[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 STOPPING ILLEGAL ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS: 
                  PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND NEXT STEPS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                                INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 4, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-22
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                   
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
60-677 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                    
                   
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                        BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                 Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
    Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                     MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                        GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
                                 Chairman
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio, Vice Chairman  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  PAUL TONKO, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               KEVIN MULLIN, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex          FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)                             officio)
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Gary J. Palmer, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Alabama, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New York, opening statement...........................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20

                               Witnesses

Joshua M. Bercu, Executive Director, Industry Traceback Group, 
  and Senior Vice President, USTelecom...........................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   132
Sarah Leggin, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA...........    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   134
Stephen Waguespack, President, Institute for Legal Reform, and 
  Special Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce......................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   137
Ben Winters, Director of AI and Privacy, Consumer Federation of 
  America........................................................    76
    Prepared statement...........................................    78

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record.......................   130
Letter of June 4, 2025, from Hon. Eric Sorensen, a Representative 
  in Congress from the State of Illinois, to Mr. Palmer and Ms. 
  Clarke.........................................................   131

 
  STOPPING ILLEGAL ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS: PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND 
                               NEXT STEPS

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary Palmer 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Palmer, Balderson, 
Griffith, Dunn, Crenshaw, Weber, Allen, Fulcher, Rulli, Guthrie 
(ex officio), Clarke (subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, 
Tonko, Trahan, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Mullin, and Pallone (ex 
officio).
    Also present: Representatives Joyce and Pfluger.
    Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; 
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of 
Finance and Logistics; Brittany Havens, Chief Counsel; Megan 
Jackson, Staff Director; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff 
Director; Alex Khlopin, Clerk; John Lin, Senior Counsel; Sarah 
Meier, Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; 
Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder Director; Joanne 
Thomas, Counsel; Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director; Aurora 
Ellis, Minority Law Clerk; Austin Flack, Minority Professional 
Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director 
and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff 
Director; Will McAuliffe, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and 
Investigations; Constance O'Connor, Minority Senior Counsel; 
Christina Parisi, Minority Professional Staff Member; Harry 
Samuels, Minority Counsel; and Caroline Wood, Minority Research 
Analyst.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GARY J. PALMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

    Mr. Palmer. Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing 
entitled ``Stopping Illegal Robocalls and Robotexts: Progress, 
Challenges, and Next Steps.''
    All of us have personal experiences with unwanted robocalls 
and robotexts. Some are merely annoying, but others have 
devastating consequences. For example, in March, the FCC warned 
consumers about scam robocalls targeting older Americans, and 
the Department of Justice announced that it charged 25 
individuals for participating in the same scam that defrauded 
Americans out of more than $21 million in more than 40 States. 
The scammers made phone calls pretending to be an individual's 
grandchild who needed money for bail after being arrested, or 
pretended to be the grandchild's attorney and were told that 
they could not speak to anyone about the arrest. This is one of 
the many heartbreaking examples of scams perpetrated on 
Americans by illegal robocallers and bad actors.
    According to recent estimates, in April of 2025, nearly 
2,000 robocalls were placed to U.S. consumers every second. 
Spam and scam calls make consumers feel threatened, fearful, 
and distrustful of legitimate calls. As more and more Americans 
ignore calls from unknown numbers, they miss important calls. 
Moreover, fraud perpetrated against Americans by illegal 
robocalls costs an average of $25 billion annually, primarily 
affecting those who cannot afford such losses.
    We are also seeing a lot of unwanted and scam robotexts and 
AI-generated phone calls and text messages, including voice 
clones and deepfakes. According to the FCC, consumer complaints 
about unwanted text messages increased 500-fold between 2015 
and 2022. Americans are frustrated, and understandably so.
    In 2019, the bipartisan Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall 
Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence, or TRACED, Act was 
enacted to help reduce the flood of illegal robocalls. The 
TRACED Act allowed the FCC and law enforcement to impose 
stricter penalties for intentional violations of the Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, improved adoption of 
technical solutions like STIR and SHAKEN call authentication 
framework, and established a Federal interagency working group 
to combat illegal robocalls. As a result, U.S. 
telecommunications carriers have made progress implementing 
STIR/SHAKEN into their networks.
    This framework authenticates that phone calls are coming 
from legitimate phone numbers, which helps reduce the number of 
spoofed and illegal robocalls. Generally, to operate within the 
U.S., voice service providers must now implement robocall 
mitigation programs and file these plans in their STIR/SHAKEN 
compliance certifications in the robocall mitigation database 
overseen by the FCC. Moreover, in July 2020, the FCC recognized 
the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group as the single registered 
consortium to conduct private led traceback efforts that 
identified the source of an illegal robocall. The FCC has also 
taken measures to address the growing burden of unwanted and 
scam robotexts and abused AI technologies.
    Specifically, in March 2023, the agency adopted regulations 
targeting scam robotexts. In addition, industry actors have 
partnered with Federal agencies to launch new programs such as 
robotext tracing. Lastly, in August, the FCC proposed rules to 
protect consumers from AI-generated robocalls and robotexts.
    These are steps in the right direction, and I applaud the 
coordination we have seen thus far. While the TCPA has provided 
many useful tools, the TCPA's private right of action has given 
rise to class-action lawsuits focused on minor infractions 
rather than the bad actors responsible for placing illegal 
robocalls, and it has not reduced the number of illegal 
robocalls or improved consumer protection.
    In addition, STIR/SHAKEN implementation among smaller 
carriers has been delayed, and bad actors have exploited these 
providers' reliance on legacy infrastructure. Moreover, a 
majority of illegal robocalls and robotexts originate overseas, 
making them hard to trace. Because these bad actors are outside 
the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement, they are challenging 
to combat.
    Finally, the FCC must grapple with emerging technologies 
and navigate the best way to create appropriate guard rails for 
these technologies, while simultaneously continuing to support 
innovation. We will always have robocalls and robotexts because 
not all of them are illegal. Many are used for legitimate 
purposes by U.S. businesses and public entities. But we must 
continue finding ways to combat the unwanted communications.
    I want to thank our panel of witnesses for joining us. I 
look forward to a robust discussion to understand the current 
landscape of illegal robocalls and robotexts plaguing U.S. 
consumers and businesses, so we can work together to identify 
and address remaining challenges.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. I now recognize the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Clarke, for her opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel 
of witnesses for appearing before us today.
    Americans are tired of hundreds of unwanted calls and texts 
they receive every year from scammers attempting to steal their 
hard-earned money. In 2023, Americans lost over $25 billion to 
phone-based scams. These criminals target the vulnerable and 
kindhearted by pretending to be law enforcement, Medicare, or 
even relatives in order to scam them out of hard-earned money. 
Enough is enough.
    For years, there has been a bipartisan effort to address 
this issue. In 2019, Democrats and Republicans came together to 
pass the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, giving the Federal 
Government greater enforcement ability and the authority to 
implement a call authentication framework and force phone 
carriers to improve the traceback of illegal calls.
    Under the Biden administration, the Federal Communications 
Commission created the Robocall Response Team that has assisted 
in cutting off providers who facilitate illegal robocalls. And 
last year, Ranking Member Pallone led a Democratic package to 
close the loophole scammers rely on to target Americans. 
Committee Democrats are now working on updates to strengthen 
that package.
    Unfortunately, the Trump administration and congressional 
Republicans are retreating from the fight against illegal 
robocalls and robotexts. Just last week, President Trump 
released his 2026 budget proposal, in which he recommends 
cutting $42 million and firing 83 people from the Federal Trade 
Commission. By the Trump administration's own definition, the 
mission of the FTC is to protect the public from unfair or 
deceptive business practices, including unlawful telemarketing 
and robocalls. How can we expect the Federal Government to do 
more to protect Americans when the Trump administration is 
firing the very people whose job it is to enforce the law?
    Right now, law enforcement in all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia are combating robocalls. A bipartisan 
group of 40 State attorney generals wrote to Congress to say 
that their State laws regulating artificial intelligence help 
prevent spam phone calls and texts. But just a few weeks ago, 
Republicans on this committee voted for a reconciliation 
package that includes a 10-year moratorium on enforcement of 
State and local AI laws that these State attorney generals are 
opposed to. This provision stops States in their tracks from 
doing important work when we have not yet provided a Federal 
solution.
    I think my Republican colleagues forget they are not the 
only elected officials in this country. State legislators and 
law enforcement work in tandem every day to stop these 
harassing robocalls and texts, and you should not stand in 
their way.
    Stopping robocalls and texts will require dedicated 
employees at every level of government. Congressional 
Republicans should not hamstring the efforts of State and local 
enforcement, and President Trump should not slash and burn the 
budgets and staff of Federal agencies, all of which are 
dedicated to serving the American people. We in Congress have a 
duty to our constituents. Committee Democrats are here to 
prioritize the will of the people who put us in these chairs, 
not prove our loyalty to Donald Trump.
    If my Republican colleagues honestly want to stop illegal 
robocalls and robotexts, let's work together to support the 
Federal employees and agencies that work, instead of tearing 
them down.
    Having said that, I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and I thank the 
Ranking Member Clarke. I thank you for holding this hearing. A 
lot of times, when we are back from our breaks away from home, 
people in DC ask us, ``What are you hearing back home?'' And I 
will tell you, I mean, of all the things going on in 
Washington, DC, one of the number-one things I hear is 
robocalls.
    And I was sitting with a good friend of mine who is a 
little older, and just chatting with him for about an hour 
during the break. And I bet his phone rang four or five times. 
And each one was a robocall. So this is important. It is 
important to the American people. And it is not just because of 
the annoyance, it is because of the people that get ripped off 
with these people. And there are over 52 billion robocalls, and 
that is 4 billion calls a month, an average of 13 calls per 
person.
