A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-488, Part I.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Standard FEES Act," aims to amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. It directs the Administrator of General Services to create a uniform schedule of fees for processing applications to place communications facilities on certain Federal Government property. These fees must be based on the direct costs incurred by an agency and remain competitively neutral. Executive agencies will then adopt these fees and any established exceptions. The bill also sets specific deadlines for the establishment of these fee schedules.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +5
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
The bill includes provisions that permit fee exceptions to encourage the expansion of broadband internet deployment.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The provision for fee exceptions to expand broadband deployment is particularly significant for increasing connectivity in rural areas.
- Scored +3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Expanded broadband access through fee exceptions can improve connectivity for low-income households.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expansion of Internet Access: The Administrator of General Services has the authority to create fee exceptions in the interest of expanding the deployment of broadband internet access service (Section 2(a)(3)(C)).
-
Public Benefit Consideration: Exceptions to the fee schedule may be made in consideration of the public benefit of granting easements, rights-of-way, leases, or entering into contracts for communications facility installations (Section 2(a)(3)(B)).
-
Competitive Neutrality: The established fees are required to be competitively neutral in relation to fees for similar uses of Federal Government property (Section 2(a)(2)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Cost Recovery: Fees charged to agencies are based on the direct costs incurred by an agency in processing specific forms (Section 2(a)(2)(A)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The provision for fee exceptions to expand broadband deployment is particularly significant for increasing connectivity in rural areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Expanded broadband access through fee exceptions can improve connectivity for low-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased broadband deployment can lead to better service and connectivity for middle-class households. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The potential for expanded broadband access can benefit urban residents through improved digital infrastructure.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The bill includes provisions that permit fee exceptions to encourage the expansion of broadband internet deployment.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill allows for fee exceptions that could aid the deployment of communications facilities, potentially benefiting businesses that rely on broadband.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill establishes a uniform and predictable fee schedule for processing communications facility applications on federal property.
- 2/4/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-488, Part I.
- 12/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/3/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 49 - 0.
- 11/18/2025
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 2/27/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Patrick RyanDemocrat · New York