RURAL BROADBAND PROTECTION ACT OF 2025

On 2026-04-20, Representative Jennifer L. McClellan (D-VA-4) delivered a floor speech titled "RURAL BROADBAND PROTECTION ACT OF 2025" in the House. The speech addressed healthcare and also covered the economy, foreign policy. It referenced legislation including HR2399, S98.

RURAL BROADBAND PROTECTION ACT OF 2025

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 69 (Monday, April 20, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 69 (Monday, April 20, 2026)] [House] [Pages H2976-H2978] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] RURAL BROADBAND PROTECTION ACT OF 2025 Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. [[Page H2977]] 98) to require the Federal Communications Commission to establish a vetting process for prospective applicants for high-cost universal service program funding. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: S. 98 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025''. SEC. 2. VETTING PROCESS FOR PROSPECTIVE HIGH-COST UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND APPLICANTS. Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(m) Vetting of High-Cost Fund Recipients.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection-- ``(A) the term `covered funding' means any new offer of high-cost universal service program funding, including funding provided through a reverse competitive bidding mechanism provided under this section, for the deployment of a broadband-capable network and the provision of supported services over the network; and ``(B) the term `new covered funding award' means an award of covered funding that is made based on an application submitted to the Commission on or after the date on which rules are promulgated under paragraph (2). ``(2) Commission rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a vetting process for applicants for, and other recipients of, a new covered funding award. ``(3) Contents.-- ``(A) In general.--In promulgating rules under paragraph (2), the Commission shall provide that, consistent with principles of technology neutrality, the Commission will only award covered funding to applicants that can demonstrate that they meet the qualifications in subparagraph (B). ``(B) Qualifications described.--An applicant for a new covered funding award shall include in the initial application a proposal containing sufficient detail and documentation for the Commission to ascertain that the applicant possesses the technical, financial, and operational capabilities, and has a reasonable business plan, to deploy the proposed network and deliver services with the relevant performance characteristics and requirements defined by the Commission and as pledged by the applicant. ``(C) Evaluation of proposal.--The Commission shall evaluate a proposal described in subparagraph (B) against-- ``(i) reasonable and well-established technical, financial, and operational standards, including the technical standards adopted by the Commission in orders of the Commission relating to Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection (WC Docket No. 19-195) (or orders of the Commission relating to modernizing any successor collection) for purposes of entities that must report broadband availability coverage; and ``(ii) the applicant's history of complying with requirements in Commission and other government broadband deployment funding programs. ``(D) Penalties for pre-authorization defaults.--In adopting rules for any new covered funding award, the Commission shall set a penalty for pre-authorization defaults of at least $9,000 per violation and may not limit the base forfeiture to an amount less than 30 percent of the applicant's total support, unless the Commission demonstrates the need for lower penalties in a particular instance.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. General Leave Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 98, the Rural Broadband Protection Act. The House version of this bill, led by Representative Houchin, passed the House by voice vote last year. The Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund provides funding to support the deployment and operation of broadband networks in our rural communities. Although most recipients of this support fulfill their deployment obligations, there have been cases in the past where commitments were unmet. The Rural Broadband Protection Act requires the FCC to establish a process for upfront vetting of broadband providers seeking USF funds to ensure they are qualified to uphold their obligations. It also directs the FCC to set penalties for those providers that do not build out where they promised. These new steps will ensure that USF support only goes to qualified providers and that those providers follow through on their commitments to serve rural Americans. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Houchin for her leadership on this bill and encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 98, the Senate companion to H.R. 2399, or the Rural Broadband Protection Act, which passed the House in 2025. This legislation would direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a process to more thoroughly vet internet service providers participating in the Universal Service Fund's High Cost program. For years, it has been clear that Congress must step in to enact reforms to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the High Cost program. Following an investigation by Energy and Commerce Democrats in 2017, the Government Accountability Office opened its own inquiry into reports of abuse of High Cost support. In a scathing report, the GAO identified a remarkable lack of oversight by the FCC and recommended greater accountability to ensure precious USF dollars are spent on the mission of deploying high-speed broadband to unserved and underserved communities. Since then, we have seen modest progress to curb waste, fraud, and abuse in the High Cost program, but more accountability is needed. I commend Representatives Kelly and Houchin for their work on this legislation to bring greater oversight and accountability to the High Cost program and protect the integrity of USF funds, every dime of which must go to help unserved and underserved communities still lacking high-speed internet. I believe this legislation will help address critical gaps in the vetting process for High Cost recipients and curb waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, so I urge my colleagues to support S. 98. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin). Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 98, the Rural Broadband Protection Act, a bill I authored and passed out of the House as H.R. 2399 and an issue I have long championed. In April, we passed the House version of this bill. In June, the Senate passed the identical text, sponsored by my friend Senator Capito also by voice vote. Today, we have a chance to finish the job and send this legislation to the President's desk. Across Indiana and rural America, families, farmers, students, and small business owners still struggle with slow and unreliable internet access, and it is more than an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, to education, to healthcare, and to economic growth. When Congress invests in rural broadband, we have an obligation to make sure those dollars reach the communities they are meant to serve and that the providers that are receiving them are capable of getting the job done. That is exactly what the Rural Broadband Protection Act does. It directs the Federal Communications Commission to vet applicants for broadband funding based on their experience, their technical capability, and their demonstrated ability to deploy. It brings accountability and transparency to the grant review process, ensuring taxpayer dollars go to real, shovel-ready projects, not phantom providers or empty promises. This is smart, bipartisan, commonsense legislation. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 51-1. It passed the House by a voice vote last April. It passed the Senate by voice in June. Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Capito for her leadership on the Senate side [[Page H2978]] and my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for moving this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. Today, we have a chance to deliver a long-overdue win for rural America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 98. Let's get this bill to the President's desk where it can finally become law. Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 98, the Rural Broadband Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support. In closing, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 98. The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________

Referenced legislation: S98, S98, HR2399