House Commerce Advances American Broadband Deployment Act on Tight 26-24 Vote

Lobbyists who opposed HR-2289, which combined language from 22 GOP-led connectivity permitting bills, quickly made comparisons to the fate of a previous version of the broadband package during the last Congress. That iteration similarly cleared House Commerce on a party-line vote but never reached the floor amid Democratic resistance (see 2305230067).

House Commerce sped through advancement of HR-6046 and the other five connectivity bills. Those measures included the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act (HR-1343), Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure With Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act (HR-1588), Deploying Infrastructure With Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act (HR-1665), Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews Act (HR-1681) and Standard Fees to Expedite Evaluation and Streamlining Act (HR-1731).

HR-2289 lead sponsor Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia and other Republicans again touted the permitting package as necessary to speed broadband deployments. House Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said HR-2289 aims to fix “unpredictable timelines, expensive and sometimes duplicative reviews, and a lack of transparency [that collectively] contribute to deployment delays.”

HR-2289 “streamlines approvals for new infrastructure by ensuring fees reflect actual costs, setting clear and timely permitting deadlines and giving providers relief if they are wrongfully denied access,” Carter said. “It also simplifies upgrades to existing infrastructure [and] removes unnecessary environmental reviews [that] often take years on federal lands.”

House Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey and other Democrats criticized HR-2289 as overly partisan and argued that it won’t address major barriers to broadband deployment. Republicans’ focus on HR-2289 shows they “would rather force unfunded mandates onto state, local, or tribal agencies than make even a modest investment to help those offices hire sufficient numbers of qualified staff to speed up permit reviews,” Pallone said.

Democrats' Amendments

House Commerce turned down two Democratic amendments along party lines. The panel voted 28-24 against a proposal from Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana that would have delayed the measure from taking effect until NTIA fully distributes all $42.5 billion in BEAD program funding “to eligible entities.” Carter's amendment was identical to one that House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., unsuccessfully sought when the subpanel advanced HR-2289 in November (see 2511180053). Both versions appeared aimed at forcing Republicans to abandon attempts to claw back an estimated $20 billion in non-deployment BEAD funding (see 2511070035).

Troy Carter and Matsui argued Wednesday that the amendment is needed to counter what they see as BEAD hindrances from President Donald Trump's administration. Carter said the administration "has spent the last 12 months sabotaging the BEAD program, upending years of planning and forcing all states, including Louisiana, to scrap their work and to start over” in June, when NTIA asked for updated spending plans (see 2506060052). Matsui said Carter’s “amendment should be an easy yes for my Republican colleagues, [but] they’d rather bend the knee to Trump, letting him give handouts to his buddies with the cheapest technologies.”

House Communications Chairman Richard Hudson, R-N.C., countered that the Trump-era NTIA has “course-corrected, returning” to tech-neutral BEAD rules after the Biden administration strayed from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's statutory language. “Delaying enactment of [HR-2289] would keep our constituents from getting the connectivity they need,” he said. BEAD funding is "already on the way out the door,” given that NTIA has already approved revised plans from more than two dozen states and territories.

House Commerce voted 26-24 to also reject an amendment from Rep. Nanette Barragan, D-Calif., which would have required ISPs that want to qualify for HR-2289’s streamlined permitting to “make available to consumers … any cost savings realized” via the proposal. HR-2289 “is going to give companies new savings, and we owe it to families to make sure those savings show up on their bills,” Barragan said. “Families are struggling with the cost of everything, including internet service. They shouldn't have to wait any longer for Congress to” resurrect initiatives like the FCC’s lapsed affordable connectivity program.

Hudson argued that Barragan’s proposal “looks a lot like rate regulation, and the last thing the federal government needs to be doing is telling providers how to set their own rates.” Cutting “red tape and accelerating deployment will reduce deployment costs, [ensuring] that providers can offer services at the best possible rates.”

ACA Connects and the Wireless Infrastructure Association praised House Commerce for advancing HR-2289 and the other six bills. Meanwhile, Incompas, NCTA and four other communications sector groups wrote Guthrie and Pallone in support of HR-6046. That bill and Senate companion S-3268 (see 2511200069) would require a broadband provider to apply to a railroad to place equipment in its right-of-way and set shot clocks for the railroad to decide whether to grant such a request and schedule the work.