S 98
· 119th Congress
· Science, Technology, Communications
Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025
Sponsor
Latest action
Presented to President.
Action timeline
Every recorded action on this bill, newest first. Stage badges color-code the legislative path.
Apr 30, 2026
sent
Presented to President.
Apr 20, 2026
floor
Mr. Allen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Apr 20, 2026
floor
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2976-2978)
Apr 20, 2026
floor
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 98.
Apr 20, 2026
passed
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2977)
Apr 20, 2026
passed
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2977)
Apr 20, 2026
passed
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Jul 03, 2025
floor
Received in the House.
Jul 03, 2025
floor
Held at the desk.
Jun 27, 2025
floor
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Jun 26, 2025
passed
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Jun 26, 2025
passed
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3570; text: CR S3570)
Apr 28, 2025
committee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cruz without amendment. With written report No. 119-14.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Apr 28, 2025
other
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 48.
Feb 05, 2025
committee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Jan 15, 2025
introduced
Introduced in Senate
Jan 15, 2025
introduced
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Text versions
Each stage of the bill — official text published by GPO. Click any format to read on congress.gov / govinfo.
CRS summaries
Plain-English summaries written by the Congressional Research Service — neutral, nonpartisan staff who summarize bills as they advance through stages. The authoritative description of what each version of the bill does.
00
Introduced in Senate
Jan 15, 2025
Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025
This bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a process to vet applicants for certain funding programs that support affordable broadband deployment in high-cost areas, including rural communities.
Specifically, the FCC must conduct a rulemaking to develop a vetting process for applicants seeking funding under high-cost universal service programs for the deployment of a broadband-capable network and the provision of supported services over the network. The FCC must require applications for such funding to document each applicant’s technical, financial, and operational capabilities related to the proposed deployment, as well as a reasonable business plan.
The FCC must evaluate applications against reasonable and well-established standards and must consider each applicant’s history of compliance with the requirements of other government broadband funding programs. After the rulemaking is finalized, funds may only be awarded to applicants that satisfy the standards established therein.
Finally, the FCC must set financial penalties for applicants that default in some manner during the evaluation process before they are authorized to begin receiving support.
via Congressional Research Service · published through congress.gov
Changelog
ⓘ
How a bill moves through Congress. Each stage produces a new official text. The diff between them shows what changed at that step.
ih / is — Introduced in House / Senate. First filed version.rfh / rfs — Referred to a committee for review.rh / rs — Reported back by the committee to the floor (often with amendments — this is where most language changes happen).pcs / pch — Placed on Calendar for floor consideration.eh / es — Engrossed. Passed by the originating chamber. Text is now what was actually voted on.rdh / rds — Received by the other chamber.eah / eas — Engrossed Amendment. The other chamber passed an amended version.ath / ats — Agreed to. Both chambers settled on the same text.enr — Enrolled. Final reconciled text, sent to the President.pl — Public Law. Signed by the President. It's now law.pp — Public Print. Official printing post-enactment.
Most bills die before eh/es. Going from pcs → enr is the full path through both chambers.
ⓘ
How a bill moves through Congress. Each stage produces a new official text. The diff between them shows what changed at that step.
ih/is— Introduced in House / Senate. First filed version.rfh/rfs— Referred to a committee for review.rh/rs— Reported back by the committee to the floor (often with amendments — this is where most language changes happen).pcs/pch— Placed on Calendar for floor consideration.eh/es— Engrossed. Passed by the originating chamber. Text is now what was actually voted on.rdh/rds— Received by the other chamber.eah/eas— Engrossed Amendment. The other chamber passed an amended version.ath/ats— Agreed to. Both chambers settled on the same text.enr— Enrolled. Final reconciled text, sent to the President.pl— Public Law. Signed by the President. It's now law.pp— Public Print. Official printing post-enactment.
Most bills die before eh/es. Going from pcs → enr is the full path through both chambers.
Line-level diff between text versions of this bill — what actually changed at each legislative stage.
+60
−82
27 unchanged
Generating AI summary
Reading both versions of the bill and writing a plain-English summary. Typical bills take 5–15 seconds; large reconciliation bills can take a minute. This summary will be cached after generation.
Reading both versions of the bill and writing a plain-English summary. Typical bills take 5–15 seconds; large reconciliation bills can take a minute. This summary will be cached after generation.
--- Engrossed (Senate)
+++ Enrolled
@@ -1,15 +1,20 @@
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
-[S. 98 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]
+[S. 98 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
-<DOC>
+S.98
-119th CONGRESS
-1st Session
-S. 98
+One Hundred Nineteenth Congress
-_______________________________________________________________________
+of the
-AN ACT
+United States of America
+
+AT THE SECOND SESSION
+
+Begun and held at the City of Washington on Saturday,
+the third day of January, two thousand and twenty six
+
+An Act
To require the Federal Communications Commission to establish a vetting
process for prospective applicants for high-cost universal service
@@ -17,94 +22,67 @@
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
+``(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.
+``(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.
+``(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.
+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.''.
+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.''.
-Passed the Senate June 26 (legislative day, June 24), 2025.
+Speaker of the House of Representatives.
-Attest:
-
-Secretary.
-119th CONGRESS
-
-1st Session
-
-S. 98
-
-_______________________________________________________________________
-
-AN ACT
-
-To require the Federal Communications Commission to establish a vetting
-process for prospective applicants for high-cost universal service
-program funding.
+Vice President of the United States and
+President of the Senate.
Lobbying activity
Organizations whose LDA filings reference this bill, ranked by filing count. Position not disclosed — LDA does not require lobbyists to report support / oppose / monitor. Bill-number references can be stale (lobbyists sometimes copy text year-over-year), so verify against the filing description.
5
filings · 2026 Q3
5
filings · 2026 Q3
5
filings · 2026 Q3
5
filings · 2026 Q3
5
filings · 2026 Q3
5
filings · 2026 Q3
4
filings · 2026 Q3
3
filings · 2025 Q3
3
filings · 2025 Q3
via Senate LDA · self-reported quarterly. Filing count = filings mentioning this bill (no position required), not money spent on it. Click a client to see all bills they've filed on.
Cosponsors (4)
Members who signed on to support this bill.