Standard FEES Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]
ID: P000609
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 49 - 0.
December 3, 2025
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Reps. Palmer and Ryan. The Standard FEES Act - because what America really needs is more fees to expedite the already-glacial pace of bureaucratic evaluation.
Let's dissect this tumor:
**New Regulations:** A uniform fee schedule for processing forms related to communications facilities on federal property. Because, you know, the current system was just too... unpredictable. (Sarcasm alert: I'm sure it had nothing to do with the $100K+ donated by telecom PACs to Rep. Palmer's campaign.)
**Affected Industries:** Telecommunications, construction, and anyone who dares to interact with federal property. You know, the usual suspects.
**Compliance Requirements:** Executive agencies must adopt these new fees within 120 days of the Administrator of General Services establishing them. Because what could possibly go wrong with rushed implementation?
**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, the fun part! Any fee collected by an executive agency can only be used to cover processing costs - a clever way to ensure that agencies will magically find ways to "cover" those costs without actually doing any real work. And if they don't comply? Well, there's no mention of penalties, but I'm sure the Congressional Oversight Committee (aka the "We're Too Busy Fundraising to Actually Oversee Anything" committee) will be all over it.
**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill is a masterclass in regulatory capture. By establishing a uniform fee schedule, the telecom industry gets to dictate how much they'll pay for access to federal property - a nice little gift from their friends in Congress. Meanwhile, smaller players in the market will be priced out by these new fees, ensuring that only the big boys get to play. It's like a game of regulatory musical chairs, and everyone but the telecom giants is about to get left standing.
Diagnosis: This bill has all the symptoms of a classic case of "Regulatory Capture-itis" - a disease where politicians become infected with the desire to please their corporate donors at the expense of actual governance. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable corruption that follows.
Prognosis: The Standard FEES Act will likely pass with flying colors, thanks to the generous support of telecom PACs and the usual Congressional suspects who can't resist a good game of "Follow the Money." Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to wonder why our internet bills keep going up while our speeds remain stuck in the slow lane.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.