[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7292-H7303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       STOPPING BAD ROBOCALLS ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

[[Page H7293]]

bill (H.R. 3375) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the 
prohibitions on making robocalls, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows

                               H.R. 3375

       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 ``Stopping Bad Robocalls 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS RELATING TO MAKING 
                   ROBOCALLS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and as appropriate thereafter to ensure that the 
     consumer protection and privacy purposes of section 227 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) remain 
     effective, the Commission shall prescribe such regulations, 
     or amend such existing regulations, regarding calls made or 
     text messages sent using automatic telephone dialing systems 
     and calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice as 
     will, in the judgment of the Commission, clarify descriptions 
     of automatic telephone dialing systems and ensure that--
       (1) the consumer protection and privacy purposes of such 
     section are effectuated;
       (2) calls made and text messages sent using automatic 
     telephone dialing systems and calls made using an artificial 
     or prerecorded voice are made or sent (as the case may be) 
     with consent, unless consent is not required under or the 
     call or text message is exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or 
     (2)(C) of subsection (b) of such section;
       (3) consumers can withdraw consent for such calls and text 
     messages;
       (4) circumvention or evasion of such section is prevented;
       (5) callers maintain records to demonstrate that such 
     callers have obtained consent, unless consent is not required 
     under or the call or text message is exempted by paragraph 
     (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of subsection (b) of such section, for 
     such calls and text messages, for a period of time that will 
     permit the Commission to effectuate the consumer protection 
     and privacy purposes of such section; and
       (6) compliance with such section is facilitated.

     SEC. 3. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) shall ensure that any exemption under subparagraph 
     (B) or (C) contains requirements for calls made in reliance 
     on the exemption with respect to--
       ``(i) the classes of parties that may make such calls;
       ``(ii) the classes of parties that may be called; and
       ``(iii) the number of such calls that a calling party may 
     make to a particular called party.''.
       (b) Deadline for Regulations.--In the case of any exemption 
     issued under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(b)(2) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission, shall, 
     not later than 1 year after such date of enactment, prescribe 
     such regulations, or amend such existing regulations, as 
     necessary to ensure that such exemption contains each 
     requirement described in subparagraph (I) of such section, as 
     added by subsection (a). To the extent such an exemption 
     contains such a requirement before such date of enactment, 
     nothing in this section or the amendments made by this 
     section shall be construed to require the Commission to 
     prescribe or amend regulations relating to such requirement.

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE.

       (a) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress, and make publicly available on the website of the 
     Commission, a report on the status of the efforts of the 
     Commission pursuant to the Second Report and Order in the 
     matter of Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful 
     Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted on 
     December 12, 2018).
       (2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     describe the efforts of the Commission, as described in such 
     Second Report and Order, to ensure--
       (A) the establishment of a database of telephone numbers 
     that have been disconnected, in order to provide a person 
     making calls subject to section 227(b) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) with comprehensive and timely 
     information to enable such person to avoid making calls 
     without the prior express consent of the called party because 
     the number called has been reassigned;
       (B) that a person who wishes to use any safe harbor 
     provided pursuant to such Second Report and Order with 
     respect to making calls must demonstrate that, before making 
     the call, the person appropriately checked the most recent 
     update of the database and the database reported that the 
     number had not been disconnected; and
       (C) that if the person makes the demonstration described in 
     subparagraph (B), the person will be shielded from liability 
     under section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227(b)) should the database return an inaccurate 
     result.
       (b) Clarification of Definition of Called Party.--
       (1) In general.--Section 227(a) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) The term `called party' means, with respect to a 
     call, the current subscriber or customary user of the 
     telephone number to which the call is made, determined at the 
     time when the call is made.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 227(d)(3)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``called party's line'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``telephone line called''; and
       (B) by striking ``called party has hung up'' and inserting 
     ``answering party has hung up''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply beginning on the date on which the database 
     described in the Second Report and Order in the matter of 
     Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls 
     (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted on December 12, 
     2018) becomes fully operational, such that a person may check 
     the database to determine the last date of permanent 
     disconnection associated with a phone number. Nothing in the 
     amendments made by this subsection shall affect the 
     construction of the law as it applies before the effective 
     date.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) No Citation Required to Seek Forfeiture Penalty.--
       (1) For robocall violations.--Section 227(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) No citation required to seek forfeiture penalty.--
     Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in the case 
     of a violation made with the intent to cause such violation 
     of this subsection.''.
       (2) For caller identification information violations.--
     Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iii)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not 
     apply in the case of a violation of this subsection.''.
       (b) 4-year Statute of Limitations.--
       (1) For robocall violations.--Section 227(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by 
     subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) 4-year statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty for 
     violation of this subsection shall be determined or imposed 
     against any person if the violation charged occurred more 
     than--
       ``(A) 3 years prior to the date of issuance of the notice 
     required by paragraph (3) of such section or the notice of 
     apparent liability required by paragraph (4) of such section 
     (as the case may be); or
       ``(B) if the violation was made with the intent to cause 
     such violation, 4 years prior to the date of issuance of the 
     notice required by paragraph (3) of such section or the 
     notice of apparent liability required by paragraph (4) of 
     such section (as the case may be).''.
       (2) For caller identification information violations.--
     Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iv)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting 
     ``4-year''; and
       (B) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``4 years''.
       (c) Increased Penalty for Robocall Violations With 
     Intent.--Section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by subsections (a) and (b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Increased penalty for violations with intent.--In the 
     case of a forfeiture penalty for violation of this subsection 
     that is determined or imposed under section 503(b), if such 
     violation was made with the intent to cause such violation, 
     the amount of such penalty shall be equal to an amount 
     determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) 
     of section 503(b)(2) plus an additional penalty not to exceed 
     $10,000.''.

     SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Annual Report to Congress on Robocalls and 
     Transmission of Misleading or Inaccurate Caller 
     Identification Information.--
       ``(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, and annually 
     thereafter, the Commission, after consultation with the 
     Federal Trade Commission, shall submit to Congress a report 
     regarding enforcement by the Commission of subsections (b), 
     (c), (d), and (e) during the preceding calendar year.
       ``(2) Matters for inclusion.--Each report required by 
     paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       ``(A) The number of complaints received by the Commission 
     during each of the preceding five calendar years, for each of 
     the following categories:

[[Page H7294]]

       ``(i) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call 
     in violation of subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(ii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call 
     in violation of the standards prescribed under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(iii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call 
     in connection with which misleading or inaccurate caller 
     identification information was transmitted in violation of 
     subsection (e).
       ``(B) The number of citations issued by the Commission 
     pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year 
     to enforce subsection (d), and details of each such citation.
       ``(C) The number of notices of apparent liability issued by 
     the Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the 
     preceding calendar year to enforce subsections (b), (c), (d), 
     and (e), and details of each such notice including any 
     proposed forfeiture amount.
       ``(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture 
     penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the 
     preceding calendar year to enforce such subsections, and 
     details of each such order including the forfeiture imposed.
       ``(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal fines 
     collected, during the preceding calendar year, by the 
     Commission or the Attorney General for violations of such 
     subsections, and details of each case in which such a 
     forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was collected.
       ``(F) Proposals for reducing the number of calls made in 
     violation of such subsections.
       ``(G) An analysis of the contribution by providers of 
     interconnected VoIP service and non-interconnected VoIP 
     service that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-duration 
     calls to the total number of calls made in violation of such 
     subsections, and recommendations on how to address such 
     contribution in order to decrease the total number of calls 
     made in violation of such subsections.
       ``(3) No additional reporting required.--The Commission 
     shall prepare the report required by paragraph (1) without 
     requiring the provision of additional information from 
     providers of telecommunications service or voice service (as 
     defined in section 7(d) of the Stopping Bad Robocalls 
     Act).''.

