Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)

[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.

____________________