Text: S.151 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)All Information (Except Text)

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Enrolled Bill

 
[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 151 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.151

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen


                                 An Act


 
To deter criminal robocall violations and improve enforcement of section 
    227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall 
Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act'' or the ``Pallone-Thune 
TRACED Act''.
SEC. 2. COMMISSION DEFINED.
    In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
Communications Commission.
SEC. 3. FORFEITURE.
    (a) In General.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 227) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
        ``(4) Civil forfeiture.--
            ``(A) In general.--Any person that is determined by the 
        Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of section 
        503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be liable to the 
        United States for a forfeiture penalty pursuant to section 
        503(b)(1). Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in 
        the case of a violation of this subsection. A forfeiture 
        penalty under this subparagraph shall be in addition to any 
        other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of the 
        forfeiture penalty determined under this subparagraph shall be 
        determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 
        section 503(b)(2).
            ``(B) Violation with intent.--Any person that is determined 
        by the Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of 
        section 503(b), to have violated this subsection with the 
        intent to cause such violation shall be liable to the United 
        States for a forfeiture penalty pursuant to section 503(b)(1). 
        Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of 
        a violation of this subsection. A forfeiture penalty under this 
        subparagraph shall be in addition to any other penalty provided 
        for by this Act. The amount of the forfeiture penalty 
        determined under this subparagraph shall be equal to an amount 
        determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 
        section 503(b)(2) plus an additional penalty not to exceed 
        $10,000.
            ``(C) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under 
        subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be recoverable under section 
        504(a).
            ``(D) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be 
        determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) against any person 
        unless such person receives the notice required by section 
        503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4).
            ``(E) Statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
        (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty shall be 
        determined or imposed against any person--
                ``(i) under subparagraph (A) if the violation charged 
            occurred more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of 
            the required notice or notice of apparent liability; or
                ``(ii) under subparagraph (B) if the violation charged 
            occurred more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of 
            the required notice or notice of apparent liability.
            ``(F) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any law to the 
        contrary, the Commission may not determine or impose a 
        forfeiture penalty on a person under both subparagraphs (A) and 
        (B) based on the same conduct.'';
        (2) in subsection (e)(5)(A)--
            (A) in clause (ii), 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.''; and
            (B) in clause (iv)--
                (i) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and 
            inserting ``4-year''; and
                (ii) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``4 years''; 
            and
        (3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
    ``(h) Annual Report to Congress on Robocalls and Transmission of 
Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
        ``(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
    the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the 
    Commission, after consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, 
    shall submit to Congress a report regarding enforcement by the 
    Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) during the 
    preceding calendar year.
        ``(2) Matters for inclusion.--Each report required by paragraph 
    (1) shall include the following:
            ``(A) The number of complaints received by the Commission 
        during each of the preceding 5 calendar years, for each of the 
        following categories:
                ``(i) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a 
            call in violation of subsection (b) or (c).
                ``(ii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a 
            call in violation of the standards prescribed under 
            subsection (d).
                ``(iii) Complaints alleging that a consumer received a 
            call in connection with which misleading or inaccurate 
            caller identification information was transmitted in 
            violation of subsection (e).
            ``(B) The number of citations issued by the Commission 
        pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding calendar year 
        to enforce subsection (d), and details of each such citation.
            ``(C) The number of notices of apparent liability issued by 
        the Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the preceding 
        calendar year to enforce subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), 
        and details of each such notice including any proposed 
        forfeiture amount.
            ``(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture 
        penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the 
        preceding calendar year to enforce such subsections, and 
        details of each such order including the forfeiture imposed.
            ``(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal fines 
        collected, during the preceding calendar year, by the 
        Commission or the Attorney General for violations of such 
        subsections, and details of each case in which such a 
        forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was collected.
            ``(F) Proposals for reducing the number of calls made in 
        violation of such subsections.
            ``(G) An analysis of the contribution by providers of 
        interconnected VoIP service and non-interconnected VoIP service 
        that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-duration calls to 
        the total number of calls made in violation of such 
        subsections, and recommendations on how to address such 
        contribution in order to decrease the total number of calls 
        made in violation of such subsections.
        ``(3) No additional reporting required.--The Commission shall 
    prepare the report required by paragraph (1) without requiring the 
    provision of additional information from providers of 
    telecommunications service or voice service (as defined in section 
    4(a) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall not 
affect any action or proceeding commenced before and pending on the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe 
regulations to implement the amendments made by this section not later 
than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. CALL AUTHENTICATION.
    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
        (1) STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework.--The term ``STIR/
    SHAKEN authentication framework'' means the secure telephone 
    identity revisited and signature-based handling of asserted 
    information using tokens standards proposed by the information and 
    communications technology industry.
        (2) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
            (A) means any service that is interconnected with the 
        public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
        communications to an end user using resources from the North 
        American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American 
        Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 
        251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
        251(e)(1)); and
            (B) includes--
                (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
            computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
            and
                (ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
            time, two-way voice communications, including any service 
            that requires internet protocol-compatible customer 
            premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits 
            out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or 
            two-way voice over internet protocol.
    (b) Authentication Frameworks.--
        (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and in 
    accordance with paragraph (6), not later than 18 months after the 
    date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
            (A) require a provider of voice service to implement the 
        STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the internet protocol 
        networks of the provider of voice service; and
            (B) require a provider of voice service to take reasonable 
        measures to implement an effective call authentication 
        framework in the non-internet protocol networks of the provider 
        of voice service.
        (2) Implementation.--The Commission shall not take the action 
    described in paragraph (1) with respect to a provider of voice 
    service if the Commission determines, not later than 12 months 
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, that such provider of 
    voice service--
            (A) in internet protocol networks--
                (i) has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
            framework for calls on the internet protocol networks of 
            the provider of voice service;
                (ii) has agreed voluntarily to participate with other 
            providers of voice service in the STIR/SHAKEN 
            authentication framework;
                (iii) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN 
            authentication framework; and
                (iv) will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/
            SHAKEN authentication framework not later than 18 months 
            after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (B) in non-internet protocol networks--
                (i) has taken reasonable measures to implement an 
            effective call authentication framework; and
                (ii) will be capable of fully implementing an effective 
            call authentication framework not later than 18 months 
            after the date of the enactment of this Act.
        (3) Implementation report.--Not later than 12 months after the 
    date of the enactment of this Act, 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 a report on the determination required 
    under paragraph (2), which shall include--
            (A) an analysis of the extent to which providers of voice 
        service have implemented the call authentication frameworks 
        described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), 
        including whether the availability of necessary equipment and 
        equipment upgrades has impacted such implementation; and
            (B) an assessment of the efficacy of the call 
        authentication frameworks described in subparagraphs (A) and 
        (B) of paragraph (1) in addressing all aspects of call 
        authentication.
        (4) Review and revision or replacement.--Not later than 3 years 
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 3 years 
    thereafter, the Commission, after public notice and an opportunity 
    for comment, shall--
            (A) assess the efficacy of the technologies used for call 
        authentication frameworks implemented under this section;
            (B) based on the assessment under subparagraph (A), revise 
        or replace the call authentication frameworks under this 
        section if the Commission determines it is in the public 
        interest to do so; and
            (C) submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
        Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
        findings of the assessment under subparagraph (A) and on any 
        actions to revise or replace the call authentication frameworks 
        under subparagraph (B).
        (5) Extension of implementation deadline.--
            (A) Burdens and barriers to implementation.--Not later than 
        12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and as 
        appropriate thereafter, the Commission--
                (i) shall assess any burdens or barriers to the 
            implementation required by paragraph (1), including--

                    (I) for providers of voice service to the extent 
                the networks of such providers use time-division 
                multiplexing;
                    (II) for small providers of voice service and those 
                in rural areas; and
                    (III) the inability to purchase or upgrade 
                equipment to support the call authentication frameworks 
                under this section, or lack of availability of such 
                equipment; and

                (ii) in connection with an assessment under clause (i), 
            may, upon a public finding of undue hardship, delay 
            required compliance with the 18-month time period described 
            in paragraph (1), for a reasonable period of time, for a 
            provider or class of providers of voice service, or type of 
            voice calls, as necessary for that provider or class of 
            providers or type of calls to participate in the 
            implementation in order to address the identified burdens 
            and barriers.
            (B) Delay of compliance required for certain non-internet 
        protocol networks.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) through (F), 
        for any provider or class of providers of voice service, or 
        type of voice calls, only to the extent that such a provider or 
        class of providers of voice service, or type of voice calls, 
        materially relies on a non-internet protocol network for the 
        provision of such service or calls, the Commission shall grant 
        a delay of required compliance under subparagraph (A)(ii) until 
        a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls 
        delivered over non-internet protocol networks and is reasonably 
        available.
            (C) Robocall mitigation program.--
                (i) Program required.--During the time of a delay of 
            compliance granted under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
            Commission shall require, pursuant to the authority of the 
            Commission, that any provider subject to such delay shall 
            implement an appropriate robocall mitigation program to 
            prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on the network 
            of the provider.
                (ii) Additional requirements.--If the consortium 
            registered under section 13(d) identifies a provider of 
            voice service that is subject to a delay of compliance 
            granted under subparagraph (A)(ii) as repeatedly 
            originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns, the 
            Commission shall require such provider to take action to 
            ensure that such provider does not continue to originate 
            such calls.
                (iii) Minimization of burden.--The Commission shall 
            make reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any 
            robocall mitigation required pursuant to clause (ii), which 
            may include prescribing certain specific robocall 
            mitigation practices for providers of voice service that 
            have repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful robocall 
            campaigns.
            (D) Full participation.--The Commission shall take 
        reasonable measures to address any issues in an assessment 
        under subparagraph (A)(i) and enable as promptly as reasonable 
        full participation of all classes of providers of voice service 
        and types of voice calls to receive the highest level of trust. 
        Such measures shall include, without limitation, as 
        appropriate, limiting or terminating a delay of compliance 
        granted to a provider under subparagraph (B) if the Commission 
        determines in such assessment that the provider is not making 
        reasonable efforts to develop the call authentication protocol 
        described in such subparagraph.
            (E) Alternative methodologies.--The Commission shall 
        identify, in consultation with small providers of voice service 
        and those in rural areas, alternative effective methodologies 
        to protect customers from unauthenticated calls during any 
        delay of compliance granted under subparagraph (A)(ii).
            (F) Revision of delay of compliance.--Not less frequently 
        than annually after the first delay of compliance is granted 
        under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Commission--
                (i) shall consider revising or extending any delay of 
            compliance granted under subparagraph (A)(ii);
                (ii) may revise such delay of compliance; and
                (iii) shall issue a public notice with regard to 
            whether such delay of compliance remains necessary, 
            including--

                    (I) why such delay of compliance remains necessary; 
                and
                    (II) when the Commission expects to achieve the 
                goal of full participation as described in subparagraph 
                (D).

        (6) No additional cost to consumers or small business 
    customers.--The Commission shall prohibit providers of voice 
    service from adding any additional line item charges to consumer or 
    small business customer subscribers for the effective call 
    authentication technology required under paragraph (1).
        (7) Accurate identification.--Not later than 12 months after 
    the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue 
    best practices that providers of voice service may use as part of 
    the implementation of effective call authentication frameworks 
    under paragraph (1) to take steps to ensure the calling party is 
    accurately identified.
    (c) Safe Harbor and Other Regulations.--
        (1) In general.--Consistent with the regulations prescribed 
    under subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 
    1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 10, the Commission shall, 
    not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
    promulgate rules--
            (A) establishing when a provider of voice service may block 
        a voice call based, in whole or in part, on information 
        provided by the call authentication frameworks under subsection 
        (b), with no additional line item charge;
            (B) establishing a safe harbor for a provider of voice 
        service from liability for unintended or inadvertent blocking 
        of calls or for the unintended or inadvertent misidentification 
        of the level of trust for individual calls based, in whole or 
        in part, on information provided by the call authentication 
        frameworks under subsection (b);
            (C) establishing a process to permit a calling party 
        adversely affected by the information provided by the call 
        authentication frameworks under subsection (b) to verify the 
        authenticity of the calling party's calls; and
            (D) ensuring that calls originating from a provider of 
        voice service in an area where the provider is subject to a 
        delay of compliance with the time period described in 
        subsection (b)(1) are not unreasonably blocked because the 
        calls are not able to be authenticated.
        (2) Considerations.--In establishing the safe harbor under 
    paragraph (1), consistent with the regulations prescribed under 
    subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
    U.S.C. 227), as added by section 10, the Commission shall consider 
    limiting the liability of a provider of voice service based on the 
    extent to which the provider of voice service--
            (A) blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or in part, 
        on the information provided by the call authentication 
        frameworks under subsection (b);
            (B) implemented procedures based, in whole or in part, on 
        the information provided by the call authentication frameworks 
        under subsection (b); and
            (C) used reasonable care, including making all reasonable 
        efforts to avoid blocking emergency public safety calls.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
the Commission from initiating a rulemaking pursuant to its existing 
statutory authority.
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.
    (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Chairman of the Commission, shall convene an interagency working group 
to study Government prosecution of violations of section 227(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
    (b) Duties.--In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the 
interagency working group shall--
        (1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal laws, 
    including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary or 
    jurisdictional constraints inhibit the prosecution of such 
    violations;
        (2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and 
    programs that encourage and improve coordination among Federal 
    departments and agencies and States, and between States, in the 
    prevention and prosecution of such violations;
        (3) identify existing and potential international policies and 
    programs that encourage and improve coordination between countries 
    in the prevention and prosecution of such violations; and
        (4) consider--
            (A) the benefit and potential sources of additional 
        resources for the Federal prevention and prosecution of 
        criminal violations of that section;
            (B) whether to establish memoranda of understanding 
        regarding the prevention and prosecution of such violations 
        between--
                (i) the States;
                (ii) the States and the Federal Government; and
                (iii) the Federal Government and a foreign government;
            (C) whether to establish a process to allow States to 
        request Federal subpoenas from the Commission;
            (D) whether extending civil enforcement authority to the 
        States would assist in the successful prevention and 
        prosecution of such violations;
            (E) whether increased forfeiture and imprisonment penalties 
        are appropriate, such as extending imprisonment for such a 
        violation to a term longer than 2 years;
            (F) whether regulation of any entity that enters into a 
        business arrangement with a common carrier regulated under 
        title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et 
        seq.) for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or 
        transmitting a call that constitutes such a violation would 
        assist in the successful prevention and prosecution of such 
        violations; and
            (G) the extent to which, if any, Department of Justice 
        policies to pursue the prosecution of violations causing 
        economic harm, physical danger, or erosion of an inhabitant's 
        peace of mind and sense of security inhibit the prevention or 
        prosecution of such violations.
    (c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be composed of 
such representatives of Federal departments and agencies as the 
Attorney General considers appropriate, such as--
        (1) the Department of Commerce;
        (2) the Department of State;
        (3) the Department of Homeland Security;
        (4) the Commission;
        (5) the Federal Trade Commission; and
        (6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    (d) Non-Federal Stakeholders.--In carrying out the study under 
subsection (a), the interagency working group shall consult with such 
non-Federal stakeholders as the Attorney General determines have the 
relevant expertise, including the National Association of Attorneys 
General.
    (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the interagency working group 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 a report on the findings of the study under subsection (a), 
including--
        (1) any recommendations regarding the prevention and 
    prosecution of such violations; and
        (2) a description of what progress, if any, relevant Federal 
    departments and agencies have made in implementing the 
    recommendations under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. ACCESS TO NUMBER RESOURCES.
    (a) In General.--
        (1) Examination of fcc policies.--Not later than 180 days after 
    the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
    commence a proceeding to determine how Commission policies 
    regarding access to number resources, including number resources 
    for toll-free and non-toll-free telephone numbers, could be 
    modified, including by establishing registration and compliance 
    obligations, and requirements that providers of voice service given 
    access to number resources take sufficient steps to know the 
    identity of the customers of such providers, to help reduce access 
    to numbers by potential perpetrators of violations of section 
    227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
        (2) Regulations.--If the Commission determines under paragraph 
    (1) that modifying the policies described in that paragraph could 
    help achieve the goal described in that paragraph, the Commission 
    shall prescribe regulations to implement those policy 
    modifications.
    (b) Authority.--Any person who knowingly, through an employee, 
agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, by or through any 
means or device whatsoever, is a party to obtaining number resources, 
including number resources for toll-free and non-toll-free telephone 
numbers, from a common carrier regulated under title II of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), in violation of a 
regulation prescribed under subsection (a), shall, notwithstanding 
section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
503(b)(5)), be subject to a forfeiture penalty under section 503(b) of 
that Act (47 U.S.C. 503(b)). A forfeiture penalty under this subsection 
shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by law.
SEC. 7. PROTECTIONS FROM SPOOFED CALLS.
    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and consistent with the call authentication 
frameworks under section 4, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
to help protect a subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or text 
messages from a caller using an unauthenticated number.
    (b) Considerations.--In promulgating rules under subsection (a), 
the Commission shall consider--
        (1) the Government Accountability Office report on combating 
    the fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller 
    identification information required by section 503(c) of division P 
    of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141);
        (2) the best means of ensuring that a subscriber or provider 
    has the ability to block calls from a caller using an 
    unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number;
        (3) the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from 
    unauthenticated calls;
        (4) the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller 
    identification information; and
        (5) the availability and cost of providing protection from the 
    unwanted calls or text messages described in subsection (a).
SEC. 8. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS.
    (a) In General.--Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking ``; and'' and 
    inserting a semicolon;
        (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end and 
    inserting ``; and''; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(I) shall ensure that any exemption under subparagraph 
        (B) or (C) contains requirements for calls made in reliance on 
        the exemption with respect to--
                ``(i) the classes of parties that may make such calls;
                ``(ii) the classes of parties that may be called; and
                ``(iii) the number of such calls that a calling party 
            may make to a particular called party.''.
    (b) Deadline for Regulations.--In the case of any exemption issued 
under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(b)(2) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, not later than 1 year 
after such date of enactment, prescribe such regulations, or amend such 
existing regulations, as necessary to ensure that such exemption 
contains each requirement described in subparagraph (I) of such 
section, as added by subsection (a). To the extent such an exemption 
contains such a requirement before such date of enactment, nothing in 
this section or the amendments made by this section shall be construed 
to require the Commission to prescribe or amend regulations relating to 
such requirement.
SEC. 9. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE.
    (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress, and 
make publicly available on the website of the Commission, a report on 
the status of the efforts of the Commission pursuant to the Second 
Report and Order in the matter of Advanced Methods to Target and 
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted 
on December 12, 2018).
    (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall describe 
the efforts of the Commission, as described in such Second Report and 
Order, to ensure--
        (1) the establishment of a database of telephone numbers that 
    have been disconnected, in order to provide a person making calls 
    subject to section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
    U.S.C. 227(b)) with comprehensive and timely information to enable 
    such person to avoid making calls without the prior express consent 
    of the called party because the number called has been reassigned;
        (2) that a person who wishes to use any safe harbor provided 
    pursuant to such Second Report and Order with respect to making 
    calls must demonstrate that, before making the call, the person 
    appropriately checked the most recent update of the database and 
    the database reported that the number had not been disconnected; 
    and
        (3) that if the person makes the demonstration described in 
    paragraph (2), the person will be shielded from liability under 
    section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) 
    should the database return an inaccurate result.
  SEC. 10. STOP ROBOCALLS.
    (a) Information Sharing Regarding Robocall and Spoofing 
Violations.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Information Sharing.--
        ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
    the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe 
    regulations to establish a process that streamlines the ways in 
    which a private entity may voluntarily share with the Commission 
    information relating to--
            ``(A) a call made or a text message sent in violation of 
        subsection (b); or
            ``(B) a call or text message for which misleading or 
        inaccurate caller identification information was caused to be 
        transmitted in violation of subsection (e).
        ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term `text 
    message' has the meaning given such term in subsection (e)(8).''.
    (b) Robocall Blocking Service.--Section 227 of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) Robocall Blocking Service.--
        ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
    enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall take a final 
    agency action to ensure the robocall blocking services provided on 
    an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to the Declaratory Ruling of 
    the Commission in the matter of Advanced Methods to Target and 
    Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 19-51; 
    adopted on June 6, 2019)--
            ``(A) are provided with transparency and effective redress 
        options for both--
                ``(i) consumers; and
                ``(ii) callers; and
            ``(B) are provided with no additional line item charge to 
        consumers and no additional charge to callers for resolving 
        complaints related to erroneously blocked calls; and
            ``(C) make all reasonable efforts to avoid blocking 
        emergency public safety calls.
        ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term `text 
    message' has the meaning given such term in subsection (e)(8).''.
    (c) Study on Information Requirements for Certain VoIP Service 
Providers.--
        (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study regarding 
    whether to require a provider of covered VoIP service to--
            (A) provide to the Commission contact information for such 
        provider and keep such information current; and
            (B) retain records relating to each call transmitted over 
        the covered VoIP service of such provider that are sufficient 
        to trace such call back to the source of such call.
        (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 18 months after the 
    date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
    Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
    paragraph (1).
        (3) Covered voip service defined.--In this subsection, the term 
    ``covered VoIP service'' means a service that--
            (A) is an interconnected VoIP service (as defined in 
        section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)); 
        or
            (B) would be an interconnected VoIP service (as so defined) 
        except that the service permits users to terminate calls to the 
        public switched telephone network but does not permit users to 
        receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone 
        network.
    (d) Transitional Rule Regarding Definition of Text Message.--
Paragraph (2) of subsection (i) 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 (j) of such section 227, as 
added by subsection (b) of this section, shall apply before the 
effective date of the amendment made to subsection (e)(8) of such 
section 227 by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if 
such amendment was already in effect.
  SEC. 11. 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 anything of value, the Chief of the Enforcement 
Bureau shall provide such evidence to the Attorney General.
    (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission 
shall publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that--
        (1) states the number of instances during the preceding year in 
    which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the evidence 
    described in subsection (a) to the Attorney General; and
        (2) contains a general summary of the types of robocall 
    violations to which such evidence relates.
    (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect the ability of the Commission or the Chief of the 
Enforcement Bureau under other law--
        (1) to refer a matter to the Attorney General; or
        (2) to pursue or continue pursuit of an enforcement action in a 
    matter with respect to which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau 
    provided the evidence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney 
    General.
    (d) Robocall Violation Defined.--In this section, the term 
``robocall violation'' means a violation of subsection (b) or (e) of 
section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
  SEC. 12. PROTECTION FROM ONE-RING SCAMS.
    (a) Initiation of Proceeding.--Not later than 120 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall initiate a 
proceeding to protect called parties from one-ring scams.
    (b) Matters To Be Considered.--As part of the proceeding required 
by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission 
can--
        (1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to 
    address one-ring scams;
        (2) work with the governments of foreign countries to address 
    one-ring scams;
        (3) in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, better 
    educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams;
        (4) incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made to 
    perpetrate one-ring scams from being received by called parties, 
    including consideration of adding identified one-ring scam type 
    numbers to the Commission's existing list of permissible categories 
    for carrier-initiated blocking;
        (5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services to 
    address one-ring scams; and
        (6) establish obligations on international gateway providers 
    that are the first point of entry for these calls into the United 
    States, including potential requirements that such providers verify 
    with the foreign originator the nature or purpose of calls before 
    initiating service.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish on its website 
and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of the proceeding 
required by subsection (a).
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
        (1) One-ring scam.--The term ``one-ring scam'' means a scam in 
    which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the called 
    party for a short duration, in order to prompt the called party to 
    return the call, thereby subjecting the called party to charges.
        (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term 
    in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).
        (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service'' has the meaning 
    given such term in section 227(e)(8) of the Communications Act of 
    1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)). This paragraph shall apply before the 
    effective date of the amendment made to such section by 
    subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the 
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if 
    such amendment was already in effect.
  SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT.
    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall 
make publicly available on the website of the Commission, and submit to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate, a report on the status of private-led efforts to trace back the 
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and 
the participation of voice service providers in such efforts.
    (b) Contents of Report.--The report required under subsection (a) 
shall include, at minimum, the following:
        (1) A description of private-led efforts to trace back the 
    origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium 
    and the actions taken by the registered consortium to coordinate 
    with the Commission.
        (2) A list of voice service providers identified by the 
    registered consortium that participated in private-led efforts to 
    trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls through the 
    registered consortium.
        (3) A list of each voice service provider that received a 
    request from the registered consortium to participate in private-
    led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
    robocalls and refused to participate, as identified by the 
    registered consortium.
        (4) The reason, if any, each voice service provider identified 
    by the registered consortium provided for not participating in 
    private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
    robocalls.
        (5) A description of how the Commission may use the information 
    provided to the Commission by voice service providers or the 
    registered consortium that have participated in private-led efforts 
    to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls in the 
    enforcement efforts by the Commission.
    (c) Additional Information.--Not later than 210 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission 
shall issue a notice to the public seeking additional information from 
voice service providers and the registered consortium of private-led 
efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls 
necessary for the report by the Commission required under subsection 
(a).
    (d) Registration of Consortium of Private-Led Efforts To Trace Back 
the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.--
        (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules to 
    establish a registration process for the registration of a single 
    consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back the 
    origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The consortium shall meet 
    the following requirements:
            (A) Be a neutral third party competent to manage the 
        private-led effort to trace back the origin of suspected 
        unlawful robocalls in the judgement of the Commission.
            (B) Maintain a set of written best practices about the 
        management of such efforts and regarding providers of voice 
        services' participation in private-led efforts to trace back 
        the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls.
            (C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the Communications 
        Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any private-led efforts to 
        trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls conducted 
        by the third party focus on ``fraudulent, abusive, or 
        unlawful'' traffic.
            (D) File a notice with the Commission that the consortium 
        intends to conduct private-led efforts to trace back in advance 
        of such registration.
        (2) Annual notice by the commission seeking registrations.--Not 
    later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
    and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the 
    public seeking the registration described in paragraph (1).
    (e) List of Voice Service Providers.--The Commission may publish a 
list of voice service providers and take appropriate enforcement action 
based on information obtained from the consortium about voice service 
providers that refuse to participate in private-led efforts to trace 
back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, and other information 
the Commission may collect about voice service providers that are found 
to originate or transmit substantial amounts of unlawful robocalls.
    (f) Definitions.--In this section:
        (1) Private-led effort to trace back.--The term ``private-led 
    effort to trace back'' means an effort made by the registered 
    consortium of voice service providers to establish a methodology 
    for determining the origin of a suspected unlawful robocall.
        (2) Registered consortium.--The term ``registered consortium'' 
    means the consortium registered under subsection (d).
        (3) Suspected unlawful robocall.--The term ``suspected unlawful 
    robocall'' means a call that the Commission or a voice service 
    provider reasonably believes was made in violation of subsection 
    (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
    U.S.C. 227).
        (4) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
            (A) means any service that is interconnected with the 
        public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
        communications to an end user using resources from the North 
        American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American 
        Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 
        251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
        251(e)(1)); and
            (B) includes--
                (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
            computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
            and
                (ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
            time, two-way voice communications, including any service 
            that requires internet protocol-compatible customer 
            premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits 
            out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or 
            two-way voice over internet protocol.
  SEC. 14. HOSPITAL ROBOCALL PROTECTION GROUP.
    (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish an advisory 
committee to be known as the ``Hospital Robocall Protection Group''.
    (b) Membership.--The Group shall be composed only of the following 
members:
        (1) An equal number of representatives from each of the 
    following:
            (A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals.
            (B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful robocalls.
            (C) Consumer advocacy organizations.
            (D) Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol 
        services described in subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii).
            (E) Hospitals.
            (F) State government officials focused on combating 
        unlawful robocalls.
        (2) One representative of the Commission.
        (3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission.
    (c) Issuance of Best Practices.--Not later than 180 days after the 
date on which the Group is established under subsection (a), the Group 
shall issue best practices regarding the following:
        (1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful 
    robocalls made to hospitals.
        (2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such 
    calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation techniques.
        (3) How the Federal Government and State governments can help 
    combat such calls.
    (d) Proceeding by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
which the best practices are issued by the Group under subsection (c), 
the Commission shall conclude a proceeding to assess the extent to 
which the voluntary adoption of such best practices can be facilitated 
to protect hospitals and other institutions.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section:
        (1) Group.--The term ``Group'' means the Hospital Robocall 
    Protection Group established under subsection (a).
        (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term 
    in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).
        (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
            (A) means any service that is interconnected with the 
        public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice 
        communications to an end user using resources from the North 
        American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American 
        Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 
        251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
        251(e)(1)); and
            (B) includes--
                (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
            computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; 
            and
                (ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
            time, two-way voice communications, including any service 
            that requires internet protocol-compatible customer 
            premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits 
            out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or 
            two-way voice over internet protocol.
  SEC. 15. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.
    If any provision of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or 
the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, 
the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the 
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall 
not be affected thereby.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.

Share This Section