     SEC. 7. REGULATIONS RELATING TO EFFECTIVE CALL AUTHENTICATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations in WC Docket No. 17-97.
       (b) Requirements for Effective Call Authentication 
     Technology.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (A) require providers of voice service to implement, within 
     six months after the date on which such regulations are 
     prescribed, an effective call authentication technology; and
       (B) ensure that voice service providers that have 
     implemented the effective authentication technology attest 
     that such provider has determined, when originating calls on 
     behalf of a calling party, that the calling party number 
     transmitted with such calls has been appropriately 
     authenticated.
       (2) Reassessment of regulations.--The Commission shall 
     reassess such regulations, at least once every two years, to 
     ensure the regulations remain effective and up to date with 
     technological capabilities.
       (3) Exemption.--
       (A) Burdens and barriers to implementation.--The 
     Commission--
       (i) shall include findings on any burdens or barriers to 
     the implementation required in paragraph (1), including--

       (I) for providers of voice service to the extent the 
     networks of such providers use time-division multiplexing; 
     and
       (II) for small providers of voice service and those in 
     rural areas; and

       (ii) in connection with such findings, may exempt from the 
     6-month time period described in paragraph (1)(A), for a 
     reasonable period of time a class of providers of voice 
     service, or type of voice calls, as necessary for that class 
     of providers or type of calls to participate in the 
     implementation in order to address the identified burdens and 
     barriers.
       (B) Full participation.--The Commission shall take all 
     steps necessary to address any issues in the findings and 
     enable as promptly as possible full participation of all 
     classes of providers of voice service and types of voice 
     calls to receive the highest level of attestation.
       (C) Alternative methodologies.--The Commission shall 
     identify or develop, in consultation with small providers of 
     service and those in rural areas, alternative effective 
     methodologies to protect customers from unauthenticated calls 
     during any exemption given under subparagraph (A)(ii). Such 
     methodologies shall be provided with no additional line item 
     charge to customers.
       (D) Revision of exemption.--Not less frequently than 
     annually after the first exemption is issued under this 
     paragraph, the Commission shall consider revising or 
     extending any exemption made, may revise such exemption, and 
     shall issue a public notice with regard to whether such 
     exemption remains necessary.
       (4) Accurate identification.--The regulations required by 
     subsection (a) shall include guidelines that providers of 
     voice service may use as part of the implementation of 
     effective call authentication technology under paragraph (1) 
     to take steps to ensure the calling party is accurately 
     identified.
       (5) No additional cost to consumers or small business 
     customers.--The regulations required by subsection (a) shall 
     prohibit providers of voice service from making any 
     additional line item charges to consumer or small business 
     customer subscribers for the effective call authentication 
     technology required under paragraph (1).
       (6) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and consistent with the regulations 
     prescribed under subsection (a), the Commission shall 
     initiate an evaluation of the success of the effective call 
     authentication technology required under paragraph (1).
       (7) Unauthenticated calls.--The Commission shall--
       (A) in the regulations required by subsection (a), 
     consistent with the regulations prescribed under subsection 
     (k) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227), as added by section 8, help protect subscribers 
     from receiving unwanted calls from a caller using an 
     unauthenticated number, through effective means of enabling 
     the subscriber or provider to block such calls, with no 
     additional line item charge to the subscriber; and
       (B) take appropriate steps to ensure that calls originating 
     from a provider of service in an area where the provider is 
     exempt from the 6-month time period described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) are not wrongly blocked because the calls are not able 
     to be authenticated.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the regulations under subsection (a) are prescribed, 
     the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and make 
     publicly available on its website, a report on the 
     implementation of subsection (b), which shall include--
       (1) an analysis of the extent to which providers of a voice 
     service have implemented the effective call authentication 
     technology, including whether the availability of necessary 
     equipment and equipment upgrades has impacted such 
     implementation; and
       (2) an assessment of the effective call authentication 
     technology, as being implemented under subsection (b), in 
     addressing all aspects of call authentication.
       (d) Voice Service Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``voice service''--
       (1) means any service that is interconnected with the 
     public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
     communications to an end user using resources from the North 
     American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North 
     American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under 
     section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
       (2) includes--
       (A) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
     computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
     and
       (B) without limitation, any service that enables real-time, 
     two-way voice communications, including any service that 
     requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises 
     equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound 
     calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way 
     voice over internet protocol.

     SEC. 8. STOP ROBOCALLS.

       (a) Information Sharing Regarding Robocall and Spoofing 
     Violations.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by section 6, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Information Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations to establish a process that streamlines 
     the ways in which a private entity may voluntarily share with 
     the Commission information relating to--
       ``(A) a call made or a text message sent in violation of 
     subsection (b); or
       ``(B) a call or text message for which misleading or 
     inaccurate caller identification information was caused to be 
     transmitted in violation of subsection (e).
       ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection 
     (e)(8).''.
       (b) Robocall Blocking Service.--Section 227 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by 
     section 6 and subsection (a) of this section, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Robocall Blocking Service.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall take a 
     final agency action to ensure the robocall blocking services 
     provided on an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to the 
     Declaratory Ruling of the Commission in the matter of 
     Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls 
     (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 19-51; adopted on June 6, 2019)--
       ``(A) are provided with transparency and effective redress 
     options for both--
       ``(i) consumers; and
       ``(ii) callers; and
       ``(B) are provided with no additional line item charge to 
     consumers and no additional charge to callers for resolving 
     complaints related to erroneously blocked calls.
       ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection 
     (e)(8).''.

[[Page H7295]]

       (c) Study on Information Requirements for Certain Voip 
     Service Providers.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study 
     regarding whether to require a provider of covered VoIP 
     service to--
       (A) provide to the Commission contact information for such 
     provider and keep such information current; and
       (B) retain records relating to each call transmitted over 
     the covered VoIP service of such provider that are sufficient 
     to trace such call back to the source of such call.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).
       (3) Covered voip service defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``covered VoIP service'' means a service that--
       (A) is an interconnected VoIP service (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)); 
     or
       (B) would be an interconnected VoIP service (as so defined) 
     except that the service permits users to terminate calls to 
     the public switched telephone network but does not permit 
     users to receive calls that originate on the public switched 
     telephone network.
       (d) Transitional Rule Regarding Definition of Text 
     Message.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (j) of section 227 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section, and paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (k) of such section 227, as added by subsection 
     (b) of this section, shall apply before the effective date of 
     the amendment made to subsection (e)(8) of such section 227 
     by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as 
     if such amendment was already in effect.

     SEC. 9. PROVISION OF EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS 
                   TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--If the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau of 
     the Commission obtains evidence that suggests a willful, 
     knowing, and repeated robocall violation with an intent to 
     defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, 
     the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau shall provide such 
     evidence to the Attorney General.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the Commission shall publish on its website and submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report that--
       (1) states the number of instances during the preceding 
     year in which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided 
     the evidence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney 
     General; and
       (2) contains a general summary of the types of robocall 
     violations to which such evidence relates.
       (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect the ability of the Commission or the 
     Chief of the Enforcement Bureau under other law--
       (1) to refer a matter to the Attorney General; or
       (2) to pursue or continue pursuit of an enforcement action 
     in a matter with respect to which the Chief of the 
     Enforcement Bureau provided the evidence described in 
     subsection (a) to the Attorney General.
       (d) Robocall Violation Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``robocall violation'' means a violation of subsection (b) or 
     (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227).

     SEC. 10. PROTECTION FROM ONE-RING SCAMS.

       (a) Initiation of Proceeding.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission 
     shall initiate a proceeding to protect called parties from 
     one-ring scams.
       (b) Matters to Be Considered.--As part of the proceeding 
     required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how 
     the Commission can--
       (1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to 
     address one-ring scams;
       (2) work with the governments of foreign countries to 
     address one-ring scams;
       (3) in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, 
     better educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams;
       (4) incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made 
     to perpetrate one-ring scams from being received by called 
     parties, including consideration of adding identified one-
     ring scam type numbers to the Commission's existing list of 
     permissible categories for carrier-initiated blocking;
       (5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services 
     to address one-ring scams; and
       (6) establish obligations on international gateway 
     providers that are the first point of entry for these calls 
     into the United States, including potential requirements that 
     such providers verify with the foreign originator the nature 
     or purpose of calls before initiating service.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the status of the proceeding required by 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) One-ring scam.--The term ``one-ring scam'' means a scam 
     in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring 
     the called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the 
     called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the 
     called party to charges.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 153).
       (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 227(e)(8) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)). This 
     paragraph shall apply before the effective date of the 
     amendment made to such section by subparagraph (C) of section 
     503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if such amendment was 
     already in effect.

     SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Commission, shall convene an interagency working group to 
     study the enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
       (b) Duties.--In carrying out the study under subsection 
     (a), the interagency working group shall--
       (1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal law, 
     including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary 
     or jurisdictional constraints inhibit the enforcement of such 
     section;
       (2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and 
     programs that encourage and improve coordination among 
     Federal departments and agencies and States, and between 
     States, in the enforcement and prevention of the violation of 
     such section;
       (3) identify existing and potential international policies 
     and programs that encourage and improve coordination between 
     countries in the enforcement and prevention of the violation 
     of such section (and laws of foreign countries prohibiting 
     similar conduct); and
       (4) consider--
       (A) the benefit and potential sources of additional 
     resources for the Federal enforcement and prevention of the 
     violation of such section;
       (B) whether memoranda of understanding regarding the 
     enforcement and prevention of the violation of such section 
     should be established between--
       (i) the States;
       (ii) the States and the Federal Government; and
       (iii) the Federal Government and foreign governments;
       (C) whether a process should be established to allow States 
     to request Federal subpoenas from the Commission with respect 
     to the enforcement of such section;
       (D) whether increased criminal penalties for the violation 
     of such section (including increasing the amount of fines and 
     increasing the maximum term of imprisonment that may be 
     imposed to a period greater than 2 years) are appropriate;
       (E) whether regulation of any entity that enters into a 
     business arrangement with a carrier for the specific purpose 
     of carrying, routing, or transmitting a call that constitutes 
     a violation of such section would assist in the successful 
     enforcement and prevention of the violation of such section; 
     and
       (F) the extent to which the prosecution of certain 
     violations of such section (which result in economic, 
     physical, or emotional harm) pursuant to any Department of 
     Justice policy may inhibit or otherwise interfere with the 
     prosecution of other violations of such section.
       (c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be 
     composed of such representatives of Federal departments and 
     agencies as the Attorney General considers appropriate, which 
     may include--
       (1) the Department of Commerce (including the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration);
       (2) the Department of State;
       (3) the Department of Homeland Security;
       (4) the Commission;
       (5) the Federal Trade Commission; and
       (6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
       (d) Non-Federal Stakeholders.--In carrying out the study 
     under subsection (a), the interagency working group shall 
     consult with such non-Federal stakeholders as the Attorney 
     General determines have relevant expertise, including the 
     National Association of Attorneys General.
       (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the interagency working 
     group shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the findings of the study under subsection (a), 
     including--
       (1) any recommendations regarding the enforcement and 
     prevention of the violation of such section; and
       (2) a description of what process, if any, relevant Federal 
     departments and agencies have made in implementing the 
     recommendations under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 12. COMMISSION DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.

     SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Commission

[[Page H7296]]

     shall make publicly available on the website of the 
     Commission, and submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate, a report 
     on the status of private-led efforts to trace back the origin 
     of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium 
     and the participation of voice service providers in such 
     efforts.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include, at minimum, the following:
       (1) A description of private-led efforts to trace back the 
     origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered 
     consortium and the actions taken by the registered consortium 
     to coordinate with the Commission.
       (2) A list of voice service providers identified by the 
     registered consortium that participated in private-led 
     efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
     robocalls through the registered consortium.
       (3) A list of each voice service provider that received a 
     request from the registered consortium to participate in 
     private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
     unlawful robocalls and refused to participate, as identified 
     by the registered consortium.
       (4) The reason, if any, each voice service provider 
     identified by the registered consortium provided for not 
     participating in private-led efforts to trace back the origin 
     of suspected unlawful robocalls.
       (5) A description of how the Commission may use the 
     information provided to the Commission by voice service 
     providers or the registered consortium that have participated 
     in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
     unlawful robocalls in the enforcement efforts by the 
     Commission.
       (c) Additional Information.--Not later than 210 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually 
     thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public 
     seeking additional information from voice service providers 
     and the registered consortium of private-led efforts to trace 
     back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls necessary for 
     the report by the Commission required under subsection (a).
       (d) Registration of Consortium of Private-led Efforts to 
     Trace Back the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules 
     to establish a registration process for the registration of a 
     single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace 
     back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The 
     consortium shall meet the following requirements:
       (A) Be a neutral third-party competent to manage the 
     private-led effort to trace back the origin of suspected 
     unlawful robocalls in the judgement of the Commission.
       (B) Maintain a set of written best practices about the 
     management of such efforts and regarding providers of voice 
     services' participation in private-led efforts to trace back 
     the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls.
       (C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any private-led efforts to 
     trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls 
     conducted by the third-party focus on ``fraudulent, abusive, 
     or unlawful'' traffic.
       (D) File a notice with the Commission that the consortium 
     intends to conduct private-led efforts to trace back in 
     advance of such registration.
       (2) Annual notice by the commission seeking 
     registrations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Commission shall issue a notice to the public seeking the 
     registration described in paragraph (1).
       (e) List of Voice Service Providers.--The Commission may 
     publish a list of voice service providers and take 
     appropriate enforcement action based on information obtained 
     from the consortium about voice service providers that refuse 
     to participate in private-led efforts to trace back the 
     origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, and other information 
     the Commission may collect about service providers that are 
     found to originate or transmit substantial amounts of illegal 
     calls.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Private-led effort to trace back.--The term ``private-
     led effort to trace back'' means an effort made by the 
     registered consortium of voice service providers to establish 
     a methodology for determining the origin of a suspected 
     unlawful robocall.
       (2) Registered consortium.--The term ``registered 
     consortium'' means the consortium registered under subsection 
     (d).
       (3) Suspected unlawful robocall.--The term ``suspected 
     unlawful robocall'' means a call that the Commission or a 
     voice service provider reasonably believes was made in 
     violation of subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
       (4) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
       (A) means any service that is interconnected with the 
     public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
     communications to an end user using resources from the North 
     American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North 
     American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under 
     section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
       (B) includes--
       (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
     computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
     and
       (ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
     time, two-way voice communications, including any service 
     that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises 
     equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound 
     calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way 
     voice over internet protocol.

     SEC. 14. HOSPITAL ROBOCALL PROTECTION GROUP.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish 
     an advisory committee to be known as the ``Hospital Robocall 
     Protection Group''.
       (b) Membership.--The Group shall be composed only of the 
     following members:
       (1) An equal number of representatives from each of the 
     following:
       (A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals.
       (B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful robocalls.
       (C) Consumer advocacy organizations.
       (D) Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol 
     services described in subsection (e)(4)(B)(ii).
       (E) Hospitals.
       (F) State government officials focused on combatting 
     unlawful robocalls.
       (2) One representative of the Commission.
       (3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission.
       (c) Issuance of Best Practices.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date on which the Group is established under 
     subsection (a), the Group shall issue best practices 
     regarding the following:
       (1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful 
     robocalls made to hospitals.
       (2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such 
     calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation 
     techniques.
       (3) How the Federal Government and State governments can 
     help combat such calls.
       (d) Proceeding by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date on which the best practices are issued by the Group 
     under subsection (c), the Commission shall conclude a 
     proceeding to assess the extent to which the voluntary 
     adoption of such best practices can be facilitated to protect 
     hospitals and other institutions.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Group.--The term ``Group'' means the Hospital Robocall 
     Protection Group established under subsection (a).
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 153).
       (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
       (A) means any service that is interconnected with the 
     public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
     communications to an end user using resources from the North 
     American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North 
     American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under 
     section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
       (B) includes--
       (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
     computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
     and
       (ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
     time, two-way voice communications, including any service 
     that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises 
     equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound 
     calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way 
     voice over internet protocol.

     SEC. 15. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3375.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3375, the Stopping 
Bad Robocalls Act, it is bipartisan legislation that I introduced with 
Ranking Member Walden, Communications and Technology Subcommittee 
Chairman Doyle, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Latta. This legislation 
advanced out of our Energy and Commerce Committee last week by a 
unanimous vote of 48-0.