    At the outset, I would like to state that many robocalls 
are both legal and necessary. Robocalls are used to convey 
public service announcements and emergency messages. They are 
used for announcing school closures and providing reminders of 
upcoming appointments and payments. These are the calls that we 
want.
    But a large number of robocalls are illegal and are used to 
defraud, harass, and deceive customers. We have all received 
calls where someone on the other end of the line pretends to be 
IRS or Treasury and attempts to offer student loans or debt 
relief and sell insurance, or claims to be a bank or a credit 
card company. According to one survey, American victims of 
fraud lost an average of $450 to phone scams that prey on trust 
and exploit vulnerabilities. This exploitation is despicable, 
and the impact on victims is tragic, and many have lost their 
entire life savings. And we know this must stop.
    And thankfully, in 2019, the committee passed the 
bipartisan bicameral legislation which President Trump signed 
into law, the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, to combat the epidemic 
of illegal robocalls. And I was proud to vote for that. The 
TRACED Act is an important law that provides the FCC and its 
partners with greater enforcement authority to hold illegal 
robocallers and bad actors accountable.
    Since the enactment of the TRACED Act, the FCC has used 
this authority to issue additional rules as well as civil and 
criminal penalties under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 
As a result, we have seen a downward trend in the prevalence of 
illegal robocalls.
    In addition, the FCC continues to mandate the voice service 
providers implement STIR/SHAKEN, caller ID authentication 
technology, and provide robocall mitigation plans to the 
robocall mitigation database. Furthermore, in 2020, USTelecom's 
Industry Traceback Group, or ITG, was recognized as the single 
private consortium to trace back the origins of suspected 
illegal robocalls, helping us to stop these calls at their 
source. All together, we have seen some great work done by our 
Federal agencies and their industry partners.
    However, despite these strides forward, illegal and scam 
robocalls persist. We are even seeing a significant increase in 
unwanted scam and robotexts, which include messages alerting 
consumers to act on undeliverable packages and unpaid tolls, to 
name a few examples.
    Complicating these issues are new developments in 
artificial intelligence, including voice cloning and deepfake 
technologies to impersonate individuals and generate scam phone 
calls and texts. Just last month, the FBI issued a warning 
about a malicious messaging campaign targeting government 
officials and their acquaintances by sending AI-generated voice 
messages impersonating senior U.S. officials to gain access to 
their data.
    As challenges evolve, so too must solutions. The Committee 
on Energy and Commerce has been at the forefront of leading 
discussions, understanding challenges, and developing solutions 
to address issues with new technologies, and we will continue 
to do so throughout this Congress. Notwithstanding the complex 
landscape illegal scam robocalls and robotexts pose for 
customers, legitimate businesses, Federal agencies, and their 
partners, I am optimistic that Republicans and Democrats will 
continue to work together to develop commonsense, bipartisan 
solutions to protect the American people from these fraudsters.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. 
Thank you for taking your time to be here. And I look forward 
to your testimonies. And I will yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Combating the surge of unwanted robocalls and robotexts has 
been a priority of mine for years. And, as I appreciate 
Chairman Guthrie saying, in 2009, I led passage of the TRACED 
Act. And this law has helped protect Americans from predatory 
and annoying robocalls and gave Federal agencies better tools 
to fight back against fraudsters.
    Despite these steps, Americans are still continuously 
bombarded by unwanted calls and texts that are not only 
annoying but cause real harm through fraud and scams. 
Technological advancements have supercharged fraud and made it 
easier and less expensive for scammers to make massive numbers 
of robocalls, to spoof caller ID information in order to hide a 
caller's true identity. They also use artificial intelligence 
to trick consumers to thinking they are talking to a relative 
in financial trouble, or to a trusted business offering 
assistance.
    Now, Americans received over 52 billion robocalls in 2024, 
which is nearly 200 calls for every American adult. Scams 
targeting seniors are especially rampant and take many forms, 
including calls or texts claiming to be from grandchildren or 
law enforcement or Medicare, all aimed at bilking money from 
the senior citizen. And robotexts are increasingly problematic, 
using automated text messages that trick recipients into 
clicking damaging links, providing personal or financial 
information, or paying for fraudulent items or services.
    And Congress has to continue to update the authorities we 
have given both to the FTC and the Federal Communications 
Commission to crack down on robocalls. We must also consider 
legislation focused on robotexts and provide our consumer 
protection agencies with adequate funding and staffing to hold 
bad actors accountable.
    The TRACED Act gave the FCC increased authority to require 
carriers to implement a call authentication framework, and 
stepped up enforcement action against bad actors and directed 
carriers to develop better tools to protect their customers. 
But as technology evolves, fraudsters are finding new ways to 
scam Americans and abuse loopholes.
    So last Congress, I led a Democratic effort that would 
expand antirobocall protections and provide explicit 
protections against robotexts. And our bill also would have 
closed loopholes exploited by scammers, combated the use of AI 
for scams, and alleviated the robocall-blocking technology for 
consumers. My colleagues and I are working on updates to 
strengthen that package, and I am sure today's testimony will 
help inform our thinking on how to better protect consumers 
from unwanted robocalls and robotexts.
    Now, I am sure there is uniform agreement on this committee 
that it is important to put an end to harassing and illegal 
robocalls and robotexts. But I have to say that actions by the 
Trump administration do threaten our efforts to do just that. 
There is a regular effort to undermine--essentially what is 
happening is the Trump administration and, of course, the House 
Republicans, you know, are cutting funding and staff from the 
very entities that protect consumers. And, you know, this is 
all to give the big tax breaks to billionaires who do not need 
them.
    And the problem is that, while law enforcement and State 
governments have been active in combating robocalls and on 
working with industry to find technical solutions to address 
robocalls, last month the House Republicans supported the 
reconciliation bill that included a 10-year moratorium on State 
and local enforcement of their own AI laws.
    So if this Big Tech effort becomes law, it could stop State 
attempts to develop innovative solutions to prevent illegal 
robocalls and texts. And I think it compromises America's 
financial well-being and hamstrings States who are working to 
keep their citizens safe.
    Federal consumer protection agencies are vital components 
of this fight against the robocalls and robotexts. But since 
taking office, President Trump has attempted to remove Senate-
confirmed FTC Commissioners, reduce FTC and FCC staff, and that 
cripples these two important agencies' efforts to protect 
consumers. And Democrats have advocated for stronger authority 
and resources for both the FTC and the FCC, and for sensible 
guardrails to ensure consumer safety is at the forefront of 
strong enforcement by Federal, State, and private partners. But 
House Republican budgets that have all these cuts, they are 
basically underresourcing these agencies and the staff that 
would actually use the tools we have given them to fight 
against robocalls.
    So, you know, I have to say, you know, obviously, this is 
not the way to protect consumers. And, you know, I always 
worry--and I am almost out of time, Mr. Chairman, but I just 
worry that, you know, whether it is the SUPPORT Act that is on 
the floor this week or it is your efforts to talk about the 
need to address robocalls and texts, if you do not have the 
resources, if you do not have the staff, and the money is cut 
for these agencies, then it is not going to be effective, no 
matter what we do as an authorizing committee. And I am going 
to continually point that out because I think it is important.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
    That concludes Member opening statements. The Chair would 
like to remind Members that, pursuant to the committee rules, 
all Members' written opening statements will be made part of 
the record.
    We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and 
taking time to testify before the subcommittee. You will have 
the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a 
round of questions from the Members.
    Our witnesses today are Joshua Bercu, executive director 
for Industry Traceback Group and senior vice president of 
USTelecom; Ms. Sarah Leggin, vice president of regulatory 
affairs for CTIA; Mr. Stephen Waguespack, president of the 
Institute for Legal Reform and senior vice president of the 
U.S. Chamber Federation, State and local advocacy, at the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; and, finally, Mr. Ben Winters, director of 
AI and data privacy for the Consumer Federation of America.
    We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to 
hearing from you.
    You are aware that the committee is holding an oversight 
hearing and, when doing so, has the practice of taking 
testimony under oath. Do any of you have any objection to 
testifying under oath?
    Seeing no objection, we will proceed.
    The Chair advises you that you are entitled to be advised 
by counsel pursuant to House rules. Do you desire to be advised 
by counsel during your testimony today?
    Seeing none, please rise and raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Palmer. Seeing the witnesses answered in the 
affirmative, you are now sworn in and under oath, subject to 
the penalties set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the United 
States Code.
    You may be seated.
    With that, we will now recognize Mr. Bercu for 5 minutes to 
give an opening statement.

  STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA M. BERCU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY 
 TRACEBACK GROUP, AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, USTELECOM; SARAH 
   LEGGIN, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA; STEPHEN 
  WAGUESPACK, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR LEGAL REFORM, SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND BEN WINTERS, DIRECTOR OF 
         AI AND PRIVACY, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA

                  STATEMENT OF JOSHUA M. BERCU

    Mr. Bercu. Chairman Palmer and members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Congress's 
leadership in passing the TRACED Act and maintaining strong 
oversight remains critical to ensuring that industry and 
government act with urgency to address this top consumer 
concern. Your commitment remains vital to sustain the 
vigilance, innovation, and coordination needed in our continued 
and evolving fight against scam calls.
    I am Josh Bercu, executive director of the Industry 
Traceback Group, or ITG, which is the FCC-designated traceback 
consortium under the TRACED Act, and senior vice president at 
USTelecom.
    Let me start with the bottom line: The TRACED Act worked. 
When Congress passed the TRACED Act, robocall complaints were 
nearing a crisis point, doubling at the FTC from 1.7 million in 
2014 to nearly 4 million in 2019. Today, they are down more 
than 70 percent. FCC complaints are down 77 percent. That's 
real progress. It did not solve everything, but we now have 
tools and a mandate to fight back.
    Over the past 6 years, we have built a framework that makes 
it harder and riskier for bad actors and criminals to 
infiltrate our networks. But it is neither hard nor risky 
enough, and the threat is evolving. Fraud losses are rising, 
not because of mass robocalls but because of targeted, more 
sophisticated scams. We have gone from fishing with dynamite to 
precision strikes. And that demands a more agile defense.
    That is where traceback has come in. Since its inception, 
the ITG has conducted over 20,000 tracebacks. We help identify 
who's behind illegal calls, whether it is a robocall campaign, 
a spoof threat to a high school, or a scam impersonating a 
bank. Our work supports law enforcement and drives action.
    When a rural high school in West Virginia received a 
threatening call, we worked with providers to trace the call 
path within hours, helping police confirm the call was not 
actually made locally, and safely reunite families.
    The tools Congress empowered are as essential now as ever. 
Call blocking and labeling stops millions of illegal calls 
every day. Call authentication has made it far harder for bad 
actors to spoof numbers at scale. And pursuant to the TRACED 
Act, FCC rules now require all providers to know where their 
traffic comes from and take action when it is identified as 
unlawful, including through our tracebacks. The threat is 
evolving, so we need to keep evolving with the threat.
    The good news? We're not starting from scratch. Here are 
three things we think Congress can do to help:
    One, build a unified national scam strategy. We need a 
national strategy and a central Federal coordinator or task 
force to unify efforts, eliminate silos, and give industry a 
clear point of contact. That strategy should include 
international cooperation, including on traceback. We also need 
to treat call-based scams for what they are: crime. And it's 
crime that can only be fully stopped through cross-border 
criminal enforcement.
    Two, strengthen the tools that work. Let's reinforce the 
existing framework, extend the FCC's traceback designation 
cycle, and provide narrow immunity so we can plan, invest, and 
act decisively without being distracted or deterred by an 
annual administrative process or the risk of nuisance lawsuits. 
We've also worked on new tools to explore other aspects of 
unlawful calling campaigns and, with congressional backing, 
they could become permanent and powerful parts of the tool set.
    Three, unleash and promote cross-sector collaboration. Some 
of the most meaningful progress we've made has come from 
collaboration. We've launched a pilot with banks and carriers 
to trace spoofed numbers pretending to be the banks, a model of 
the cross-sector collaboration we need more of.
    But barriers can get in the way. Right now, providers may 
hesitate to share intelligence simply because rules and risks 
are not clear. A narrowly scoped safe harbor could change that, 
clarifying that sharing information to prevent fraud is not 
only allowed but encouraged. Blame will not stop fraud, but 
partnerships can. The TRACED Act was a turning point, but we 
need to keep adapting and fighting back.
    Thank you for your leadership. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bercu follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Leggin for 5 
minutes for your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF SARAH LEGGIN

    Ms. Leggin. Chairmen Palmer and Guthrie, Ranking Members 
Clarke and Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf 
of CTIA and the wireless industry, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    CTIA commends the committee for its leadership in 
protecting Americans from the scourge of illegal and unwanted 
robocalls and robotexts. Consumers rely on wireless more than 
ever for voice calls and text messaging. As reported last year, 
Americans devoted nearly 2.4 trillion minutes to voice calls, 
and they exchanged more than 2.1 trillion text messages. And 
texts have a 98 percent open rate, evidencing just how much 
consumers open and read and trust their texts.
    Unfortunately, bad actors know how much consumers value and 
rely on wireless voice and text messages. As they have 
increased their deceptive efforts, we have increased our 
efforts and our success in combating them. So today, first, I 
want to talk about how we are working to stop robocalls, and 
then I will turn to the similar but different challenges we 
face when it comes to robotexts.
    First, on robocalls, we appreciate the committee's actions 
through the TRACED Act to provide the FCC with new tools to 
combat illegal robocalls. Under this framework, the wireless 
industry is helping lead the way in advancing consumers' 
control over the voice calls they receive. Although automated 
calls from your pharmacy, school, or charity can be helpful and 
enhance consumer welfare, too many of them are intrusive and a 
consumer pain point.
    In response, the wireless industry has built a range of 
defenses against illegal and unwanted robocalls. We spearheaded 
the development of STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework, led 
the way in implementing it, as the TRACED Act directed. In 
addition, wireless providers and their partners have launched a 
variety of powerful tools to regain consumer control over the 
calls they receive. These include know-your-customer practices, 
innovative call blocking, tracing back illegal robocalls to 
identify bad actors, and robust robocall mitigation programs.
    Wireless providers black label or identify over 45 billion 
scam calls every year while also working hard to make sure that 
legitimate calls are completed. Thanks to these efforts, 
robocall complaints reached a 6-year low last year. And we look 
forward to continuing progress there.
    Now, turning to text messaging. Wireless text messaging is 
one of the most popular and trusted forms of communication 
among American consumers today. The wireless industry and our 
partners in the messaging ecosystem work really hard to keep it 
that way. To do so, we use proactive, multilayered measures 
that include tools like up-front vetting and verification, 
sophisticated machine learning and AI for filtering and 
blocking, and consumer reporting, all balancing the need to 
protect consumers and ensure that legitimate texts go through.
    As just one metric, wireless providers blocked over 55 
billion texts last year while at the same time delivering 
trillions of legitimate texts. And we are always evolving our 
techniques to leverage the latest technology and meet new 
challenges. We complement these tools with best practices that 
offer industry-led guidance to honor consumer preferences 
focused on consent while supporting legitimate communications. 
The best practices are adopted throughout the messaging 
ecosystem and were recognized by a coalition of consumer 
advocate organizations as a critical element in protecting 
consumers and the messaging platform from bad actors.
    Notwithstanding all these efforts, bad actors continue to 
try to exploit consumers' trust by spamming and scamming them. 
So to better target those bad actors, CTIA launched the Secure 
Messaging Initiative, or the SMI, to convene the texting 
ecosystem to help identify scam activity and refer it to law 
enforcement for investigation. Through the SMI, we've already 
traced over 172,000 robotexts and made over a dozen referrals 
to our law enforcement partners at the FCC, FTC, DOJ, and 50-
State attorney general enforcement task force. These focused on 
scams like student loans, government and bank impersonation, 
package delivery, and more. Collectively, these efforts are 
helping to stop scammers and maintain consumer trust in text 
messaging.
    Collaboration with our government partners is key to 
continued success, and we support the administration's efforts 
to protect consumers. Chairman Carr at the FCC has made 
cracking down on illegal robocalls a top priority, and we 
support this effort. And we acknowledge Ranking Member 
Pallone's Do Not Disturb Bill with the goal of combating 
consumer fraud.
    Finally, we encourage Congress to take steps to support 
action against the bad actors behind illegal robocalls and 
robotexts. Many agencies are working hard to fight consumer 
fraud but lack the personnel or resources to bring cases. To 
help out, Congress could have agencies report on their current 
consumer fraud resources and actions and leverage that 
information to prioritize support. With more resources at the 
Federal and State levels, Congress can help take bad actors off 
the field and stop illegal robocalls and robotexts at the 
source.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We look 
forward to working with you all to protect consumers from 
intrusive and illegal robocalls and robotexts.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Leggin follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Waguespack for 5 
minutes for your testimony.

                STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WAGUESPACK

    Mr. Waguespack. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member 
Clarke, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Stephen 
Waguespack, and I serve as president of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, more commonly known as 
ILR. The ILR is a division of the Chamber whose mission is to 
champion a fair legal system that promotes economic growth and 
opportunity. We believe that an effective legal system is 
critical to helping both customers and business owners. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today about the robocalling 
landscape and how American businesses are protecting consumers.
    There are four main points I would like to cover in today's 
hearing.
    Number one, legitimate businesses support and are helping 
to lead efforts to crack down on illegal and abusive robocalls 
and robotexts. Businesses have every incentive to ensure that 
consumers continue to trust these communications. The illegal 
calls and texts that seek to defraud U.S. consumers begin with 
bad actors exploiting the reputation and good will of trusted 
American brands.
    For example, one in three businesses report being 
impersonated by scammers, with 13 percent reporting a switch in 
brands due to this deception. According to 2024 data from Hiya, 
45 percent of consumers have received a call from someone 
impersonating a legitimate business, and 70 percent of 
businesses report getting a similar attack. Beyond reputational 
damage, fraudulent calling and texting schemes also degrade 
consumers' trust in these types of communications, making it 
difficult for businesses to engage with their customers. That's 
why many companies are proactively helping regulators trace 
these bad actors and going on the offensive by fighting back 
directly against them.
    For example, Marriott International brought its own 
trademark lawsuit against malicious robocallers and scored 
significant legal victories over both foreign and U.S.-based 
defendants, while DirecTV also secured a total of $8 million in 
judgments and broad, permanent injunctions. The private sector 
is also devising innovative technologies, such as analytics-
powered software, while partnering with the government through 
programs like the Industry Traceback Group and Secure Messaging 
Initiative in tackling illegal and abusive robocalls.
    Number two, more legislation will not solve the problem. 
Fraudulent and abusive robocalls and robotexts are already 
illegal. Congress must ensure that its already substantial 
efforts to curb these activities bear fruit by encouraging 
Federal agencies to make illegal robocalls and robotexts an 
enforcement priority. As the Chamber has previously urged, 
lawmakers should push DOJ to prioritize enforcement against 
these bad actors and report annually to Congress on their 
efforts.
    There is optimism that focus on this topic could be 
welcomed by the DOJ, as we have seen the FCC and FTC utilizing 
tools like the traceback program to increase the focus on bad 
actors.
    Number three and most critically, the TCPA's private rights 
of action provisions continue to fuel abusive litigation 
against American businesses. This difficult operating 
environment hurts both businesses and consumers and is 
undermining the proactive efforts by this Congress to address 
the very real problem of scammers. The private right of action 
provisions in the TCPA make it more challenging for legitimate 
businesses and organizations to send and for consumers to 
receive good calls and texts, such as appointment reminders, 
notifications about school closures, and other communications 
that consumers want. At the same time, it does not deter bad 
calls and texts, such as fraudulent and harassing 
communications that originate from bad actors.
    It is critical that Congress distinguish between these two 
types of calls and limit the ability of a handful of aggressive 
plaintiff firms to dominate the market for these suits. 
Congress should also encourage the FCC to simplify TCPA 
regulations to boost compliance, ensure certainty for 
legitimate businesses, and focus on addressing bad actors.
    Fourth and finally, Congress could utilize the precedents 
set in other Federal and State statutes to limit the abuse of 
private rights of action found within TCPA by implementing, 
one, reasonable damage caps; two, clear safe harbor provisions; 
three, limits on unreasonable attorney fees; and, four, 
mandatory disclosure of any usage of third-party litigation 
financing, known as TPLF, in these TCPA cases to ensure 
consumer rights are protected. The business community wants to 
end illegal robocalls and robotexts to foster a safe and 
trustworthy communications ecosystem for businesses and their 
consumers.
    As Congress considers paths forward, the enforcement should 
be a top priority of all Federal agencies, and Congress should 
consider reforms to prevent legitimate businesses from being 
ensnared in abusive TCPA litigation.
    Thank you for your work to date on this topic, and to the 
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss these important 
issues. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Waguespack follows:]
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Winters for 5 
minutes for your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF BEN WINTERS

    Mr. Winters. Chair Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Chair 
Palmer, Ranking Member Clarke, and members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for inviting me to testify before you on this 
important issue.
    I am Ben Winters. I am the director of AI and privacy at 
the Consumer Federation of America, or CFA. CFA is an 
association of nonprofit consumer organizations established in 
1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, 
advocacy, and education.
    There is a staggering amount of monetary and emotional harm 
caused by scams perpetrated through robocalls and robotexts. 
Consumers lost over $12.5 billion to scams last year, which was 
a 20 percent increase from 2023. Even when no money is lost, 
there is a constant sense of annoyance and need for vigilance. 
Americans received an estimated 19.2 billion robotexts and 5 
billion robocalls last month alone. And just this morning, the 
Washington Post featured the fact that there is a five times 
jump in scam losses from schemes that started in texts since 
2020.
    In this testimony, I will be highlighting how 
underregulated technologies like AI are making these problems 
worse, how Federal consumer protection agencies can be doing 
more, and how Congress can act to protect consumers from this 
annoying and dangerous problem.
    Generative AI reduces the time and effort criminals have to 
expend in order to deceive their targets. Products like ChatGPT 
can create quick and unique human-sounding scripts that can be 
sent in text or read by humans or AI-generated voices, and it's 
easy to make variations that make them difficult to spot.
    In CFA's recent ``Scamplified'' report, we illustrate how 
easy it is to use ChatGPT to generate text with an urgent ask 
to add $50 worth of bitcoin to a wallet. It spat out 30, 50, 
100 texts with common women's names and real hospitals in 
common U.S. cities to create urgency. It even continued to spit 
out texts when we asked it to target it to someone that might 
have dementia.
    And it is not just text generators. Voice-cloning tools can 
now replicate anyone's speech using just a few seconds from a 
phone call or a podcast interview. Scammers have exploited this 
to impersonate loved ones, such as in grandparent scams you 
have already heard about today.
    Consumer Reports' investigation showed popular voice-
cloning platforms do not require the user to verify their 
identity or gain consent before creating these voice clonings.
    Beyond AI, there is a host of companies in what we call the 
scam stack, all of which are fueling an increase in scams. 
These include data brokers that sell data en masse based on 
people's behavior, purchases, relationships, location, and 
more, automated content delivery, things like we're talking 
about today, and methods of reporting which can be improved to 
bridge the gap between a victim and the authorities that could 
help.
    Federal consumer protection agencies tasked with stopping 
scam robotexts and robocalls like the FCC and FTC are being 
stripped down and distracted. The consequence is stark. In 
April, the Department of Justice eliminated their consumer 
protection branch entirely. This is the branch that brought a 
landmark criminal case against a data broker that sold over 30 
million records of elderly Americans that was then used to 
perpetrate a scam. This type of enforcement of upstream actors 
is exactly what we need to see, and it is troubling to see that 
agency get axed.
    Americans deserve an FCC that is focused on the complicated 
robocall ecosystem, and they have done a lot to try to address 
it. But the agency leadership right now seems focused on 
controlling the speech and hiring practices of entertainment 
companies that are perceived to be the enemies of the President 
instead of ramping up rulemaking and enforcement as an 
independent agency.
    Chairman Carr's Delete, Delete, Delete Initiative, in which 
he is asking the American public what regulations the FCC 
should delete because they stand in the way of expansion and 
technological innovation, is illustrative of this disastrous 
deregulatory approach that does not even mention consumer 
protection.
