Democrats Press Forward on Year-End ACP Funding Push Amid Potential Hurdles

Congressional Democratic leaders remain intent on attaching funding to restore the FCC’s lapsed affordable connectivity program to a year-end legislative package (see 2409170066). Some lawmakers acknowledge the push faces long odds in what’s likely to be a fraught lame-duck session. Some ACP boosters believe Capitol Hill’s lame-duck dynamics could change depending on the outcome of the Nov. 5 election. GOP lawmakers aren’t enthusiastic about attaching ACP money to a legislative vehicle this year, in part citing their longstanding demand for a major overhaul of the program in conjunction with additional funding.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., put the onus on Republicans, who should “stop their opposition to ACP and holding poor communities back from having broadband service.” Cantwell remains interested in attaching her Spectrum and National Security Act (S-4207), which would use future auction revenue to offset $7 billion in ACP money and $3.08 billion for the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program. “Conversations at a higher level have been pretty positive,” but reaching a deal will be “predicated on whether you really have willing partners,” she said.

Cantwell and other Democrats also continue to support a Senate Commerce-approved version of the Proper Leadership to Align Networks for Broadband Act (S-2238) that includes funding for ACP and rip and replace (see 2407310048). Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., is touting S-2238 as a strong alternative given it “passed through committee,” which is the type of “regular order” Republicans routinely seek. “That makes sense to me” as assuaging GOP complaints because Senate Commerce members “were able to offer their amendments and ideas,” he said.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who spearheaded S-2238’s ACP amendment and previous stopgap funding efforts(see 2405020072), insisted there “are a lot of Republicans who are very supportive” of the program. The sticking point remains finding “a source of funding that will accommodate” ACP and the rip-and-replace initiative, he said: “That’s still a challenge” given the Hill’s years-long spectrum legislative impasse (see 2408150039), though “we did get closer” during Senate Commerce’s S-2238 debate.

ACP Extension Act (HR-6929) lead sponsor Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said “anything is negotiable” given the program has some support from Republicans outside House or Senate leadership. The $7 billion HR-6929 proposes for ACP is “not a lot of money in the scheme of things,” especially if Democrats prevail in the election and reclaim a House majority, she told us: House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has opposed moving on ACP funding because he’s “trying to protect some [GOP] members who are in the category of ‘government spending should never occur.’”

Skepticism

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., is skeptical about ACP backers’ chances of achieving a lame-duck victory. “That’s a huge reach at this point,” she told us in late September before Congress began its pre-election recess. “I’m not optimistic … unless when we get back, we have a path forward” given the limited amount of time the Hill will have before a continuing resolution to fund the government expires Dec. 20. Matsui suggested lawmakers consider decoupling the rip-and-replace money from ACP for inclusion in end-of-year legislation if there’s not a clear consensus after the election.

Senate Commerce ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told us he remains “open to conversations” on an ACP deal, but congressional GOP aides emphasized a deal would likely require contracting the program’s eligibility requirements and other changes that a congressional Universal Service Fund revamp working group has considered (see 2407300053). $7 billion is “a big price tag” absent refurbishments because economic hardships during the COVID-19 pandemic “no longer exist, and more people were getting” the subsidy than Congress intended, said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. “I don’t see [those rules changes] getting through” at this point in the year.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., indicated he would object to using the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act as a vehicle for ACP funding given it's not germane. “There might be an omnibus [FY25 funding package] in December,” but Cantwell is likely to “have a lot of trouble” including ACP money in it because there’s no agreement among the Commerce committees’ heads and congressional leaders, he said. Some Republican aides said there's the potential of including rip-and-replace money in NDAA if Democrats agree to unlink it from ACP.

Affordable Broadband Campaign Board Chair Greg Guice believes Congress could act on ACP during the lame duck, but “it’s not a clear and easy path.” The congressional USF working group would likely need to “signal that they are close enough to a deal” on a framework for it to be ready for “June or July markup” in the Commerce committees, he told us. Several communications lobbyists noted congressional aides are talking during the recess in hopes of having something preliminary for working group members when Congress returns Nov. 12.