hasn't “lost hope” that spectrum talks will lead to a deal to reallocate some bands that DOD backers are raising concerns about, but “the chances are against it.” He said he doesn't “think we're there yet” in negotiations, but “I know [Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas] is a little more optimistic than I am.” Cruz “has taken the lead on this, and I'm trying to be supportive.”
House Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., told us he's “committed to having a secure briefing” with DOD officials about military-controlled bands “and then see what we can do to make more spectrum available.” Guthrie noted that he has attended similar briefings in the recent past, but leaders on the House Armed Services Committee and at least one Senate Armed Services member “asked me to hear this in a secure setting” before reaching a decision that could draw more vocal pushback. “I certainly don't want to do anything that's going to jeopardize national security,” he said.
House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told us that “as long as [DOD] has apprehensions, I’ve got apprehensions. If there’s some part of that spectrum that [the military isn’t] using that [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Charles Brown] tells me he’s OK with turning loose, then I’m fine with that.” Rogers said he will want military officials to certify that selling spectrum “won’t in any way adversely affect our capabilities” because thus far, conversations on Capitol Hill about legislating a spectrum pipeline have been light on details.
“I do believe [spectrum language is] going to fit in” a reconciliation package, but the question remains if “we are going to do a straight reauthorization” of the FCC’s lapsed auction authority or also seek a renewed pipeline, Guthrie said. A 10-year reauthorization “scores differently” at the Congressional Budget Office, but his understanding is that it would provide a $65 billion-$70 billion offset for deficit reduction. That would be “a $10 billion difference” from what CBO would estimate with the addition of a mandated pipeline, Guthrie said. Estimates of the value of mandated spectrum sales vary, with Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., saying last week that auctions could yield “a $100 billion revenue for the federal government” (see 2502110052).
Importance Beyond Offsets
Guthrie insisted that Republicans’ desire to include a spectrum title in reconciliation is “not just about the money” it would provide to offset extending tax cuts enacted at the start of the first Trump administration. “It’s about freeing spectrum so you have opportunities for us to grow and people to become entrepreneurs,” Guthrie said. “We can always do it again” later if DOD backers remain unconvinced, but “there are points in time when you can get legislation passed, and this is an opportunity to do it.”
Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., remains skeptical that Republicans can move on anything broader than renewing the FCC’s mandate in reconciliation, but whether there’s been momentum in favor of obligating a pipeline “depends on who you ask.” Cantwell’s repeated pushes as Senate Commerce chair during the last Congress to move airwaves bills like her Spectrum and National Security Act stalled amid opposition from Cruz and DOD backers (see 2409170066).
House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said her impression is that “there has not been much discussion” among Commerce Republicans about how they want to proceed on spectrum since the subpanel held a hearing on it in late January. “There’s not any sense of agreement” among communications sector players about what a spectrum pipeline should even include, she said. House Commerce Republicans are also trying to work through a range of other issues within the panel’s wheelhouse that party leaders want addressed via reconciliation, she added.
Lobbyists expect Cruz will formally refile a Senate version of his 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act in conjunction with the Wednesday hearing. House Communications Vice Chairman Rick Allen, R-Ga., in January filed a 2025 version of the bill (HR-651), which, like Cruz’s 2024 iteration, proposes requiring that NTIA identify at least 2,500 MHz of midband spectrum to reallocate within the next five years (see 2501230064). Lobbyists expect at least some of the witnesses on Senate Commerce’s Wednesday agenda will support the measure. The witnesses scheduled include Baylor University professor Charles Baylis; Bryan Clark, Hudson Institute Center for Defense Concepts and Technology director; Clemson University professor Thomas Hazlett; and Matt Pearl, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Strategic Technologies Program.