[Senate Report 116-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      Calendar No. 585

116th Congress}                                           { Report
                                 SENATE
  2d Session  }                                           { 116-292

======================================================================
             DATA ANALYTICS ROBOCALL TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2019

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 2204

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               November 16, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
               
               
                              __________
               
               
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
                           WASHINGTON : 2020                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               
               
               
               
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                     one hundred sixteenth congress
                             second session

                 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah                       JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
                       John Keast, Staff Director
               David Strickland, Minority Staff Director
               
               
               
                                                  Calendar No. 585

116th Congress}                                           { Report
                                 SENATE
  2d Session  }                                           { 116-292

======================================================================               
 
             DATA ANALYTICS ROBOCALL TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

               November 16, 2020.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2204]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 2204) to allow the Federal 
Communications Commission to carry out a pilot program under 
which voice service providers could block certain automated 
calls, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    S. 2204 as reported by the Committee would require the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to begin 
a rulemaking to consider establishing a process to maintain a 
list of numbers that are not eligible for call blocking by a 
voice service provider. It also would direct the FCC to prepare 
a report on the effectiveness of various call blocking tools.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

    Consumers are plagued by illegal robocalls. In 2018, it was 
projected that in 2019, nearly 50 percent of all calls to 
mobile phones would be scam robocalls.\1\ Another report 
estimates that robocalls contacted Americans' phones almost 5 
billion times in January 2020, amounting to almost 2,000 calls 
per second.\2\ Unfortunately, the bad actors behind these calls 
are finding new ways to place these nuisance calls. For 
example, scammers often falsify (or spoof) the caller ID that 
appears on a call recipient's phone. A number is spoofed when 
the caller ID information is manipulated or altered to display 
anything other than the originating telephone number.\3\ Under 
Federal law, spoofing is illegal if done ``with the intent to 
defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of 
value.''\4\ As technology has progressed, it has allowed 
malicious and illegal robocallers to dramatically increase 
their ability to target consumers.\5\ In December 2019, 
President Trump signed S. 151, the Pallone-Thune Telephone 
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) 
Act,\6\ to address illegal robocalls and spoofing. The TRACED 
Act mandates the adoption of caller ID authentication 
technology and, in appropriate circumstances, allows a voice 
service provider to block calls it cannot adequately 
authenticate. Call authentication technology verifies that the 
calling number is accurate and not spoofed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\First Orion, ``Nearly 50% of U.S. Mobile Traffic Will be Scam 
Calls by 2019,'' Sep. 12, 2018 (https://firstorion.com/nearly-50-of-u-
s-mobile-traffic-will-be-scam-calls-by-2019/) (accessed May 13, 2020).
    \2\YouMail, ``January 2020 Nationwide Robocall Data'' (https://
robocallindex.com/2020/
january) (accessed May 13, 2020).
    \3\See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID 
Act of 2009, WC Docket. No. 11-39, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114, 
9115, para. 1 (2011) (stating that spoofing may also involve 
manipulating or altering the caller ID to display a name or other text 
(i.e., anything other than the originating number)).
    \4\Truth in Caller ID Act; 15 U.S.C. 227(e).
    \5\Sometimes spoofing is used legitimately to protect the caller or 
show affiliation with a specific entity. For example, a battered 
women's shelter might disguise its telephone number to protect the 
shelter's true number, which could be tracked and used to locate the 
center. A doctor calling patients from her cellphone may spoof her 
office number to help her patients know who is calling and to avoid 
giving out personal contact information. See Sarah Krouse, ```Stop 
Robocalling Me!'; `I Didn't!''', The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1, 2019 
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-robocalling-me-i-didnt-11546261200) 
(accessed May 13, 2020).
    \6\Pub. L. 116-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the relief call authentication and call blocking 
may provide consumers, stakeholders fear that some legitimate 
calls could be inadvertently blocked, including calls from 
public safety organizations, the government, and schools.\7\ 
These groups have argued for the development of one or more 
lists of telephone numbers that should be exempt from blocking 
by call blocking and call authentication systems. The FCC 
sought comment on the implementation of a ``critical calls 
list'' containing such numbers in a June 2019 Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).\8\ It also sought comment from the 
public about the types of numbers that should be included on 
that list.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 
CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, Declaratory Ruling and Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 4876, para. 63 (2019) 
(Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling and Third FNPRM).
    \8\Id. at paras. 63-70.
    \9\Id. at paras. 63-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The term ``Critical Calls List'' refers to a list of phone 
numbers that would be exempt from call blocking. A Critical 
Call List differs from other call lists, such as white lists. 
White lists permit a consumer to specify the telephone numbers 
from which they wish to receive calls, making call blocking the 
default.\10\ But such lists ``create[] a risk that illegal 
callers will obtain those numbers and spoof them in order to 
reach consumers,''\11\ making them less attractive. A Critical 
Calls List has a limited set of telephone numbers, making it 
more manageable, and would be maintained solely by the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id. at para. 43.
    \11\Id. at para. 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Debate continues about who should be responsible for the 
collection and maintenance of a Critical Calls List or similar 
directory of telephone numbers that should be exempt from 
blocking of illegal robocalls. The FCC's FNPRM suggested that 
it should be the responsibility of the voice service providers 
utilizing call blocking and call authentication to develop and 
maintain such lists. Others have suggested that the FCC should 
be responsible for developing and maintaining the list.\12\ 
Stakeholders supporting this approach argue that the FCC is 
best positioned to determine the types of numbers that should 
be included on a list and to ensure that any numbers added to 
the list are verified, updated, secure, and available to all 
voice service providers. They also suggest that a list 
maintained by the FCC would also reduce the burden on 
individual voice service providers from having to perform such 
functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Id. at para. 63 (``Accordingly, we here consider requiring any 
voice service provider that offers call-blocking to maintain a 
`Critical Calls List' of numbers it may not block.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 2204, as amended, would direct the FCC to begin a 
rulemaking to specifically consider whether the Commission 
should directly maintain a list of telephone numbers that 
cannot be blocked, and what categories of numbers should be 
included on that list. At the same time, it expressly would not 
prevent the FCC from moving forward on the pending FNPRM.
    Separately, the FCC's Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling and 
Third FNPRM directs the agency's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB) to collect information and prepare reports 
on the effectiveness of call blocking and caller ID 
authentication technologies.\13\ However, those reports are not 
required to be submitted to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Id. at paras. 87-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 2204, the Data Analytics Robocall Technology Act of 
2019, was introduced on July 23, 2019, by Senator Crapo (for 
himself and Senator Klobuchar) and was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate. On December 11, 2019, the Committee met in open 
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 2204 reported 
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute).

                            ESTIMATED COSTS

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:




    S. 2204 would require the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) to initiate a rulemaking related to maintaining a list of 
numbers that may not be blocked by a voice service provider. 
Such a list could include numbers associated with public safety 
facilities, government entities, or schools. In addition, the 
bill would require the FCC to submit to the Congress an 
analysis of the effectiveness of various tools to block 
robocalls.
    CBO assumes that S. 2204 would be enacted in fiscal year 
2020. Using information from the FCC, CBO expects the 
commission would require four attorneys for less than a full 
year at an annual average cost of $2 1 0,000 each to implement 
the bill. In total, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2204 
would cost less than $500,000. However, under current law the 
FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the 
appropriated costs of its regulatory activities each year; 
therefore, CBO estimates that the net effect on spending 
subject to appropriation would be negligible, assuming 
appropriation actions consistent with that authority.
    If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the 
costs of implementing provisions in the bill, S. 2204 would 
increase the cost of an existing private-sector mandate on 
entities required to pay those fees. Using information from the 
FCC, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate 
would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold 
established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for 
private-sector mandates ($168 million in 2020, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    S. 2204 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are David Hughes 
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director 
of Budget Analysis.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

Number of Persons Covered

    S. 2204 would direct the FCC to consider developing a 
process whereby the FCC would maintain a list of telephone 
numbers that cannot be blocked by voice service providers. The 
bill affects entities already subject to FCC rules and 
regulations, and therefore the number of persons covered should 
be consistent with current levels.

Economic Impact

    S. 2204 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the 
Nation's economy.

Privacy

    S. 2204 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the 
personal privacy of individuals.

Paperwork

    S. 2204 would not increase paperwork requirements for 
private individuals or businesses. The bill would direct the 
FCC to prepare a report to Congress related to its findings on 
the effectiveness of various categories of call blocking 
technologies.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Data Analytics Robocall Technology Act of 2019'' or as 
the ``DART Act of 2019''.

Section 2. Definitions.

    This section would define four terms used throughout the 
bill. The definitions of the terms ``covered ruling''\14\ and 
``voice service''\15\ are of particular importance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\FCC 19-51; CG Docket No. 17-59.
    \15\47 U.S.C. 251(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3. Rulemaking.

    Section 3 would direct the Commission, not later than 18 
months after enactment of the Act, to initiate a rulemaking to 
consider establishing a process under which the Commission 
would maintain a list of numbers not eligible to be blocked by 
a voice service provider. The section further provides that the 
list of numbers that are not eligible to be blocked may include 
the following: (1) numbers used for outgoing calls by a public 
safety answering point or similar facility; (2) numbers used to 
originate calls from a government entity, such as a call 
generated during an emergency; (3) numbers used by a school or 
similar institution to provide school-related notifications, 
such as for weather-related closures or for the existence of an 
emergency affecting a school or students; and (4) numbers used 
for similar or emergency purposes, as determined appropriate by 
the FCC. The Committee intends that the FCC use any and all 
information collected to date related to creation and 
maintenance of a list of numbers not eligible to be blocked to 
inform this rulemaking, including from the covered ruling.

Section 4. Reports on deployment and implementation of call blocking 
        and caller ID authentication.

    Section 4 would require that the FCC submit to appropriate 
congressional committees an analysis of the following: (1) the 
effectiveness of various categories of call blocking tools; and 
(2) any related legislative recommendations reached by the FCC. 
This report to Congress would be due not later than 180 days 
after the FCC receives any report under paragraph 90 of the 
covered ruling. The Committee notes that the covered ruling 
directs CGB to prepare two reports on the effectiveness of call 
blocking technologies. Accordingly, the Committee intends for 
the FCC to submit to Congress two separate reports pursuant to 
this section containing the necessary information required 
under this section. The Committee also intends that for 
purposes of the reports, the judgment of the FCC on the 
effectiveness of call blocking technologies shall include, at a 
minimum, the information the Commission has directed CGB to 
include in the reports required by the covered ruling.

Section 5. Rule of construction.

    Section 5 sets forth a rule of construction for the Act 
stating that nothing in the Act may be construed to impede or 
delay the FCC's analysis of the most effective means to 
maintain and administer a list of numbers that may not be 
blocked (referred to as the Critical Calls List in the covered 
ruling) under the covered ruling. The Committee therefore 
intends that this Act be supplementary to the FCC's continued 
work on the Critical Calls List pursuant to the covered ruling, 
and should not be used by the Commission to delay that work.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.

                                  [all]