[[Page H7297]]

  The rising tide of unlawful, unwanted robocalls started as a 
nuisance, but now threatens the way consumers view and use their 
telephones. These calls are undermining our entire phone system, and 
that is something we all need to take very, very seriously.
  Last year, there were an estimated 47 billion robocalls made to 
Americans. It is no wonder that the American people have lost 
confidence in answering their phones. The Stopping Bad Robocalls Act 
will help restore that confidence, and that is very important, in my 
opinion.
  Madam Speaker, Americans use their phones at some of the most 
important times of their lives. They use their phones to get help from 
first responders by calling 911; to hear important medical test results 
from their doctor; to connect with or reassure a family member or 
friend; to learn that school is closed tomorrow; or just to conduct 
daily business.
  Illegal, unwanted robocalls threaten the foundational ways that we 
communicate with one another and, that, in my opinion is dangerous.
  Each time the consumer chooses not to pick up the phone out of fear 
that a scam robocall is on the other end of the line, it chips away at 
our community and public safety. Too frequently, consumers feel their 
best option is to not answer their ringing phone, which may lead them 
to miss an important call.
  It is truly unfortunate that consumers feel they must take that risk 
in order to proactively defend themselves against a scam call. Some 
studies estimate that nearly half of all calls this year will be scam 
calls; and these calls are not only harmful to the American people, but 
they are also harmful to business.
  The Chief Information Security Officer of the Moffitt Cancer Center 
recently testified before our committee that scammers were calling his 
hospital, disguised as Department of Justice officials, demanding to 
speak with a physician about his medical license. Robocalls are 
dangerous to public health and to people's privacy, using this as an 
example.
  We have heard similar stories of scammers disguised as the IRS 
looking to collect a debt; scammers disguised as local governments or 
police departments; and scammers disguised as loved ones in trouble 
looking for help. We are even seeing new scams, such as the one-ring-
scam, where fraudsters try to trick consumers into calling back 
international numbers in the hopes that the consumer will rack up large 
charges.
  All of these scams are different, and there is no silver bullet to 
fix them all. For that reason, this legislation takes the comprehensive 
approach to cut off robocalls at many different points.
  For example, the bill would implement a nationwide caller 
authentication system, free for consumers, so they can again trust that 
the number they see on their caller ID is actually the person calling 
them.
  In that same vein, consumers need more help controlling the calls 
they have asked not to receive. Consumers need to be in charge of their 
own phone numbers, and scammers or telemarketers must have a consumer's 
consent before making calls.
  Consumers should be able to block illegal and unwanted calls. But 
with blocking, there needs to be transparency and effective redress so 
that we ensure the calls people want are actually getting through.
  Madam Speaker, we need to ensure that law enforcement and the Federal 
Communications Commission have the tools, information, and incentives 
to go after robocallers that break the law.
  This bill takes all these steps and more. It also includes the text 
of many important proposals that would help address the onslaught of 
robocalls that consumers face.
  And I just want to mention some of the other bills that were 
introduced that we have tried to incorporate in this bill. One is the 
Ending One-Ring Scams Act; the Tracing Back and Catching Unlawful 
Robocallers Act; the Locking Up Robocallers Act, the Spam Calls Task 
Force Act; and the Protecting Patients and Doctors from Unlawful 
Robocalls Act. I will thank the sponsors of those more specifically 
later during this debate.
  But ours is a strong and comprehensive bill that puts consumers 
first. I want to thank all of my colleagues that have shaped this bill 
with me, specifically, Mr. Walden, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Latta, of course. But 
I also want to thank all the consumer advocacy organizations and the 
carriers that worked hard to reach a consensus piece of legislation 
that will take tough and meaningful steps to protect consumers from 
these annoying and illegal robocalls.
  Madam Speaker, the legislation now has 237 sponsors, and I am hopeful 
that it will garner strong bipartisan support today when we vote.
  I urge all of my colleagues to put consumers first and join us in 
passing the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3375, the 
Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. I will speak more later of my contribution 
on this legislation, but I congratulate the authors of this 
legislation, both the majority and the minority.

  The American Association of Retired Persons sent us a letter 
yesterday urging the adoption by stating: ``All Americans will benefit 
from the provisions of H.R. 3375 that promote an accurate call 
authentication framework and prevent consumers from being charged for 
blocking technology.''
  The support does not end with them, but it spans the consumer and 
industry groups that have seen the impact of this. This bill 
incorporates the best of the private sector solutions, at the same time 
putting the call out to crack down on these illegal actors for the 
criminals that they are.
  We are going to shut these scammers down. This legislation 
establishes a more rigorous enforcement structure to shut down illegal 
robocalls. It empowers the Federal Communications Commission with 
additional enforcement. It also sets the path for providers to 
implement new caller ID technologies, with no new line-item charges to 
the consumers.
  The fraud committed on Americans by illegal robocallers is going to 
stop. This bipartisan legislation creates a robust framework designed 
to protect consumers from the fraud and nuisance of these calls.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their 
work on the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  To Chairman Pallone, to Chairman Doyle, to Congressman Latta, and 
everybody that has been involved in this, I think we have come to a 
really good agreement here, and it will help stop the illegal 
robocalls; hopefully, all 47.8 billion. Let that number sink in.
  Last year, in America, 47.8 billion calls were made to all of us, and 
they were mostly all illegal, and we are going to do our best to stop 
them.
  You will be hard-pressed to find a technology that is more personal 
than your phone; whether it is the phone you carry in your pocket or, 
for some, a landline at home, and how we communicate on these devices 
is essential in the way that we connect to one another.
  Yet that personal connection is being violated by bad actors that 
have compromised our country's communications networks and who hide 
their tracks with their own hardware and software.
  These criminal parties have done significant harm to Americans, both 
personally and professionally. Those that engage in such illicit 
behavior should be treated and prosecuted for what they are, criminals.
  From the outset of our legislative effort to address this problem, I 
stated we must make a clear distinction between parties that have ill 
purpose, as opposed to those who do not. After all, we don't want to 
shut off legitimate uses of these new technologies, such as protecting 
the anonymity of a women's shelter assisting at-risk individuals or 
alerting you to a fraudulent use of your credit card or providing you 
the simple convenience of interacting with your ride-share service. 
Those are legitimate purposes.
  Our clearest and quickest path for passing legislation, along with 
our friends in the Senate and, ultimately, to become law, is to go 
after those that have malicious intent; and to go beyond that could 
undermine services

[[Page H7298]]

Americans depend on every day. So I think we have found the right 
balance here.

                              {time}  1430

  By taking all this into account, we can achieve the same kind of 
bipartisan, bicameral success as exemplified by the RAY BAUM'S Act last 
Congress, which, notably, provided us with the launching pad for where 
we are today.
  Now, that law provided the FCC with more authority to go after bad 
actors who utilize calls and texts. Our work from then was echoed by a 
broad bipartisan group of attorneys general from across the United 
States calling for the FCC to move on updating its own rules.
  Now, we know communications and technologies are constantly evolving, 
and, unfortunately, the bad actors' tricks have evolved beyond our Do 
Not Call Registry, and I am sure they will continue figuring out a way 
to get around this effort. However, the more friction we can create 
against illicit behavior, the more focused public-private partnerships 
we can create among industry, consumer groups, and government that will 
help us root out this problem, prosecute these criminals to the fullest 
extent of the law, and make great strides in regaining Americans' 
confidence in their communication devices.
  Now, in the 35 townhalls I have held in my district this year and 
phone calls I get to my office, people ask one question. I bet they ask 
it of you, Madam Speaker.
  What are you going to do to stop these robocalls?
  I will tell you what. This is a number you can answer, 3375. That is 
the number of the bill. Pick it up; answer it; vote ``yes''; and we 
will put an end to these robocalls--at least for now.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), who chairs our Health Subcommittee.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee; the ranking member, Mr. 
Walden; the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta; and the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Doyle, for bringing 
forward this bipartisan legislation.
  I hope when the vote is taken on this today by the full House that it 
is unanimous. And if it is--and it should be--I think we are going to 
hear applause from across the country, because the American people have 
been bombarded by robocalls every day.
  Last year, as has been stated, Americans received an unfathomable 48 
billion--with a B--robocalls. So this is an epidemic, and anyone with a 
phone knows this.
  I hear it from my constituents daily. I think we all do. I have been 
subjected to them. All of my colleagues have been subjected to them, 
and their families, as well.
  And these calls are not only highly annoying; they are also used to 
scam people and to swindle them. Last year, an estimated 43 million 
Americans were scammed out of $10\1/2\ billion. That is a lot of money. 
And I have some friends, intelligent people, who were convinced by the 
story at the other end of the line.
  So the American people, for all the legitimate reasons, are demanding 
that we do something, and today I think we are delivering a victory for 
them. I am certainly proud to cosponsor the legislation. And, as has 
been said, no one bill can completely solve a complex problem, so the 
FCC and Congress have to remain vigilant to ensure that the statutory 
and the regulatory protections are sufficient to protect the consumers.
  There are heavy fees for violators in this bill, so it is really 
going to cost them, and it is not simply paying because it is a cost of 
doing business.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Latta), the ranking member of the Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today because robocalls have to stop. With the help of our 
phone carriers and the FCC, we have crafted solid legislation in the 
Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. But the most important voices heard in the 
crafting of this bill were the men and women from our districts who 
have had to deal with these calls.
  Illegal robocalls are annoying, disruptive, and harmful. Sadly, Madam 
Speaker, for many people in Ohio and across the country, these calls 
have also ruined lives. I hosted a workshop geared toward helping 
seniors avoid becoming victims of scams, including illegal robocalls, 
and the stories are heartbreaking.
  We heard from seniors who have been manipulated into giving away 
their life savings to scammers, often because they were tricked into 
thinking someone they loved had been hurt. They told me, if there was a 
way for them to know that it was an illegal robocall before they 
answered that call, this could have possibly been prevented.
  That is one of the many solutions we offer in the Stopping Bad 
Robocalls Act. I am proud to have contributed with language from our 
own STOP Robocalls Act, which would make it easier for Americans to 
access robocall blocking technology through their phone companies on an 
informed opt-out basis.
  Prior to this legislation and the FCC ruling, these services were 
available to consumers who opted in to receive them. This restriction 
made the number of customers using blocking technology very low. This 
legislation will change that.
  Madam Speaker, Americans deserve peace of mind knowing that the 
phones that connect us to the world are being used for good and not 
scams.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the 
full committee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
subcommittee; and the gentleman from Oregon, the Republican leader of 
the full committee for working with us on this legislation.
  I also want to thank our great staffs for all the hard work that they 
did in making sure we got this legislation to the floor today.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3375.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle) who chairs our Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee.

  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today the House 
will vote on the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, legislation introduced by 
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, Ranking Member Latta, and me. 
This bill addresses a problem that we all have firsthand experience 
with: persistent, annoying, nonstop robocalls.
  Americans received nearly 48 billion robocalls last year, a 60 
percent increase from the year before. That number is expected to 
increase to 60 billion this year. In June alone, in my hometown of 
Pittsburgh, we received an estimated 34 million robocalls. On average, 
everyone in this country receives 14 of these calls every day.
  This bill is a comprehensive, bipartisan solution that I believe will 
help seriously reduce the onslaught of illegal robocalls that Americans 
face.
  The bill before the House today is the result of bipartisan 
negotiations, which included industry and public interest stakeholders. 
This bill was reported unanimously out of the Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee, which I chair, as well as the full Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  I am also pleased that the language from the STOP Robocalls Act, 
which Ranking Member Latta and I introduced, was included in this bill. 
These provisions allow phone carriers to automatically enable robocall 
blocking services by default on phone lines.
  While these technologies have been available on an opt-in basis, too 
many of our seniors and, frankly, too many people in general just don't 
know about these services and how to sign up for them.
  Allowing these services to be enabled by default allows all consumers 
to benefit from these technologies without having to go through the 
onerous signup process, particularly for seniors and those most 
vulnerable to scam calls.
  These provisions also include requirements that the new opt-out 
robocall blocking services do not result in new consumer fees. The bill 
also requires all carriers to adopt call authentication technology, 
which would enable

[[Page H7299]]

people to be certain that the call they receive----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. The call authentication 
technology would enable people to be certain that the number they see 
on their caller ID is really the number the call is coming from.
  All too often, people get calls that look like they are coming from 
down the street, but they are really coming from scammers half a world 
away.
  This legislation came about through the hard work of majority staff 
and minority staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I would 
like to thank both staffs on the majority and minority for their hard 
work and diligence to get this bill to the floor.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member.
  Robocalls and spoofing have been a burden to Americans for years. It 
is very simple; it goes without saying: We must end these bad 
robocalls. Our constituents are fed up.
  At a hearing 3 years ago, I was able to highlight a constituent who 
received hundreds of calls daily to his home phone. His quality of life 
became so poor, Madam Speaker, he had to replace his phone hardware and 
phone number to get the peace he deserved in his own home. The Stopping 
Bad Robocalls Act will help ensure that situations like this become 
less frequent and, eventually, nonexistent.
  This bill will provide much-needed authority for the FCC to develop 
rules for blocking robocall violators and enhance the ability to pursue 
these bad actors and bring them to justice for taking advantage of the 
American people, especially our seniors.
  I am also pleased this package includes the Ending One-Ring Scams 
Act, which Representative Clarke and I introduced this year. This 
provision will direct the FCC to target one of the newest forms of 
caller scams and show that we are serious in combating all forms of 
illegal phone fraud, no matter the tactics used.
  I strongly support the Stop Bad Robocalls Act, and I urge the Senate 
to pass this much-needed legislation, as well.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and 
for his hard work on this; the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Doyle; 
the ranking member; and the staff members. Great bill here.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  Today, Californians and Americans across the country are receiving 
more unwanted robocalls than ever before. This is something I often 
hear about from my constituents.
  Nearly 48 billion robocalls were made in 2018, an increase of 17 
billion calls in just 1 year. More than 40 percent of these calls are 
illegal scams. They are defrauding consumers; they are disruptive; and 
they are costing victims an average of $430 per scam.
  I am worried that the real risk here is that we are making our phone 
system obsolete, because people just don't want to pick up their phones 
anymore.
  Part of the problem is that our current legal framework doesn't go 
far enough in deterring these harmful practices. That is why I am 
pleased that H.R. 3375 includes an amendment that I offered with my 
colleague Mr. Flores, during, our full committee markup.
  Our provision will create disincentives for the most egregious 
violators of the law. Specifically, our provision will empower the 
Federal Communications Commission to assess an additional $10,000 
penalty for robocall violations where the offender acted with intent to 
cause the violation.

  Creating these disincentives is critical for protecting consumers and 
putting abusive practices to an end. I am proud to cosponsor this 
bipartisan, commonsense legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. These unwanted and annoying 
robocalls, which are increasing at an alarming rate, need to end.
  I am very pleased that the House has set aside partisan differences 
and worked together on legislation to benefit all Americans and address 
this serious issue.
  This important legislation would require service providers to 
implement new technology that ensures caller ID is authenticated and 
establishes additional protections for consumers receiving unwanted and 
sometimes fraudulent--robocalls.
  I am also pleased that H.R. 3375 includes legislation that I 
sponsored with my colleague, Representative Butterfield, which would 
require the FCC to publish an annual report on the private-led efforts 
to trace the origin of unlawful robocalls, an important step in 
stopping these bad actors from reaching consumers.
  This kind of illegal, annoying, and harassing activity must stop, and 
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke), vice chair of our committee.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, as vice chair of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, I rise today to thank the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone and Ranking Member Walden, 
and Subcommittee Chair  Mike Doyle and Ranking Member Latta, for their 
leadership on this bipartisan effort to bring this important piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  Today, I want to speak to the intrusive reality and damaging 
repercussions of robocalls and voice my support for H.R. 3375, the 
Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  While the illegality of these calls is an issue, the insistent 
presence of them is causing American citizens to no longer view their 
phone as a legitimate form of communication, thus impacting legitimate 
business.
  Adding to this, robocalls are actively hurting the pockets of 
Americans, as multitudes are scammed daily, costing the American public 
millions of dollars.
  During committee markup, I introduced the Clarke-Bilirakis amendment 
based on the base bill, Ending One-Ring Scams Act of 2019, and, Madam 
Speaker, I thank Mr. Bilirakis for his leadership.
  This was a bipartisan effort to ensure that the American people are 
protected from this harmful culture of one-ring scams.
  The nature of these one-ring scams may seem ridiculous. However, they 
have been effective in scamming the American people. With one-ring 
scams, the goal of the scammer is not for you to answer, but, rather, 
for you to make the call back.
  One-ring calls may appear to be from phone numbers somewhere in the 
United States, including initial digits that resemble U.S. area codes. 
If one calls back, these citizens risk being connected to a phone 
number outside of the United States, thus resulting in one being 
charged a fee for just connecting.
  Ad nauseam, the good people of Brooklyn's Ninth Congressional 
District have voiced their outrage with the state of their security and 
privacy as the threat of one-ring scams grows more prevalent.
  Madam Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I 
did not thank my colleagues who helped lead on today's effort, 
Congressman Bilirakis and Congressman Van Drew.
  Madam Speaker, I want to say to those who are fraudulent: Today, game 
over.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Gianforte), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Madam Speaker, Montanans are bombarded with robocalls. 
Last year alone, Americans received over 48 billion robocalls. That is 
nearly 100,000 robocalls per minute.

