Standard FEES Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1731
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]

ID: P000609

Follow the money

The bill

Standard FEES Act

HR. 1731, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$183,210 raised

24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

61% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 879-881 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-488, Part I.

February 3, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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

Federal Budget & AppropriationsGovernment Operations & AccountabilityState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$183,210
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$4,510
Committees
$0
Individuals
$178,700

No PAC contributions found

1
NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY ASSOC PC
1 transaction
$3,000
2
RMS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
3
JDM PUBLIC STRATEGIES LLC
1 transaction
$500
4
HEART OF DIXIE OBLIGATION PAC
1 transaction
$10

No committee contributions found

1
ARD, GARRY
2 transactions
$26,400
2
HOLMES, PARRIS
2 transactions
$20,000
3
BROOKS, RICHARD A.
1 transaction
$13,200
4
ELCAN, DANIEL G. MR.
1 transaction
$13,200
5
SIDDLE, GLENN C.
1 transaction
$13,200
6
WHITE-SPUNNER, JOHN
1 transaction
$13,200
7
WELLBORN, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,900
8
COOK, JOHN R. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
9
COOK, LYN STRIPLIN
1 transaction
$6,600
10
MCKINNEY, CANDICE
1 transaction
$6,600
11
MCKINNEY, RODDY L. II
1 transaction
$6,600
12
PARRISH, JOHN RALPH
1 transaction
$6,600
13
PARRISH, LYNN H.
1 transaction
$6,600
14
RANE, JIMMY W.
1 transaction
$6,600
15
WELLBORN, BETTY
1 transaction
$6,600
16
SCOTT, ISAAC
1 transaction
$6,600
17
SCOTT, RHONDA
1 transaction
$6,600
18
CARRUTH, PAUL O. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18]

ID: R000579

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]

ID: L000601

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 1, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Mar 19, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SOSNICK, AARON
IndividualRENO, NV
$3,392
Jun 30, 2024
5
FISHER, CYNTHIA
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORGFOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
6
HIRSCHTICK, JON
PTCMANAGER
IndividualLEXINGTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
7
PFAUTCH, ROY
SELF EMPLOYEDGOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
8
TISCH, JONATHAN
LOEWS HOTELSEXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
9
TISCH, LIZZIE
LTD X LIZZIE TISCHCHIEF CURATOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
BEEUWKES, REINIER
NOT EMPLOYEDRETIRED
IndividualCONCORD, MA
$3,300
Nov 7, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 27 connections (36 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $186,210

Top Donors - Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a)(2)(B) requires the fee schedule to be competitively neutral with respect to fees for similar use of federal property, and Section 2(d)(3)(C) allows exceptions in the interest of expanding broadband internet access deployment, which benefits telecommunications companies seeking to place communications facilities on federal buildings.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(d)(3)(C) permits fee exceptions to expand broadband internet access service, which could benefit big tech platforms that rely on broadband infrastructure for services like cloud computing, streaming, and other online platforms.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate60.6%
Pages: 879-881

— 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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills