PALLONE-THUNE TELEPHONE ROBOCALL ABUSE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT AND DETERRENCE ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 193
(House of Representatives - December 04, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H9235-H9245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PALLONE-THUNE TELEPHONE ROBOCALL ABUSE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT AND 
                             DETERRENCE ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 151) to deter criminal robocall violations and improve 
enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 S. 151

       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

[[Page H9236]]

     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);

[[Page H9237]]

       (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).

[[Page H9238]]

       (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

[[Page H9239]]

     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on S. 151.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the House will take strong, bipartisan action to protect 
consumers from illegal robocalls. Talk to anyone, Mr. Speaker, and you 
will hear just how annoyed people are by those calls; and no wonder--
according to Robokiller, a whopping 5.6 billion robocalls were made to 
Americans in November alone. According to YouMail, more than 200 
million calls have been made to the 732 area code in my congressional 
district this year. That is pretty outrageous.
  Today the House is giving Americans back control of their phones.
  This legislation is important because unlawful robocalls are not only 
a nuisance, they are also undermining our entire phone system and 
consumers' safety as a result. Too often Americans simply will not pick 
up their phones out of fear that a robocall is on the other end of the 
line.
  These calls are not just annoying, in a lot of instances they are 
scams targeted at consumers. Unfortunately, these scams are becoming 
more sophisticated every day. At a hearing earlier this year, we 
learned that the Moffitt Cancer Center received 6,600 scam calls in 
just 1 month, specifically designed to appear as calls coming from 
within the hospital. That is dangerous for patient safety and 
confidentiality.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard similar stories of scammers disguised as 
the IRS looking to collect a debt or scammers disguised as local 
governments or police departments, and

[[Page H9240]]

scammers disguised as loved ones in trouble looking for help. These are 
just a few of the examples.
  All of these scams are different, and there won't be a single silver 
bullet to fix them all, but the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act attacks the 
problem from multiple angles.
  First, we are targeting fraudsters and scammers who are violating the 
law. This will be done by using innovative technologies to cut these 
calls off. Our bill requires carriers to implement a nationwide caller 
authentication system and to make call blocking software accessible to 
consumers for free. This is critical.
  A nationwide caller authentication system that will help ensure 
consumers can trust the caller-ID on their phone again is obviously 
important. Call blocking is another thing that we do in the bill. Call 
blocking will stop the phone from ringing when scammers are dialing our 
phones. These are two critical steps--the authentication and blocking--
that will give consumers control of their phones again.
  When it comes to blocking, the TRACED Act also ensures that there is 
transparency and consistency so that the calls people want are getting 
through.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that law enforcement and 
the Federal Communications Commission have the tools, information, and 
incentives to go after robocallers who break the law. We need to make 
sure criminal penalties are brought by the Department of Justice to 
deter future robocallers from getting into the business.
  Third, this will help us go after the dodgy carriers who allow these 
unlawful calls to enter our networks in the first place.
  These are some of the main provisions of this bipartisan bill, but 
there are others that will be discussed by my colleagues during our 20 
minutes on my side today.
  Finally, I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Walden, 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Doyle, and 
subcommittee Ranking Member Latta for their leadership and for their 
determination in getting this final bill to the House floor today.
  I also want to thank our partners in the Senate, Senators Thune and 
Markey, for their commitment to this issue and for working with us on 
this final bipartisan, bicameral product.
  The TRACED Act takes critical steps to give consumers control of 
their phones again. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation today, and I hope that it will be signed into law before 
the end of the year.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune 
TRACED Act. As you heard, it is a great step forward this Congress will 
take to help curb illegal robocalls.
  I want to thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, and my colleague, 
Mr. Latta, for their great bipartisan work on this; and, of course, our 
colleagues in the Senate again.
  Last year RAY BAUM'S Act passed unanimously out of this Chamber with 
bipartisan support, and that included provisions that targeted 
fraudulent robocalls and spoofing from overseas. Those provisions are 
in law and are being used today.
  Today the TRACED Act builds on that bipartisan success by better 
enabling consumers, carriers, law enforcement, and the Federal 
Communications Commission to target these scammers. While this Chamber 
has not made a lot of progress this year on legislating, I am pleased 
to see bipartisan legislation before us today that addresses a 
challenge that affects nearly every American, and that is illegal 
robocalls.
  Last month alone, Mr. Speaker, in my district in the area code of 541 
we got 14.1 million robocalls, just last month; and that is just in one 
part of Oregon. We know last year it was something in the order of over 
50 billion illegal robocalls that came into America. I got one today 
already, and I imagine speaking here I will get five more. I will get 
targeted or something. It is time to put consumers back in charge of 
their phones, and that is exactly what this legislation does.

                              {time}  1300

  It allows carriers and consumers to use new, innovative call-blocking 
and call-authentication tools. We can strike the right balance between 
allowing important calls to get through while making sure illegal 
robocalls are blocked, all at no additional cost to the consumer.
  This means when you receive a call from an unfamiliar number with a 
familiar area code, you should be confident that there is a legitimate 
reason for that call. That means your pharmacist can still 
automatically call you to say prescriptions are ready for pickup if you 
signed up for those notifications. That means vulnerable populations 
can be better protected from scams trying to steal their hard-earned 
savings. We have all read those stories.
  When these illegal robocallers get caught, we need to ensure they are 
prosecuted. This legislation takes steps to improve our traceback 
efforts and provides the Department of Justice additional tools they 
need to go after bad actors.
  We all get these calls. I got one about a year or so ago, Mr. 
Speaker, and it was out of Greece. I don't know anybody in Greece. It 
was a 02 something or other area code. I let it go to voicemail, and by 
golly, they left a message. A day later, I listened to it. It was the 
Vice President of the United States aboard Air Force Two trying to 
reach me. Sometimes you should answer those calls.
  With this legislation, hopefully, we will know with certainty you can 
answer a call like that, and it will be somebody that is trying to 
reach you for real.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), the chairman of our Subcommittee 
on Communications and Technology, who worked very hard on this 
legislation.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today, the House 
will vote on the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act. This legislation resulted 
from diligent bicameral negotiations over many months, and I am glad 
that we have come to this agreement.
  This bill addresses a problem that we all have firsthand experience 
with: persistent, annoying, nonstop robocalls. Americans received 
nearly 48 billion robocalls last year, a 60 percent increase from the 
year before. That number is expected to increase to 60 billion this 
year.
  My hometown of Pittsburgh has already received 387 million robocalls 
this year. That is up from 189 million in 2017. On average, everyone in 
America received 15 robocalls in the month of November alone.
  This legislation before the House is bipartisan and bicameral, and I 
believe it will help seriously reduce the onslaught of illegal 
robocalls Americans face. The bill before the House today is the result 
of bipartisan negotiations, which included industry and public interest 
stakeholders.
  The original House bill was reported unanimously out of the 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which I chair, as well 
as out of our full Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was approved by 
the full House with overwhelming support.
  I am also pleased that the language from the STOP Robocalls Act, 
which Ranking Member Latta and I introduced, was included in this bill. 
These provisions allow phone carriers to enable robocall blocking 
services by default on phone lines automatically. While these 
technologies have been available on an opt-in basis, too many seniors 
and, frankly, too many people in general just don't know about these 
services or how to sign up for them.
  Allowing these services to be enabled by default allows all consumers 
to benefit from these technologies without having to go through an 
onerous signup process, especially seniors and those most vulnerable to 
scam calls. These provisions also include requirements that new opt-out 
robocall blocking services do not result in new consumer fees.
  Finally, this bill requires all carriers to adopt call authentication 
technology that would enable people to be certain that the number they 
see on their caller ID is really the number that it is coming from. All 
too often, folks get calls that look like they are coming from down the 
street when they are really coming from scammers half a world away.

[[Page H9241]]

  The legislation came about through the hard work of the majority 
staff and the minority staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
In particular, I thank Jerry Leverich, Phil Murphy, Dan Miller, AJ 
Brown, Parul Desai, and Alex Hoehn-Saric on the majority staff, and 
Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, and Rachel Rathore on the minority staff for 
their hard work and diligence to get this bill to the floor.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This is another example of 
the House passing bipartisan legislation, sending over 200 such bills 
this session to the Senate. Hopefully, our colleagues in the Senate 
will act on this bill and give the relief that our constituents deserve 
from these unwanted robocalls.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Latta), the top Republican on the Communications and Technology 
Subcommittee and a real leader in this effort.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), the Republican leader of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bipartisan legislation 
to combat illegal robocalls. With an estimated 48 billion robocalls 
each year, it is time for Congress to take swift action against illegal 
robocalls and give Americans the security of knowing their incoming 
calls are legitimate.
  That is why we introduced the bipartisan STOP Robocalls Act, which is 
included in the legislation before us today. Our bill would give phone 
companies and the Federal Communications Commission the tools they need 
to fight back against illegal robocalls. Private companies will be able 
to block fraudulent calls before they get to your phones, all with 
consumer control and no additional line-item charges.

  Our provision also provides and improves information-sharing to 
enhance the FCC's ability to track and stop illegal robocall spoofing 
operations. As technology continues to evolve, so do the tactics that 
bad actors use to spoof numbers illegally to make fraudulent robocalls. 
We must allow these companies and the FCC to keep pace.
  While we are all tired of annoying and illegal robocall scams, there 
are also legitimate users of autodialing technologies that must be 
preserved. The bill before us today rightly recognizes those important 
proconsumer messages. From school closures to bank fraud alerts, there 
are voice and text messages that consumers want, and those should not 
be blocked.
  This is strong bipartisan legislation, and I am pleased to have 
worked with Chairman Pallone, Republican leader Walden, and 
subcommittee Chairman Doyle on this bill to improve consumer trust in 
our phone system.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for his 
leadership in preventing the continued spread of illegal robocalls.
  Mr. Speaker, these unlawful operations are deceiving and defrauding 
unsuspecting citizens, with little recourse. Congress must do its part 
to bring these perpetrators to justice, and the bill before us today 
does just that.
  I am pleased that my bill, H.R. 3434, is included in the bill we have 
today. I thank Chairman Pallone for fighting to keep the language in my 
bill in the underlying legislation during negotiations.
  My bill recognizes industry efforts to address illegal calls by 
directing the FCC to publish an annual report on best practices in 
tracing back illegal calls to their origins. It promotes provider 
accountability by allowing carriers to block calls from providers who 
do not fully participate in private-led efforts to trace suspected 
illegal callers.
  Every day, Mr. Speaker, consumers fall victim to scams initiated by 
fraudulent calls. I believe that the TRACED Act is a practical and 
comprehensive solution that will aid us in ending these illegal calls 
for good.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the top Republican on the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the 
Pallone-Thune TRACED Act.
  So far this year, Kentuckians have received 500 million robocalls. 
That is over 100 calls per person this year. Robocalls are the number 
one issue I hear about when I am home.
  Scammers have found creative ways to trick people into thinking their 
calls are legitimate. These calls have wreaked havoc for private 
citizens, hospitals, small businesses, and everyone in between.
  One Kentucky woman told me she gets three to four calls a day. She 
always answers for fear that there might be a family emergency, only to 
be greeted by a spam call, disrupting her work at a factory.
  I was proud to cosponsor the original House bill, the Stopping Bad 
Robocalls Act, and I am proud to support the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, 
which would put an end to these frustrating calls. I commend my fellow 
colleagues on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and in the 
Senate for developing this bipartisan, bicameral solution to stop bad 
robocalls.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I recommend 
all of my colleagues support this.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the TRACED Act.
  This is a long-overdue effort by Congress to crack down on out-of-
control abuse of robocall marketers. These are annoying and 
inconvenient calls, but they also have real-life impacts.
  Kathryn Ottinger is an 84-year-old Vermonter from Shelburne. She and 
her husband receive at least three or four robocalls a day, at all 
hours of the day. Kathryn's husband is hard of hearing, so he doesn't 
hear the phone ring, which requires her to race to answer the calls 
constantly, even though it is really difficult for her to get up. She 
always answers the calls because they could be important. It might be a 
son or a daughter.
  Unfortunately, it is usually a marketer or a scam call. Kathryn sums 
it up perfectly when she says: ``I am very upset about these calls. I 
want the calls to stop.''
  She speaks for all of our constituents. She is not alone.
  In 2018, there were 47 billion robocalls made in the United States. 
Vermonters receive nearly 4 million robocalls a month. In 2016, scams 
involving robocalls cost 22 million Americans a total of $9.5 billion.
  I am hopeful this bill today will stop these harassing phone calls. 
The bill will give the FCC the authority and tools it needs. It will 
allow consumers to revoke consent they had previously given. It will 
require calls to have verified caller ID information associated with 
the call before the call can be put through.
  These are important steps that will reduce and, hopefully, stop these 
robocallers, and I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to paint a picture of why I support this bill. 
Last Sunday night, many retired NFL football fans were watching my 
Houston Texans throttle the Patriots from New England.
  Let's say the phone rings at halftime. A fan walks up to answer his 
phone. The caller ID says it is from the Social Security agency, the 
Social Security office, the Social Security Administration.

  He picks up the phone, and there is a slight pause. A voice comes on 
and tells him that his benefits have been canceled. To restore them, he 
has to give these people he doesn't know his number. And, ``Oh, by the 
way, we can fix this right now with your credit card.''
  For years, people in Texas and all across the country have dealt with 
criminal phone calls. I am pleased to say that today is the day we pass 
a bill to help these Texans and Americans fight back.
  It is great to see a bipartisan piece of legislation that I worked on 
with Representative McEachin, the Locking Up

[[Page H9242]]

Illegal Robocallers Act, included in this package. It empowers the 
Justice Department to go after criminals who prey upon senior citizens, 
veterans, and all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's ring in a new era in 
the Congress, dial back robocalls, hang up on criminals, and give them 
one call a week from jail.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke), who is the vice chair of our committee.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Pallone-Thune TRACED Act and to address the intrusive reality of 
robocalls.
  The jig is up for con artists who have time and time again deceived 
the American people into answering fraudulent calls that put our 
constituents on the hook for outrageous charges on their phone bills.
  I am so proud to have my bill, H.R. 3264, the Ending One-Ring Scams 
Act of 2019, included in the underlying bill to ensure that the 
American people are protected from this harmful scam culture.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone and Senator Thune for their 
work on the TRACED Act and for holding these bad actors accountable for 
their deceptive tactics.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Johnson), who brings an incredible amount of background and 
technology to the committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation that will benefit all Americans by addressing the nuisance 
of robocalls.
  Unwanted and annoying robocalls are increasing at an alarming rate. 
Some estimate that U.S. consumers received nearly 4 billion robocalls 
per month in 2018. This needs to end.
  This legislation would require service providers to adopt call 
authentication technologies and would establish additional protections 
for consumers receiving unwarranted and sometimes fraudulent robocalls. 
It would also require the FCC to work with other Federal agencies on 
improving deterrence and criminal prosecution of robocall scams.
  I am also pleased that the legislation includes legislation that I 
sponsored with my colleague, Representative Butterfield, which requires 
the FCC to publish an annual report on the private-led efforts to trace 
the origin of unlawful robocalls, an important step in stopping these 
bad actors from reaching consumers.
  It is time for Congress to act and prevent these illegal and unwanted 
robocalls, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran), a member of our committee.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Pallone and 
Ranking Member Walden for bringing us together on this bipartisan bill.
  I rise today to speak in support of the TRACED Act. There is nothing 
more frustrating than receiving robocall after robocall to our 
landlines and cell phones. I receive countless robocalls every week, 
often from a phone number that seems to be just down the road.
  Even worse, many of these calls are scams designed to prey on our 
seniors and vulnerable populations that may be more susceptible to this 
kind of fraud.
  This year I have held 26 town halls across Arizona's First District. 
Time and time again, I have heard from citizens about scam and spoof 
calls they have encountered, putting their private information and 
their hard-earned dollars at risk.
  I cosponsored the TRACED Act to crack down on scammers and bad 
robocalls by creating real penalties for violators and requiring voice 
service providers to develop call authentication techniques.
  This is an issue on which we can all agree. I urge my colleagues to 
come together to pass this commonsense legislation that will benefit so 
many.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Flores), another great Texan who needs to speak on this matter.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here with the honorable 
Speaker pro tempore from Texas as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for S. 151, the TRACED Act. 
This legislation is a culmination of strong bipartisan work by the 
Energy and Commerce Committee in the House and our Senate counterparts.
  We all hear complaints from constituents about the scourge of 
robocalls, and I am glad we are answering the American people with 
decisive action.
  This bipartisan bill gives consumers tools to prevent robocalls at no 
additional cost. It also provides law enforcement and the FCC with 
authority to go after bad actors.
  I am also pleased that S. 151 includes language from an amendment 
that I offered in committee that raises fines to $10,000 per violation, 
which will further deter illegal operators from entering into this 
abusive behavior.
  Alongside advances from last year's RAY BAUM'S Act and efforts at the 
FCC, we are in a better position to restore confidence in our 
communication services once again. This is the type of work that the 
House of Representatives ought to be engaged in for the American 
people.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crist), the former Governor.
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up with spam 
robocalls.
  Today, we are bringing to bear the full weight of the Federal 
Government to go after those calls. We have an obligation to do what is 
right for the people.
  The TRACED Act utilizes all known weapons in the arsenal, from 
cooperation, to investigation, including enforcement.
  I am especially proud that the TRACED Act includes my bill, the Spam 
Calls Tax Force Act, which will bring together agencies, the private 
sector, and consumer advocates to shut down spam robocalls. All hands 
on deck is necessary here.
  I thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden for their 
leadership, and I also thank my partners on the Spam Calls Task Force: 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Soto).
  I am filled with optimism that the work of the people goes on: 
Members of both parties coming together, setting differences aside to 
work on commonsense solutions to real problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the TRACED Act.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of S. 151, 
the TRACED Act.
  In 2018 alone, phone numbers with 517 and 734 area codes in my 
district received over 223 million robocalls. I know. I received a 
bunch of them.
  Not only are these calls bothersome and unwelcome, but they often 
lead to scams that prey on the most vulnerable. One such scam is the 
one-ring scam, which attempts to trick consumers into paying huge fees 
for return phone calls.
  S. 151 includes important legislation that I worked to have included 
which will end the harmful practice of one-ring scams.

  Mr. Speaker, robocalls are not only a nuisance; they pose a threat to 
individuals' privacy and security. S. 151, the TRACED Act, will help 
put a stop to these harmful practices by empowering phone carriers to 
implement call authentication technologies so consumers can trust their 
caller ID with no additional cost.
  It will also expand and streamline the FCC's enforcement authority to 
take strong and quick action when it tracks down robocallers and levy 
fines against those bad actors.
  In the end, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put a stop to these 
predatory actors behind harmful robocalls and put consumers back in 
charge of their phones.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rouda).
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak in strong support of the TRACED 
Act.
  The bipartisan provision I co-led with Representatives Clarke, Van 
Drew,

[[Page H9243]]

Bilirakis, Foxx, and Walberg to address one-ring scams will make the 
finances of vulnerable Americans--especially seniors--more secure and 
the lives of all people in Orange County and across the country a 
little more peaceful.
  We can all agree that it is time to provide Americans with a greater 
sense of security when it comes to our phones. We shouldn't have to 
worry about unsolicited robocalls, and the vast array of tactics bad 
actors are using to target our pocketbooks and our privacy.
  This bicameral and bipartisan bill is a big step forward in combating 
robocalls, and I am thankful for the bipartisan group of legislators 
who reached across the aisle to protect Americans' bank accounts and 
their sanity. I urge strong support of this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
great State of Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the top Republican on the 
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our leader on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee yielding, and I stand in strong 
support of the TRACED Act to crack down on robocalls.
  I have heard from hundreds of people in eastern Washington about 
this. For example, an office manager in Colfax logged more than 318 
robocalls at her small business, and she told me, ``That is 318 times I 
have picked up the phone to hear a robot talking to me. I dropped what 
I was doing to run to the phone for one of these obnoxious calls, or I 
put a real client on hold to answer an empty call. Anything Congress 
can do to stop this shameful practice would be a relief.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I agree. People need relief, and they have asked 
Congress to take action. So I look forward to supporting this bill and 
sending it to President Trump's desk with strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Kim), my colleague, whose legislation has been included in 
this bill.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of the TRACED Act, a bipartisan effort 
to crack down on the scourge of predatory robocalls.
  Over the past year, I have heard from my neighbors in Burlington and 
Ocean Counties about their frustrations from constant robocalls. In 
fact, more than 400 neighbors from Beachwood to Bordentown and Toms 
River to Tabernacle contacted our office to complain.
  That is exactly why I dug into the issue and teamed up with four 
Republicans and two Democrats to offer H.R. 3325, the Locking Up 
Robocallers Act of 2019, which would strengthen enforcement of current 
laws aimed at ending the scourge of predatory robocalls.
  I am glad our bill was incorporated into this legislation, because 
these calls aren't just annoyances; they are used by scam artists to 
target people in our community.
  According to the FCC, they receive over 200,000 complaints a year 
from residents receiving predatory robocalls. An estimated 26.3 billion 
robocalls were made to mobile phones, and more than 47 billion were 
made in total to phones in the U.S. in 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill and taking a real step to end predatory robocalls.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter), the only pharmacist in the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune 
TRACED Act. The Energy and Commerce Committee has prioritized combating 
the scourge of robocalls for quite some time now.
  In May, the Senate passed their robocalls legislation, and in July, 
the House nearly unanimously passed the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
  Last year, Americans saw nearly 50 billion robocalls. Those robocalls 
come morning, night, and noon, often interrupting important life 
events. This year, we are on track to see a high number of robocalls 
again. Unfortunately, nearly everyone in the United States has been on 
the receiving end of dozens and dozens of robocalls.
  It is time we finally take action to empower telecom providers to 
help put a stop to this and to hold those responsible accountable for 
these actions. That is why this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan 
work of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is so important.
  I want to thank my colleagues in the Energy and Commerce Committee 
for working with our friends in the Senate to get this completed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), another colleague whose legislation is also 
included in the TRACED Act.

  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding time 
and for all of his work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the TRACED Act, a good 
anti-robocall bill that is badly needed given the robocall epidemic 
facing our United States of America.
  Robocall scams are at an all-time high, and they are getting worse. 
Data shows that New Jersey residents reported the most robocall 
complaints of any State in the Nation last year.
  Robocalls not only impede our quality of life as family dinners and 
important work meetings get interrupted, but they also effectuate 
scams, scams that take advantage of vulnerable populations such as our 
senior citizens, who need to be protected.
  This bipartisan legislation is a critical step toward ending the 
scourge of robocalls. I am pleased to see portions of my own robocall 
bill, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, incorporated in the TRACED Act. 
While there is more to be done, without a doubt, I am proud to be a 
part of this important effort to help protect consumers, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. Robocalls are not 
only a nuisance, they are a threat to honest, hardworking Montanans. 
Illegal robocalls seek to exploit them and steal their personal, 
private information and their money.
  Montanans hate robocalls. It is time to put an end to the stories I 
hear too often from Montanans about illegal robocalls.
  Today, we are taking a huge step forward, providing relief from 
robocalls with the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act. It gives consumers tools 
to block illegal robocalls at no cost. It also holds illegal 
robocallers accountable for their scams, including higher fines and 
more prison time. This bill includes language from my bipartisan bill 
that helps identify and prosecute illegal robocall companies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and providing 
the American people with needed relief from robocalls.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
from Oregon. I want to thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden 
for their hard work on this important bipartisan issue.
  Robocall scams leave anyone with a cell phone vulnerable to fraud. 
Today it is time for Congress to act. The TRACED Act expands the 
authority for the Federal Government to punish these folks and will 
help verify legitimate calls.
  I want to thank everyone who worked to bring this bill to the floor

[[Page H9244]]

for a vote, and I urge all my colleagues to show their support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, for too long, unwanted callers have 
circumvented the law in order to deliberately mislead Americans through 
robocalls and spoofing. In fact, this is the number one issue at every 
townhall that I hold in my district.
  Unfortunately, the number of robocall scams are ever increasing. 
Robocalls should not be a part of our everyday lives, and we must take 
action to stop it.
  This malicious practice has led to fraud and theft, exploiting 
vulnerable consumers, including our Nation's seniors. That is why I was 
a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, which 
passed the House in July.
  The House and Senate took parts of this bill and were able to come 
together and agree on the TRACED Act. This bill allows the Federal 
Communications Commission to seek financial penalties against those 
making calls with misleading caller identification information. Most 
importantly, this legislation allows robocalls to be blocked 
transparently at no extra cost to Americans.
  We must stop this practice once and for all by identifying and taking 
action against these violators. I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly 
support this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong 
support and encourage its swift passage.
  By some estimates, nearly 48 billion robocalls were made in the U.S. 
in 2018, which is a 57 percent increase over 2017.
  This antirobocall bill provides the FCC new authorities to impose 
substantial fines on violators--up to $20,000 per violation, and 
possibly higher in some cases. It requires phone companies to verify 
callers and help block robocalls at no extra charge.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: This legislation is a big step forward. 
But given the rapidly changing technology, combined with the fact that 
many of these calls come from overseas, we can't let up, and more will 
need to be done.
  Thankfully, this bill requires a number of reports to Congress over 
the coming months that will allow us to start to crack down on these 
perpetrators even harder.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work we have done, bicameral and 
bipartisan. I thank those involved.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
working together to get this done. Our constituents deserve this. We 
deserve this.
  Over 50 billion illegal robocalls--we are not talking about the kinds 
you sign up for to give you notices when your prescriptions are ready 
for something else; we are talking about illegal scammers, often state-
backed enterprises overseas, coming into our wallets, coming into our 
bank accounts, coming into our homes, coming into our offices, and 
coming into our cell phones.
  Now, let's be clear: While this legislation will make a difference, 
the scammers are going to try and do an end around whatever technology 
the carriers use to try and block these calls, authenticate these 
calls, stop these calls; so we have, in this legislation, additional 
requirements for reporting back to Congress on other steps that need to 
be taken, especially when it comes to our healthcare system and our 
hospitals. That will be something the committee needs to continue to 
look at.
  But I think building a better bridge between the Department of 
Justice and the Federal Communications Commission so they can go after 
the bad actors and really nail them is a good thing in this bill, and 
extending out to 4 years the statute of limitations is a good thing so 
bad actors don't get to run the clock and get away with their crimes.
  This is good legislation; it will make a difference; and we will 
continue to fight this fight.

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I, too, want to thank our terrific staff, 
some of whom, by the way, have worked on this long enough they have 
gone on to other pursuits, including Robin Colwell and Tim Kurth, who 
is still with us but in a different role than when he started on this, 
Kristine Hackman, Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, Rachel Rathore.
  And on the majority side, Alex and Jerry and AJ and Dan and Parul and 
Phil, a thank-you for their great work on this, as well. We really 
appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues to vote for this bill. Let's 
get it to President Trump's desk. He will sign it, and we are going to 
help our consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are receiving more unwanted and illegal 
robocalls than ever before. The rising tide of illegal robocalls has 
quickly turned from a nuisance to a real threat on the way we all view 
and use our telephones.
  Consumers need more control and transparency over who is calling 
them. The laws that prohibit unwanted calls and the Do Not Call 
Registry no longer effectively protect consumers from unwanted or 
illegal calls because it is easier than ever to become a robocaller. 
These calls all undermine the public's trust in our phone system.
  If we don't fix this problem, it will only get worse. The TRACED Act 
is the best way Congress can address the deluge of spam and spam 
robocalls.
  Consumer groups and industry widely support the legislation, 
including Consumer Reports, AARP, the National Consumer Law Center, US 
Telecom, and more.
  Basically, what we have in this bill are commonsense, meaningful 
solutions that will put consumers back in control of their phones and 
will help restore trust in our phone system.
  Now, in closing, I just want to thank all of the Members and staff 
who were able to work together to produce this great legislation, and 
there are a lot: obviously, our ranking member, Mr. Walden, the 
subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Latta, as well as Mr. Doyle.
  But I also want to thank our staff and other Members who contributed 
their legislation to the TRACED Act. So, Members such as Mr. McEachin, 
Mr. Olson, Mr. Kim, Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Brindisi, and Mr. Kustoff 
introduced the Locking Up Robocallers Act, which was added to this 
legislation in section 11.
  Ms. Clarke, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Rouda, Ms. Foxx, and Mr. 
Walberg introduced the Ending One-Ring Scams Act, which was added to 
this legislation in section 12.
  Mr. Crist introduced his Spam Calls Task Force Act, which was added 
to the bill in section 5.
  Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Gianforte introduced 
the Tracing Back and Catching Unlawful Robocallers Act, which was added 
to this bill in section 13.
  And Mrs. Dingell and Mr. Burgess introduced their Protecting Patients 
and Doctors from Unlawful Robocalls Act, which was added to the bill in 
section 14.
  Mr. Flores and Mr. McNerney offered their amendment to increase the 
financial penalties for illegal robocallers, which was added to section 
3.
  And, of course, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta introduced their STOP 
Robocalls Act in section 10.
  Finally, I would like to thank all the staff on both sides of the 
aisle who worked on this bill, in particular, Jerry Leverich over here, 
Alex Hoehn-Saric behind me, Dan Miller behind me, AJ Brown, and Parul 
Desai on the majority staff; Tim Kurth, Kate O'Connor, Evan Viau, Robin 
Colwell on the minority staff; as well as Phil Murphy on Subcommittee 
Chairman Doyle's staff and Rachel Rathore on Subcommittee Ranking 
Member Latta's staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this measure, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 151, the Pallone-
Thune TRACED Act.
  Robocalls are an epidemic and anyone with a phone knows this. I hear 
from my constituents daily about robocalls, and I know all of

[[Page H9245]]

my colleagues do as well. Just last month Americans received a near 
record of 5.5 billion robocalls. I'm subjected to this harassment and 
so are my colleagues.
  These calls are highly annoying, but they are also used to scam and 
swindle people. Last year, an estimated 43 million Americans were 
scammed out of $10.5 billion.
  The American people are demanding that Congress take action to combat 
this national nuisance and today the House will deliver a victory for 
them. I'm proud that this bipartisan, bicameral agreement will put a 
real dent in our robocall problem.
  We know that no one bill can completely solve such a complex problem, 
and it's why the FCC and Congress must remain vigilant to ensure 
statutory and regulatory protections are sufficient to protect 
consumers.
  This legislation will bring relief to millions of Americans, so let's 
pass it and get it signed into law pronto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, S. 151, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________