[[Page H7300]]

  Too many robocalls are deceptive and destructive, from bogus 
insurance offers to threats of legal action. Scam artists scheme to 
steal hardworking Montanans' private, personal, and financial 
information. Sometimes, they go even farther.
  A young woman from Bozeman received a call from her little brother's 
phone number. She picked up the call, but it wasn't her brother. It was 
a scammer using her brother's number. Tragically, her little brother 
had died of a drug overdose a few months earlier. She was devastated 
and shaken. This is disgusting and should not happen.
  Today, we are taking a big step forward. We are empowering consumers. 
Phone companies will provide consumers with call authentication tools 
and blocking services at no cost. Illegal callers will face more jail 
time.
  Let's get robocall relief across the finish line for the American 
people.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crist).
  Mr. CRIST. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for his leadership 
on this important legislation, and I thank the ranking member.
  The American people are fed up with spam calls. They are predatory, 
incessant, and an invasion of privacy.
  We need a comprehensive approach to root them out, and our Federal 
Government plays an important role in that. Whether it is the FCC, 
Department of Justice, Homeland Security, or FBI, these agencies should 
have the authorities and tools to shut down these spammers' calls, and 
these powers are maximized when they are coordinated.
  That is why I included in this legislation the creation of the Spam 
Calls Task Force. The task force will coordinate the Federal response.
  Madam Speaker, I also thank Representative Darren Soto for his help 
with this.
  I am confident that by working together, we can all put a stop to 
spam calls once and for all, and Americans will no longer have to fear 
robocalls.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  We all agree that robocalls are annoying, and they are a nuisance. 
What is worse is that these calls are often scams, scams that are 
becoming more and more sophisticated each day. When our phone rings, we 
are just one answer away from being a victim of identity theft. That 
needs to change.
  This legislation will restore trust that Americans can again answer 
their phones.
  Madam Speaker, I have a constituent who calls my office nearly every 
time he receives a robocall. He has begged us to do something. After 
today, I look forward to sharing with him that we listened and took 
action to solve this problem.
  Madam Speaker, on his behalf and on behalf of all those whom I have 
the privilege of representing in eastern Washington, I urge support of 
the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
  Mrs. MURPHY. Madam Speaker, Congress has a terrible reputation for 
being too partisan, but there is one issue that has strong bipartisan 
agreement in this Congress and across this country, and that is: 
Fraudulent robocalls must be stopped.
  I hear these concerns from my constituents in central Florida on a 
regular basis. It is one of the top issues that constituents routinely 
write my office about.
  Americans received over 48 billion robocalls last year. Nearly half 
of the calls that Americans receive are robocalls, many trying to scam 
people out of their hard-earned money.
  Floridians have received over 2.2 billion robocalls so far this year 
alone. My hometown of Orlando is among the most targeted cities in the 
country, having received nearly 350 million robocalls.
  Robocalls are more than a nuisance. They pose a direct threat to 
consumers.
  Often disguised using fake caller IDs, like hospitals and government 
agencies, robocallers attempt to trick people into providing personal 
information, preying especially on our seniors.
  The American people have had enough, and they are demanding swift 
action from this body.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to help introduce this bill, which is a 
great first step to protect Americans from robocall harassment. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a valued member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stopping Bad Robocalls 
Act. This legislation will seek to stem a problem affecting nearly 
everyone I know, and that is the issue of robocalls.
  Last year, we had almost 50 billion robocalls in the United States. 
This year, we have already had almost 30 billion robocalls, or roughly 
90 robocalls per person.
  It is an issue that everyone can agree is a nuisance and should be 
addressed. That is why I join my colleagues in supporting this 
legislation to end this practice and once again make it possible to 
answer a phone call from a phone number you don't recognize.
  This bill will give the FCC the authority to move forward with 
changes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and to ensure that 
these changes will lead to an effective effort to get rid of unwanted 
robocalls.
  Not only will we see a greater ability to stop these, but we will see 
penalties that will, hopefully, deter future efforts by bad actors.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee for their work on this legislation, especially since it is an 
issue that affects everyone. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and to help us get this bill to the finish 
line.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding.
  This issue has brought everybody together. It seems to be more 
popular than ice cream or even fried chicken.
  It is amazing such a bill could come about, but it is important 
because we get these calls that take up our time.
  I have a landline, and I have two cellphones. I don't even answer my 
landline anymore. When I come home from a trip, coming up to Washington 
and then going home, my service is full of automatic dialers, 
robocalls. Constituents who want to get through can't get through 
because the answering machine has been used up.
  They try to take advantage of people, scam them into buying products 
they shouldn't. They waste our time. They ruin our opportunity to have 
a regular life during the day.
  Madam Speaker, I thank all the sponsors. I am proud to be a supporter 
and a cosponsor. I look forward to voting for this. I look forward to 
the day when I can pick up my phone and it will be Bear Bryant or 
somebody looking to reach out to call his mama.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), a valuable member of the 
committee.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we have all gotten robocalls. They are annoying, 
disrupting, and actually can be dangerous.
  Oftentimes, robocalls prey on our communities' most vulnerable 
populations in hopes of capitalizing on their personal and private 
information. Unfortunately, this problem is growing.
  H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, is a bipartisan solution, 
ensuring that calls consumers receive are verified as legitimate.
  I am also pleased that the legislation includes a bill that I was an 
original cosponsor of called the Locking Up Robocallers Act. It 
requires the Federal Communications Commission to report particularly 
malicious robocall schemes to the Justice Department so that Federal 
resources may continue to be properly leveraged to stop these schemes.

[[Page H7301]]

  As a former U.S. attorney, I am really proud that the Justice 
Department, working with the FTC and local law enforcement, has already 
taken enforcement actions in over 94 cases, which has yielded blocking 
of more than 1 billion robocalls so far.
  Madam Speaker, I am reassured that with this bill, they will be able 
to more efficiently and consistently pursue robocaller abusers. For 
these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount of time on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, 64. That is the number of robocalls 
that the average Illinoisan has received in 2019 alone, over 1 billion 
total. Nationwide, half of all calls to cellphones are robocalls.
  Yesterday, in my staff meeting, our discussion of floor consideration 
of the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act was literally interrupted by two 
different robocalls.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member on behalf of 
myself and my community in Illinois' 14th Congressional District for 
their hard work to bring this commonsense, bipartisan, and incredibly 
important bill to the floor.
  Robocalls aren't just annoying; they can be dangerous. They are used 
by fraudsters and unscrupulous debt collectors to scare hardworking 
Americans to fall for their scams.
  I am so proud to cosponsor the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. This bill 
ensures that consumers can block calls they don't want, with no extra 
charge. It ensures that every call Illinoisans receive is verified by 
caller ID, and it strengthens enforcement against scammers and robocall 
operators.
  I am especially glad the bill includes a provision to require the FCC 
to establish a Hospital Robocall Working Group to ensure that robocalls 
don't threaten hospitals' ability to provide timely, lifesaving care.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, robocalls have moved beyond a simple nuisance. 
Sophisticated actors are now using robocalls to trick people into 
providing sensitive information by posing as legitimate organizations.
  When this happens to hospitals, patients have no reason to believe 
that there is a fraudulent actor on the other line, leading them to 
reveal sensitive health data and sensitive financial information. This 
activity threatens the integrity of real health-related phone calls and 
jeopardizes the relationship between the patient and their provider.
  Even more challenging than explaining to consumers that the calls 
from your phone number are not always from your organization is the 
response time required.

                              {time}  1500

  According to testimony by Dave Summitt of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer 
Center, in a 90-day period, they received over 6,600 external calls 
identified as a Moffitt internal phone number, requiring 65 hours of 
response time. This is time that could have been used to support the 
hospital rather than respond to fraudulent calls.
  During the Energy and Commerce Committee markup, I offered an 
amendment with Mrs. Dingell of Michigan to establish a hospital 
robocall protection group at the Federal Communications Commission. 
This group will issue best practices to help combat unlawful robocalls 
made to hospitals, as well as those made spoofing a legitimate hospital 
phone number.
  The hospital robocall protection group will assist any hospital to 
combat these fraudulent robocalls so that they may focus on serving 
patients. A patient should not have to worry about whether they are 
speaking with their real doctor or their real hospital when discussing 
sensitive health information, and providers should not have to deal 
with disruptive false claims.
  This amendment was adopted in committee, and I look forward to the 
best practices being put forward in the hospital robocall protection 
group.
  The fraud committed on Americans by illegal robocallers is going to 
end. This bipartisan legislation creates a robust framework designed to 
protect consumers from the fraud and nuisance of these calls.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the underlying legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the members who were able to work 
together to produce this great legislation, and there are a lot.
  I thank Mr. McEachin, Mr. Olson, Mr. Kim, Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Brindisi, 
and Mr. Kustoff for introducing the Locking Up Robocalls Act, which was 
added to this legislation in section 9.
  I thank Ms. Clarke, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Rouda, Ms. Foxx, 
and Mr. Walberg for introducing the Ending One-Ring Scams Act, which 
was added to this legislation in section 10.
  I thank Mr. Crist for introducing his Spam Calls Task Force Act, 
which was added to this legislation in section 11.
  I thank Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Gianforte for 
introducing the Tracing Back and Catching Unlawful Robocalls Act, which 
was added in section 13.
  I thank Mrs. Dingell and Dr. Burgess for introducing their Protecting 
Patients and Doctors from Unlawful Robocalls Act, which was added to 
the bill in section 14.
  And I thank Mr. Flores and Mr. McNerney for offering their amendment 
to increase the financial penalties for illegal robocallers.
  Mr. Speaker, I also thank my partners--Mr. Walden, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. 
Latta--for working with me to introduce the bill, which included at 
introduction Mr. Latta's and Mr. Doyle's STOP Robocalls Act in section 
8.
  I also would like to quickly thank the staff--Alex Hoehn-Saric, AJ 
Brown, Jennifer Epperson, Dan Miller, Robin Colwell, Tim Kurth--for all 
their hard work, and, in particular, Gerry Leverich, who is here, for 
all his time and energy to get this bill to the floor today. I am very 
proud for all our members and staff for this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a few letters and statements for 
the Record: a letter from AARP on behalf of its nearly 38 million 
members urging a vote in favor of the bill; a letter from more than 80 
organizations representing consumers throughout the U.S., including 
Consumer Reports and the National Consumer Law Center, among others, 
urging strong support by members of the bill; and a list of supportive 
statements from carriers and relevant associations, including 
USTelecom, The Broadband Association; CTIA, The Wireless Association; 
NCTA, The Internet & Television Association; Charter Communications, 
and Verizon.


                                                         AARP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of our 
     nearly 38 million members and all older Americans nationwide, 
     AARP is writing to urge a vote in favor of H.R. 3375, the 
     Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, bipartisan legislation that will 
     help fight back against illegal robocalls.
       AARP has a long history of fighting for consumer 
     protections for older Americans. Unwanted robocalls are a 
     rich playground for scammers to deceive victims into paying 
     money under false pretenses. Through our nationwide Fraud 
     Watch Network initiative, we work to empower consumers to 
     spot and avoid scams, and we provide support and guidance to 
     victims and their families when fraud happens.
       AARP is pleased that H.R. 3375 appropriately emphasizes 
     consumer consent regarding the receipt of automatically 
     dialed calls and expands the enforcement provisions of the 
     Communications Act by extending the statute of limitations. 
     The bill specifies that consumers should not face additional 
     charges for having robocalls blocked through authentication 
     technology and sets reasonable deadlines for the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe regulations in 
     the ongoing WC Docket No. 17-97.
       AARP also supports the provisions of the bill that require 
     the FCC to report on the implementation of the reassigned 
     number database, which will reduce the incidence of repeated 
     calls to innocent customers based

[[Page H7302]]

     on the telephone number's previous owner. Likewise, we 
     support the requirement of an annual report to Congress on 
     the FCC's enforcement actions.
       All Americans will benefit from the provisions of H.R. 3375 
     that promote an accurate call authentication framework and 
     prevent consumers from being charged for blocking technology. 
     We again urge you to enact H.R. 3375, and we look forward to 
     working with you on a bipartisan basis to combat unwanted and 
     abusive robocalls against older Americans. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact me, or have your staff 
     contact our Government Affairs staff.
           Sincerely,

                                             Nancy A. LeaMond,

                                      Executive Vice President and
     Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer.
                                  ____


          Support Strong Legislation to Stop Abusive Robocalls

                            (July 23, 2019)

       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations 
     representing consumers throughout the United States strongly 
     urge your support for H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls 
     Act. This bipartisan legislation, which the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce approved by a unanimous vote of 48-0, 
     will help secure important protections against abusive 
     robocalling.
       Robocalls are an ever-increasing plague. Last year, 
     Americans received an estimated 47.8 billion robocalls. They 
     harass us, disrupt our peace of mind, interrupt important 
     time with family, and interfere with important 
     communications. Many of these annoying automated calls are to 
     sell products or to collect debts. They also enable scams to 
     enter our homes. Truecaller found that consumers had lost an 
     estimated $10.5 billion to phone scams in a single 12-month 
     period. And spoofing, in which a caller sends a false number 
     in the caller ID, compounds the problem, impeding call-
     blocking services and tricking consumers into picking up the 
     phone.
       A Consumer Reports national survey released earlier this 
     year found that 70 percent of consumers don't even answer the 
     phone anymore if they don't recognize the number, because 
     their phones are so overrun with unwanted robocalls.
       H.R. 3375 would strengthen our laws to curb this abusive 
     robocalling.
       It would direct the FCC to issue clear regulations to 
     better ensure that automated calls and texts cannot be made 
     without the consumer's prior consent, by requiring that the 
     technologies that enable unwanted calls are properly defined 
     and consumers can stop unwanted calls by withdrawing consent, 
     and closing off avenues for callers to seek loopholes.
       It would direct the FCC to require phone companies to 
     provide effective call authentication capability, at no 
     charge to consumers, to better identify and stop robocalling 
     and texting that uses deceptively ``spoofed'' phone numbers.
       It would strengthen FCC powers to impose forfeiture 
     penalties for intentional violations.
       It would direct the FCC to oversee creation of a database 
     that callers can check in order to avoid making robocalls and 
     texts to a telephone number that has been reassigned to a 
     different consumer who has not given consent, and would 
     clarify that the caller must have consent from the person 
     actually being called.
       Consumers are calling on Congress to enact these reforms 
     now.
       We strongly urge your support for H.R. 3375.
           Sincerely,
       Allied Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Center for 
     Responsible Lending; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of 
     America; Consumer Reports; Electronic privacy Information 
     Center (EPIC); Justice in Aging; National Association of 
     Consumer Advocates; National Association of Consumer 
     Bankruptcy Attorneys; National Consumer Law Center on behalf 
     of its low-income clients; National Consumers League; 
     National Fair Housing Alliance; National Legal Aid & Defender 
     Association; National Rural Social Work Caucus; Public 
     Citizen; Public Knowledge.
       Center for Digital Democracy, Alabama; The Alabama 
     Appleseed Center for Law & Justice; Alaska Public Interest 
     Research Group (AkPIRG); Center for Economic Integrity, 
     Arizona; Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending, Arkansas; 
     Arkansas Community Institute, Arkansas; California Low-Income 
     Consumer Coalition; Public Law Center, California; Media 
     Alliance, California; California Alliance for Consumer 
     Education; Western Center on Law & Poverty, California.
       Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, California; Public Good Law 
     Center, California; Consumers for Auto Reliability and 
     Safety, California; Public Counsel, California; Justice & 
     Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco/
     Consumer Advocacy; Funeral Consumer Alliance of Connecticut, 
     Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; Tzedek DC, District 
     of Columbia; Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Florida; 
     Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection, Florida; Florida 
     Silver haired Legislature Inc., Florida; Independent Party of 
     Florida, Florida.
       Mid-Pinellas Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, 
     Florida; Funeral Consumers Alliance of Sarasota--Manatee, 
     Florida; Green Forest CDC, Georgia; Georgia Watch, Georgia; 
     Woodstock Institute, Illinois; Digital Privacy Alliance, 
     Illinois; Western Illinois Area Agency on Aging; CARPLS Legal 
     Aid, Illinois; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; Maine Center 
     for Economic Policy; Greater Boston Legal Services, on behalf 
     of its low-income clients, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Law 
     Reform Institute; The Midas Collaborative, Massachusetts; 
     Center for Civil Justice, Michigan; Mississippi Center for 
     Justice, Mississippi; Montana Organizing Project, Montana.
       New Jersey Citizen Action; Legal Services of New Jersey; 
     Empire Justice Center, New York; Public Utility Law Project 
     of New York; Financial Protection Law Center, North Carolina; 
     Oregon Legal Guides; Oregon Consumer League; SeniorLAW 
     Center, Pennsylvania; The One Less Foundation, Pennsylvania; 
     Philadelphia VIP, Pennsylvania; South Carolina Appleseed 
     Legal Justice Center.
       Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; Friends for 
     life; Texas Legal Services Center; Community Justice Program, 
     Texas; Texas Access to Justice Commission; Texas A&M 
     University; Family Violence Prevention Services, Texas; AAA 
     Fair Credit Foundation, Utah; Virginia Citizens Consumer 
     Council; Statewide Poverty Action Network, Washington; 
     Mountain State Justice, Inc., West Virginia; West Virginia 
     Center on Budget and Policy; WV Citizen Action Group, West 
     Virginia; National Association of Social Workers West 
     Virginia Chapter.
                                  ____


