PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 2025
Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act
This bill establishes priority for broadband projects near rural maritime ports under the Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural broadband grant and loan program, and makes other specified changes to the program’s structure and available support.
Under current law, the rural broadband program provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the construction, improvement, and acquisition of broadband facilities and equipment in rural areas. The bill adjusts the level of priority given to certain categories of projects, including through the establishment of a new priority for projects that would increase broadband service in ports and shore-side facilities in rural areas.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also makes changes to the program’s parameters, including by changing available grant amounts and increasing the percentage of households in a community that must be unserved or underserved with broadband in order for projects in the community to qualify for loans or loan guarantees. Further, as a condition of receiving support, recipients must share with USDA geolocation information on new or upgraded broadband service established under the program.
For proposed projects given high priority, the bill requires USDA to confirm that the relevant communities are currently unserved by conferring with relevant federal agencies and other broadband service data sources, and by performing site-specific testing to verify the unavailability of residential broadband service.
Finally, the bill requires USDA to provide feedback and decisions to applicants in a timely manner, and to use certain program funds for oversight and accountability measures.
People & committees
Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large] · D–VI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1838 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1838 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1838 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1838 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-04 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act would change federal assistance for rural broadband projects. It would give priority to projects serving rural ports and to certain farming and ranching projects. It would also set limits on how much of a project's development costs a grant could cover, with a higher limit available for projects serving specified rural households and communities.
This Act may be cited as the Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act.
give priority to applications for projects to provide rapid and expanded deployment of fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland within a service territory for use in various applications of precision agriculture.
In addition to the priority given under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall give equal priority to an application for a project that would increase the availability of broadband service in a port in a rural area.
(C) Maximum Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the amount of any grant made under this section shall not exceed 50 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided. (D) Secretarial authority to adjust The Secretary may make grants of up to 75 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided to an eligible entity if the Secretary determines that the project serves— (i) an area of rural households described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii); and (ii) a rural community described in any of subclauses (I) through (IV) of paragraph (2)(B)(i).
Section 2 would amend the rural broadband assistance provisions in section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
2. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb) is amended—
The bill would require priority for applications to rapidly expand fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland within a service territory for precision agriculture.
(v) give priority to applications for projects to provide rapid and expanded deployment of fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland within a service territory for use in various applications of precision agriculture.
Projects that would increase broadband availability at rural ports would receive equal priority alongside the priority under subparagraph (B). The bill's port definition includes ports on U.S. navigable waters, including territories; harbors, marine terminals and other shore facilities principally used to move goods on inland waters; and ports formed under state or territory law.
(i) Definition of port In this subparagraph, the term port means— (I) any port on the navigable waters of the United States, including territories; (II) any harbor, marine terminal, or other shore side facility used principally for the movement of goods on inland waters; and (III) any port formed in accordance with applicable State or territory law. (ii) Priority In addition to the priority given under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall give equal priority to an application for a project that would increase the availability of broadband service in a port in a rural area.
For applications receiving the highest priority under subsection (c)(2)(A)(i), the Secretary would have to verify each identified unserved rural community's funding eligibility. This would require consultation and data from the Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, review of other relevant sources, and site-specific testing to confirm that residential broadband service is unavailable.
In the case of an application given the highest priority under subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary shall confirm that each unserved rural community identified in the application is eligible for funding by— (I) conferring with and obtaining data from the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission and the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with respect to the service area proposed in the application; (II) reviewing any other source that is relevant to service data validation, as determined by the Secretary; and (III) performing site-specific testing to verify the unavailability of any residential broadband service in the unserved rural community.
The Secretary would have to review the identified unserved communities at least once every two years and could adjust those identifications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Not less often than once every 2 years, the Secretary shall review, and may adjust through notice published in the Federal Register, the unserved communities identified under clause (i).
Grants would generally be limited to 50 percent of project development costs. The Secretary could allow grants covering up to 75 percent for an eligible entity if the project serves both a specified category of rural households and one of four referenced categories of rural communities. Those underlying categories are not reproduced in the supplied bill.
(C) Maximum Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the amount of any grant made under this section shall not exceed 50 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided. (D) Secretarial authority to adjust The Secretary may make grants of up to 75 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided to an eligible entity if the Secretary determines that the project serves— (i) an area of rural households described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii); and (ii) a rural community described in any of subclauses (I) through (IV) of paragraph (2)(B)(i).
The Secretary would have to communicate with the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that projects receiving grants, loans or loan guarantees provide service at least equal to the level provided through the Commission's universal service high-cost support program. That program would serve as the comparison standard; the bill does not reproduce its regulatory definition.
The Secretary shall communicate with the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that any grants, loans, or loan guarantees made under this section provide a level of service that is not less than the level of service provided through universal service high-cost support (as defined in section 54.5 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) provided by the Commission.
