[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9235-H9245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PALLONE-THUNE TELEPHONE ROBOCALL ABUSE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT AND
DETERRENCE ACT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 151) to deter criminal robocall violations and improve
enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 151
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 ``Pallone-Thune Telephone
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act'' or
the ``Pallone-Thune TRACED Act''.
SEC. 2. COMMISSION DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
SEC. 3. FORFEITURE.
(a) In General.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Civil forfeiture.--
``(A) In general.--Any person that is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty pursuant
to section 503(b)(1). Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall
not apply in the case of a violation of this subsection. A
forfeiture penalty under this subparagraph shall be in
addition to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The
amount of the forfeiture penalty determined under this
subparagraph shall be determined in accordance with
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 503(b)(2).
``(B) Violation with intent.--Any person that is determined
by the Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection with the
intent to cause such violation shall be liable to the United
States for a forfeiture penalty pursuant to section
503(b)(1). Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in
the case of a violation of this subsection. A forfeiture
penalty under this subparagraph shall be in addition to any
other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of the
forfeiture penalty determined under this subparagraph 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.
``(C) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be recoverable under section
504(a).
``(D) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) against any person
unless such person receives the notice required by section
503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4).
``(E) Statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty shall be
determined or imposed against any person--
``(i) under subparagraph (A) if the violation charged
occurred more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of
the required notice or notice of apparent liability; or
``(ii) under subparagraph (B) if the violation charged
occurred more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of
the required notice or notice of apparent liability.
``(F) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any law to the
contrary, the Commission may not determine or impose a
forfeiture penalty on a person under both subparagraphs (A)
and (B) based on the same conduct.'';
(2) in subsection (e)(5)(A)--
(A) in clause (ii), 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.''; and
(B) in clause (iv)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting
``4-year''; and
(ii) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``4 years''; and
(3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) 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 5 calendar years, for each of
the following categories:
``(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 4(a) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act).''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall not affect any action or proceeding commenced before
and pending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Commission shall
prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by
this section not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. CALL AUTHENTICATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework.--The term ``STIR/
SHAKEN authentication framework'' means the secure telephone
identity revisited and signature-based
[[Page H9236]]
handling of asserted information using tokens standards
proposed by the information and communications technology
industry.
(2) 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.
(b) Authentication Frameworks.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and in
accordance with paragraph (6), not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
(A) require a provider of voice service to implement the
STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the internet protocol
networks of the provider of voice service; and
(B) require a provider of voice service to take reasonable
measures to implement an effective call authentication
framework in the non-internet protocol networks of the
provider of voice service.
(2) Implementation.--The Commission shall not take the
action described in paragraph (1) with respect to a provider
of voice service if the Commission determines, not later than
12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, that
such provider of voice service--
(A) in internet protocol networks--
(i) has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework
for calls on the internet protocol networks of the provider
of voice service;
(ii) has agreed voluntarily to participate with other
providers of voice service in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
framework;
(iii) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
framework; and
(iv) will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN
authentication framework not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) in non-internet protocol networks--
(i) has taken reasonable measures to implement an effective
call authentication framework; and
(ii) will be capable of fully implementing an effective
call authentication framework not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Implementation report.--Not later than 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, 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 a report on the
determination required under paragraph (2), which shall
include--
(A) an analysis of the extent to which providers of voice
service have implemented the call authentication frameworks
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1),
including whether the availability of necessary equipment and
equipment upgrades has impacted such implementation; and
(B) an assessment of the efficacy of the call
authentication frameworks described in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1) in addressing all aspects of call
authentication.
(4) Review and revision or replacement.--Not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every
3 years thereafter, the Commission, after public notice and
an opportunity for comment, shall--
(A) assess the efficacy of the technologies used for call
authentication frameworks implemented under this section;
(B) based on the assessment under subparagraph (A), revise
or replace the call authentication frameworks under this
section if the Commission determines it is in the public
interest to do so; and
(C) 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
findings of the assessment under subparagraph (A) and on any
actions to revise or replace the call authentication
frameworks under subparagraph (B).
(5) Extension of implementation deadline.--
(A) Burdens and barriers to implementation.--Not later than
12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and as
appropriate thereafter, the Commission--
(i) shall assess any burdens or barriers to the
implementation required by paragraph (1), including--
(I) for providers of voice service to the extent the
networks of such providers use time-division multiplexing;
(II) for small providers of voice service and those in
rural areas; and
(III) the inability to purchase or upgrade equipment to
support the call authentication frameworks under this
section, or lack of availability of such equipment; and
(ii) in connection with an assessment under clause (i),
may, upon a public finding of undue hardship, delay required
compliance with the 18-month time period described in
paragraph (1), for a reasonable period of time, for a
provider or class of providers of voice service, or type of
voice calls, as necessary for that provider or class of
providers or type of calls to participate in the
implementation in order to address the identified burdens and
barriers.
(B) Delay of compliance required for certain non-internet
protocol networks.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) through (F),
for any provider or class of providers of voice service, or
type of voice calls, only to the extent that such a provider
or class of providers of voice service, or type of voice
calls, materially relies on a non-internet protocol network
for the provision of such service or calls, the Commission
shall grant a delay of required compliance under subparagraph
(A)(ii) until a call authentication protocol has been
developed for calls delivered over non-internet protocol
networks and is reasonably available.
(C) Robocall mitigation program.--
(i) Program required.--During the time of a delay of
compliance granted under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Commission
shall require, pursuant to the authority of the Commission,
that any provider subject to such delay shall implement an
appropriate robocall mitigation program to prevent unlawful
robocalls from originating on the network of the provider.
(ii) Additional requirements.--If the consortium registered
under section 13(d) identifies a provider of voice service
that is subject to a delay of compliance granted under
subparagraph (A)(ii) as repeatedly originating large-scale
unlawful robocall campaigns, the Commission shall require
such provider to take action to ensure that such provider
does not continue to originate such calls.
(iii) Minimization of burden.--The Commission shall make
reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any robocall
mitigation required pursuant to clause (ii), which may
include prescribing certain specific robocall mitigation
practices for providers of voice service that have repeatedly
originated large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
(D) Full participation.--The Commission shall take
reasonable measures to address any issues in an assessment
under subparagraph (A)(i) and enable as promptly as
reasonable full participation of all classes of providers of
voice service and types of voice calls to receive the highest
level of trust. Such measures shall include, without
limitation, as appropriate, limiting or terminating a delay
of compliance granted to a provider under subparagraph (B) if
the Commission determines in such assessment that the
provider is not making reasonable efforts to develop the call
authentication protocol described in such subparagraph.
(E) Alternative methodologies.--The Commission shall
identify, in consultation with small providers of voice
service and those in rural areas, alternative effective
methodologies to protect customers from unauthenticated calls
during any delay of compliance granted under subparagraph
(A)(ii).
(F) Revision of delay of compliance.--Not less frequently
than annually after the first delay of compliance is granted
under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Commission--
(i) shall consider revising or extending any delay of
compliance granted under subparagraph (A)(ii);
(ii) may revise such delay of compliance; and
(iii) shall issue a public notice with regard to whether
such delay of compliance remains necessary, including--
(I) why such delay of compliance remains necessary; and
(II) when the Commission expects to achieve the goal of
full participation as described in subparagraph (D).
(6) No additional cost to consumers or small business
customers.--The Commission shall prohibit providers of voice
service from adding any additional line item charges to
consumer or small business customer subscribers for the
effective call authentication technology required under
paragraph (1).
(7) Accurate identification.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission
shall issue best practices that providers of voice service
may use as part of the implementation of effective call
authentication frameworks under paragraph (1) to take steps
to ensure the calling party is accurately identified.
(c) Safe Harbor and Other Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Consistent with the regulations prescribed
under subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 10, the
Commission shall, not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, promulgate rules--
(A) establishing when a provider of voice service may block
a voice call based, in whole or in part, on information
provided by the call authentication frameworks under
subsection (b), with no additional line item charge;
(B) establishing a safe harbor for a provider of voice
service from liability for unintended or inadvertent blocking
of calls or for the unintended or inadvertent
misidentification of the level of trust for individual calls
based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the
call authentication frameworks under subsection (b);
[[Page H9237]]
(C) establishing a process to permit a calling party
adversely affected by the information provided by the call
authentication frameworks under subsection (b) to verify the
authenticity of the calling party's calls; and
(D) ensuring that calls originating from a provider of
voice service in an area where the provider is subject to a
delay of compliance with the time period described in
subsection (b)(1) are not unreasonably blocked because the
calls are not able to be authenticated.
(2) Considerations.--In establishing the safe harbor under
paragraph (1), consistent with the regulations prescribed
under subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 10, the
Commission shall consider limiting the liability of a
provider of voice service based on the extent to which the
provider of voice service--
(A) blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or in part,
on the information provided by the call authentication
frameworks under subsection (b);
(B) implemented procedures based, in whole or in part, on
the information provided by the call authentication
frameworks under subsection (b); and
(C) used reasonable care, including making all reasonable
efforts to avoid blocking emergency public safety calls.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
preclude the Commission from initiating a rulemaking pursuant
to its existing statutory authority.
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Chairman of the Commission, shall convene an interagency
working group to study Government prosecution of violations
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 laws,
including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary
or jurisdictional constraints inhibit the prosecution of such
violations;
(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 prevention and prosecution of such violations;
(3) identify existing and potential international policies
and programs that encourage and improve coordination between
countries in the prevention and prosecution of such
violations; and
(4) consider--
(A) the benefit and potential sources of additional
resources for the Federal prevention and prosecution of
criminal violations of that section;
(B) whether to establish memoranda of understanding
regarding the prevention and prosecution of such violations
between--
(i) the States;
(ii) the States and the Federal Government; and
(iii) the Federal Government and a foreign government;
(C) whether to establish a process to allow States to
request Federal subpoenas from the Commission;
(D) whether extending civil enforcement authority to the
States would assist in the successful prevention and
prosecution of such violations;
(E) whether increased forfeiture and imprisonment penalties
are appropriate, such as extending imprisonment for such a
violation to a term longer than 2 years;
(F) whether regulation of any entity that enters into a
business arrangement with a common carrier regulated under
title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or
transmitting a call that constitutes such a violation would
assist in the successful prevention and prosecution of such
violations; and
(G) the extent to which, if any, Department of Justice
policies to pursue the prosecution of violations causing
economic harm, physical danger, or erosion of an inhabitant's
peace of mind and sense of security inhibit the prevention or
prosecution of such violations.
