89–006 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–173 

STOPPING BAD ROBOCALLS ACT 

JULY 23, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PALLONE, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3375] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 3375) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to 

clarify the prohibitions on making robocalls, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 10 

II. Background and Need for Legislation .......................................................... 11 

III. Committee Hearings ...................................................................................... 12 

IV. Committee Consideration .............................................................................. 12 

V. Committee Votes ............................................................................................ 13 

VI. Oversight Findings ........................................................................................ 15 

VII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures.. 15 

VIII. Federal Mandates Statement ....................................................................... 15 

IX. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................... 15 

X. Duplication of Federal Programs .................................................................. 15 

XI. Committee Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 15 

XII. Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits .................. 15 

XIII. Advisory Committee Statement .................................................................... 15 

XIV. Applicability to Legislative Branch .............................................................. 16 

XV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ............................................ 16 

XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 20 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Bad Robocalls Act’’. 

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

Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and as appropriate thereafter to ensure that the consumer protection and privacy purposes of 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
2 

section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) remain effective, the 

Commission shall prescribe such regulations, or amend such existing regulations, 

regarding calls made or text messages sent using automatic telephone dialing systems and calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice as will, in the judgment 

of the Commission, clarify descriptions of automatic telephone dialing systems and 

ensure that— 

(1) the consumer protection and privacy purposes of such section are effectuated; 

(2) calls made and text messages sent using automatic telephone dialing systems and calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice are made or sent 

(as the case may be) with consent, unless consent is not required under or the 

call or text message is exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of subsection 

(b) of such section; 

(3) consumers can withdraw consent for such calls and text messages; 

(4) circumvention or evasion of such section is prevented; 

(5) callers maintain records to demonstrate that such callers have obtained 

consent, unless consent is not required under or the call or text message is exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of subsection (b) of such section, for 

such calls and text messages, for a period of time that will permit the Commission to effectuate the consumer protection and privacy purposes of such section; 

and 

(6) compliance with such section is facilitated. 

SEC. 3. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

227(b)(2)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

(2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(I) shall ensure that any exemption under subparagraph (B) or (C) contains requirements for calls made in reliance on the exemption with respect 

to— 

‘‘(i) the classes of parties that may make such calls; 

‘‘(ii) the classes of parties that may be called; and 

‘‘(iii) the number of such calls that a calling party may make to a 

particular called party.’’. 

(b) DEADLINE FOR REGULATIONS.—In the case of any exemption issued under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission, shall, 

not later than 1 year after such date of enactment, prescribe such regulations, or 

amend such existing regulations, as necessary to ensure that such exemption contains each requirement described in subparagraph (I) of such section, as added by 

subsection (a). To the extent such an exemption contains such a requirement before 

such date of enactment, nothing in this section or the amendments made by this 

section shall be construed to require the Commission to prescribe or amend regulations relating to such requirement. 

SEC. 4. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE. 

(a) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available on 

the website of the Commission, a report on the status of the efforts of the Commission pursuant to the Second Report and Order in the matter of Advanced 

Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17–59; 

FCC 18–177; adopted on December 12, 2018). 

(2) CONTENTS.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall describe the efforts of the Commission, as described in such Second Report and Order, to ensure— 

(A) the establishment of a database of telephone numbers that have been 

disconnected, in order to provide a person making calls subject to section 

227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) with comprehensive and timely information to enable such person to avoid making 

calls without the prior express consent of the called party because the number called has been reassigned; 

(B) that a person who wishes to use any safe harbor provided pursuant 

to such Second Report and Order with respect to making calls must demonstrate that, before making the call, the person appropriately checked the 

most recent update of the database and the database reported that the 

number had not been disconnected; and 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
3 

(C) that if the person makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (B), the person will be shielded from liability under section 227(b) of 

the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) should the database return an inaccurate result. 

(b) CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CALLED PARTY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 227(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

U.S.C. 227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) The term ‘called party’ means, with respect to a call, the current subscriber or customary user of the telephone number to which the call is made, 

determined at the time when the call is made.’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 227(d)(3)(B) of the Communications 

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(B)) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘called party’s line’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘telephone line called’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘called party has hung up’’ and inserting ‘‘answering party 

has hung up’’. 

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall apply 

beginning on the date on which the database described in the Second Report 

and Order in the matter of Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 18–177; adopted on December 12, 

2018) becomes fully operational, such that a person may check the database to 

determine the last date of permanent disconnection associated with a phone 

number. Nothing in the amendments made by this subsection shall affect the 

construction of the law as it applies before the effective date. 

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT. 

(a) NO CITATION REQUIRED TO SEEK FORFEITURE PENALTY.— 

(1) FOR ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS.—Section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 

1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) NO CITATION REQUIRED TO SEEK FORFEITURE PENALTY.—Paragraph (5) of 

section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of a violation made with the intent 

to cause such violation of this subsection.’’. 

(2) FOR CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—Section 

227(e)(5)(A)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iii)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) 

shall not apply in the case of a violation of this subsection.’’. 

(b) 4-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— 

(1) FOR ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS.—Section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 

1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) 4-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty for violation of this subsection shall be determined or imposed against any person if the violation charged occurred more 

than— 

‘‘(A) 3 years prior to the date of issuance of the notice required by paragraph (3) of such section or the notice of apparent liability required by 

paragraph (4) of such section (as the case may be); or 

‘‘(B) if the violation was made with the intent to cause such violation, 4 

years prior to the date of issuance of the notice required by paragraph (3) 

of such section or the notice of apparent liability required by paragraph (4) 

of such section (as the case may be).’’. 

(2) FOR CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—Section 

227(e)(5)(A)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iv)) 

is amended— 

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘2-YEAR’’ and inserting ‘‘4-YEAR’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and inserting ‘‘4 years’’. 

(c) INCREASED PENALTY FOR ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS WITH INTENT.—Section 227(b) 

of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by subsections 

(a) and (b), is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) INCREASED PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS WITH INTENT.—In the case of a forfeiture penalty for violation of this subsection that is determined or imposed 

under section 503(b), if such violation was made with the intent to cause such 

violation, the amount of such penalty shall be equal to an amount determined 

in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 503(b)(2) plus an 

additional penalty not to exceed $10,000.’’. 

SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
4 

‘‘(i) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ROBOCALLS AND TRANSMISSION OF MISLEADING OR INACCURATE CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.— 

‘‘(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the Commission, after consultation 

with the Federal Trade Commission, shall submit to Congress a report regarding enforcement by the Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) during 

the preceding calendar year. 

‘‘(2) MATTERS FOR INCLUSION.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall 

include the following: 

‘‘(A) The number of complaints received by the Commission during each 

of the preceding five calendar years, for each of the following categories: 

‘‘(i) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call in violation 

of subsection (b) or (c). 

‘‘(ii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call in violation 

of the standards prescribed under subsection (d). 

‘‘(iii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a call in connection with which misleading or inaccurate caller identification information was transmitted in violation of subsection (e). 

‘‘(B) The number of citations issued by the Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year to enforce subsection (d), 

and details of each such citation. 

‘‘(C) The number of notices of apparent liability issued by the Commission 

pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year to enforce 

subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), and details of each such notice including 

any proposed forfeiture amount. 

‘‘(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year to enforce such 

subsections, and details of each such order including the forfeiture imposed. 

‘‘(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal fines collected, during 

the preceding calendar year, by the Commission or the Attorney General 

for violations of such subsections, and details of each case in which such 

a forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was collected. 

‘‘(F) Proposals for reducing the number of calls made in violation of such 

subsections. 

‘‘(G) An analysis of the contribution by providers of interconnected VoIP 

service and non-interconnected VoIP service that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-duration calls to the total number of calls made in violation 

of such subsections, and recommendations on how to address such contribution in order to decrease the total number of calls made in violation of such 

subsections. 

‘‘(3) NO ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIRED.—The Commission shall prepare the 

report required by paragraph (1) without requiring the provision of additional 

information from providers of telecommunications service or voice service (as defined in section 7(d) of the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act).’’. 

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Commission shall prescribe regulations in WC Docket No. 17–97. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE CALL AUTHENTICATION TECHNOLOGY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The regulations required by subsection (a) shall— 

(A) require providers of voice service to implement, within six months 

after the date on which such regulations are prescribed, an effective call authentication technology; and 

(B) ensure that voice service providers that have implemented the effective authentication technology attest that such provider has determined, 

when originating calls on behalf of a calling party, that the calling party 

number transmitted with such calls has been appropriately authenticated. 

(2) REASSESSMENT OF REGULATIONS.—The Commission shall reassess such 

regulations, at least once every two years, to ensure the regulations remain effective and up to date with technological capabilities. 

(3) EXEMPTION.— 

(A) BURDENS AND BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION.—The Commission— 

(i) shall include findings on any burdens or barriers to the implementation required in paragraph (1), including— 

(I) for providers of voice service to the extent the networks of 

such providers use time-division multiplexing; and 

(II) for small providers of voice service and those in rural areas; 

and 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
5 

(ii) in connection with such findings, may exempt from the 6-month 

time period described in paragraph (1)(A), for a reasonable period of 

time a class of providers of voice service, or type of voice calls, as necessary for that class of providers or type of calls to participate in the 

implementation in order to address the identified burdens and barriers. 

(B) FULL PARTICIPATION.—The Commission shall take all steps necessary 

to address any issues in the findings and enable as promptly as possible 

full participation of all classes of providers of voice service and types of 

voice calls to receive the highest level of attestation. 

(C) ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES.—The Commission shall identify or develop, in consultation with small providers of service and those in rural 

areas, alternative effective methodologies to protect customers from 

unauthenticated calls during any exemption given under subparagraph 

(A)(ii). Such methodologies shall be provided with no additional line item 

charge to customers. 

(D) REVISION OF EXEMPTION.—Not less frequently than annually after the 

first exemption is issued under this paragraph, the Commission shall consider revising or extending any exemption made, may revise such exemption, and shall issue a public notice with regard to whether such exemption 

remains necessary. 

(4) ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION.—The regulations required by subsection (a) 

shall include guidelines that providers of voice service may use as part of the 

implementation of effective call authentication technology under paragraph (1) 

to take steps to ensure the calling party is accurately identified. 

(5) NO ADDITIONAL COST TO CONSUMERS OR SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMERS.—The 

regulations required by subsection (a) shall prohibit providers of voice service 

from making any additional line item charges to consumer or small business 

customer subscribers for the effective call authentication technology required 

under paragraph (1). 

(6) EVALUATION.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, and consistent with the regulations prescribed under subsection (a), the 

Commission shall initiate an evaluation of the success of the effective call authentication technology required under paragraph (1). 

(7) UNAUTHENTICATED CALLS.—The Commission shall— 

(A) in the regulations required by subsection (a), consistent with the regulations prescribed under subsection (k) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 8, help protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls from a caller using an 

unauthenticated number, through effective means of enabling the subscriber or provider to block such calls, with no additional line item charge 

to the subscriber; and 

(B) take appropriate steps to ensure that calls originating from a provider 

of service in an area where the provider is exempt from the 6-month time 

period described in paragraph (1)(A) are not wrongly blocked because the 

calls are not able to be authenticated. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after the date on which the regulations 

under subsection (a) are prescribed, the Commission shall submit to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available 

on its website, a report on the implementation of subsection (b), which shall include— 

(1) an analysis of the extent to which providers of a voice service have implemented the effective call authentication technology, including whether the availability of necessary equipment and equipment upgrades has impacted such implementation; and 

(2) an assessment of the effective call authentication technology, as being implemented under subsection (b), in addressing all aspects of call authentication. 

(d) VOICE SERVICE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘voice service’’— 

(1) means any service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user using 

resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to the 

North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 

251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and 

(2) includes— 

(A) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other 

device to a telephone facsimile machine; and 

(B) without limitation, any service that enables real-time, two-way voice 

communications, including any service that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (commonly known as ‘‘CPE’’) and perVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:58 Jul 27, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR173.XXX HR173

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
6 

mits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way 

voice over internet protocol. 

SEC. 8. STOP ROBOCALLS. 

(a) INFORMATION SHARING REGARDING ROBOCALL AND SPOOFING VIOLATIONS.— 

Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by section 6, is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(j) INFORMATION SHARING.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment 

of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe regulations to establish a 

process that streamlines the ways in which a private entity may voluntarily 

share with the Commission information relating to— 

‘‘(A) a call made or a text message sent in violation of subsection (b); or 

‘‘(B) a call or text message for which misleading or inaccurate caller identification information was caused to be transmitted in violation of subsection (e). 

‘‘(2) TEXT MESSAGE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘text message’ has 

the meaning given such term in subsection (e)(8).’’. 

(b) ROBOCALL BLOCKING SERVICE.—Section 227 of the Communications Act of 

1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by section 6 and subsection (a) of this section, 

is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(k) ROBOCALL BLOCKING SERVICE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 

this subsection, the Commission shall take a final agency action to ensure the 

robocall blocking services provided on an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to the 

Declaratory Ruling of the Commission in the matter of Advanced Methods to 

Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 19–51; 

adopted on June 6, 2019)— 

‘‘(A) are provided with transparency and effective redress options for 

both— 

‘‘(i) consumers; and 

‘‘(ii) callers; and 

‘‘(B) are provided with no additional line item charge to consumers and 

no additional charge to callers for resolving complaints related to erroneously blocked calls. 

‘‘(2) TEXT MESSAGE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘text message’ has 

the meaning given such term in subsection (e)(8).’’. 

(c) STUDY ON INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN VOIP SERVICE PROVIDERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall conduct a study regarding whether 

to require a provider of covered VoIP service to— 

(A) provide to the Commission contact information for such provider and 

keep such information current; and 

(B) retain records relating to each call transmitted over the covered VoIP 

service of such provider that are sufficient to trace such call back to the 

source of such call. 

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress a report on the 

results of the study conducted under paragraph (1). 

(3) COVERED VOIP SERVICE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘covered 

VoIP service’’ means a service that— 

(A) is an interconnected VoIP service (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)); or 

(B) would be an interconnected VoIP service (as so defined) except that 

the service permits users to terminate calls to the public switched telephone 

network but does not permit users to receive calls that originate on the 

public switched telephone network. 

(d) TRANSITIONAL RULE REGARDING DEFINITION OF TEXT MESSAGE.—Paragraph 

(2) of subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

227), as added by subsection (a) of this section, and paragraph (2) of subsection (k) 

of such section 227, as added by subsection (b) of this section, shall apply before 

the effective date of the amendment made to subsection (e)(8) of such section 227 

by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) as if such amendment was already in effect. 

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau of the Commission obtains evidence that suggests a willful, knowing, and repeated robocall violation with 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
7 

an intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, the Chief 

of the Enforcement Bureau shall provide such evidence to the Attorney General. 

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall publish on its website 

and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

a report that— 

(1) states the number of instances during the preceding year in which the 

Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the evidence described in subsection 

(a) to the Attorney General; and 

(2) contains a general summary of the types of robocall violations to which 

such evidence relates. 

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 

the ability of the Commission or the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau under other 

law— 

(1) to refer a matter to the Attorney General; or 

(2) to pursue or continue pursuit of an enforcement action in a matter with 

respect to which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the evidence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney General. 

(d) ROBOCALL VIOLATION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘robocall violation’’ 

means a violation of subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act 

of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227). 

SEC. 10. PROTECTION FROM ONE-RING SCAMS. 

(a) INITIATION OF PROCEEDING.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall initiate a proceeding to protect called parties from one-ring scams. 

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—As part of the proceeding required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission can— 

(1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to address one-ring 

scams; 

(2) work with the governments of foreign countries to address one-ring scams; 

(3) in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, better educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams; 

(4) incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made to perpetrate one-ring 

scams from being received by called parties, including consideration of adding 

identified one-ring scam type numbers to the Commission’s existing list of permissible categories for carrier-initiated blocking; 

(5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services to address one-ring 

scams; and 

(6) establish obligations on international gateway providers that are the first 

point of entry for these calls into the United States, including potential requirements that such providers verify with the foreign originator the nature or purpose of calls before initiating service. 

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Commission shall publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of the proceeding required by subsection (a). 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ONE-RING SCAM.—The term ‘‘one-ring scam’’ means a scam in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the called party for a short duration, 

in order to prompt the called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the 

called party to charges. 

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 

of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153). 

(3) VOICE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘voice service’’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 227(e)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

227(e)(8)). This paragraph shall apply before the effective date of the amendment made to such section by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division 

P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) as if such 

amendment was already in effect. 

SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Commission, 

shall convene an interagency working group to study the enforcement of section 

227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)). 

(b) DUTIES.—In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the interagency working group shall— 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
8 

(1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal law, including regulations, 

policies, and practices, or budgetary or jurisdictional constraints inhibit the enforcement of such section; 

(2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and programs that encourage and improve coordination among Federal departments and agencies and 

States, and between States, in the enforcement and prevention of the violation 

of such section; 

(3) identify existing and potential international policies and programs that encourage and improve coordination between countries in the enforcement and 

prevention of the violation of such section (and laws of foreign countries prohibiting similar conduct); and 

(4) consider— 

(A) the benefit and potential sources of additional resources for the Federal enforcement and prevention of the violation of such section; 

(B) whether memoranda of understanding regarding the enforcement and 

prevention of the violation of such section should be established between— 

(i) the States; 

(ii) the States and the Federal Government; and 

(iii) the Federal Government and foreign governments; 

(C) whether a process should be established to allow States to request 

Federal subpoenas from the Commission with respect to the enforcement of 

such section; 

(D) whether increased criminal penalties for the violation of such section 

(including increasing the amount of fines and increasing the maximum 

term of imprisonment that may be imposed to a period greater than 2 

years) are appropriate; 

(E) whether regulation of any entity that enters into a business arrangement with a carrier for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or transmitting a call that constitutes a violation of such section would assist in the 

successful enforcement and prevention of the violation of such section; and 

(F) the extent to which the prosecution of certain violations of such section (which result in economic, physical, or emotional harm) pursuant to 

any Department of Justice policy may inhibit or otherwise interfere with 

the prosecution of other violations of such section. 

(c) MEMBERS.—The interagency working group shall be composed of such representatives of Federal departments and agencies as the Attorney General considers 

appropriate, which may include— 

(1) the Department of Commerce (including the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration); 

(2) the Department of State; 

(3) the Department of Homeland Security; 

(4) the Commission; 

(5) the Federal Trade Commission; and 

(6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

(d) NON-FEDERAL STAKEHOLDERS.—In carrying out the study under subsection (a), 

the interagency working group shall consult with such non-Federal stakeholders as 

the Attorney General determines have relevant expertise, including the National Association of Attorneys General. 

(e) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the interagency working group shall submit to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the study under 

subsection (a), including— 

(1) any recommendations regarding the enforcement and prevention of the 

violation of such section; and 

(2) a description of what process, if any, relevant Federal departments and 

agencies have made in implementing the recommendations under paragraph 

(1). 

SEC. 12. COMMISSION DEFINED. 

In this Act, the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Commission. 

SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission 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 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
9 

back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and the 

participation of voice service providers in such efforts. 

(b) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include, 

at minimum, the following: 

(1) A description of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 

unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and the actions taken by the 

registered consortium to coordinate with the Commission. 

(2) A list of voice service providers identified by the registered consortium 

that participated in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls through the registered consortium. 

(3) A list of each voice service provider that received a request from the registered consortium to participate in private-led efforts to trace back the origin 

of suspected unlawful robocalls and refused to participate, as identified by the 

registered consortium. 

(4) The reason, if any, each voice service provider identified by the registered 

consortium provided for not participating in private-led efforts to trace back the 

origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. 

(5) A description of how the Commission may use the information provided 

to the Commission by voice service providers or the registered consortium that 

have participated in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls in the enforcement efforts by the Commission. 

(c) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—Not later than 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice 

to the public seeking additional information from voice service providers and the 

registered consortium of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls necessary for the report by the Commission required under subsection (a). 

(d) REGISTRATION OF CONSORTIUM OF PRIVATE-LED EFFORTS TO TRACE BACK THE

ORIGIN OF SUSPECTED UNLAWFUL ROBOCALLS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, the Commission shall issue rules to establish a registration process for 

the registration of a single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace 

back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The consortium shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Be a neutral third-party competent to manage the private-led effort 

to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls in the judgement 

of the Commission. 

(B) Maintain a set of written best practices about the management of 

such efforts and regarding providers of voice services’ participation in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. 

(C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 

(47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls conducted by the third-party focus on ‘‘fraudulent, 

abusive, or unlawful’’ traffic. 

(D) File a notice with the Commission that the consortium intends to conduct private-led efforts to trace back in advance of such registration. 

(2) ANNUAL NOTICE BY THE COMMISSION SEEKING REGISTRATIONS.—Not later 

than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public seeking the registration 

described in paragraph (1). 

(e) LIST OF VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.—The Commission may publish a list of 

voice service providers and take appropriate enforcement action based on information obtained from the consortium about voice service providers that refuse to participate in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 

robocalls, and other information the Commission may collect about service providers 

that are found to originate or transmit substantial amounts of illegal calls. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) PRIVATE-LED EFFORT TO TRACE BACK.—The term ‘‘private-led effort to trace 

back’’ means an effort made by the registered consortium of voice service providers to establish a methodology for determining the origin of a suspected unlawful robocall. 

(2) REGISTERED CONSORTIUM.—The term ‘‘registered consortium’’ means the 

consortium registered under subsection (d). 

(3) SUSPECTED UNLAWFUL ROBOCALL.—The term ‘‘suspected unlawful robocall’’ 

means a call that the Commission or a voice service provider reasonably believes was made in violation of subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227). 

(4) VOICE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘voice service’’— 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
10 

(A) means any service that is interconnected with the public switched 

telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user 

using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor 

to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under 

section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); 

and 

(B) includes— 

(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or 

other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and 

(ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-time, two-way 

voice communications, including any service that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (commonly known as 

‘‘CPE’’) and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is 

one-way or two-way voice over internet protocol. 

SEC. 14. HOSPITAL ROBOCALL PROTECTION GROUP. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, the Commission shall establish an advisory committee to be known as the 

‘‘Hospital Robocall Protection Group’’. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Group shall be composed only of the following members: 

(1) An equal number of representatives from each of the following: 

(A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals. 

(B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful robocalls. 

(C) Consumer advocacy organizations. 

(D) Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol services described in 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(ii). 

(E) Hospitals. 

(F) State government officials focused on combatting unlawful robocalls. 

(2) One representative of the Commission. 

(3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission. 

(c) ISSUANCE OF BEST PRACTICES.—Not later than 180 days after the date on 

which the Group is established under subsection (a), the Group shall issue best 

practices regarding the following: 

(1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful robocalls made to 

hospitals. 

(2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such calls, including by 

using unlawful robocall mitigation techniques. 

(3) How the Federal Government and State governments can help combat 

such calls. 

(d) PROCEEDING BY FCC.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the 

best practices are issued by the Group under subsection (c), the Commission shall 

conclude a proceeding to assess the extent to which the voluntary adoption of such 

best practices can be facilitated to protect hospitals and other institutions. 

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) GROUP.—The term ‘‘Group’’ means the Hospital Robocall Protection Group 

established under subsection (a). 

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 

of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153). 

(3) VOICE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘voice service’’— 

(A) means any service that is interconnected with the public switched 

telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user 

using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor 

to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under 

section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); 

and 

(B) includes— 

(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or 

other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and 

(ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-time, two-way 

voice communications, including any service that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (commonly known as 

‘‘CPE’’) and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is 

one-way or two-way voice over internet protocol. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3375, the ‘‘Stopping Bad Robocalls Act’’, was introduced on 

June 25, 2019, by Reps. Pallone (D–NJ), Walden (R–OR), Doyle (D– 

PA), and Latta (R–OH), and referred to the Committee on Energy 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
11 

1See Federal Communication Commission, Report on Robocalls, at ¶ 9 (Feb. 2019). 2See YouMail, Historical Robocalls by Time (www.robocallindex.com/history/time) (accessed 

Apr. 24, 2019). 3First Orion, Nearly 50% of U.S. Mobile Traffic Will Be Scam Calls by 2019 

(www.firstorion.com/nearly-50-of-u-s-mobile-traffic-will-be-scam-calls-by-2019/) (accessed Apr. 24, 

2019). 4See note 1 at ¶ 15. 5See Federal Communications Commission, Report on Robocalls, at ¶ 4–6 (Feb. 2019). 6See id. at fn. 13. 7Morristown Residents Alerted to New Scam, TAP into Morristown (Apr. 9, 2019) 

(www.tapinto.net/towns/morristown/articles/morristown-residents-alerted-to-new-scam). 

and Commerce. H.R. 3375 would take myriad actions aimed at relieving consumers from the onslaught of robocalls. Among other 

things, H.R. 3375 would require the implementation of nationwide 

call authentication technology so consumers can again trust the 

number that appears on their caller ID. The legislation also provides for carriers to offer call blocking services and requires it to 

be offered at no additional line-item charge, and directs the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to issue rules to protect consumers from calls they did not agree to receive and to ensure consumers can withdraw consent. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

According to many sources, Americans are receiving more unlawful robocalls than ever before. For example, the FCC received 

232,000 consumer robocall complaints in 2018, a more than 34 percent increase since 2015.1 YouMail estimates that there were nearly 48 billion robocalls in 2018, up more than 64 percent since 

2016.2 First Orion predicts that this year, 44.6 percent of all calls 

to mobile phones will be scam calls.3

In fact, the problem has become so pervasive, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) noted that 

‘‘[c]urrently, the only certain way to determine whether a call is 

wanted or unwanted is to answer it or let it go to voicemail, and 

hope the caller leaves a message.’’ 4

According to CGB, individuals tend to make robocalls for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Examples include telemarketing, committing fraud, but also to provide useful information pertaining to school closings or prescription or medical appointment reminders.5 With fraud becoming a growing concern, 

government agencies are warning consumers of scam calls in which 

callers impersonate the Internal Revenue Service, a local utility 

company, or foreign governments.6 Other agencies report ‘‘One 

Ring Phone Scams,’’ where scammers make repeated calls to the 

same number in an attempt to induce the consumer to call the 

number back, potentially resulting in hefty charges to the consumer.7

Notably, however, not all robocalls are illegal. The Congress or 

the FCC, in relevant instances, have recognized that some calls 

provide significant benefits and therefore treats those differently. 

For example, some calls are exempted from the consent requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). These include alerts regarding transactions and events that suggest a risk 

of fraud or identity theft from banks, news regarding school closings, calls made by the government, and non-telemarketing 

healthcare calls in cases of emergencies requiring healthcare treatment. H.R. 3375 would not overturn these exemptions. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
12 

8 Reply Comments of Forty-Two (42) State Attorneys General, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 18–335, 

11–39 (filed May 3, 2019). 

H.R. 3375 builds on the Committee’s progress made in the RAY 

BAUM’S Act against fraudulent robocalls and spoofing, implementation of which was recently supported at the FCC by a bipartisan 

group of 42 State Attorneys General.8

III. COMMITTEE HEARING

For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 116th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 

3375: 

The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a 

legislative hearing on April 30, 2019, entitled ‘‘Legislating to Stop 

the Onslaught of Annoying Robocalls.’’ The Subcommittee received 

testimony from: 

• Aaron Foss, Founder, Nomorobo; 

• Dave Summitt, Chief Information Security Officer H. Lee 

Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, and Fellow for the 

Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology; 

• Margot Saunders, Senior Counsel, National Consumer 

Law Center; and 

• Patrick Halley, Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Regulatory Affairs, USTelecom—The Broadband Association. 

IV. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 3375, the ‘‘Stopping Bad Robocalls Act’’, was introduced in 

the House on June 20, 2019, by Reps. Pallone (D–NJ), Walden (R– 

OR), Doyle (D–PA), and Latta (R–OH), and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subsequently, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

June 21, 2019. Following a legislative hearing, the Subcommittee 

met in open markup session, pursuant to notice, on June 25, 2019, 

for consideration of the bill H.R. 3375. During consideration of the 

bill, Rep. McEachin (D–VA), Rep. Butterfield (D–NC), Rep. Clarke 

(D–NY), and Rep. Soto (D–FL) each offered an amendment to H.R. 

3375 and each amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. Subsequently, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

agreed to a motion by Mr. Doyle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, 

that H.R. 3375 be forwarded favorably to the full Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 17, 2019, the full Committee met in open markup session, pursuant to notice, to consider the bill H.R. 3375, as amended. During consideration, three amendments were adopted, each by 

a voice vote. The amendments were offered by Reps. Pallone and 

Walden, Rep. Burgess (R–TX), and Rep. Flores (R–TX). At the conclusion of the bill’s consideration, the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce agreed to a motion offered by Mr. Pallone, Chairman of 

the Committee, that the bill, H.R. 3375, be ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a recorded vote of 48 yeas to 0 

nays, a quorum being present. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
13 

V. COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee advises that there was one record vote taken on H.R. 3375, on a motion by Mr. Pallone ordering H.R. 3375 be reported favorably to the 

House, amended. The motion on final passage of the bill was approved by a record vote of 48 yeas to 0 nays. The following is the 

record vote taken during Committee consideration, including the 

names of those members voting for and against the motion: 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
14 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROCInsert offset folio 17 here HR173.001
15 

VI. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) of rule 

X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s 

oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portion of the report. 

VII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Pursuant to 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new 

budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

The Committee has requested but not received from the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this 

bill contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 

authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

VIII. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

IX. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance 

goal or objective of this legislation is to protect consumers from unlawful robocalls. 

X. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of H.R. 3375 

is known to be duplicative of another Federal program, including 

any program that was included in a report to Congress pursuant 

to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance. 

XI. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee adopts as 

its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

XII. EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF

BENEFITS

Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the Committee 

finds that H.R. 3375 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 

limited tariff benefits. 

XIII. ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The legislation creates one federal advisory committee within the 

meaning of section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
16 

XIV. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

XV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 designates that the short title may be cited as the 

‘‘Stopping Bad Robocalls Act’’. 

Section 2. Consumer protection regulations relating to making 

robocalls 

This section requires the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) to complete a rulemaking within six months to revise its 

rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to protect consumers and their privacy. Section 2, among other things, 

requires the FCC to clarify which dialing equipment is captured by 

the statutory definition of an automatic telephone dialing system 

found in 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1). These regulations must ensure that 

calls made and text messages sent using an automatic telephone 

dialing system or using an artificial or prerecorded voice (as the 

case may be) are only made and sent with the consent of the person being called, as required under the TCPA. 

The Committee expects that the FCC will take steps to protect 

consumers from calls for which they have not consented to receive 

or for which they have revoked consent, as such calls are unlawful 

under the TCPA. This section also requires the FCC to ensure that 

consumers can always withdraw such consent, regardless of the 

means by which consent was granted. The Committee expects the 

FCC to make such withdrawal easy and intuitive for consumers. 

This section also requires the FCC to prevent circumvention or 

evasion of the TCPA. And the Committee expects, as is required 

under the FCC’s regulations today, that if the calls or texts are for 

telemarketing purposes, consumers must have provided prior express written consent. 

Under this section, the FCC is also required to ensure that callers making such calls and texts by automatic telephone dialing systems or using an artificial or prerecorded voice maintain records 

that demonstrate callers have the consent of the people they are 

calling and texting. 

Section 3. Consumer protections for exemptions 

This section requires the FCC to implement consumer protections on the FCC’s exempted classes of calls made or text messages 

sent using an automatic telephone dialing system or using an artificial or prerecorded voice. These consumer protections must specifically include limits on: (1) the classes of parties that may make 

such calls, (2) the classes of parties that may be called, and (3) the 

number of calls allowed under the exemption. The section requires 

the FCC to update its regulations within one year to implement 

these consumer protections. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
17 

Section 4. Report on reassigned number database 

This section requires the FCC to issue a report to Congress to 

ensure the FCC is quickly implementing the reassigned number 

database it voted to implement in December 2018. This section also 

codifies what many courts have found to be the appropriate definition of the term ‘‘called party.’’ The Committee expects that the 

delay of implementation of this clarification will not affect such definition for calls made before the effective date, including in jurisdictions that have already interpreted the meaning of the term ‘‘called 

party’’ consistent with this section. 

Section 5. Enforcement 

This section extends the statute of limitations by up to three 

years, and four years in cases of violations made ‘‘with the intent 

to cause such violation,’’ to give relevant authorities enough time 

to prosecute illegal robocallers. 

This section also permits the FCC to move forward with issuing 

a forfeiture against calls made in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227(b) 

without a citation when the caller acted with the ‘‘intent to cause 

such violations.’’ This section also provides an additional statutory 

clarification that no citation is needed to bring enforcement against 

a violation of the Truth and Caller ID Act, as is current FCC practice. Finally, this section allows the FCC to assess an additional 

$10,000 penalty for a robocall violation if the offender acted with 

intent to cause the violation. 

By limiting the extended enforcement period and the exemption 

from the citation requirement only for ‘‘violations with the intent 

to cause such violation’’ the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act would 

allow the FCC additional flexibility and penalties to pursue the 

worst of the worst: scammers and lead-generation mills intentionally violating restrictions on the use of automatic telephone dialing systems. Merely having ‘‘committed the act [that] violated the 

TCPA’’ would not be sufficient. For example, making a call using 

an automatic telephone dialing system without having updated a 

calling list to remove customers that have changed numbers or that 

revoked consent to receive otherwise prohibited calls would not 

reach the intent standard necessary to trigger the enhanced penalties. Rather, the calling party must knowingly use an automatic 

telephone dialing system to intentionally place calls to covered 

numbers without a reasonable basis for believing it had the necessary consent to call. It must also intend to violate the other applicable legal requirements, including any such requirements set 

forth in the TCPA’s statutory exceptions and the regulatory exemptions and clarifications issued by the FCC relating to the TCPA. 

If a caller intentionally uses an automatic telephone dialing system to call, without a reasonable basis to conclude that the intended recipient had consented to receive such calls, that action 

would constitute the intent to cause a violation, as long as the intent requirement was satisfied for the other elements of the TCPA. 

Similarly, if a caller uses an automatic telephone dialing system in 

violation of the restrictions in 47 U.S.C. 227(b), and in making 

those calls spoofs its number in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227(c), the 

spoofing would demonstrate intent to cause violations. 

The Committee recognizes that the phrasing of this standard is 

not a common phrasing in the U.S. Code, and is written specifically 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
18 

in light of the need to overcome the FCC’s interpretation of ‘‘willful’’, to ensure that this new enhanced enforcement authority is 

limited to truly intentional violations. The Committee intends for 

the FCC and the courts to interpret this standard in a straightforward manner consistent with the guidance expressed here. 

H.R. 3375 would not apply the heightened intent standard to violations other than violations of 47 U.S.C. 227(b). 

Section 6. Annual report to Congress 

This section requires the FCC to issue an annual report to Congress on illegal robocallers detailing its enforcement activities so 

Congress can make sure the robocalling problem is being addressed. The report also requires the FCC to provide Congress with 

proposals for decreasing the number of robocalls through additional 

legislation. 

Section 7. Regulations relating to effective call authentication technology 

This section requires all carriers, over time, to implement effective call authentication technology to make sure that caller-ID information is appropriately authenticated, and with no additional 

line item charge to consumers or small businesses. The Committee 

expects the FCC to require implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 

Framework as the primary method of effective call authentication. 

In implementing section 7(b)(3), the Committee expects the FCC 

to review all burdens and barriers to implementation of effective 

call authentication technology—including the expense of purchasing and/or installing the equipment and software necessary to 

deploy call authentication technology, as well as any other associated expenses that deployment of the technology will impose on a 

particular class of providers or class of calls. The Committee expects the FCC will delay implementation of this requirement for 

those affected classes of providers or calls for a time that is reasonably necessary to address identified burdens and barriers. The FCC 

shall enable as promptly as possible full participation for all providers and all types of calls to reach the highest attestation. 

Additionally, to the extent that some providers need additional 

time to implement effective call authentication technology, the FCC 

should seek to identify alternative effective methodologies for authenticating calls and protecting consumers from spoofed calls, at 

no additional line item charge to consumers or small businesses. 

The Committee expects that the FCC’s regulations will effectively help prevent subscribers from receiving calls from a caller 

using an unauthenticated number, at no additional line item 

charge to the subscriber, while also taking appropriate steps to ensure that calls are not inappropriately blocked because a provider 

is not yet subject to the requirements to implement the call-authentication technology. 

Section 8. STOP robocalls 

This section ensures that robocall blocking services offered on a 

default basis are provided with no additional line item charge on 

consumers’ bills and that consumers and callers have transparency 

as to when a number has been blocked and effective redress. The 

Committee expects the FCC, in consultation with call originators 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
19 

and voice service providers, to establish a process by which voice 

service providers, in as timely and efficient a manner as reasonable, will: 

(1) provide notice of blocked calls to subscribers and callers; 

and 

(2) provide a method for subscribers and callers to unblock 

improperly blocked calls. 

New subsection (k)(1)(B) created by this section specifies that 

these call blocking services are to be provided with no additional 

line item charge imposed by a provider on consumers receiving the 

services. It also specifies that there is to be no additional charge 

imposed by providers on callers for resolving complaints regarding 

calls erroneously blocked. In this regard, as one approach to reducing the incidence of erroneous blocking, the FCC may create, or direct development of, a nationwide database of callers and numbers 

verified as authentic, available for providers to consult. Callers who 

are concerned that their calls might be erroneously blocked, would 

have the opportunity to submit their names and numbers to the 

database, and might pay a reasonable charge for the benefits of 

doing so. This would not be considered a charge for resolving a 

complaint. 

Section 9. Provision of evidence of certain robocall violations to Attorney General 

This section requires the FCC to submit evidence of certain 

criminal robocall violations to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution and requires the FCC to publish a report annually 

disclosing how frequently the FCC submitted such evidence. 

Section 10. Protection from one-ring scams 

This section requires the FCC to initiate a proceeding to protect 

consumers from one-ring-scams, including by working with foreign 

governments to address one-ring scams and by incentivizing carriers to stop calls made to perpetrate one-ring scams, among other 

things. 

Section 11. Interagency working groups 

This section requires the Attorney General, in consultation with 

the FCC, to convene an interagency working group to study the enforcement of the TCPA. Among other things, the task force shall: 

(1) determine how federal law and budgetary constraints inhibit 

enforcement of the TCPA; (2) identify existing policies and programs, and recommend policies and programs, to increase coordination between federal departments and agencies and the states for 

enforcing and preventing violations of the TCPA; and (3) identify 

existing and potential international policies and programs to improve coordination between countries in enforcing the TCPA and 

similar laws. 

Section 12. Commission defined 

The section defines the term ‘‘Commission’’ to mean the Federal 

Communications Commission. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
20 

Section 13. Annual robocall report 

This section requires the FCC to register a consortium of companies engaged in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The FCC would be required then to create a certification process to identify whether carriers have or have 

not participated in a private-led effort to traceback the origin of a 

suspected unlawful robocall, and requires the FCC to publish a report on carriers participation in private-led efforts to traceback the 

origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. This section further allows 

the FCC to publish a list of voice service providers based on information obtained from the consortium and take appropriate enforcement action. 

Section 14. Hospital robocall protection group 

This section requires the FCC to establish a Hospital Robocall 

Working Group to, among other things, issue best practices to help 

voice service providers combat unlawful robocalls made to hospitals 

and to help hospitals protect themselves from robocalls. It also requires the FCC to initiate a proceeding to determine whether the 

voluntary adoption of the practices can be facilitated. 

XVI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, 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 matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—COMMON CARRIERS 

PART I—COMMON CARRIER REGULATION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 227. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— 

(1) The term ‘‘automatic telephone dialing system’’ means 

equipment which has the capacity— 

(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, 

using a random or sequential number generator; and 

(B) to dial such numbers. 

(2) The term ‘‘established business relationship’’, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning 

given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— 

(A) such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same 

terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
21 

(B) an established business relationship shall be subject 

to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph 

(2)(G)). 

(3) The term ‘‘telephone facsimile machine’’ means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, 

or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit 

that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe 

text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over 

a regular telephone line onto paper. 

(4) The term ‘‘telephone solicitation’’ means the initiation of 

a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the 

purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or 

services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term 

does not include a call or message (A) to any person with that 

person’s prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit organization. 

(5) The term ‘‘unsolicited advertisement’’ means any material 

advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person 

without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in 

writing or otherwise. 

(6) The term ‘‘called party’’ means, with respect to a call, the 

current subscriber or customary user of the telephone number to 

which the call is made, determined at the time when the call 

is made. 

(b) RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF AUTOMATED TELEPHONE EQUIP- MENT.— 

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States 

if the recipient is within the United States— 

(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of 

the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing 

system or an artificial or prerecorded voice— 

(i) to any emergency telephone line (including any 

‘‘911’’ line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency); 

(ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly 

home, or similar establishment; or 

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging 

service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile 

radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or 

any service for which the called party is charged for 

the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a 

debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States; 

(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the 

called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt 

owed to or guaranteed by the United States, or is exemptVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:58 Jul 27, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR173.XXX HR173

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
22 

ed by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph 

(2)(B); 

(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or 

other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an 

unsolicited advertisement, unless— 

(i) the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender 

with an established business relationship with the recipient; 

(ii) the sender obtained the number of the telephone 

facsimile machine through— 

(I) the voluntary communication of such number, within the context of such established business relationship, from the recipient of the unsolicited advertisement, or 

(II) a directory, advertisement, or site on the 

Internet to which the recipient voluntarily agreed 

to make available its facsimile number for public 

distribution, 

except that this clause shall not apply in the case of 

an unsolicited advertisement that is sent based on an 

established business relationship with the recipient 

that was in existence before the date of enactment of 

the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 if the sender possessed the facsimile machine number of the recipient 

before such date of enactment; and 

(iii) the unsolicited advertisement contains a notice 

meeting the requirements under paragraph (2)(D), 

except that the exception under clauses (i) and (ii) shall 

not apply with respect to an unsolicited advertisement 

sent to a telephone facsimile machine by a sender to whom 

a request has been made not to send future unsolicited advertisements to such telephone facsimile machine that 

complies with the requirements under paragraph (2)(E); or 

(D) to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such 

a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line 

business are engaged simultaneously. 

(2) REGULATIONS; EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS.—The 

Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of this subsection. In implementing the requirements of this subsection, the Commission— 

(A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice to which they have not given their prior 

express consent; 

(B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements 

of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe— 

(i) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; 

and 

(ii) such classes or categories of calls made for commercial purposes as the Commission determines— 

(I) will not adversely affect the privacy rights 

that this section is intended to protect; and 

(II) do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement; 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
23 

(C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements 

of paragraph (1)(A)(iii) of this subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that 

are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the 

interest of the privacy rights this section is intended to 

protect; 

(D) shall provide that a notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement complies with the requirements under 

this subparagraph only if— 

(i) the notice is clear and conspicuous and on the 

first page of the unsolicited advertisement; 

(ii) the notice states that the recipient may make a 

request to the sender of the unsolicited advertisement 

not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a 

telephone facsimile machine or machines and that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as 

determined by the Commission, with such a request 

meeting the requirements under subparagraph (E) is 

unlawful; 

(iii) the notice sets forth the requirements for a request under subparagraph (E); 

(iv) the notice includes— 

(I) a domestic contact telephone and facsimile 

machine number for the recipient to transmit such 

a request to the sender; and 

(II) a cost-free mechanism for a recipient to 

transmit a request pursuant to such notice to the 

sender of the unsolicited advertisement; the Commission shall by rule require the sender to provide 

such a mechanism and may, in the discretion of 

the Commission and subject to such conditions as 

the Commission may prescribe, exempt certain 

classes of small business senders, but only if the 

Commission determines that the costs to such 

class are unduly burdensome given the revenues 

generated by such small businesses; 

(v) the telephone and facsimile machine numbers 

and the cost-free mechanism set forth pursuant to 

clause (iv) permit an individual or business to make 

such a request at any time on any day of the week; 

and 

(vi) the notice complies with the requirements of 

subsection (d); 

(E) shall provide, by rule, that a request not to send future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile 

machine complies with the requirements under this subparagraph only if— 

(i) the request identifies the telephone number or 

numbers of the telephone facsimile machine or machines to which the request relates; 

(ii) the request is made to the telephone or facsimile 

number of the sender of such an unsolicited advertisement provided pursuant to subparagraph (D)(iv) or by 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
24 

any other method of communication as determined by 

the Commission; and 

(iii) the person making the request has not, subsequent to such request, provided express invitation or 

permission to the sender, in writing or otherwise, to 

send such advertisements to such person at such telephone facsimile machine; 

(F) may, in the discretion of the Commission and subject 

to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe, allow 

professional or trade associations that are tax-exempt nonprofit organizations to send unsolicited advertisements to 

their members in furtherance of the association’s tax-exempt purpose that do not contain the notice required by 

paragraph (1)(C)(iii), except that the Commission may take 

action under this subparagraph only— 

(i) by regulation issued after public notice and opportunity for public comment; and 

(ii) if the Commission determines that such notice 

required by paragraph (1)(C)(iii) is not necessary to 

protect the ability of the members of such associations 

to stop such associations from sending any future unsolicited advertisements; 

(G)(i) may, consistent with clause (ii), limit the duration 

of the existence of an established business relationship, 

however, before establishing any such limits, the Commission shall— 

(I) determine whether the existence of the exception 

under paragraph (1)(C) relating to an established business relationship has resulted in a significant number 

of complaints to the Commission regarding the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines; 

(II) determine whether a significant number of any 

such complaints involve unsolicited advertisements 

that were sent on the basis of an established business 

relationship that was longer in duration than the 

Commission believes is consistent with the reasonable 

expectations of consumers; 

(III) evaluate the costs to senders of demonstrating 

the existence of an established business relationship 

within a specified period of time and the benefits to recipients of establishing a limitation on such established business relationship; and 

(IV) determine whether with respect to small businesses, the costs would not be unduly burdensome; 

and 

(ii) may not commence a proceeding to determine whether to limit the duration of the existence of an established 

business relationship before the expiration of the 3-month 

period that begins on the date of the enactment of the 

Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005ø; and¿; 

(H) may restrict or limit the number and duration of 

calls made to a telephone number assigned to a cellular 

telephone service to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed 

by the United Statesø.¿; and 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
25 

(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. 

(3) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—A person or entity may, if 

otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, 

bring in an appropriate court of that State— 

(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or 

the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin 

such violation, 

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from 

such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each 

such violation, whichever is greater, or 

(C) both such actions. 

If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this 

subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the 

amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 

times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this 

paragraph. 

(4) NO CITATION REQUIRED TO SEEK FORFEITURE PENALTY.— 

Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of 

a violation made with the intent to cause such violation of this 

subsection. 

(5) 4-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty for violation of 

this subsection shall be determined or imposed against any person if the violation charged occurred more than— 

(A) 3 years prior to the date of issuance of the notice required by paragraph (3) of such section or the notice of apparent liability required by paragraph (4) of such section 

(as the case may be); or 

(B) if the violation was made with the intent to cause 

such violation, 4 years prior to the date of issuance of the 

notice required by paragraph (3) of such section or the notice of apparent liability required by paragraph (4) of such 

section (as the case may be). 

(6) INCREASED PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS WITH INTENT.—In 

the case of a forfeiture penalty for violation of this subsection 

that is determined or imposed under section 503(b), if such violation was made with the intent to cause such violation, the 

amount of such penalty shall be equal to an amount determined 

in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 

503(b)(2) plus an additional penalty not to exceed $10,000. 

(c) PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY RIGHTS.— 

(1) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING REQUIRED.—Within 120 days 

after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission 

shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to 

protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to 

avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 

The proceeding shall— 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
26 

(A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures (including the use of electronic databases, telephone network technologies, special directory markings, 

industry-based or company-specific ‘‘do not call’’ systems, 

and any other alternatives, individually or in combination) 

for their effectiveness in protecting such privacy rights, 

and in terms of their cost and other advantages and disadvantages; 

(B) evaluate the categories of public and private entities 

that would have the capacity to establish and administer 

such methods and procedures; 

(C) consider whether different methods and procedures 

may apply for local telephone solicitations, such as local 

telephone solicitations of small businesses or holders of 

second class mail permits; 

(D) consider whether there is a need for additional Commission authority to further restrict telephone solicitations, including those calls exempted under subsection 

(a)(3) of this section, and, if such a finding is made and 

supported by the record, propose specific restrictions to the 

Congress; and 

(E) develop proposed regulations to implement the methods and procedures that the Commission determines are 

most effective and efficient to accomplish the purposes of 

this section. 

(2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 9 months after the date of 

enactment of this section, the Commission shall conclude the 

rulemaking proceeding initiated under paragraph (1) and shall 

prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for 

protecting the privacy rights described in such paragraph in an 

efficient, effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of any additional charge to telephone subscribers. 

(3) USE OF DATABASE PERMITTED.—The regulations required 

by paragraph (2) may require the establishment and operation 

of a single national database to compile a list of telephone 

numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, and to make that compiled list and parts 

thereof available for purchase. If the Commission determines 

to require such a database, such regulations shall— 

(A) specify a method by which the Commission will select an entity to administer such database; 

(B) require each common carrier providing telephone exchange service, in accordance with regulations prescribed 

by the Commission, to inform subscribers for telephone exchange service of the opportunity to provide notification, in 

accordance with regulations established under this paragraph, that such subscriber objects to receiving telephone 

solicitations; 

(C) specify the methods by which each telephone subscriber shall be informed, by the common carrier that provides local exchange service to that subscriber, of (i) the 

subscriber’s right to give or revoke a notification of an objection under subparagraph (A), and (ii) the methods by 

which such right may be exercised by the subscriber; 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
27 

(D) specify the methods by which such objections shall 

be collected and added to the database; 

(E) prohibit any residential subscriber from being 

charged for giving or revoking such notification or for 

being included in a database compiled under this section; 

(F) prohibit any person from making or transmitting a 

telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any subscriber included in such database; 

(G) specify (i) the methods by which any person desiring 

to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain access to the database, by area code or local exchange prefix, 

as required to avoid calling the telephone numbers of subscribers included in such database; and (ii) the costs to be 

recovered from such persons; 

(H) specify the methods for recovering, from persons accessing such database, the costs involved in identifying, 

collecting, updating, disseminating, and selling, and other 

activities relating to, the operations of the database that 

are incurred by the entities carrying out those activities; 

(I) specify the frequency with which such database will 

be updated and specify the method by which such updating will take effect for purposes of compliance with the 

regulations prescribed under this subsection; 

(J) be designed to enable States to use the database 

mechanism selected by the Commission for purposes of administering or enforcing State law; 

(K) prohibit the use of such database for any purpose 

other than compliance with the requirements of this section and any such State law and specify methods for protection of the privacy rights of persons whose numbers are 

included in such database; and 

(L) require each common carrier providing services to 

any person for the purpose of making telephone solicitations to notify such person of the requirements of this section and the regulations thereunder. 

(4) CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR USE OF DATABASE METH- OD.—If the Commission determines to require the database 

mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall— 

(A) in developing procedures for gaining access to the 

database, consider the different needs of telemarketers 

conducting business on a national, regional, State, or local 

level; 

(B) develop a fee schedule or price structure for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such differences and— 

(i) reflect the relative costs of providing a national, 

regional, State, or local list of phone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations; 

(ii) reflect the relative costs of providing such lists 

on paper or electronic media; and 

(iii) not place an unreasonable financial burden on 

small businesses; and 

(C) consider (i) whether the needs of telemarketers operating on a local basis could be met through special markings of area white pages directories, and (ii) if such direcVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:58 Jul 27, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR173.XXX HR173

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
28 

tories are needed as an adjunct to database lists prepared 

by area code and local exchange prefix. 

(5) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—A person who has received 

more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by 

or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations 

prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted 

by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate 

court of that State— 

(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, 

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from 

such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for 

each such violation, whichever is greater, or 

(C) both such actions. 

It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought under 

this paragraph that the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to 

effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the 

regulations prescribed under this subsection. If the court finds 

that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its 

discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount 

equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under 

subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. 

(6) RELATION TO SUBSECTION (b).—The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to permit a communication prohibited by subsection (b). 

(d) TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL STANDARDS.— 

(1) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful for any person within 

the United States— 

(A) to initiate any communication using a telephone facsimile machine, or to make any telephone call using any 

automatic telephone dialing system, that does not comply 

with the technical and procedural standards prescribed 

under this subsection, or to use any telephone facsimile 

machine or automatic telephone dialing system in a manner that does not comply with such standards; or 

(B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send 

any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless 

such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the first 

page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and 

an identification of the business, other entity, or individual 

sending the message and the telephone number of the 

sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. 

(2) TELEPHONE FACSIMILE MACHINES.—The Commission shall 

revise the regulations setting technical and procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to require that any such 

machine which is manufactured after one year after the date 

of enactment of this section clearly marks, in a margin at the 

top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first page of 

each transmission, the date and time sent, an identification of 

the business, other entity, or individual sending the message, 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
29 

and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such 

business, other entity, or individual. 

(3) ARTIFICIAL OR PRERECORDED VOICE SYSTEMS.—The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural standards for 

systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded 

voice message via telephone. Such standards shall require 

that— 

(A) all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages (i) 

shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly the 

identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or after the message, 

state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual; and 

(B) any such system will automatically release the 

øcalled party’s line¿ telephone line called within 5 seconds 

of the time notification is transmitted to the system that 

the øcalled party has hung up¿ answering party has hung 

up, to allow the øcalled party’s line¿ telephone line called 

to be used to make or receive other calls. 

(e) PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF INACCURATE CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person within 

the United States, in connection with any telecommunications 

service or IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate 

caller identification information with the intent to defraud, 

cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless 

such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B). 

(2) PROTECTION FOR BLOCKING CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability of any 

caller identification service to transmit caller identification information. 

(3) REGULATIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the date 

of enactment of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the 

Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement this 

subsection. 

(B) CONTENT OF REGULATIONS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The regulations required under 

subparagraph (A) shall include such exemptions from 

the prohibition under paragraph (1) as the Commission determines is appropriate. 

(ii) SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES OR COURT ORDERS.—The regulations required under subparagraph (A) shall exempt from the 

prohibition under paragraph (1) transmissions in connection with— 

(I) any authorized activity of a law enforcement 

agency; or 

(II) a court order that specifically authorizes the 

use of caller identification manipulation. 

(5) PENALTIES.— 

(A) CIVIL FORFEITURE.— 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
30 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Any person that is determined by 

the Commission, in accordance with paragraphs (3) 

and (4) of section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. A forfeiture penalty under this paragraph shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of the forfeiture 

penalty determined under this paragraph shall not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that 

amount for each day of a continuing violation, except 

that the amount assessed for any continuing violation 

shall not exceed a total of $1,000,000 for any single act 

or failure to act. 

(ii) RECOVERY.—Any forfeiture penalty determined 

under clause (i) shall be recoverable pursuant to section 504(a). 

(iii) PROCEDURE.—No forfeiture liability shall be determined under clause (i) against any person unless 

such person receives the notice required by section 

503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4). Paragraph (5) of section 

503(b) shall not apply in the case of a violation of this 

subsection. 

(iv) ø2-YEAR¿ 4-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—No 

forfeiture penalty shall be determined or imposed 

against any person under clause (i) if the violation 

charged occurred more than ø2 years¿ 4 years prior to 

the date of issuance of the required notice or notice or 

apparent liability. 

(B) CRIMINAL FINE.—Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction thereof 

be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 3 

times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, 

in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for such a violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the provisions 

of section 501 relating to imprisonment or the imposition 

of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment. 

(6) ENFORCEMENT BY STATES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The chief legal officer of a State, or 

any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions 

on behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action, as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that 

State in an appropriate district court of the United States 

to enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties 

for violation of this subsection, whenever the chief legal officer or other State officer has reason to believe that the 

interests of the residents of the State have been or are 

being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of 

this subsection or a regulation under this subsection. 

(B) NOTICE.—The chief legal officer or other State officer 

shall serve written notice on the Commission of any civil 

action under subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such civil 

action. The notice shall include a copy of the complaint to 

be filed to initiate such civil action, except that if it is not 

feasible for the State to provide such prior notice, the 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
31 

State shall provide such notice immediately upon instituting such civil action. 

(C) AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE.—Upon receiving the notice required by subparagraph (B), the Commission shall 

have the right— 

(i) to intervene in the action; 

(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 

arising therein; and 

(iii) to file petitions for appeal. 

(D) CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of bringing any civil 

action under subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph 

shall prevent the chief legal officer or other State officer 

from exercising the powers conferred on that officer by the 

laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of 

witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence. 

(E) VENUE; SERVICE OR PROCESS.— 

(i) VENUE.—An action brought under subparagraph 

(A) shall be brought in a district court of the United 

States that meets applicable requirements relating to 

venue under section 1391 of title 28, United States 

Code. 

(ii) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—In an action brought 

under subparagraph (A)— 

(I) process may be served without regard to the 

territorial limits of the district or of the State in 

which the action is instituted; and 

(II) a person who participated in an alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action 

may be joined in the civil action without regard to 

the residence of the person. 

(7) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—This subsection does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United 

States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an 

intelligence agency of the United States. 

(8) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection: 

(A) CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.—The term 

‘‘caller identification information’’ means information provided by a caller identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call made using a telecommunications service 

or IP-enabled voice service. 

(B) CALLER IDENTIFICATION SERVICE.—The term ‘‘caller 

identification service’’ means any service or device designed to provide the user of the service or device with the 

telephone number of, or other information regarding the 

origination of, a call made using a telecommunications 

service or IP-enabled voice service. Such term includes 

automatic number identification services. 

(C) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘IP-enabled 

voice service’’ has the meaning given that term by section 

9.3 of the Commission’s regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
32 

those regulations may be amended by the Commission 

from time to time. 

(9) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this subsection or to 

the regulations under this subsection. 

(f) EFFECT ON STATE LAW.— (1) STATE LAW NOT PREEMPTED.—Except for the standards 

prescribed under subsection (d) and subject to paragraph (2) of 

this subsection, nothing in this section or in the regulations 

prescribed under this section shall preempt any State law that 

imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations 

on, or which prohibits— 

(A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements; 

(B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems; 

(C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; or 

(D) the making of telephone solicitations. 

(2) STATE USE OF DATABASES.—If, pursuant to subsection 

(c)(3), the Commission requires the establishment of a single 

national database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, require 

the use of any database, list, or listing system that does not 

include the part of such single national database that relates 

to such State. 

(g) ACTIONS BY STATES.— (1) AUTHORITY OF STATES.—Whenever the attorney general of 

a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person has engaged or is engaging in 

a pattern or practice of telephone calls or other transmissions 

to residents of that State in violation of this section or the regulations prescribed under this section, the State may bring a 

civil action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $500 in damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the court finds 

the defendant willfully or knowingly violated such regulations, 

the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the 

award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the 

amount available under the preceding sentence. 

(2) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS.—The district courts of the United States, the United States courts of 

any territory, and the District Court of the United States for 

the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over 

all civil actions brought under this subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also have jurisdiction to issue writs 

of mandamus, or orders affording like relief, commanding the 

defendant to comply with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed under this section, including the requirement that the defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a 

permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order shall 

be granted without bond. 

(3) RIGHTS OF COMMISSION.—The State shall serve prior written notice of any such civil action upon the Commission and 

provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, except in 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
33 

any case where such prior notice is not feasible, in which case 

the State shall serve such notice immediately upon instituting 

such action. The Commission shall have the right (A) to intervene in the action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all 

matters arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal. 

(4) VENUE; SERVICE OF PROCESS.—Any civil action brought 

under this subsection in a district court of the United States 

may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found 

or is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or is occurring, and process in such cases may be 

served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant 

or where the defendant may be found. 

(5) INVESTIGATORY POWERS.—For purposes of bringing any 

civil action under this subsection, nothing in this section shall 

prevent the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency 

designated by a State, from exercising the powers conferred on 

the attorney general or such official by the laws of such State 

to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations 

or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 

documentary and other evidence. 

(6) EFFECT ON STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.—Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in State court on the 

basis of an alleged violation of any general civil or criminal 

statute of such State. 

(7) LIMITATION.—Whenever the Commission has instituted a 

civil action for violation of regulations prescribed under this 

section, no State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by the Commission, subsequently institute a civil action 

against any defendant named in the Commission’s complaint 

for any violation as alleged in the Commission’s complaint. 

(8) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘‘attorney general’’ means the chief legal officer of a State. 

(h) JUNK FAX ENFORCEMENT REPORT.—The Commission shall 

submit an annual report to Congress regarding the enforcement 

during the past year of the provisions of this section relating to 

sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines, which report shall include— 

(1) the number of complaints received by the Commission 

during such year alleging that a consumer received an unsolicited advertisement via telephone facsimile machine in violation 

of the Commission’s rules; 

(2) the number of citations issued by the Commission pursuant to section 503 during the year to enforce any law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of unsolicited advertisements 

to telephone facsimile machines; 

(3) the number of notices of apparent liability issued by the 

Commission pursuant to section 503 during the year to enforce 

any law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of unsolicited 

advertisements to telephone facsimile machines; 

(4) for each notice referred to in paragraph (3)— 

(A) the amount of the proposed forfeiture penalty involved; 

(B) the person to whom the notice was issued; 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
34 

(C) the length of time between the date on which the 

complaint was filed and the date on which the notice was 

issued; and 

(D) the status of the proceeding; 

(5) the number of final orders imposing forfeiture penalties 

issued pursuant to section 503 during the year to enforce any 

law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines; 

(6) for each forfeiture order referred to in paragraph (5)— 

(A) the amount of the penalty imposed by the order; 

(B) the person to whom the order was issued; 

(C) whether the forfeiture penalty has been paid; and 

(D) the amount paid; 

(7) for each case in which a person has failed to pay a forfeiture penalty imposed by such a final order, whether the 

Commission referred such matter for recovery of the penalty; 

and 

(8) for each case in which the Commission referred such an 

order for recovery— 

(A) the number of days from the date the Commission 

issued such order to the date of such referral; 

(B) whether an action has been commenced to recover 

the penalty, and if so, the number of days from the date 

the Commission referred such order for recovery to the 

date of such commencement; and 

(C) whether the recovery action resulted in collection of 

any amount, and if so, the amount collected. 

(i) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ROBOCALLS AND TRANSMISSION OF MISLEADING OR INACCURATE CALLER IDENTIFICATION

INFORMATION.— 

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

of the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the 

Commission, after consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall submit to Congress a report regarding enforcement by the Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) during the preceding calendar year. 

(2) MATTERS FOR INCLUSION.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following: 

(A) The number of complaints received by the Commission during each of the preceding five calendar years, for 

each of the following categories: 

(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. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
35 

(C) The number of notices of apparent liability issued by 

the Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year to enforce subsections (b), (c), (d), and 

(e), and details of each such notice including any proposed 

forfeiture amount. 

(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year to enforce such subsections, and details of each such order including the forfeiture imposed. 

(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal fines 

collected, during the preceding calendar year, by the Commission or the Attorney General for violations of such subsections, and details of each case in which such a forfeiture 

penalty or criminal fine was collected. 

(F) Proposals for reducing the number of calls made in 

violation of such subsections. 

(G) An analysis of the contribution by providers of interconnected VoIP service and non-interconnected VoIP service 

that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-duration calls 

to the total number of calls made in violation of such subsections, and recommendations on how to address such contribution in order to decrease the total number of calls 

made in violation of such subsections. 

(3) NO ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIRED.—The Commission 

shall prepare the report required by paragraph (1) without requiring the provision of additional information from providers 

of telecommunications service or voice service (as defined in section 7(d) of the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act). 

(j) INFORMATION SHARING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of 

the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe regulations to establish a process that streamlines the 

ways in which a private entity may voluntarily share with the 

Commission information relating to— 

(A) a call made or a text message sent in violation of subsection (b); or 

(B) a call or text message for which misleading or inaccurate caller identification information was caused to be 

transmitted in violation of subsection (e). 

(2) TEXT MESSAGE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term 

‘‘text message’’ has the meaning given such term in subsection 

(e)(8). 

(k) ROBOCALL BLOCKING SERVICE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the 

enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall take a final 

agency action to ensure the robocall blocking services provided 

on an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to the Declaratory Ruling of the Commission in the matter of Advanced Methods to 

Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17– 

59; FCC 19–51; adopted on June 6, 2019)— 

(A) are provided with transparency and effective redress 

options for both— 

(i) consumers; and 

(ii) callers; and 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC
36 

(B) are provided with no additional line item charge to 

consumers and no additional charge to callers for resolving 

complaints related to erroneously blocked calls. 

(2) TEXT MESSAGE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term 

‘‘text message’’ has the meaning given such term in subsection 

(e)(8). 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with GALLEYS_HROC