Russ Fulcher (R-ID)
Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act of 2025
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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.
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, titled the "Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act of 2025," aims to streamline broadband infrastructure development. It seeks to ensure that certain broadband projects are not required to undergo specific environmental or historical preservation reviews. Specifically, it removes the classification of certain broadband project authorizations as major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. It also exempts these projects from being considered undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act. These exemptions apply to broadband projects carried out within a right-of-way on Federal land.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets infrastructure that is highly beneficial for remote and rural connectivity.
- Scored +6
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
The bill directly facilitates the installation of infrastructure intended to expand high-quality broadband access.
- Scored +5
Does this invest in rural communities?
Expanding broadband access via federal land right-of-ways can significantly improve rural connectivity.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill exempts broadband projects from certain NEPA environmental reviews, potentially reducing oversight.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Exempting projects from National Historic Preservation Act reviews may reduce the rigor of public land management.
- Scored -2
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Exemptions from historical preservation reviews could negatively impact lands of cultural or historical significance to Native Americans.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Streamlined Infrastructure Deployment: By exempting broadband projects from certain environmental and historical reviews, the bill aims to ensure projects are not subject to those specific requirements (Section 2(a) and 2(b)).
-
Expanded Broadband Access: The bill defines broadband projects as installations of wireline or wireless infrastructure—including fiber optic lines and communications towers—to enable high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications (Section 2(c)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reduction in Environmental and Historical Oversight: The bill changes how broadband projects are treated under the National Environmental Policy Act of the 1969 (Section 2(a)) and the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 2(b)), which may impact how these specific reviews are conducted for projects in a right-of-way.
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 bill specifically targets infrastructure that is highly beneficial for remote and rural connectivity. Would business owners be better off under this? — Telecommunications providers benefit from reduced regulatory hurdles for infrastructure deployment. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improved broadband connectivity is often highly beneficial for agricultural operations. Would students be better off under this? — Enhanced broadband access facilitates better educational opportunities through digital resources. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Expanded broadband access can improve connectivity for low-income populations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Broadband infrastructure improvements often benefit the middle class via better services. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased internet access can aid digital accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Better connectivity can assist with telehealth and social connection for retirees. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Broadband expansion generally benefits urban connectivity as well. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Exemptions from historical preservation reviews could negatively impact lands of cultural or historical significance to Native Americans.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The bill directly facilitates the installation of infrastructure intended to expand high-quality broadband access.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining infrastructure deployment may indirectly support job creation in the telecommunications sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Faster broadband deployment can contribute to broader economic connectivity and growth.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Expanding broadband access via federal land right-of-ways can significantly improve rural connectivity. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill exempts broadband projects from certain NEPA environmental reviews, potentially reducing oversight. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Exempting projects from National Historic Preservation Act reviews may reduce the rigor of public land management.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — It centralizes the authorization process for broadband providers on federal lands. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Exemptions from specific review processes may limit the opportunity for public comment and due process in environmental matters. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reducing environmental and historical review requirements may decrease transparency in the project approval process.
- 3/24/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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.
- Introduced in House