(c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be
composed of such representatives of Federal departments and
agencies as the Attorney General considers appropriate, such
as--
(1) the Department of Commerce;
(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 the relevant expertise, including the
National Association of Attorneys General.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 270 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the interagency working
group 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 a report on the
findings of the study under subsection (a), including--
(1) any recommendations regarding the prevention and
prosecution of such violations; and
(2) a description of what progress, if any, relevant
Federal departments and agencies have made in implementing
the recommendations under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. ACCESS TO NUMBER RESOURCES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Examination of fcc policies.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission
shall commence a proceeding to determine how Commission
policies regarding access to number resources, including
number resources for toll-free and non-toll-free telephone
numbers, could be modified, including by establishing
registration and compliance obligations, and requirements
that providers of voice service given access to number
resources take sufficient steps to know the identity of the
customers of such providers, to help reduce access to numbers
by potential perpetrators of violations of section 227(b) of
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
(2) Regulations.--If the Commission determines under
paragraph (1) that modifying the policies described in that
paragraph could help achieve the goal described in that
paragraph, the Commission shall prescribe regulations to
implement those policy modifications.
(b) Authority.--Any person who knowingly, through an
employee, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or
indirectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, is
a party to obtaining number resources, including number
resources for toll-free and non-toll-free telephone numbers,
from a common carrier regulated under title II of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), in
violation of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a),
shall, notwithstanding section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5)), be subject
to a forfeiture penalty under section 503(b) of that Act (47
U.S.C. 503(b)). A forfeiture penalty under this subsection
shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by
law.
SEC. 7. PROTECTIONS FROM SPOOFED CALLS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and consistent with the call
authentication frameworks under section 4, the Commission
shall initiate a rulemaking to help protect a subscriber from
receiving unwanted calls or text messages from a caller using
an unauthenticated number.
(b) Considerations.--In promulgating rules under subsection
(a), the Commission shall consider--
(1) the Government Accountability Office report on
combating the fraudulent provision of misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information required by
section 503(c) of division P of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141);
(2) the best means of ensuring that a subscriber or
provider has the ability to block calls from a caller using
an unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number;
(3) the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from
unauthenticated calls;
(4) the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller
identification information; and
(5) the availability and cost of providing protection from
the unwanted calls or text messages described in subsection
(a).
SEC. 8. 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. 9. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE.
(a) Report to Congress.--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).
[[Page H9238]]
(b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
describe the efforts of the Commission, as described in such
Second Report and Order, to ensure--
(1) 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;
(2) 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
(3) that if the person makes the demonstration described in
paragraph (2), 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.
SEC. 10. STOP ROBOCALLS.
(a) Information Sharing Regarding Robocall and Spoofing
Violations.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 227) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(i) 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
subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) 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; and
``(C) make all reasonable efforts to avoid blocking
emergency public safety calls.
``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term
`text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection
(e)(8).''.
(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 (i) 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 (j) 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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 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
[[Page H9239]]
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 voice service providers that
are found to originate or transmit substantial amounts of
unlawful robocalls.
(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)(3)(B)(ii).
(E) Hospitals.
(F) State government officials focused on combating
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. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.
If any provision of this Act, the amendments made by this
Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, the amendments
made by this Act, and the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. 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 S. 151.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today the House will take strong, bipartisan action to protect
consumers from illegal robocalls. Talk to anyone, Mr. Speaker, and you
will hear just how annoyed people are by those calls; and no wonder--
according to Robokiller, a whopping 5.6 billion robocalls were made to
Americans in November alone. According to YouMail, more than 200
million calls have been made to the 732 area code in my congressional
district this year. That is pretty outrageous.
Today the House is giving Americans back control of their phones.
This legislation is important because unlawful robocalls are not only
a nuisance, they are also undermining our entire phone system and
consumers' safety as a result. Too often Americans simply will not pick
up their phones out of fear that a robocall is on the other end of the
line.
These calls are not just annoying, in a lot of instances they are
scams targeted at consumers. Unfortunately, these scams are becoming
more sophisticated every day. At a hearing earlier this year, we
learned that the Moffitt Cancer Center received 6,600 scam calls in
just 1 month, specifically designed to appear as calls coming from
within the hospital. That is dangerous for patient safety and
confidentiality.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard similar stories of scammers disguised as
the IRS looking to collect a debt or scammers disguised as local
governments or police departments, and
[[Page H9240]]
scammers disguised as loved ones in trouble looking for help. These are
just a few of the examples.
All of these scams are different, and there won't be a single silver
bullet to fix them all, but the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act attacks the
problem from multiple angles.
First, we are targeting fraudsters and scammers who are violating the
law. This will be done by using innovative technologies to cut these
calls off. Our bill requires carriers to implement a nationwide caller
authentication system and to make call blocking software accessible to
consumers for free. This is critical.
A nationwide caller authentication system that will help ensure
consumers can trust the caller-ID on their phone again is obviously
important. Call blocking is another thing that we do in the bill. Call
blocking will stop the phone from ringing when scammers are dialing our
phones. These are two critical steps--the authentication and blocking--
that will give consumers control of their phones again.
When it comes to blocking, the TRACED Act also ensures that there is
transparency and consistency so that the calls people want are getting
through.
Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that law enforcement and
the Federal Communications Commission have the tools, information, and
incentives to go after robocallers who break the law. We need to make
sure criminal penalties are brought by the Department of Justice to
deter future robocallers from getting into the business.
Third, this will help us go after the dodgy carriers who allow these
unlawful calls to enter our networks in the first place.
These are some of the main provisions of this bipartisan bill, but
there are others that will be discussed by my colleagues during our 20
minutes on my side today.
Finally, I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Walden,
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Doyle, and
subcommittee Ranking Member Latta for their leadership and for their
determination in getting this final bill to the House floor today.
I also want to thank our partners in the Senate, Senators Thune and
Markey, for their commitment to this issue and for working with us on
this final bipartisan, bicameral product.
The TRACED Act takes critical steps to give consumers control of
their phones again. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation today, and I hope that it will be signed into law before
the end of the year.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune
TRACED Act. As you heard, it is a great step forward this Congress will
take to help curb illegal robocalls.
I want to thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, and my colleague,
Mr. Latta, for their great bipartisan work on this; and, of course, our
colleagues in the Senate again.
Last year RAY BAUM'S Act passed unanimously out of this Chamber with
bipartisan support, and that included provisions that targeted
fraudulent robocalls and spoofing from overseas. Those provisions are
in law and are being used today.
Today the TRACED Act builds on that bipartisan success by better
enabling consumers, carriers, law enforcement, and the Federal
Communications Commission to target these scammers. While this Chamber
has not made a lot of progress this year on legislating, I am pleased
to see bipartisan legislation before us today that addresses a
challenge that affects nearly every American, and that is illegal
robocalls.
Last month alone, Mr. Speaker, in my district in the area code of 541
we got 14.1 million robocalls, just last month; and that is just in one
part of Oregon. We know last year it was something in the order of over
50 billion illegal robocalls that came into America. I got one today
already, and I imagine speaking here I will get five more. I will get
targeted or something. It is time to put consumers back in charge of
their phones, and that is exactly what this legislation does.
{time} 1300
It allows carriers and consumers to use new, innovative call-blocking
and call-authentication tools. We can strike the right balance between
allowing important calls to get through while making sure illegal
robocalls are blocked, all at no additional cost to the consumer.
This means when you receive a call from an unfamiliar number with a
familiar area code, you should be confident that there is a legitimate
reason for that call. That means your pharmacist can still
automatically call you to say prescriptions are ready for pickup if you
signed up for those notifications. That means vulnerable populations
can be better protected from scams trying to steal their hard-earned
savings. We have all read those stories.
When these illegal robocallers get caught, we need to ensure they are
prosecuted. This legislation takes steps to improve our traceback
efforts and provides the Department of Justice additional tools they
need to go after bad actors.
We all get these calls. I got one about a year or so ago, Mr.
Speaker, and it was out of Greece. I don't know anybody in Greece. It
was a 02 something or other area code. I let it go to voicemail, and by
golly, they left a message. A day later, I listened to it. It was the
Vice President of the United States aboard Air Force Two trying to
reach me. Sometimes you should answer those calls.
With this legislation, hopefully, we will know with certainty you can
answer a call like that, and it will be somebody that is trying to
reach you for real.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology, who worked very hard on this
legislation.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today, the House
will vote on the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act. This legislation resulted
from diligent bicameral negotiations over many months, and I am glad
that we have come to this agreement.
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.
My hometown of Pittsburgh has already received 387 million robocalls
this year. That is up from 189 million in 2017. On average, everyone in
America received 15 robocalls in the month of November alone.
This legislation before the House is bipartisan and bicameral, and I
believe it will help seriously reduce the onslaught of illegal
robocalls Americans face. The bill before the House today is the result
of bipartisan negotiations, which included industry and public interest
stakeholders.
The original House bill was reported unanimously out of the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which I chair, as well
as out of our full Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was approved by
the full House with overwhelming support.
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 enable robocall blocking
services by default on phone lines automatically. While these
technologies have been available on an opt-in basis, too many seniors
and, frankly, too many people in general just don't know about these
services or 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 an
onerous signup process, especially seniors and those most vulnerable to
scam calls. These provisions also include requirements that new opt-out
robocall blocking services do not result in new consumer fees.
Finally, this bill requires all carriers to adopt call authentication
technology that would enable people to be certain that the number they
see on their caller ID is really the number that it is coming from. All
too often, folks get calls that look like they are coming from down the
street when they are really coming from scammers half a world away.
[[Page H9241]]
The legislation came about through the hard work of the majority
staff and the minority staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In particular, I thank Jerry Leverich, Phil Murphy, Dan Miller, AJ
Brown, Parul Desai, and Alex Hoehn-Saric on the majority staff, and
Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, and Rachel Rathore on the minority staff for
their hard work and diligence to get this bill to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This is another example of
the House passing bipartisan legislation, sending over 200 such bills
this session to the Senate. Hopefully, our colleagues in the Senate
will act on this bill and give the relief that our constituents deserve
from these unwanted robocalls.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta), the top Republican on the Communications and Technology
Subcommittee and a real leader in this effort.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden), the Republican leader of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bipartisan legislation
to combat illegal robocalls. With an estimated 48 billion robocalls
each year, it is time for Congress to take swift action against illegal
robocalls and give Americans the security of knowing their incoming
calls are legitimate.
That is why we introduced the bipartisan STOP Robocalls Act, which is
included in the legislation before us today. Our bill would give phone
companies and the Federal Communications Commission the tools they need
to fight back against illegal robocalls. Private companies will be able
to block fraudulent calls before they get to your phones, all with
consumer control and no additional line-item charges.
Our provision also provides and improves information-sharing to
enhance the FCC's ability to track and stop illegal robocall spoofing
operations. As technology continues to evolve, so do the tactics that
bad actors use to spoof numbers illegally to make fraudulent robocalls.
We must allow these companies and the FCC to keep pace.
While we are all tired of annoying and illegal robocall scams, there
are also legitimate users of autodialing technologies that must be
preserved. The bill before us today rightly recognizes those important
proconsumer messages. From school closures to bank fraud alerts, there
are voice and text messages that consumers want, and those should not
be blocked.
This is strong bipartisan legislation, and I am pleased to have
worked with Chairman Pallone, Republican leader Walden, and
subcommittee Chairman Doyle on this bill to improve consumer trust in
our phone system.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for his
leadership in preventing the continued spread of illegal robocalls.
Mr. Speaker, these unlawful operations are deceiving and defrauding
unsuspecting citizens, with little recourse. Congress must do its part
to bring these perpetrators to justice, and the bill before us today
does just that.
I am pleased that my bill, H.R. 3434, is included in the bill we have
today. I thank Chairman Pallone for fighting to keep the language in my
bill in the underlying legislation during negotiations.
My bill recognizes industry efforts to address illegal calls by
directing the FCC to publish an annual report on best practices in
tracing back illegal calls to their origins. It promotes provider
accountability by allowing carriers to block calls from providers who
do not fully participate in private-led efforts to trace suspected
illegal callers.
Every day, Mr. Speaker, consumers fall victim to scams initiated by
fraudulent calls. I believe that the TRACED Act is a practical and
comprehensive solution that will aid us in ending these illegal calls
for good.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the top Republican on the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the
Pallone-Thune TRACED Act.
So far this year, Kentuckians have received 500 million robocalls.
That is over 100 calls per person this year. Robocalls are the number
one issue I hear about when I am home.
Scammers have found creative ways to trick people into thinking their
calls are legitimate. These calls have wreaked havoc for private
citizens, hospitals, small businesses, and everyone in between.
One Kentucky woman told me she gets three to four calls a day. She
always answers for fear that there might be a family emergency, only to
be greeted by a spam call, disrupting her work at a factory.
I was proud to cosponsor the original House bill, the Stopping Bad
Robocalls Act, and I am proud to support the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act,
which would put an end to these frustrating calls. I commend my fellow
colleagues on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and in the
Senate for developing this bipartisan, bicameral solution to stop bad
robocalls.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I recommend
all of my colleagues support this.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the TRACED Act.
This is a long-overdue effort by Congress to crack down on out-of-
control abuse of robocall marketers. These are annoying and
inconvenient calls, but they also have real-life impacts.
Kathryn Ottinger is an 84-year-old Vermonter from Shelburne. She and
her husband receive at least three or four robocalls a day, at all
hours of the day. Kathryn's husband is hard of hearing, so he doesn't
hear the phone ring, which requires her to race to answer the calls
constantly, even though it is really difficult for her to get up. She
always answers the calls because they could be important. It might be a
son or a daughter.
Unfortunately, it is usually a marketer or a scam call. Kathryn sums
it up perfectly when she says: ``I am very upset about these calls. I
want the calls to stop.''
She speaks for all of our constituents. She is not alone.
In 2018, there were 47 billion robocalls made in the United States.
Vermonters receive nearly 4 million robocalls a month. In 2016, scams
involving robocalls cost 22 million Americans a total of $9.5 billion.
I am hopeful this bill today will stop these harassing phone calls.
The bill will give the FCC the authority and tools it needs. It will
allow consumers to revoke consent they had previously given. It will
require calls to have verified caller ID information associated with
the call before the call can be put through.
These are important steps that will reduce and, hopefully, stop these
robocallers, and I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I want to paint a picture of why I support this bill.
Last Sunday night, many retired NFL football fans were watching my
Houston Texans throttle the Patriots from New England.
Let's say the phone rings at halftime. A fan walks up to answer his
phone. The caller ID says it is from the Social Security agency, the
Social Security office, the Social Security Administration.
He picks up the phone, and there is a slight pause. A voice comes on
and tells him that his benefits have been canceled. To restore them, he
has to give these people he doesn't know his number. And, ``Oh, by the
way, we can fix this right now with your credit card.''
For years, people in Texas and all across the country have dealt with
criminal phone calls. I am pleased to say that today is the day we pass
a bill to help these Texans and Americans fight back.
It is great to see a bipartisan piece of legislation that I worked on
with Representative McEachin, the Locking Up
[[Page H9242]]
Illegal Robocallers Act, included in this package. It empowers the
Justice Department to go after criminals who prey upon senior citizens,
veterans, and all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's ring in a new era in
the Congress, dial back robocalls, hang up on criminals, and give them
one call a week from jail.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke), who is the vice chair of our committee.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Pallone-Thune TRACED Act and to address the intrusive reality of
robocalls.
The jig is up for con artists who have time and time again deceived
the American people into answering fraudulent calls that put our
constituents on the hook for outrageous charges on their phone bills.
I am so proud to have my bill, H.R. 3264, the Ending One-Ring Scams
Act of 2019, included in the underlying bill to ensure that the
American people are protected from this harmful scam culture.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone and Senator Thune for their
work on the TRACED Act and for holding these bad actors accountable for
their deceptive tactics.
{time} 1315
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Johnson), who brings an incredible amount of background and
technology to the committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation that will benefit all Americans by addressing the nuisance
of robocalls.
Unwanted and annoying robocalls are increasing at an alarming rate.
Some estimate that U.S. consumers received nearly 4 billion robocalls
per month in 2018. This needs to end.
This legislation would require service providers to adopt call
authentication technologies and would establish additional protections
for consumers receiving unwarranted and sometimes fraudulent robocalls.
It would also require the FCC to work with other Federal agencies on
improving deterrence and criminal prosecution of robocall scams.
I am also pleased that the legislation includes legislation that I
sponsored with my colleague, Representative Butterfield, which requires
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.
It is time for Congress to act and prevent these illegal and unwanted
robocalls, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran), a member of our committee.
Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Pallone and
Ranking Member Walden for bringing us together on this bipartisan bill.
I rise today to speak in support of the TRACED Act. There is nothing
more frustrating than receiving robocall after robocall to our
landlines and cell phones. I receive countless robocalls every week,
often from a phone number that seems to be just down the road.
Even worse, many of these calls are scams designed to prey on our
seniors and vulnerable populations that may be more susceptible to this
kind of fraud.
This year I have held 26 town halls across Arizona's First District.
Time and time again, I have heard from citizens about scam and spoof
calls they have encountered, putting their private information and
their hard-earned dollars at risk.
I cosponsored the TRACED Act to crack down on scammers and bad
robocalls by creating real penalties for violators and requiring voice
service providers to develop call authentication techniques.
This is an issue on which we can all agree. I urge my colleagues to
come together to pass this commonsense legislation that will benefit so
many.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Flores), another great Texan who needs to speak on this matter.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here with the honorable
Speaker pro tempore from Texas as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for S. 151, the TRACED Act.
This legislation is a culmination of strong bipartisan work by the
Energy and Commerce Committee in the House and our Senate counterparts.
We all hear complaints from constituents about the scourge of
robocalls, and I am glad we are answering the American people with
decisive action.
This bipartisan bill gives consumers tools to prevent robocalls at no
additional cost. It also provides law enforcement and the FCC with
authority to go after bad actors.
I am also pleased that S. 151 includes language from an amendment
that I offered in committee that raises fines to $10,000 per violation,
which will further deter illegal operators from entering into this
abusive behavior.
Alongside advances from last year's RAY BAUM'S Act and efforts at the
FCC, we are in a better position to restore confidence in our
communication services once again. This is the type of work that the
House of Representatives ought to be engaged in for the American
people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Crist), the former Governor.
Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up with spam
robocalls.
Today, we are bringing to bear the full weight of the Federal
Government to go after those calls. We have an obligation to do what is
right for the people.
The TRACED Act utilizes all known weapons in the arsenal, from
cooperation, to investigation, including enforcement.
I am especially proud that the TRACED Act includes my bill, the Spam
Calls Tax Force Act, which will bring together agencies, the private
sector, and consumer advocates to shut down spam robocalls. All hands
on deck is necessary here.
I thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden for their
leadership, and I also thank my partners on the Spam Calls Task Force:
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Soto).
I am filled with optimism that the work of the people goes on:
Members of both parties coming together, setting differences aside to
work on commonsense solutions to real problems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the TRACED Act.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of S. 151,
the TRACED Act.
In 2018 alone, phone numbers with 517 and 734 area codes in my
district received over 223 million robocalls. I know. I received a
bunch of them.
Not only are these calls bothersome and unwelcome, but they often
lead to scams that prey on the most vulnerable. One such scam is the
one-ring scam, which attempts to trick consumers into paying huge fees
for return phone calls.
S. 151 includes important legislation that I worked to have included
which will end the harmful practice of one-ring scams.
Mr. Speaker, robocalls are not only a nuisance; they pose a threat to
individuals' privacy and security. S. 151, the TRACED Act, will help
put a stop to these harmful practices by empowering phone carriers to
implement call authentication technologies so consumers can trust their
caller ID with no additional cost.
It will also expand and streamline the FCC's enforcement authority to
take strong and quick action when it tracks down robocallers and levy
fines against those bad actors.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put a stop to these
predatory actors behind harmful robocalls and put consumers back in
charge of their phones.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rouda).
Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in strong support of the TRACED
Act.
The bipartisan provision I co-led with Representatives Clarke, Van
Drew,
[[Page H9243]]
Bilirakis, Foxx, and Walberg to address one-ring scams will make the
finances of vulnerable Americans--especially seniors--more secure and
the lives of all people in Orange County and across the country a
little more peaceful.
We can all agree that it is time to provide Americans with a greater
sense of security when it comes to our phones. We shouldn't have to
worry about unsolicited robocalls, and the vast array of tactics bad
actors are using to target our pocketbooks and our privacy.
This bicameral and bipartisan bill is a big step forward in combating
robocalls, and I am thankful for the bipartisan group of legislators
who reached across the aisle to protect Americans' bank accounts and
their sanity. I urge strong support of this bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
great State of Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the top Republican on the
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our leader on
the Energy and Commerce Committee yielding, and I stand in strong
support of the TRACED Act to crack down on robocalls.
I have heard from hundreds of people in eastern Washington about
this. For example, an office manager in Colfax logged more than 318
robocalls at her small business, and she told me, ``That is 318 times I
have picked up the phone to hear a robot talking to me. I dropped what
I was doing to run to the phone for one of these obnoxious calls, or I
put a real client on hold to answer an empty call. Anything Congress
can do to stop this shameful practice would be a relief.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I agree. People need relief, and they have asked
Congress to take action. So I look forward to supporting this bill and
sending it to President Trump's desk with strong bipartisan support.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Kim), my colleague, whose legislation has been included in
this bill.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in strong support of the TRACED Act, a bipartisan effort
to crack down on the scourge of predatory robocalls.
Over the past year, I have heard from my neighbors in Burlington and
Ocean Counties about their frustrations from constant robocalls. In
fact, more than 400 neighbors from Beachwood to Bordentown and Toms
River to Tabernacle contacted our office to complain.
That is exactly why I dug into the issue and teamed up with four
Republicans and two Democrats to offer H.R. 3325, the Locking Up
Robocallers Act of 2019, which would strengthen enforcement of current
laws aimed at ending the scourge of predatory robocalls.
I am glad our bill was incorporated into this legislation, because
these calls aren't just annoyances; they are used by scam artists to
target people in our community.
According to the FCC, they receive over 200,000 complaints a year
from residents receiving predatory robocalls. An estimated 26.3 billion
robocalls were made to mobile phones, and more than 47 billion were
made in total to phones in the U.S. in 2018.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill and taking a real step to end predatory robocalls.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter), the only pharmacist in the United States House of
Representatives.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune
TRACED Act. The Energy and Commerce Committee has prioritized combating
the scourge of robocalls for quite some time now.
In May, the Senate passed their robocalls legislation, and in July,
the House nearly unanimously passed the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
Last year, Americans saw nearly 50 billion robocalls. Those robocalls
come morning, night, and noon, often interrupting important life
events. This year, we are on track to see a high number of robocalls
again. Unfortunately, nearly everyone in the United States has been on
the receiving end of dozens and dozens of robocalls.
It is time we finally take action to empower telecom providers to
help put a stop to this and to hold those responsible accountable for
these actions. That is why this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan
work of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is so important.
I want to thank my colleagues in the Energy and Commerce Committee
for working with our friends in the Senate to get this completed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), another colleague whose legislation is also
included in the TRACED Act.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding time
and for all of his work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the TRACED Act, a good
anti-robocall bill that is badly needed given the robocall epidemic
facing our United States of America.
Robocall scams are at an all-time high, and they are getting worse.
Data shows that New Jersey residents reported the most robocall
complaints of any State in the Nation last year.
Robocalls not only impede our quality of life as family dinners and
important work meetings get interrupted, but they also effectuate
scams, scams that take advantage of vulnerable populations such as our
senior citizens, who need to be protected.
This bipartisan legislation is a critical step toward ending the
scourge of robocalls. I am pleased to see portions of my own robocall
bill, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, incorporated in the TRACED Act.
While there is more to be done, without a doubt, I am proud to be a
part of this important effort to help protect consumers, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. Robocalls are not
only a nuisance, they are a threat to honest, hardworking Montanans.
Illegal robocalls seek to exploit them and steal their personal,
private information and their money.
Montanans hate robocalls. It is time to put an end to the stories I
hear too often from Montanans about illegal robocalls.
Today, we are taking a huge step forward, providing relief from
robocalls with the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act. It gives consumers tools
to block illegal robocalls at no cost. It also holds illegal
robocallers accountable for their scams, including higher fines and
more prison time. This bill includes language from my bipartisan bill
that helps identify and prosecute illegal robocall companies.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and providing
the American people with needed relief from robocalls.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from Oregon. I want to thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden
for their hard work on this important bipartisan issue.
Robocall scams leave anyone with a cell phone vulnerable to fraud.
Today it is time for Congress to act. The TRACED Act expands the
authority for the Federal Government to punish these folks and will
help verify legitimate calls.
I want to thank everyone who worked to bring this bill to the floor
[[Page H9244]]
for a vote, and I urge all my colleagues to show their support.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, for too long, unwanted callers have
circumvented the law in order to deliberately mislead Americans through
robocalls and spoofing. In fact, this is the number one issue at every
townhall that I hold in my district.
Unfortunately, the number of robocall scams are ever increasing.
Robocalls should not be a part of our everyday lives, and we must take
action to stop it.
This malicious practice has led to fraud and theft, exploiting
vulnerable consumers, including our Nation's seniors. That is why I was
a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, which
passed the House in July.
The House and Senate took parts of this bill and were able to come
together and agree on the TRACED Act. This bill allows the Federal
Communications Commission to seek financial penalties against those
making calls with misleading caller identification information. Most
importantly, this legislation allows robocalls to be blocked
transparently at no extra cost to Americans.
We must stop this practice once and for all by identifying and taking
action against these violators. I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly
support this bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong
support and encourage its swift passage.
By some estimates, nearly 48 billion robocalls were made in the U.S.
in 2018, which is a 57 percent increase over 2017.
This antirobocall bill provides the FCC new authorities to impose
substantial fines on violators--up to $20,000 per violation, and
possibly higher in some cases. It requires phone companies to verify
callers and help block robocalls at no extra charge.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: This legislation is a big step forward.
But given the rapidly changing technology, combined with the fact that
many of these calls come from overseas, we can't let up, and more will
need to be done.
Thankfully, this bill requires a number of reports to Congress over
the coming months that will allow us to start to crack down on these
perpetrators even harder.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work we have done, bicameral and
bipartisan. I thank those involved.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
working together to get this done. Our constituents deserve this. We
deserve this.
Over 50 billion illegal robocalls--we are not talking about the kinds
you sign up for to give you notices when your prescriptions are ready
for something else; we are talking about illegal scammers, often state-
backed enterprises overseas, coming into our wallets, coming into our
bank accounts, coming into our homes, coming into our offices, and
coming into our cell phones.
Now, let's be clear: While this legislation will make a difference,
the scammers are going to try and do an end around whatever technology
the carriers use to try and block these calls, authenticate these
calls, stop these calls; so we have, in this legislation, additional
requirements for reporting back to Congress on other steps that need to
be taken, especially when it comes to our healthcare system and our
hospitals. That will be something the committee needs to continue to
look at.
But I think building a better bridge between the Department of
Justice and the Federal Communications Commission so they can go after
the bad actors and really nail them is a good thing in this bill, and
extending out to 4 years the statute of limitations is a good thing so
bad actors don't get to run the clock and get away with their crimes.
This is good legislation; it will make a difference; and we will
continue to fight this fight.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I, too, want to thank our terrific staff,
some of whom, by the way, have worked on this long enough they have
gone on to other pursuits, including Robin Colwell and Tim Kurth, who
is still with us but in a different role than when he started on this,
Kristine Hackman, Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, Rachel Rathore.
And on the majority side, Alex and Jerry and AJ and Dan and Parul and
Phil, a thank-you for their great work on this, as well. We really
appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues to vote for this bill. Let's
get it to President Trump's desk. He will sign it, and we are going to
help our consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are receiving more unwanted and illegal
robocalls than ever before. The rising tide of illegal robocalls has
quickly turned from a nuisance to a real threat on the way we all view
and use our telephones.
Consumers need more control and transparency over who is calling
them. The laws that prohibit unwanted calls and the Do Not Call
Registry no longer effectively protect consumers from unwanted or
illegal calls because it is easier than ever to become a robocaller.
These calls all undermine the public's trust in our phone system.
If we don't fix this problem, it will only get worse. The TRACED Act
is the best way Congress can address the deluge of spam and spam
robocalls.
Consumer groups and industry widely support the legislation,
including Consumer Reports, AARP, the National Consumer Law Center, US
Telecom, and more.
Basically, what we have in this bill are commonsense, meaningful
solutions that will put consumers back in control of their phones and
will help restore trust in our phone system.
Now, in closing, I just want to thank all of the Members and staff
who were able to work together to produce this great legislation, and
there are a lot: obviously, our ranking member, Mr. Walden, the
subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Latta, as well as Mr. Doyle.
But I also want to thank our staff and other Members who contributed
their legislation to the TRACED Act. So, Members such as Mr. McEachin,
Mr. Olson, Mr. Kim, Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Brindisi, and Mr. Kustoff
introduced the Locking Up Robocallers Act, which was added to this
legislation in section 11.
Ms. Clarke, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Rouda, Ms. Foxx, and Mr.
Walberg introduced the Ending One-Ring Scams Act, which was added to
this legislation in section 12.
Mr. Crist introduced his Spam Calls Task Force Act, which was added
to the bill in section 5.
Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Gianforte introduced
the Tracing Back and Catching Unlawful Robocallers Act, which was added
to this bill in section 13.
And Mrs. Dingell and Mr. Burgess introduced their Protecting Patients
and Doctors from Unlawful Robocalls Act, which was added to the bill in
section 14.
Mr. Flores and Mr. McNerney offered their amendment to increase the
financial penalties for illegal robocallers, which was added to section
3.
And, of course, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta introduced their STOP
Robocalls Act in section 10.
Finally, I would like to thank all the staff on both sides of the
aisle who worked on this bill, in particular, Jerry Leverich over here,
Alex Hoehn-Saric behind me, Dan Miller behind me, AJ Brown, and Parul
Desai on the majority staff; Tim Kurth, Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, Robin
Colwell on the minority staff; as well as Phil Murphy on Subcommittee
Chairman Doyle's staff and Rachel Rathore on Subcommittee Ranking
Member Latta's staff.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this measure, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 151, the Pallone-
Thune TRACED Act.
Robocalls are an epidemic and anyone with a phone knows this. I hear
from my constituents daily about robocalls, and I know all of
[[Page H9245]]
my colleagues do as well. Just last month Americans received a near
record of 5.5 billion robocalls. I'm subjected to this harassment and
so are my colleagues.
These calls are highly annoying, but they are also used to scam and
swindle people. Last year, an estimated 43 million Americans were
scammed out of $10.5 billion.
The American people are demanding that Congress take action to combat
this national nuisance and today the House will deliver a victory for
them. I'm proud that this bipartisan, bicameral agreement will put a
real dent in our robocall problem.
We know that no one bill can completely solve such a complex problem,
and it's why the FCC and Congress must remain vigilant to ensure
statutory and regulatory protections are sufficient to protect
consumers.
This legislation will bring relief to millions of Americans, so let's
pass it and get it signed into law pronto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, S. 151, 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.
____________________