The bill would change “50” to “90” and “3” to “2” in subsection (d)(2)(A). Because the surrounding statutory language is not supplied, these changes cannot reliably be described as particular percentages, service standards or eligibility requirements.
(2) in subsection (d)—
(B) in paragraph (2)— (i) in subparagraph (A)— (I) in clause (i), by striking 50 and inserting 90; and (II) in clause (ii), by striking 3 and inserting 2;
The Secretary would have to give applicants timely feedback and funding decisions for grants, loans and loan guarantees. This provision sets no specific number of days for a response.
(6) Application process The Secretary shall provide to an applicant of a grant, loan, or loan guarantee under this section feedback and decisions on funding in a timely manner.
As a condition of assistance, recipients would have to supply complete, reliable and precise geographic location data for new or upgraded broadband service supported by the assistance. The deadline would be 30 days after the earlier of completion of a project milestone established by the Secretary or completion of the project.
(j) Broadband buildout data As a condition of receiving a grant, loan, or loan guarantee under this section, a recipient of assistance shall provide to the Secretary complete, reliable, and precise geolocation information that indicates the location of new broadband service that is being provided or upgraded within the service territory supported by the grant, loan, or loan guarantee not later than 30 days after the earlier of— (1) the date of completion of any project milestone established by the Secretary; or (2) the date of completion of the project.
The Secretary could commit funds before required environmental, historical or other reviews are complete, but could not release those funds under this provision. This authority would depend on a determination that a later review of specific facility locations would be adequate and easily completed without compromising the project or required reviews.
(k) Environmental reviews The Secretary may obligate, but not disperse, funds under this Act before the completion of otherwise required environmental, historical, or other types of reviews if the Secretary determines that a subsequent site-specific review shall be adequate and easily accomplished for the location of towers, poles, or other broadband facilities in the service area of the borrower without compromising the project or the required reviews.
The bill would add a requirement to set aside at least 1 percent for oversight, accountability measures and related authorized activities. The supplied amendment does not reproduce the surrounding funding provision needed to identify the amount against which that percentage is calculated.
(5) in subsection (l)(2)(A) (as so redesignated)—
(iii) set aside at least 1 percent to be used for— (I) conducting oversight under this section; and (II) implementing accountability measures and related activities authorized under this section.
The bill would also delete existing clauses and change connectors and a number in subsection (c)(2). These are substantive textual changes to provisions whose full wording is not supplied, so their effects on existing priorities or requirements cannot be fully explained from this bundle.
(1) in subsection (c)— (A) in paragraph (2)— (i) in subparagraph (A)— (I) in clause (i)— (aa) by striking of at least— and inserting a semicolon; and (bb) by striking subclauses (I) and (II);
(ii) in subparagraph (B)— (I) in clause (i)— (aa) in subclause (III), by inserting or after the semicolon; (bb) in subclause (IV), by striking or and inserting and; and (cc) by striking subclause (V); and (II) in clause (ii)— (aa) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking 2 and inserting 1; (bb) in subclause (IV), by inserting and after the semicolon; (cc) in subclause (V), by striking ; and and inserting a period at the end; and (dd) by striking subclause (VI);
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 21, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the Agriculture and Energy and Commerce committees on March 4, 2025. It also records referral to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development on March 28, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-21T15:09:42Z.
2025-03-04: Introduced in House
2025-03-04: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
2025-03-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-04. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the rural broadband assistance subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. The bundle cannot establish formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains preferential treatment and a conditional exception within its main broadband policy. Identifying these benefits is not a judgment about their justification.
Applications to increase broadband availability at rural ports would receive an express priority alongside the statutory priority under subparagraph (B). This gives port-serving projects preferential treatment within the rural broadband assistance program.
In addition to the priority given under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall give equal priority to an application for a project that would increase the availability of broadband service in a port in a rural area.
Applications for rapid expansion of fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland for precision agriculture would receive an express priority. This preference targets agricultural uses within the broader rural broadband program.
give priority to applications for projects to provide rapid and expanded deployment of fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland within a service territory for use in various applications of precision agriculture.
Eligible entities whose projects meet both referenced service-area conditions could receive grants covering up to 75 percent of project development costs, as a discretionary exception to the general 50 percent cap. The Secretary must determine that the project serves both an area of rural households described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) and a rural community described in any of subclauses (I) through (IV) of paragraph (2)(B)(i). This offers a higher grant share to a qualifying subset of projects within the rural broadband program. The supplied bill does not reproduce those eligibility categories, so the precise beneficiary group cannot be determined from this text alone.
(C) Maximum Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the amount of any grant made under this section shall not exceed 50 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided. (D) Secretarial authority to adjust The Secretary may make grants of up to 75 percent of the development costs of the project for which the grant is provided to an eligible entity if the Secretary determines that the project serves— (i) an area of rural households described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii); and (ii) a rural community described in any of subclauses (I) through (IV) of paragraph (2)(B)(i).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 21, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI