IB 
Union Calendar No. 133 
116TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3375 
[Report No. 116–173] 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the prohibitions on 
making robocalls, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JUNE 20, 2019 
Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Penn-
sylvania, and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
JULY 23, 2019 
Additional sponsors: Ms. ESHOO, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. 
MCNERNEY, Mr. WELCH, Mr. LUJA´N, Mr. TONKO, Ms. CLARKE of New 
York, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. CA´RDENAS, Mrs. DINGELL, 
Mr. VEASEY, Mr. MCEACHIN, Mr. SOTO, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. LONG, 
Mr. WALBERG, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. RODGERS of Wash-
ington, Mr. BURGESS, Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, Ms. UNDERWOOD, Mr. 
DOGGETT, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. MCADAMS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 
Mr. ENGEL, Mr. RUSH, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. SHIMKUS, 
Mr. FLORES, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. GRIFFITH, 
Ms. DEGETTE, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. KIM, Mr. BISHOP of Geor-
gia, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. ROSE of New York, 
Mr. BRINDISI, Mr. COHEN, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. CARBAJAL, Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FULCHER, Mr. UPTON, 
Mr. OLSON, Mr. COOPER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. CUELLAR, Ms. NORTON, 
Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, 
Ms. FINKENAUER, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. 
LOWENTHAL, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. KINZINGER, 
Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. MENG, Mr. DELGADO, Mr. THOMPSON of Cali-
fornia, Mr. BOST, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. FORTEN-
BERRY, Ms. DEAN, Mr. CRIST, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. TRONE, Mr. 
FLEISCHMANN, Mr. CISNEROS, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 
LANGEVIN, Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, Mr. COX of California, Mr. 
GOTTHEIMER, Ms. WILD, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. CASE, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
LEVIN of Michigan, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. PAS-
CRELL, Mr. HORSFORD, Mrs. TRAHAN, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. PA-
NETTA, Mrs. MCBATH, Ms. SPANBERGER, Mr. HECK, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. 
MALINOWSKI, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. ALLRED, Ms. SLOTKIN, 
Mr. PETERS, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. PETERSON, 
Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. LEVIN of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. LARSEN 
of Washington, Mr. RYAN, Mr. KIND, Ms. SHALALA, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. 
WITTMAN, 
Ms. 
SHERRILL, 
Mr. 
LYNCH, 
Mr. 
COURTNEY, 
Mr. 
DESAULNIER, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. 
SIRES, Mr. LEWIS, Ms. BARRAGA´N, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. 
DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Mr. SWALWELL 
of California, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. SMITH of 
Nebraska, Mr. NORCROSS, Mr. ROUDA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. AXNE, Mr. 
SERRANO, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. JOHNSON of 
Ohio, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. 
NEGUSE, Ms. SA´NCHEZ, Mrs. WALORSKI, Ms. HILL of California, Mr. 
SCHNEIDER, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. MEADOWS, Mrs. TORRES of 
California, Mr. KEATING, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. BEYER, Ms. TORRES 
SMALL of New Mexico, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BALDERSON, 
Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, Mr. CLINE, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, 
Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. PAPPAS, Mr. JOHN-
SON of Georgia, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. LAWSON of Florida, Ms. BLUNT ROCH-
ESTER, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. COSTA, Mr. MORELLE, Ms. 
BONAMICI, 
Ms. 
CHENEY, 
Mr. 
BURCHETT, 
Mr. 
STEWART, 
Mr. 
RIGGLEMAN, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 
MITCHELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. CURTIS, Ms. SCANLON, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. HAGEDORN, Mr. WILSON of South Caro-
lina, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. PORTER, Mr. GREEN of 
Texas, Mrs. LURIA, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. KILMER, Ms. HOULAHAN, Ms. 
FRANKEL, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Mr. BRADY, Mr. 
LAHOOD, Mr. HURD of Texas, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. HARDER of 
California, Mr. BUDD, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee, 
Mr. MEUSER, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Ms. TITUS, Mr. LAMB, Mr. JOHN-
SON of South Dakota, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, Mr. 
GOSAR, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mrs. MURPHY, Mr. KELLER, Mr. 
HIGGINS of New York, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Mr. CLAY, Ms. FUDGE, 
Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, and Mr. 
GARAMENDI 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:30 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
JULY 23, 2019 
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 20, 2019] 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
A BILL 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the 
prohibitions on making robocalls, and for other purposes. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
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 section 
227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) 
remain effective, the Commission shall prescribe such regu-
lations, or amend such existing regulations, regarding calls 
made or text messages sent using automatic telephone dial-
ing systems and calls made using an artificial or 
prerecorded voice as will, in the judgment of the Commis-
sion, clarify descriptions of automatic telephone dialing 
systems and ensure that— 
(1) the consumer protection and privacy pur-
poses 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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of sub-
section (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 ex-
empted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of sub-
section (b) of such section, for such calls and text mes-
sages, for a period of time that will permit the Com-
mission to effectuate the consumer protection and pri-
vacy 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 Commu-
nications 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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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 ex-
isting regulations, as necessary to ensure that such exemp-
tion 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 amend-
ments 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.— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(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 sta-
tus 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 De-
cember 12, 2018). 
(2) CONTENTS.—The report required by para-
graph (1) shall describe the efforts of the Commission, 
as described in such Second Report and Order, to en-
sure— 
(A) the establishment of a database of tele-
phone 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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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 
(C) that if the person makes the demonstra-
tion 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 in-
accurate result. 
(b) CLARIFICATION
OF
DEFINITION
OF
CALLED 
PARTY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 227(a) of the Commu-
nications 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, deter-
mined 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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(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 Tar-
get 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(4) NO
CITATION
REQUIRED
TO
SEEK
FOR-
FEITURE 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.’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(2) FOR CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION 
VIOLATIONS.—Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iii) of the Com-
munications 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.—Not-
withstanding paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no for-
feiture penalty for violation of this subsection shall be 
determined or imposed against any person if the vio-
lation 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 re-
quired by paragraph (4) of such section (as the 
case may be); or 
‘‘(B) if the violation was made with the in-
tent to cause such violation, 4 years prior to the 
date of issuance of the notice required by para-
graph (3) of such section or the notice of appar-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
ent 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 Commu-
nications 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(6) INCREASED PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS WITH 
INTENT.—In the case of a forfeiture penalty for viola-
tion 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.’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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: 
‘‘(i) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ROBOCALLS 
AND TRANSMISSION OF MISLEADING OR INACCURATE CALL-
ER 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 consulta-
tion with the Federal Trade Commission, shall submit 
to Congress a report regarding enforcement by the 
Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) dur-
ing the preceding calendar year. 
‘‘(2) MATTERS FOR INCLUSION.—Each report re-
quired 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 cat-
egories: 
‘‘(i) Complaints alleging that a con-
sumer received a call in violation of sub-
section (b) or (c). 
‘‘(ii) Complaints alleging that a con-
sumer received a call in violation of the 
standards prescribed under subsection (d). 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
and details of each case in which such a for-
feiture 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 ad-
ditional information from providers of telecommuni-
cations service or voice service (as defined in section 
7(d) of the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act).’’. 
SEC. 7. REGULATIONS RELATING TO EFFECTIVE CALL AU-
THENTICATION TECHNOLOGY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall prescribe reg-
ulations in WC Docket No. 17–97. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE CALL AUTHEN-
TICATION TECHNOLOGY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The regulations required by 
subsection (a) shall— 
(A) require providers of voice service to im-
plement, within six months after the date on 
which such regulations are prescribed, an effec-
tive call authentication technology; and 
(B) ensure that voice service providers that 
have implemented the effective authentication 
technology attest that such provider has deter-
mined, when originating calls on behalf of a call-
ing party, that the calling party number trans-
mitted 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 capabili-
ties. 
(3) EXEMPTION.— 
(A) BURDENS
AND
BARRIERS
TO
IMPLE-
MENTATION.—The Commission— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(i) shall include findings on any bur-
dens or barriers to the implementation re-
quired in paragraph (1), including— 
(I) for providers of voice service to 
the extent the networks of such pro-
viders use time-division multiplexing; 
and 
(II) for small providers of voice 
service and those in rural areas; and 
(ii) in connection with such findings, 
may exempt from the 6-month time period 
described in paragraph (1)(A), for a reason-
able period of time a class of providers of 
voice service, or type of voice calls, as nec-
essary 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 Commis-
sion shall take all steps necessary to address any 
issues in the findings and enable as promptly as 
possible full participation of all classes of pro-
viders of voice service and types of voice calls to 
receive the highest level of attestation. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(C) ALTERNATIVE
METHODOLOGIES.—The 
Commission shall identify or develop, in con-
sultation with small providers of service and 
those in rural areas, alternative effective meth-
odologies 
to 
protect 
customers 
from 
unauthenticated calls during any exemption 
given under subparagraph (A)(ii). Such meth-
odologies shall be provided with no additional 
line item charge to customers. 
(D) REVISION OF EXEMPTION.—Not less fre-
quently than annually after the first exemption 
is issued under this paragraph, the Commission 
shall consider revising or extending any exemp-
tion made, may revise such exemption, and shall 
issue a public notice with regard to whether such 
exemption remains necessary. 
(4) ACCURATE
IDENTIFICATION.—The regula-
tions required by subsection (a) shall include guide-
lines that providers of voice service may use as part 
of the implementation of effective call authentication 
technology under paragraph (1) to take steps to en-
sure the calling party is accurately identified. 
(5) NO
ADDITIONAL
COST
TO
CONSUMERS
OR 
SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMERS.—The regulations re-
quired by subsection (a) shall prohibit providers of 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
voice service from making any additional line item 
charges to consumer or small business customer sub-
scribers 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 Commis-
sion shall— 
(A) in the regulations required by sub-
section (a), consistent with the regulations pre-
scribed 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- 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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 pre-
scribed, 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 authentica-
tion technology, as being implemented under sub-
section (b), in addressing all aspects of call authen-
tication. 
(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 fur-
nishes voice communications to an end user using re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
sources 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 fac-
simile machine, computer, or other device to a 
telephone facsimile machine; and 
(B) without limitation, any service that en-
ables real-time, two-way voice communications, 
including any service that requires internet pro-
tocol-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. 8. STOP ROBOCALLS. 
(a) INFORMATION SHARING REGARDING ROBOCALL 
AND SPOOFING VIOLATIONS.—Section 227 of the Commu-
nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by sec-
tion 6, is further amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(j) INFORMATION SHARING.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months 
after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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 mis-
leading or inaccurate caller identification infor-
mation was caused to be transmitted in violation 
of subsection (e). 
‘‘(2) TEXT
MESSAGE
DEFINED.—In this sub-
section, 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 Com-
mission 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 Dock-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
et 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 sub-
section, 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 in-
formation for such provider and keep such infor-
mation 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. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(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 sub-
section (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 di-
vision P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(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 Bu-
reau of the Commission obtains evidence that suggests a 
willful, knowing, and repeated robocall violation with an 
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain any-
thing 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 sec-
tion shall be construed to affect the ability of the Commis-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:14 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3375.RH
H3375
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS