Some Republican senators are concerned about a pause to BEAD

• Some Republican Senators don’t want to see a pause in the BEAD program
• The incoming Secretary of Commerce has been non-committal in how he might handle the BEAD program
• Senator Shelly Capito (R-WV) wrote in comments “My state has jumped through all the hoops and done everything right from the start, and now they are on the cusp of getting $1.2 billion this spring and finally having shovels in the ground.”

Howard Lutnick, who is on track to become Secretary of Commerce, has supplied some answers to questions from Senators in regard to his stance on the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The answers show that Lutnick is keeping his cards close to his vest. But perhaps more interesting is the fact that even some Republican Senators expressed concern about slowing down the BEAD program.

As Secretary of Commerce, Lutnick will have powers over many commerce-related areas, and he may play a role in the big issue of tariffs. But of most interest to the broadband community, he would be the boss of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which oversees BEAD. It looks like Arielle Roth is on track to become head of the NTIA.

The Senate Commerce Committee held Lutnick’s confirmation hearing on January 29. During and afterwards, Lutnick responded to questions from Senators. 

Some Senators — from both parties — expressed concerns about any dramatic changes to BEAD.

Democrats asked Lutnick pointed questions.

Jacky Rosen (D-Nev) said that NTIA has approved Nevada’s BEAD application, unlocking $416 million to connect Nevadans to broadband. “Some in the administration have advocated for drastically altering this program, calling back funds already allocated to the states,” said Rosen. “Can you commit that Nevada will not have to restart what has been a years-long process and will receive its full, allocated amount that Congress has allocated to it, under the BEAD program?

Lutnick said, “I can commit to you that if it has been rigorously done and deeply efficient and it is the most efficient use to get broadband to your constituents, then it’s easy for me to commit to it. But if there’s been errors and mistakes, you wouldn’t mind if we made it better?”

But perhaps more interesting than questions from Democrats, was the fact that even some Republican Senators expressed concern about disruption to BEAD.

Senator Shelly Capito (R-WV) wrote in a follow-up question after the confirmation hearing, “My state has jumped through all the hoops and done everything right from the start, and now they are on the cusp of getting $1.2 billion this spring and finally having shovels in the ground… I DO NOT want West Virginia’s 3 years of hard work to be wasted, if they have to start over at square one under changes that your department could make. Can you commit to me that any changes your department makes to the BEAD program will only make it easier to get West Virginians connected going forward with this money?

Lutnick answered “The BEAD program should operate efficiently and effectively to allow West Virginians and all Americans to get the benefit of the bargain that Congress intended.”

Another Republican Senator — Dan Sullivan (R-AK) — wrote “I want to flag that there is not as much low Earth orbit satellite coverage in Alaska as the rest of the continental U.S. Our constituents appreciate Starlink in many circumstances, including when there are service disruptions associated with fiber, but the connection is not consistent and reliable yet and cannot cover the state with the current coverage. Will you assure me that Commerce will not rely on Starlink in Alaska as a solution to all our problems?”

Lutnick answered “I commit to working with your office on pursuing the most efficient and effective solutions for Alaskans.”

New Street Research policy analyst Blair Levin wrote, “Bottom Line: There appears to be a bi-partisan coalition in the Senate (and we think a similar one could form in the House) that supports eliminating many current NTIA requirements but at the same time wants to provide states the flexibility to spend as they think best and further, not to have NTIA pause or otherwise slow the program down.”