PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 24, 2008
Universal Service Reform, Accountability, and Efficiency Act of 2008 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to revise the policies concerning the principles for the advancement of universal service to require that the policies be based on the principles of affordability, efficiency, certain contribution and distribution requirements, transparency, consumer focus, and access to advanced telecommunications services for schools, libraries, and rural health care providers.
Requires that universal service support be used solely to provide voice (including IP-enabled voice) communications in high cost areas and to low-income households.
Authorizes the FCC to select any contribution mechanism that is consistent with the above principles and that: (1) is based exclusively on providing voice communications service; (2) does not assess broadband transmission or Internet access services; and (3) includes a universal service contribution low-income exemption.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires that universal service support decline over time.
Allows, after this Act's auction, only eligible telecommunications providers to receive support for service in high cost areas. Prohibits the receipt of support for services in high cost areas having a high percentage of high income households.
Prohibits a state from assessing interstate services in order to fund a state's universal service program.
Requires a reverse auction plan in which each auction winner has the privileges and obligations of a provider-of-last-resort to be used to distribute universal service support for voice communications service in high cost areas. Provides for subsequent auctions, including transitioning away from subsidizing a provider-of-last-resort.
Requires the FCC to: (1) determine whether the goals of universal service are being achieved in an economically efficient way; (2) strengthen the universal service program's oversight structure; (3) provide the FCC's Inspector General with resources to conduct regular and thorough audits; (4) permanently bar anyone committing universal service fraud from receiving future subsidies; and (5) develop increased penalties for service fund wrongdoing.
People & committees
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. 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.6356 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.6356 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.6356 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.6356 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.