59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–580 

KELSEY SMITH ACT 

MAY 23, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

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

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4889] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 4889) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to 

require providers of a covered service to provide call location information concerning the telecommunications device of a user of such 

service to an investigative or law enforcement officer in an emergency situation involving risk of death or serious physical injury or 

in order to respond to the user’s call for emergency services, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 4 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 4 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 5 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 5 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 5 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 7 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 7 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 7 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 7 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 8 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 13 

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 ‘‘Kelsey Smith Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REQUIRED EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF CALL LOCATION INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)— 

(A) in paragraph (4), by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 

clauses (i) through (iii), respectively; 

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as subparagraphs (A) 

through (D), respectively; 

(C) by striking ‘‘Nothing in this section’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) PERMITTED DISCLOSURES.—Nothing in this section’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) REQUIRED EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF CALL LOCATION INFORMATION TO

LAW ENFORCEMENT.—Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), at the request of an investigative or law enforcement officer, a provider of a covered 

service shall provide to such officer the call location information, or the best 

available location information, of a telecommunications device that is— 

‘‘(A) used to place a 9–1–1 call requesting emergency assistance; or 

‘‘(B) reasonably believed to be in the possession of an individual that the 

law enforcement officer reasonably believes is in an emergency situation 

that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm to the individual. 

‘‘(3) HOLD HARMLESS.—No cause of action shall lie in any court nor shall any 

civil or administrative proceeding be commenced by a governmental entity 

against any provider of a covered service, or its directors, officers, employees, 

agents, or vendors, for providing in good faith call location information or other 

information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with paragraph (2) and any 

regulations promulgated under such paragraph.’’; 

(2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘subsection (d)(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d)(1)(D)’’; and 

(3) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) COVERED SERVICE.—The term ‘covered service’ means— 

‘‘(A) a commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332); or 

‘‘(B) an IP-enabled voice service (as defined in section 7 of the Wireless 

Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615b)). 

‘‘(9) INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.—The term ‘investigative 

or law enforcement officer’ has the meaning given such term in section 2510 of 

title 18, United States Code.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 4889, Kelsey Smith Act, requires providers of a certain 

wireless services to provide call location information for the device 

of a person that law enforcement believes to be in an emergency 

situation with a risk of death or serious physical injury. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

When a cell phone connects to or communicates with the network, whether to make a call, download data, or even receive a 

push notification or background update, the cell provider notes the 

approximate location using the closest cell tower and the device’s 

proximity to that tower. Current federal law permits telecommunications carriers to use, disclose, or permit access by emergency personnel to call location information for users of their service in order 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1 47 U.S.C. 222(d)(4)(A). 

2 47 U.S.C. 222(d)(4)(B). 

3http://kelseysarmy.org/#ks-act. 

to respond to a call for emergency services.1 In addition, it permits 

carriers to provide location information to the user’s legal guardian 

or immediate family when there is an emergency situation with 

risk of death or serious physical harm.2 However, federal law does 

not compel disclosure of that information to law enforcement, leaving the decision whether to disclose to the discretion of the carrier. 

In 2007, Kelsey Smith was abducted from a Target parking lot 

in Kansas in broad daylight while shopping for a birthday gift for 

her boyfriend. She was 18 years old, and just nine days past her 

high school graduation, preparing to attend college in the fall. 

While the search for her began immediately, law enforcement encountered difficulty in obtaining location information from her cell 

phone provider. Because the service provider did not have clear 

legal guidance for the appropriate course of action, the provider 

spent a great deal of time considering the various legal implications of divulging that information. It eventually required a subpoena to obtain the information. After four days of searching, law 

enforcement located her body within 45 minutes of receiving the 

device location data. Kelsey had been sexually assaulted and murdered, her body left in the woods. Following her death, Kelsey’s 

parents became committed to ensuring that no other family would 

endure this unnecessary delay and prolonged agony of waiting. As 

Kelsey’s mother, Melissa Smith, testified before the Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology, perhaps Kelsey laid in the 

woods for four days because the law needed to change. 

This legislation would allow law enforcement to access location 

data more quickly in order to better react to emergencies and locate and save potential victims more quickly. Commercial mobile 

service providers would be required to provide call location information to law enforcement when the device has been used to call 

9–1–1 for emergency assistance, or for a device that is in the possession of a user that law enforcement believes to be in an emergency situation involving risk of death or serious physical harm. In 

addition, the legislation limits the liability for carriers that, in good 

faith, are compelled to provide location data in compliance with the 

law. 

To date, similar legislation has passed in 22 states.3 The state 

versions of the Kelsey Smith Act have already helped to save lives, 

including a case in Kelsey Smith’s home state of Kansas where a 

vehicle was stolen from an ATM with a baby in the backseat. By 

tracking the device that remained in the car, police were able to 

locate the vehicle within 45 minutes of the crime, and the baby was 

recovered, unharmed. In instances like this, every second counts, 

and any delay while seeking a warrant or sworn statement could 

mean the difference between whether a victim is found dead or 

alive. 

The Kelsey Smith Act is silent as to how state and local law enforcement may exercise the powers granted by this Act. As employees and political subdivisions of the states, law enforcement must 

abide by the policies and procedures established within their states 

that govern their conduct. The Kelsey Smith Act establishes an obVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:07 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR580.XXX HR580

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

ligation on wireless carriers; how and when law enforcement avails 

itself of the tools provided in this Act are matters of state law. 

HEARINGS

On April 13, 2016, the Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology held a hearing on H.R. 4889. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Melissa Smith, mother of Kelsey Smith, Treasurer, Kelsey 

Smith Foundation. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Representative Yoder introduced H.R. 4889 on March 23, 2016. 

On April 18 and 19, 2016, the Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology met in open markup session. Chairman Walden offered an amendment incorporating liability protection for covered 

providers who provided location data in compliance with the Act. 

The amendment was accepted by voice vote. The Subcommittee forwarded H.R. 4889 as amended, to the full Committee by a voice 

vote. 

On April 26, 27, and 28, 2016, the full Committee on Energy and 

Commerce met in open markup session, where Subcommittee 

Chairman Walden offered an amendment making clarifying 

changes to the liability language. The amendment was adopted, 

and the Committee ordered H.R. 4889 reported to the House, as 

amended, by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

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

to report legislation and amendments thereto. No recorded votes 

were taken on this legislation. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal and objective of H.R. 4889 is to ensure that providers 

of certain wireless services provide location data to law enforcement when there is an emergency that involves risk of death or serious physical harm. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 4889 

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 4889 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

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. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2016. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4889, the Kelsey Smith 

Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen Gramp. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 4889—Kelsey Smith Act 

H.R. 4889 would require telecommunications providers, upon request, to share data about the location of a call placed from a mobile phone or through an Internet voice service under certain circumstances. Under the bill, such requests for location information 

could only be made by a law enforcement officer who is responding 

to an emergency call or an emergency situation where a person is 

in serious physical danger. Furthermore, governmental entities 

would not be allowed to pursue civil or administrative actions 

against entities or individuals that provide such information in 

good faith. 

Based on information from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CBO estimates that the regulatory activities necessary to implement H.R. 4889 would have no significant effect on 

the agency’s workload or costs. Moreover, under current law, the 

FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of its 

regulatory activities each year. Therefore, CBO estimates that the 

net cost to implement H.R. 4889 would be negligible, assuming annual appropriation actions consistent with the agency’s authorities. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Because enacting H.R. 4889 would not affect direct spending or 

revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 4889 would not increase net direct spending or 

on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 4889 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by prohibiting public entities from initiating civil or administrative proceedings against service providers that relay requested information 

and other assistance. CBO estimates that the cost, if any, for public 

entities to comply with the mandate would be minimal and well 

below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($77 million in 

2016, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 4889 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in 

UMRA by requiring telecommunications providers to share the location of cell phones in emergency situations. Currently, telecommunications providers supply cell phone location data upon request when certain internal criteria of the providers are met or 

when law enforcement officials present a warrant for the information. This bill would require telecommunications providers to supply the call location data immediately at the request of law enforcement officials when the cell phone has been used to place a 9–1– 

1 call requesting emergency assistance, or when the cell phone is 

believed to be in the possession of someone law enforcement believes is in a serious emergency situation. Because telecommunications companies already frequently supply location information to 

law enforcement officials, the incremental cost of the mandate 

would be small. 

In addition, the bill would prohibit plaintiffs from filing a civil 

action against telecommunication providers for supplying location 

information in compliance with the bill. By eliminating an existing 

right to seek compensation for damages, the bill would impose a 

private-sector mandate. The cost of the mandate would be the forgone net value of awards and settlements that would have been 

awarded for such claims in the absence of the bill. A search of the 

available literature suggests that few of those specific types of lawsuits have been brought against providers under current law, and 

that most cases involving the release of location information have 

been brought against the government or government officials. Although there is some uncertainty about the number of claims 

against telecommunications providers that would be successful and 

about the value of awards or settlements in those cases, because 

of the narrow scope of the cases involved CBO expects that the 

costs in any one year would probably fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million, 

in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Kathleen Gramp 

(for federal costs), Rachel Austin (for state and local mandates), 

and Logan Smith (for private-sector mandates). The estimate was 

approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director of 

Budget Analysis. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

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. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 4889 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 4889 does not direct 

any rule making within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551, as specified 

in Section 2(a). 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

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. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Kelsey 

Smith Act.’’ 

Section 2. Required emergency disclosure of call location information to law enforcement 

Section 2 amends Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 

by adding a new subsection (d)(2) that requires covered service providers to provide location data or call location information to law 

enforcement officers at their request for the device of a user that 

law enforcement believes to be in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm, or when the device was used to place a call to 9–1–1 requesting emergency assistance. 

The narrow scope of the legislation is intended to prevent abuse 

or overreach. By limiting it to true emergency situations where a 

victim is at risk of death or serious injury, law enforcement cannot 

use the law to obtain location information for routine, non-emergency investigations or for any other purpose. In addition, the Act 

only grants access to call location information and triangulated location data—the legislation would not allow law enforcement to obtain call history, any data on the device, texts or emails from the 

device owner, or any other information connected to the device. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

This legislation is intended to only address the specific situation of 

providing law enforcement with a tool to locate a device and presumably the user. Moreover, the legislation establishes an obligation on wireless carriers; how and when law enforcement avails 

itself of the tools provided in this Act are matters of state law. 

In addition, the legislation states that there shall be no cause of 

action against any provider of a covered service that provides, in 

good faith, location information in accordance with this Act. This 

hold harmless language helps to protect the carriers from liability 

so long as they are in compliance with the Act, and further takes 

the decision making out of the hands of service providers and 

places it with law enforcement. Given the unique skill sets of law 

enforcement for making determinations as to what constitutes an 

emergency, it is appropriate that they are tasked with this responsibility. 

The Act defines ‘‘covered service’’ as a commercial mobile service, 

or an IP enabled voice service. The Act also defines ‘‘investigative 

or law enforcement officer’’ through cross-reference to section 2510 

of title 18 of the U.S. Code. 

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. 222. PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to 

protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, 

and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier. 

(b) CONFIDENTIALITY OF CARRIER INFORMATION.—A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information 

from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, 

and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts. 

(c) CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION.— 

(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.—Except as required by law or with the approval of the 

customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains 

customer proprietary network information by virtue of its proVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:07 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR580.XXX HR580

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

vision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, 

or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of 

such telecommunications service, including the publishing of 

directories. 

(2) DISCLOSURE ON REQUEST BY CUSTOMERS.—A telecommunications carrier shall disclose customer proprietary 

network information, upon affirmative written request by the 

customer, to any person designated by the customer. 

(3) AGGREGATE CUSTOMER INFORMATION.—A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary 

network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service may use, disclose, or permit access to 

aggregate customer information other than for the purposes 

described in paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, 

disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information 

other than for purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it 

provides such aggregate information to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request therefor. 

(d) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) PERMITTED DISCLOSURES.—Nothing in this section prohibits a telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or 

permitting access to customer proprietary network information 

obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly 

through its agents— 

ø(1)¿ (A) to initiate, render, bill, and collect for telecommunications services; 

ø(2)¿ (B) to protect the rights or property of the carrier, 

or to protect users of those services and other carriers from 

fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, 

such services; 

ø(3)¿ (C) to provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, 

or administrative services to the customer for the duration 

of the call, if such call was initiated by the customer and 

the customer approves of the use of such information to 

provide such service; and 

ø(4)¿ (D) to provide call location information concerning 

the user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is 

defined in section 332(d)) or the user of an IP-enabled 

voice service (as such term is defined in section 7 of the 

Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 

(47 U.S.C. 615b))— 

ø(A)¿ (i) to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider or emergency dispatch 

provider, public safety, fire service, or law enforcement 

official, or hospital emergency or trauma care facility, 

in order to respond to the user’s call for emergency 

services; 

ø(B)¿ (ii) to inform the user’s legal guardian or 

members of the user’s immediate family of the user’s 

location in an emergency situation that involves the 

risk of death or serious physical harm; or 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

ø(C)¿ (iii) to providers of information or database 

management services solely for purposes of assisting 

in the delivery of emergency services in response to an 

emergency. 

(2) REQUIRED EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF CALL LOCATION IN- FORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.—Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), at the request of an investigative or law 

enforcement officer, a provider of a covered service shall provide 

to such officer the call location information, or the best available location information, of a telecommunications device that 

is— 

(A) used to place a 9–1–1 call requesting emergency assistance; or 

(B) reasonably believed to be in the possession of an individual that the law enforcement officer reasonably believes 

is in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death 

or serious physical harm to the individual. 

(3) HOLD HARMLESS.—No cause of action shall lie in any 

court nor shall any civil or administrative proceeding be commenced by a governmental entity against any provider of a covered service, or its directors, officers, employees, agents, or vendors, for providing in good faith call location information or 

other information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with 

paragraph (2) and any regulations promulgated under such 

paragraph. 

(e) SUBSCRIBER LIST INFORMATION.—Notwithstanding subsections 

(b), (c), and (d), a telecommunications carrier that provides telephone exchange service shall provide subscriber list information 

gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service on a timely 

and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable 

rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request for the 

purpose of publishing directories in any format. 

(f) AUTHORITY TO USE LOCATION INFORMATION.—For purposes of 

subsection (c)(1), without the express prior authorization of the customer, a customer shall not be considered to have approved the use 

or disclosure of or access to— 

(1) call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section 

332(d)) or the user of an IP-enabled voice service (as such term 

is defined in section 7 of the Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615b)), other than in accordance with øsubsection (d)(4)¿ subsection (d)(1)(D); or 

(2) automatic crash notification information to any person 

other than for use in the operation of an automatic crash notification system. 

(g) SUBSCRIBER LISTED AND UNLISTED INFORMATION FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.—Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c), and (d), a 

telecommunications carrier that provides telephone exchange service or a provider of IP-enabled voice service (as such term is defined in section 7 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615b)) shall provide information described 

in subsection (i)(3)(A) (including information pertaining to subscribers whose information is unlisted or unpublished) that is in its 

possession or control (including information pertaining to subscribers of other carriers) on a timely and unbundled basis, under 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions to 

providers of emergency services, and providers of emergency support services, solely for purposes of delivering or assisting in the 

delivery of emergency services. 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section: 

(1) CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION.—The 

term ‘‘customer proprietary network information’’ means— 

(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical 

configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of 

use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any 

customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is 

made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and 

(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received 

by a customer of a carrier; 

except that such term does not include subscriber list information. 

(2) AGGREGATE INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘aggregate customer information’’ means collective data that relates to a 

group or category of services or customers, from which individual customer identities and characteristics have been removed. 

(3) SUBSCRIBER LIST INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘subscriber 

list information’’ means any information— 

(A) identifying the listed names of subscribers of a carrier and such subscribers’ telephone numbers, addresses, 

or primary advertising classifications (as such classifications are assigned at the time of the establishment of such 

service), or any combination of such listed names, numbers, addresses, or classifications; and 

(B) that the carrier or an affiliate has published, caused 

to be published, or accepted for publication in any directory format. 

(4) PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT.—The term ‘‘public safety answering point’’ means a facility that has been designated 

to receive emergency calls and route them to emergency service 

personnel. 

(5) EMERGENCY SERVICES.—The term ‘‘emergency services’’ 

means 9–1–1 emergency services and emergency notification 

services. 

(6) EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SERVICES.—The term ‘‘emergency notification services’’ means services that notify the public of an emergency. 

(7) EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES.—The term ‘‘emergency 

support services’’ means information or data base management 

services used in support of emergency services. 

(8) COVERED SERVICE.—The term ‘‘covered service’’ means— 

(A) a commercial mobile service (as defined in section 

332); or 

(B) an IP-enabled voice service (as defined in section 7 of 

the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 

1999 (47 U.S.C. 615b)). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

(9) INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.—The term 

‘‘investigative or law enforcement officer’’ has the meaning given 

such term in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(13) 

1Mother of Murdered Teen Pushes for Law Forcing Cellphone Carriers to Release Life-Saving 

Information, Fox News (Apr. 13, 2014) (online at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/ 

mother-murdered-teen-pushes-for-law-mandating-cell-phone-carriers-to-release.html). 2 47 U.S.C. 222(d)(4)(B). 

3 Id. 

4The Kelsey Smith Story—A Story Of Heartache & Hope, Bryan Bentley, Plymouth-Canton 

Patch (May 21, 2014) (online at http://patch.com/michigan/plymouth-mi/bp—the-kelsey-smithstory-a-story-of-heartache-hope). 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Democrats and Republicans agree that in emergency situations, 

law enforcement should have quick access to the information necessary to save lives. Democrats also believe, however, that new 

powers granted to law enforcement should also be accompanied by 

key public safeguards and privacy protections—especially if those 

protections will not slow down investigations. H.R. 4889, the 

‘‘Kelsey Smith Act,’’ would require wireless carriers to turn over 

the location data of individuals in certain emergency situations. 

This bill, however, does not include after-the-fact procedural checks 

that were part of a bipartisan agreement in the 113th Congress to 

help preserve the privacy of consumers without slowing the investigation. 

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

H.R. 4889 is named for Kelsey Ann Smith, who was abducted as 

she left a discount retail department store one evening in 2007. 

Law enforcement officials found Kelsey’s body four days later by 

using information obtained from her wireless carrier.1 This bill was 

introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R–KS) on March 23, 2016. 

Rather than use the permissive standard contained in current 

law, H.R. 4889 would require wireless carriers to furnish to law enforcement officials the ‘‘best available location information’’ upon 

request. Specifically, wireless carriers would be required to turn 

over data for (i) a device used to make a 9-1-1 call or (ii) a device 

reasonably believed to be in the possession of an individual that 

law enforcement reasonably believes is in an emergency situation 

involving the risk of death or serious physical harm. 

Presently under the Communications Act, wireless carriers may 

provide location data to a user’s family members during an ‘‘emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical 

harm.’’ 2 In responding to a request, the wireless carrier must determine whether a given situation is an emergency that involves 

risk of death or serious bodily harm.3

At the time of Ms. Smith’s abduction, her wireless carrier did not 

have a policy detailing how to determine if an emergency permitted 

disclosure under the law.4 As a result, it took the carrier four days 

to turn over her cell phone’s location data to law enforcement. During the 113th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

considered another version of the Kelsey Smith Act. Several DemoVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:07 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR580.XXX HR580

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

5 H.R. 1575 (113th Cong.). 

6See e.g., Letter from ACLU to Chairman Fred Upton and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2014). 

cratic members of the Committee and constitutional experts raised 

concerns that the version of the bill being considered risked violating consumers’ privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. The Committee amended the bill to address some of these concerns while 

preserving law enforcement’s expedited access to location data. 

In the 113th Congress, the Committee adopted Democratic 

amendments that would require law enforcement to make a showing closer in line with the standard required under the Fourth 

Amendment only after a carrier was compelled to hand over a private citizen’s location data.5 After accepting these amendments, the 

Committee favorably reported the bill. Even with these improvements, civil liberties groups continued to raise concerns that the 

amended bill could enable the government to exercise sweeping 

new powers to the detriment of personal privacy and contrary to 

the Fourth Amendment.6

Despite these continued criticisms, the version of the bill introduced by Rep. Yoder in this Congress omits even the specific protections that were adopted in the last Congress. Accordingly, the 

version of H.R. 4889 being considered in this Congress takes a step 

back from the bipartisan work done in the last Congress. 

During open markup of H.R. 4889 before both the Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democrats offered an amendment to H.R. 

4889 to reflect the bipartisan work on the Kelsey Smith Act from 

the 113th Congress. That amendment would have included the key 

safeguards to protect the privacy of consumers while still meeting 

the public safety goals of the Act. The Majority was not interested 

in adding back even the safeguards they agreed to in the last Congress. 

Democrats have always been willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to improve this bill. But these safeguards that protect consumer 

privacy are necessary before this bill can become law. Law enforcement can receive these new tools to make us safer without the public having to sacrifice basic civil rights. 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., 

Ranking Member, Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

ANNA G. ESHOO, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS