Senators Await Revised Spectrum and National Security Act Text After DOD Backing
Aides to Senate Commerce Committee supporters of the Spectrum and National Security Act (S-4207) say revisions that the Commerce Department and military leaders endorsed Tuesday night will sway enough Republicans to ease the bill's path forward in the chamber. Senators told us much will depend on the language in a new substitute version of S-4207 that was still under development Wednesday afternoon. The bill would restore the FCC’s spectrum auction authority for five years, allocate $7 billion to the expired affordable connectivity program during FY 2024 and fully pay for the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program.
Senate Commerce postponed a planned Wednesday markup of S-4207 (see 2406110079) until June 18, giving legislative aides more time for crafting revisions and sending substitute language to committee members, a spokesperson said. That’s the third time Senate Commerce postponed consideration of the measure, which has faced vocal GOP opposition (see 2405160066). The rescheduled markup is set to begin at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell. Senate Commerce aides face a 2 p.m. Thursday deadline to file the substitute S-4207 language, lobbyists told us.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair C.Q. Brown and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo endorsed the proposed S-4207 revisions during a Tuesday night call with Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., some committee members and other senators’ aides, a meeting participant told us. The three officials confirmed in a statement that they “support adoption of” the measure “subject to a set of agreed upon changes.”
The proposed revisions unveiled Tuesday night are aimed largely at pacifying DOD. They include language creating a process where the Pentagon may object to the results of the administration's spectrum studies before they go to the White House and a change to the measure’s definition of “dynamic spectrum sharing,” Senate aides told us. Cantwell also agreed to add an audit process for federal spectrum incumbents to “better inform the design of incumbent informing capability” for spectrum sharing, a Senate Commerce spokesperson said.
Cantwell, S-4207’s lead sponsor, cautioned Wednesday that “we have to get” revised “language to everybody and let them digest" it before she can clearly gauge GOP support. “We already had some Republicans” privately committed to supporting the measure before the revisions, Cantwell said. She has also been negotiating with Senate Commerce ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has championed his proposal in the 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act (S-3909) that reallocates at least 2,500 MHz of midband airwaves.
Cantwell was vague about whether the revised S-4207 will mandate FCC sales of more spectrum than the 12.7-13.25 GHz band licenses included in the original bill, as some believed possible (see 2406110054). Some lobbyists expected Cantwell would remove the upper 12 GHz mandate. “There’s a lot of spectrum in” S-4207's pipeline already because it directs NTIA to lead feasibility assessments of the 7, 8 and 37 GHz bands, Cantwell said: Sorting out the definition of dynamic spectrum sharing could also be “a big opportunity.”
Cruz 'Still Reviewing'
Cruz and other GOP critics of the existing S-4207 text said they still must examine the new framework and revised substitute amendment. “My team is still reviewing” revisions, “so we haven’t made an assessment yet,” Cruz told us. Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., said increased GOP support for S-4207 will "depend a lot on whether or not [Democrats are] willing to incorporate some of the Republican ideas” for revising the measure, including changes to ACP’s scope and rules. He believes it’s “problematic” that S-4207’s spectrum pipeline language “hasn’t changed.”
Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who are also Commerce members, told us they’re reserving judgment about S-4207 revisions until they examine them in detail. Wicker said he couldn’t participate in the Tuesday evening call but believes it’s “significant that parties seem to have agreement” on changes. Fischer said she will “have to see” the wording of the revised S-4207, but “I would imagine [the changed text won't] meet what I’ve been asking for” via a set of amendments filed before the bill’s postponed May 16 markup that eyed protecting incumbent military spectrum.
Senate Communications Chair Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., weren’t certain whether the revised S-4207 would include elements of the bipartisan proposal (S-4317) that pairs $6 billion in stopgap ACP money with changes to the program’s eligibility rules. Lujan led an unsuccessful attempt to attach the language last month to the FAA reauthorization law (see 2405090052). “I expect it will be part of all conversations” but “I don’t know” which ACP “solution will be included” in a final spectrum package, Lujan said.
“I think” some proposed changes to ACP rules will make it into the revised S-4207, but that’s not certain, Welch told us. “There’s bipartisan support” for changes to address Republicans’ concerns about program eligibility. “The real impediment is … some of the defense folks fear” using spectrum proceeds to pay for the program could lead to sales of military incumbent bands, he said: It’s unclear whether the proposed S-4207 changes will assuage “defense-focused Republican colleagues.”