[Senate Report 119-122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 422
119th Congress } { Report
2d Session } SENATE { 119-122
======================================================================
FOREIGN ROBOCALL ELIMINATION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 2666
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 1, 2026.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
69-010 WASHINGTON : 2026
=====================================================================
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred nineteenth congress
second session
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TED BUDD, North Carolina JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri BEN RAY LUJA AE1N, New Mexico
JOHN CURTIS, Utah JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
TIM SHEEHY, Montana ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Brad Grantz, Majority Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Staff Director
Calendar No. 422
119th Congress } { Report
2d Session } SENATE { 119-122
======================================================================
FOREIGN ROBOCALL ELIMINATION ACT
_______
June 1, 2026.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Cruz, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2666]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 2666) to direct the Federal
Communications Commission to establish a taskforce on unlawful
robocalls, 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
The purpose of S. 2666 is to direct the Chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission), in
consultation with heads of relevant Federal agencies, to
establish a combined interagency and private sector taskforce
to report on unlawful, foreign-initiated robocalls. The
taskforce would submit a report to Congress with findings and
recommendations on designated topics to combat foreign-
initiated robocalls.
Background and Needs
Robocalls are a major annoyance for consumers and represent
the top consumer complaint received by the FCC.\1\ The
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)\2\ regulates
robocalls; under this regime, some robocalls are legal, while
others are prohibited.\3\ The Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act of 2019\4\ further
established rules and requirements to combat illegal robocalls
by providing the FCC with enhanced authority and additional
tools to deter unwanted and unlawful robocalls.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Patricia Moloney Figliola, ``Federal Communications Commission:
Progress Protecting Consumers from Illegal Robocalls,'' Congressional
Research Service, R46311, 2020, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/
R46311.html.
\2\Public Law 102 09243, 47 U.S.C. 201.
\3\Ibid at 1.
\4\Public Law 116 09105, 133 Stat. 3274 (2019).
\5\``TRACED Act Implementation,'' Federal Communications
Commission, https://www.fcc.gov/TRACEDAct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TRACED Act requires the FCC to publish an annual
robocall report and to oversee an ongoing annual registration
process for a private-led consortium dedicated to tracing the
origin of suspected illegal robocalls.\6\ With advances in
technology, however, illegal robocalls can now be made from
anywhere in the world more easily and at a cheaper cost than
ever before.\7\ Congress and the FCC have previously noted that
illegal robocalls originating from abroad are a significant
part of the robocall problem.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\47 U.S.C. 227(h).
\7\``Stop Unwanted Robocalls and Texts,'' Federal Communications
Commission, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-
robocalls-and-texts.
\8\Federal Communications Commission, ``Advanced Methods to Target
and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls,'' CG Docket No. 17 0959; ``Call
Authentication Trust Anchor,'' WC Docket No. 17 0997; Report and Order,
Order on Reconsideration, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC Record , vol. 37 (2022), no. 8, p. 6869, https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-stop-international-robocall-scams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Robocall Elimination Act would establish an
interagency taskforce comprised of representatives from the
FCC, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), as well as private industry representatives, to
report on foreign-initiated robocalls. The taskforce would
terminate 90 days after it submits its report to Congress.
Additionally, the bill would revise the TRACED Act's annual
robocall consortium registration requirement. The bill would
also direct the FCC to issue rules that require certain
providers registering in the Robocall Mitigation Database to
post a bond not to exceed $100,000.
Summary of Provisions
S. 2666 would do the following:
Require the FCC Chairman to establish a taskforce,
in consultation with heads of the FTC and DOJ,
comprised of representatives from the FCC, FTC, DOJ,
the consortium established in the TRACED Act, and seven
representatives from private sector entities.
Establish a process for appointing taskforce members
if the FCC, FTC, and DOJ are unable to reach agreement.
Require the taskforce to prepare a report analyzing
specific matters related to unlawful robocalls
originating outside the United States and recommend
strategies to combat them.
Terminate the taskforce 90 days after it submits its
report to Congress.
Modify the TRACED Act to require a private-led
consortium reauthorization every 3 years instead of
annually.
Modify the TRACED Act to immunize the TRACED Act
consortium from liability for receiving or sharing
covered information, and authorize the consortium,
jointly with the FCC, or the FCC unilaterally to
publish a list identifying voice service providers
found to cause substantial amounts of unlawful
robocalls or which refuse to trace back calls.
Direct the FCC to issue rules that require providers
certifying in the Robocall Mitigation Database to post
a bond not to exceed $100,000 unless the FCC
determines--considering enumerated factors--that
requiring the bond is not necessary to deter unlawful
robocall activity for a particular provider.
Legislative History
S. 2666 was introduced on August 1, 2025, by Senator Budd
(for himself and Senator Welch) and was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate. On October 21, 2025, the Committee met in open
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 2666 reported
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute with
amendments). Senators Husted and Warnock were later added as
cosponsors.
117TH CONGRESS
H.R. 5207, the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, was
introduced on September 10, 2021, by then-Representative Budd
(for himself and Representatives Gottheimer, Bishop, and
Webster) and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives. Seven Representatives
were later added as cosponsors.
116TH CONGRESS
H.R. 5985, the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, was
introduced on February 27, 2020, by then-Representative Budd
(for himself and Representatives Bishop and Clay) and was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives.
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. 2666 would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
and Department of Justice (DOJ), to establish a taskforce on
unlawful robocalls. That taskforce would report to the Congress
on the most effective ways to combat unlawful robocalls. The
bill also would direct the FCC to issue rules requiring certain
voice service providers to post a bond--of up to $100,000, as
determined by the commission--before those providers certify to
the Robocall Mitigation Database that they are implementing
measures to mitigate unlawful robocalls. Under current law,
providers must provide such certifications annually.
Based on information from the FCC, CBO expects that the
commission would establish the specific conditions under which
a bond would be required and that providers failing to meet
those conditions could forfeit the bond. Any forfeited payments
would be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and
recorded as increases in revenues. CBO expects the number of
affected providers would be small and the likelihood of
forfeiture would be low; thus, we estimate that any increase in
revenues would be insignificant over the 2026-2036 period.
Using information from the agencies, CBO estimates that the
costs for the FCC, FTC, and DOJ to implement S. 2666 would be
insignificant over the 2026-2031 period. Because the FCC is
authorized to collect fees each year sufficient to offset the
appropriated costs of its regulatory activities, CBO estimates
that the net cost to the FCC would be negligible, assuming
appropriation actions consistent with that authority. Any
related spending for the FTC and DOJ would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
S. 2666 contains private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO cannot determine
whether the aggregate costs of those mandates would exceed the
threshold established in UMRA ($214 million in 2026, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Under current law, a consortium of private-sector entities
is registered with the FCC to conduct efforts to trace back the
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. S. 2666 would grant the
consortium immunity from prosecution for publishing information
on suspected fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful robocalls. The
bill would impose a private-sector mandate by limiting a right
of action of a private entity that could otherwise seek redress
or recover damages for the sharing or publishing of such
information. CBO has no basis to estimate the number of
possible lawsuits or related awards that would be precluded by
the bill and cannot predict the amount of potential foregone
damages. Therefore, CBO cannot determine whether the cost of
the mandate would exceed the annual threshold established in
UMRA for private-sector mandates.
S. 2666 also would impose a private-sector mandate on
certain communication providers by requiring them to post a
bond up to $100,000 before filing certifications to the
Robocall Mitigation Database. Because the FCC has yet to
establish the exemptions, conditions, and terms of the new
bond, CBO cannot determine whether the cost of the mandate
would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates.
Finally, the bill would increase the cost of an existing
private-sector mandate if the FCC increases annual fee
collections to offset the costs of implementing provisions in
S. 2666. CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate
would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates.
S. 2666 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.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
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. 2666 would require the FCC, in consultation with the FTC
and DOJ, to establish an interagency taskforce comprised of
representatives from those agencies, as well as private
industry representatives, to report on foreign-initiated
robocalls. While there are no new reporting requirements, the
collection of some information from private companies relevant
to foreign-initiated robocalls, including those already
regulated under the TCPA and the Communications Act of 1934,
may be necessary in order to complete the required report. S.
2666 would require providers certifying in the Robocall
Mitigation Database to post a bond if the provider does not
meet FCC-established criteria. Additionally, S. 2666 would
extend liability immunity to the TRACED Act consortium for the
receipt, sharing, or publication of covered information and
allow for the publication of a list identifying voice service
providers deemed potentially problematic in deterring unlawful
robocalls.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
S. 2666 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
Nation's economy. The legislation would promote government and
commercial efforts to reduce one of the largest sources of
consumer complaints.
PRIVACY
S. 2666 would not impact the personal privacy of
individuals.
PAPERWORK
The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in
paperwork burdens for private individuals or businesses
resulting from the passage of this legislation. S. 2666 would
require a report to Congress on particular aspects of foreign-
initiated robocalls, which may necessitate the collection of
limited information from entities involved in such activities.
S. 2666 would also allow the publication of a list of voice
service providers deemed problematic in combating unlawful
robocalls and require certain providers to post a bond before
certifying in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
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 ``Foreign Robocall Elimination Act''.
Section 2. Interagency taskforce on unlawful robocalls.
Subsection (a) would define the terms: ``Commission'',
``Consortium'', ``Federal agency'', ``taskforce'', ``unlawful
robocall''.
Subsection (b) would require the FCC, in consultation with
the FTC and DOJ, to establish a taskforce on unlawful robocalls
within 270 days of enactment.
Subsection (c) would establish the taskforce's membership.
Based on recommendations from each agency head, the FCC
Chairman would appoint a representative of the FCC, FTC, and
DOJ. Seven additional taskforce representatives would come from
private sector entities with relevant expertise and be jointly
appointed by the heads of the FCC, FTC, and DOJ. Of these,
three representatives would come from voice service providers,
analytics providers, technologists, and technology experts. One
representative would be a member of the TRACED Act consortium.
One representative would come from a marketing business that
communicates with consumers by telephone in the normal course
of business. One representative would come from a business or
nonprofit organization that regularly communicates with
consumers by phone for non-marketing purposes. Finally, one
representative would be from an organization that advocates on
behalf of customers and has relevant expertise in combating
illegal robocalls.
In the event the heads of the FCC, FTC, and DOJ cannot
agree on the appointments of the private sector
representatives, the FCC Chairman would make the appointment.
In this case, the Chairman would need to notify the FCC
Commissioners at least 48 hours prior to appointing the
proposed taskforce member. Upon request by a Commissioner, the
proposed appointment would be subject to a majority commission
vote for approval.
Subsection (d) would require the taskforce to prepare and
deliver to Congress within 360 days of its establishment a
report with recommendations for relevant Federal agencies to
combat unlawful robocalls originating from outside the United
States. The taskforce would study matters regarding unlawful
robocalls, such as comparing the estimated number of illegal
robocalls originating within the United States to the estimated
number originating outside the country. The report would study
which foreign countries are originators of the most unlawful
robocalls to the United States.
The report would also determine or examine the following:
the magnitude of financial loss and the number of
instances of stolen identity each year due to
robocalls;
methods for encouraging the adoption of caller
identification authentication technology abroad;
options for how countries can collaborate on
solutions to authenticate and verify international
calls, including relevant analytics;
how better implementation of technical solutions
abroad, e.g., traceback and caller identification
authentication technology, would improve coordination
between the United States and foreign countries;
whether TRACED Act technical standards, i.e., STIR/
SHAKEN, adequately provide call authentication from
foreign providers to the United States;
whether foreign countries should be encouraged to
adopt such standards;
ways to incentivize foreign countries to cooperate
with U.S. law enforcement efforts;
whether another relevant Federal agency or
organization needs additional resources to combat
foreign robocalls;
whether an office within the DOJ would increase the
ability of the Attorney General to conduct enforcement
activities;
how increased criminal penalties could help prevent
foreign robocalls;
how many enforcement activities the Attorney General
has undertaken in the prior year (from the beginning of
report preparation); and
how the Attorney General has pursued forfeiture
amounts for unlawful robocalls.
The report would seek input, as appropriate, from technologists
and private sector innovators to find solutions and identify a
list of voluntary best practices for providers to implement in
identifying and blocking robocalls.
Finally, the report would evaluate whether requiring
specific, periodic public disclosures, in whole or in part, of
results of tracebacks conducted by the consortium will impact
the integrity and effectiveness of the traceback process and
examine mechanisms for improving compliance with TRACED Act
requirements. Considerations in the evaluations of disclosures
would include the following:
revealing investigative methods;
allowing consumers and businesses to avoid providers
with a record of making unlawful robocalls;
exposing proprietary, competitively sensitive, or
confidential information of legitimate providers or
entities;
strengthening accountability and deterrence;
enabling the initiators of unlawful robocalls to
evade detection, adapt tactics, or exploit system
vulnerabilities;
improving the efforts of voice service providers to
block calls that are determined to be unwanted based on
reasonable analytics;
impeding cooperation with future law enforcement
investigations or future consumer protection efforts;
or
ensuring fairness in the reporting of traceback
information.
The report would examine mechanisms for improving
compliance with the requirements imposed pursuant to sections 6
and 7 of the TRACED Act.
Subsection (e) would allow the FCC, FTC, and DOJ to use
funds for coordination, participation, or recommendations in
the taskforce as required.
Subsection (f) would terminate the taskforce 90 days after
it submits its report to Congress.
Section 3. FCC notice provision.
This section would require the FCC to register the TRACED
Act consortium to conduct private-led efforts to trace back
robocalls once every 3 years, rather than annually.
Section 4. Registered consortium conducting private-led efforts to
trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls.
This section would modify the TRACED Act to immunize the
TRACED Act consortium against liability for receiving, sharing,
or publishing covered information and allow the consortium with
the FCC, or the FCC unilaterally, to publish (and FCC to take
enforcement action on) a list of (1) voice service providers
that refuse to participate in traceback efforts, and (2) other
information collected about voice service providers found to
originate or transmit substantial amounts of unlawful
robocalls.
Section 5. Robocall mitigation database.
This section would require the Commission to issue rules
that require providers to post a bond of not more than $100,000
to certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database unless the
provider meets certain criteria established by the Commission
when considering certain specified factors that indicate the
bond is not necessary to deter unlawful robocall activity.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
PALLONE-THUNE TRACED ACT
* * * * * * *
[Public Law 116-105; 133 Stat. 3287]
SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(c) * * *
(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] once every
3 years thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice
to the public seeking the registration described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Immunity for receiving, sharing, and publishing
trace back information.--
(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term
``covered information''--
(i) means information regarding
suspected--
(I) fraudulent, abusive, or
unlawful robocalls;
(II) illegally spoofed calls;
and
(III) other illegal calls;
and
(ii) includes--
(I) call detail records of
calls described in clause (i);
(II) the names of, and other
identifying information
concerning, the voice service
providers that originated,
carried, routed, and
transmitted calls described in
clause (i); and
(III) information about the
entities that made calls
described in clause (i),
including any contact
information of individuals that
such an entity provided to the
voice service provider that
originated the call.
(B) Trace back immunity.--No cause of action
shall lie or be maintained in any court against
the registered consortium for receiving,
sharing, or publishing covered information or
information derived from covered information.
[(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.]
(e) List of Voice Service Providers.--
(1) Publication of list.--The Commission, or the
registered consortium in consultation with the
Commission, may publish a list of voice service
providers based on--
(A) information obtained by the consortium
about voice service providers that refuse to
participate in private-led efforts to trace
back the origin of suspected unlawful
robocalls; and
(B) other information the Commission or the
consortium may collect about voice service
providers that are found to originate or
transmit substantial amounts of unlawful
robocalls.
(2) Enforcement.--The Commission may take enforcement
action based on the information described in paragraph
(1).
(f) * * *
* * * * * * *
[all]