            Statements of Support Stopping Bad Robocalls Act

          [From the Committee on Energy & Commerce, July 2019]


Consumer and privacy organizations supporting HR 3375, the Stopping Bad 
                             Robocalls Act

       Americans for Financial Reform; Center for Responsible 
     Lending; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; 
     National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Consumer 
     Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients; Public 
     Citizen; Public Knowledge.


                         Statements of support

       Maureen Mahoney, policy analyst for Consumer Reports: 
     ``Robocalls are a pervasive, persistent problem, and 
     consumers are desperate for relief from these unsolicited 
     messages. These calls don't just irritate consumers--they 
     interfere with the phone service for which we pay dearly, and 
     they subject people to scams. By one estimate, consumers lost 
     $10.5 billion to phone scams in one single year. We commend 
     Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden for introducing 
     the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, which will help ensure that 
     all consumers have effective protections from deceptively 
     spoofed calls, including calls from scammers. The bill will 
     also help get rid of loopholes in order to stop robocallers 
     from skirting the law. We look forward to working with 
     legislators to ensure that consumers get the protections they 
     deserve.''
       Margot Saunders, Senior Counsel for National Consumer Law 
     Center: ``This bipartisan bill is an important step forward 
     in the fight to stop unwanted and illegal robocalls. There's 
     still more to be done and there is a lot of responsibility 
     placed on the FCC to protect consumers. Robocalls plague 
     voters of all political stripes so we are especially pleased 
     to see a bipartisan effort on this bill. We hope this is the 
     first of several positive steps that Congress will take.''
       AARP: ``AARP commends Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member 
     Walden, Chairman Doyle, and Ranking Member Latta for their 
     bipartisan commitment to address the serious problem of 
     illegal and unwanted robocalls. AARP shares your belief that 
     illegal robocalls continue to place all Americans at risk of 
     scams and fraud. New AARP Fraud Watch Network research shows 
     that consumers are more likely to answer a call if it is 
     coming from a familiar area code or telephone exchange, which 
     is precisely what scammers are exploiting. Older Americans 
     are particularly vulnerable to phone scam victimization, 
     which can wipe out their life savings. AARP looks forward to 
     working with you and Congress on a bipartisan basis to combat 
     unwanted and abusive robocalls.''
       Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO of USTelecom: 
     ``Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden and the bipartisan 
     members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee delivered a 
     loud and clear message to illegal robocallers today: 
     `enough.' These legislative proposals add to the growing 
     momentum and broad partnership among lawmakers, regulators, 
     industry and innovators of all stripes who are closely 
     collaborating to end the illegal robocall plague scamming and 
     spoofing consumers.''
       Kelly Cole, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for 
     CTIA: ``We commend Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, 
     Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member Latta for their Stopping 
     Bad Robocalls Act. The wireless industry is committed to 
     combating illegal robocalls and protecting consumers, and we 
     thank Committee Leadership for tackling this important issue. 
     We look forward to working on getting robocall legislation 
     enacted.''
       Robert Fisher, Senior Vice President of Federal Legislative 
     Affairs for Verizon: ``We applaud Chairman Pallone, Ranking 
     Member Walden, and the rest of the House Energy and Commerce 
     committee co-sponsors of this bill for their continued 
     efforts to protect consumers from disruptive and harassing 
     robocalls. Enough is enough--it's time for Americans to hang 
     up on abusive robocallers once and for all. Verizon has 
     already begun

[[Page H7303]]

     deploying the STIR-SHAKEN call authentication protocol for IP 
     Voice services, and we welcome the continued momentum toward 
     a bipartisan, comprehensive solution that empowers service 
     providers, law enforcement, and most of all consumers. We 
     commend this legislation and look forward to working with 
     Congress to make abusive robocalls history.''
       Charter Communications: ``Charter wants to see an end to 
     robocalls and we commend Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member 
     Walden for introducing legislation that will help do just 
     that. This bipartisan bill is an important step in curbing 
     unwanted and illegal calls. As we work to implement the call 
     authentication protocol SHAKEN/STIR by the end of the year in 
     addition to our currently offered call blocking, screening, 
     and identification features like the Nomorobo app, we will 
     continue to work with Congress to hopefully stop these 
     disruptive calls once and for all.''
       NCTA--The Internet & Television Association: ``Robocalls 
     have become a scourge on our daily lives causing many 
     Americans to simply stop answering their phones. This is why 
     we welcome the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Pallone and 
     Ranking Member Walden to introduce the Stopping Bad Robocalls 
     Act. This legislation along with efforts by the FCC to combat 
     robocalls are critical to protecting consumers from this 
     nuisance.''

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, this is a bipartisan effort and a 
bicameral effort. We are not doing messaging here, Mr. Speaker. This is 
a bill that will become law, and the President will sign it once we get 
it passed in the Senate and we have a final bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3375, the 
``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.''
  H.R. 3375 will require the Federal Communications Commission to 
update the definition of what qualifies as a robocall and ensure that 
any attempt to circumvent its rules using new or different robocall 
technology is outlawed.
  The Stopping Bad Robocalls Act would also require telecommunications 
corporations to implement new technology to ensure that calls are not 
spam.
  In addition, it will yield more efficient investigations conducted by 
government officials and the heightened enforcement of anti-robocall 
rules.
  In June of 2019 4.4 billion robocalls were placed nationwide.
  Texas led all 50 states, receiving over 500 million robocalls in that 
month.
  Mr. Speaker, robocalls have become an overwhelming issue in our 
country and threaten to paralyze our most critical communications 
lines.
  These callers are not only a nuisance but are also predatory.
  They have begun to target crucial establishments including hospitals, 
cancer centers, and medical research organizations, creating conditions 
that can potentially lead to a health crisis.
  Administrators at these institutions worry that, without 
intervention, the myriad of incoming robocalls could eventually 
outmatch their best efforts to keep hospital phone lines free during 
emergencies.
  Robocallers have gone even further to perform scams using the 
spoofing tactic, in which they can appear to take on existing phone 
numbers.
  With the aid of spoofing, scammers can take on phone numbers that are 
the same as or very similar to the numbers of health care providers.
  Robocallers use the names and numbers of these organizations, to aid 
their scam of telling people that they owe money and requesting private 
information.
  We are all aware of the difficulty millions of Americans face in 
attaining affordable health care.
  Robocallers are maliciously taking advantage of these circumstances 
and seek to profit from the exacerbation of the stress that families 
are challenged with.
  The federal government as well as multiple large telecommunications 
corporations are equipped with information on these robocallers and the 
groups whom they seek to take advantage of.
  The virulent aspirations of these callers must be met with the 
commitment of our government to protect our citizens by placing the 
responsibility on these corporations to protect consumers.
  I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 3375, the 
``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Delgado). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3375, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________