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 enact-
ment of this Act, and as appropriate thereafter to ensure 
that the consumer protection and privacy purposes of sec-
tion 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 tele-
phone dialing systems and calls made using an artificial 
or prerecorded voice as will, in the judgment of the Com-
mission, 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 con-
sent is not required under or the call or text mes-
sage 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 ex-
empted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of sub-
section (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 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 
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 sub-
section (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 Commis-
sion 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 pur-
suant to the Second Report and Order in the matter 
of Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Un-
lawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 18– 
177; adopted on December 12, 2018). 
(2) CONTENTS.—The report required by para-
graph (1) shall describe the efforts of the Commis-
sion, as described in such Second Report and Order, 
to ensure— 
(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 
must demonstrate that, before making the call, 
the person appropriately checked the most re-
cent update of the database and the database 
reported that the number had not been discon-
nected; and 
(C) that if the person makes the dem-
onstration described in subparagraph (B), the 
person will be shielded from liability under sec-
tion 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 Com-
munications 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 re-
spect 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 Re-
port 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) 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 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.’’. 
(2) FOR
CALLER
IDENTIFICATION
INFORMA-
TION 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 sub-
section.’’. 
(b) FOUR-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) FOUR-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 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 ap-
parent liability required by paragraph (4) of 
such section (as the case may be).’’. 
(2) FOR
CALLER
IDENTIFICATION
INFORMA-
TION 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 VIOLA-
TIONS WITH INTENT.—Section 227(b) of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by sub-
sections (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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(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 sub-
section, and annually thereafter, the Commission, 
after consultation with the Federal Trade Commis-
sion, shall submit to Congress a report regarding en-
forcement 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(A) The number of complaints received by 
the Commission during each of the preceding 5 
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). 
‘‘(iii) Complaints alleging that a con-
sumer received a call in connection with 
which misleading or inaccurate caller iden-
tification 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 sub-
section (d), and details of each such citation. 
‘‘(C) The number of notices of apparent li-
ability 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 Attor-
ney General for violations of such subsections, 
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 de-
crease the total number of calls made in viola-
tion 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).’’.
(A) BURDENS AND BARRIERS TO IMPLE-
MENTATION.—The Commission— 
(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 
providers 
use 
time-division 
multi-
plexing; 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 rea-
sonable 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 imple-
mentation in order to address the identi-
fied 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 providers of voice service and types of
voice calls to receive the highest level of attesta-
tion. 
(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 
frequently than annually after the first exemp-
tion is issued under this paragraph, the Com-
mission 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 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 
voice service from making any additional line item 
charges to consumer or small business customer sub-
scribers for the effective call authentication tech-
nology 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 sub-
scribers from receiving unwanted calls from a 
caller 
using 
an 
unauthenticated 
number, 
through effective means of enabling the sub-
scriber 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 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 Transpor-
tation 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 authen-
tication technology, as being implemented under 
subsection (b), in addressing all aspects of call au-
thentication.
(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 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
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 estab-
lish a process that streamlines the ways in which a 
private entity may voluntarily share with the Com-
mission 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 viola-
tion 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
Commission shall take a final agency action to en-
sure 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 re-
lated 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 con-
duct 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 in-
formation 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 para-
graph (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 serv-
ice (as so defined) except that the service per-
mits users to terminate calls to the public 
switched telephone network but does not permit 
users to receive calls that originate on the pub-
lic 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 be-
fore the effective date of the amendment made to sub-
section (e)(8) of such section 227 by subparagraph (C) 
of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Ap-
propriations 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 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 Enforce-
ment Bureau provided the evidence described in sub-
section (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-
sion 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 enforce-
ment action in a matter with respect to which the 
Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the evi-
dence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney 
General. 
(d) ROBOCALL VIOLATION DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, 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 enforce-
ment agencies to address one-ring scams; 
(2) work with the governments of foreign coun-
tries 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 gate-
way providers that are the first point of entry for 
these calls into the United States, including poten-
tial requirements that such providers verify with the 
foreign originator the nature or purpose of calls be-
fore initiating service. 
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis-
sion shall publish on its website and submit to the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Rep-
resentatives 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 mean-
ing given such term in section 3 of the Communica-
tions 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 con-
sultation with the Commission, shall convene an inter-
agency 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 sub-
section (a), the interagency working group shall— 
(1) determine whether, and if so how, any Fed-
eral law, including regulations, policies, and prac-
tices, or budgetary or jurisdictional constraints in-
hibit the enforcement of such section; 
(2) identify existing and potential Federal poli-
cies and programs that encourage and improve co-
ordination 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 con-
duct); and 
(4) consider— 
(A) the benefit and potential sources of ad-
ditional 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 estab-
lished between— 
(i) the States; 
(ii) the States and the Federal Gov-
ernment; and 
(iii) the Federal Government and for-
eign governments; 
(C) whether a process should be estab-
lished to allow States to request Federal sub-
poenas from the Commission with respect to the 
enforcement of such section; 
(D) whether increased criminal penalties 
for the violation of such section (including in-
creasing 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 car-
rier for the specific purpose of carrying, rout-
ing, or transmitting a call that constitutes a 
violation of such section would assist in the suc-
cessful enforcement and prevention of the viola-
tion 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) pur-
suant to any Department of Justice policy may 
inhibit or otherwise interfere with the prosecu-
tion of other violations of such section. 
(c) MEMBERS.—The interagency working group shall 
be composed of such representatives of Federal depart-
ments and agencies as the Attorney General considers ap-
propriate, which may include— 
(1) the Department of Commerce (including the 
National Telecommunications and Information Ad-
ministration); 
(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 Protec-
tion. 
(d) NON-FEDERAL STAKEHOLDERS.—In carrying 
out the study under subsection (a), the interagency work-
ing group shall consult with such non-Federal stake-
holders 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 Com-
mittee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judi-
ciary of the House of Representatives a report on the find-
ings of the study under subsection (a), including— 
(1) any recommendations regarding the enforce-
ment and prevention of the violation of such section; 
and 
(2) a description of what process, if any, rel-
evant Federal departments and agencies have made 
in implementing the recommendations under para-
graph (1).
SEC. 12. COMMISSION DEFINED. 
In this Act, the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Fed-
eral 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 Transpor-
tation of the Senate, a report on the status of private- 
led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
robocalls by the registered consortium and the participa-
tion of voice service providers in such efforts. 
(b) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report required 
under subsection (a) shall include, at minimum, the fol-
lowing: 
(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 pri-
vate-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected
unlawful robocalls through the registered consor-
tium. 
(3) A list of each voice service provider that re-
ceived a request from the registered consortium to 
participate in private-led efforts to trace back the or-
igin of suspected unlawful robocalls and refused to 
participate, as identified by the registered consor-
tium. 
(4) The reason, if any, each voice service pro-
vider identified by the registered consortium pro-
vided 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 annu-
ally thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the 
public seeking additional information from voice service 
providers and the registered consortium of private-led ef-
forts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful
robocalls necessary for the report by the Commission re-
quired under subsection (a). 
(d) REGISTRATION OF CONSORTIUM OF PRIVATE- 
LED EFFORTS TO TRACE BACK THE ORIGIN OF SUS-
PECTED UNLAWFUL ROBOCALLS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis-
sion shall issue rules to establish a registration proc-
ess 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 prac-
tices about the management of such efforts and 
regarding providers of voice services’ participa-
tion in private-led efforts to trace back the ori-
gin 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 con-
ducted 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 reg-
istration. 
(2) ANNUAL
NOTICE
BY
THE
COMMISSION 
SEEKING REGISTRATIONS.—Not later than 120 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and an-
nually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a no-
tice to the public seeking the registration described 
in paragraph (1). 
(e) LIST OF VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.—The Com-
mission 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 pro-
viders 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 de-
termining the origin of a suspected unlawful 
robocall. 
(2) 
REGISTERED
CONSORTIUM.—The 
term 
‘‘registered consortium’’ means the consortium reg-
istered under subsection (d). 
(3) SUSPECTED
UNLAWFUL
ROBOCALL.—The 
term ‘‘suspected unlawful robocall’’ means a call 
that the Commission or a voice service provider rea-
sonably 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 serv-
ice’’— 
(A) means any service that is inter-
connected with the public switched telephone 
network and that furnishes voice communica-
tions to an end user using resources from the 
North American Numbering Plan or any suc-
cessor 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 de-
vice to a telephone facsimile machine; and 
(ii) without limitation, any service 
that enables real-time, two-way voice com-
munications, including any service that re-
quires internet protocol-compatible cus-
tomer 
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 pro-
tocol. 
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 hos-
pitals. 
(B) Companies that focus on mitigating 
unlawful robocalls.
(C) Consumer advocacy organizations. 
(D) Providers of one-way voice over inter-
net 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 com-
bat 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 con-
clude a proceeding to assess the extent to which the vol-
untary 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 mean-
ing given such term in section 3 of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153). 
(3) VOICE
SERVICE.—The term ‘‘voice serv-
ice’’— 
(A) means any service that is inter-
connected with the public switched telephone 
network and that furnishes voice communica-
tions to an end user using resources from the 
North American Numbering Plan or any suc-
cessor 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 de-
vice to a telephone facsimile machine; and
(ii) without limitation, any service 
that enables real-time, two-way voice com-
munications, including any service that re-
quires internet protocol-compatible cus-
tomer 
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 pro-
tocol. 
SEC. 15. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 
shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 
titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 
Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro-
vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage. 
Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2019. 
Attest: 
Clerk.