PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Restore Effective Statistics to the Calculation of USF Expenditures Act of 2012 or the RESCUE Act of 2012 - Prohibits the Order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the Matter of Connect America Fund and High-Cost Universal Service Support from having any force or effect after the enactment of this Act. (The FCC Order relates to Universal Service Fund [USF] expenditures and the adoption, on April 25, 2012, of a methodology for establishing benchmarks for capital and operating costs reimbursable to rate-of-return cost companies from high-cost loop support.)
Directs the FCC to report to Congress on alternatives to the methodology in such Order and to make such report available to the public on the FCC website.
Prohibits the FCC from adopting such an alternative methodology until a specified period after the report is submitted to Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Landry, Jeffrey M. [R-LA-3] · R–LA
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 Communications and Technology.
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.6526 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.6526 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.6526 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.6526 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.