    At the FTC, the firing of key staff and, critically, two of 
the five Commissioners have left the agency ill equipped to 
protect American consumers. The agency must finalize the 
individual impersonation rule so they can deter and enforce 
violations of widespread things like voice cloning, like they 
have started to do with government and business impersonation, 
which they finalized last year.
    Both agencies must prioritize enforcement against upstream 
actors, such as voice service providers and AI developers who 
knowingly facilitate these harmful practices. These 
intermediaries are critical to how illegal calls and texts 
scale and are essential to meaningful accountability.
    Congress has to hold upstream actors accountable, just like 
I talked about, strengthen enforcement tools beyond just what's 
in the TRACED Act, increase transparency, and mandate 
consequences for known bad actors throughout the call path. We 
also urge Congress to increase funding for State enforcement, 
pass privacy laws restricting data brokers, and require 
responsible AI moderation and transparency.
    One thing Congress absolutely should not do right now is 
pass a moratorium on regulating AI at the State level. The 
scale of these problems is one of many reasons it's not the 
time to do this. And if States can create transparency or 
establish appropriate liability, we should welcome it, 
embracing the critical roles of States not only to protect 
consumers but be the laboratory of democracy.
    Right now, the FTC, FCC, and CFPB risk being cops off of 
their beat. And Congress must empower them, resource them, and 
restore them in order to aggressively protect consumers. The 
American people deserve nothing less.
    Thanks again for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy 
to answer any questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Winters follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Palmer. I thank you all for your testimony. We will now 
move on to questioning. I will begin and recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bercu, the Broadband Association's Industry Traceback 
Group conducted more than 3,600 tracebacks of suspected 
unlawful robocalls in 2024. Generally speaking, what percentage 
of unlawful robocalls are foreign originated?
    Mr. Bercu. Thank you for the question. So I do not have an 
exact number on how many came from foreign countries or foreign 
entities. But we do know that a lot of the fraud comes from 
abroad. Illegal telemarketing, we see that sometimes originate 
at home, sometimes abroad. But a lot of the fraud does 
originate overseas.
    And one of the things we have been seeing a lot lately is--
because so much of enforcement and regulation was focused on 
who brought the illegal call into the country, what we're now 
seeing is some of the bad actors spinning out U.S.-based LLCs 
so that we are tracing it to a U.S. entity that probably has no 
people in the United States at all.
    Mr. Palmer. Dealing with the foreign actors, though, 
creates some tremendous challenges because we cannot charge 
them with a crime right now, unless they are operating in 
country. Is there any recourse through civil action? I mean, 
what recourse do you have to deal with foreign actors? And be 
as brief as you can.
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, I think we can do criminal action, and I 
think that needs to be a priority. The same people attacking us 
here are attacking other countries as well. I think there's a 
lot of opportunities for collaboration. And just to give you 
one anecdote, when the FBI did work several years ago with the 
Central Bureau of Intelligence in India to raid some of the 
call centers there, we saw IRS robocalls drop 80 percent 
overnight.
    Mr. Palmer. Ms. Leggin, can you tell us how CTIA's Secure 
Messaging Initiative works to trace back robotexts? And how 
effective has this been to stop illegal and unwanted robotexts?
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you for the question. CTIA's Secure 
Messaging Initiative was launched to convene the messaging 
ecosystem and the various players that have a role there in 
protecting consumers so that we can facilitate information 
sharing among the industry stakeholders to complement their 
existing industry tools to better fight the bad actors, and 
then to share that information with law enforcement partners at 
the FCC, FTC, DOJ, and the 50-State attorney general 
enforcement task force. To date, we have done over 172,000 
robotexts as part of those information packages that we share 
with law enforcement. And we've done over a dozen of those 
packages that focus on scams that you all have seen, including 
government or bank impersonation, package delivery, and AI-
enhanced scams as well.
    We continue to focus on the areas where we're hearing that 
scams are happening for consumers so that we give that 
information to law enforcement so they can prioritize their 
efforts to go after the bad actors and stop the traffic at the 
source.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Bercu, I want to go back to you. How widely 
has the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework been 
implemented? And what percentage of the providers still need to 
implement the framework?
    Mr. Bercu. So under FCC rules, it is implemented on the IP 
portions of providers' networks. And we have seen a shift in 
practice because of it, especially the high-volume illegal 
telemarketers. One of the things, I think, because of STIR/
SHAKEN, they've moved away from spoofing to actually getting 
real numbers, which STIR/SHAKEN does not directly address.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Waguespack, in your testimony you were 
talking about how the private right of action has been abused. 
Instead of protecting people who have been harmed by scam 
robocalls, it has led to basically a cottage industry that is 
attacking legitimate companies. Can you talk a little bit about 
that?
    Mr. Waguespack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, in the 
statements from--the opening statements from the panel and 
obviously from the witnesses here, there seems to be a unified 
focus that these bad actors a lot of times which are very hard 
to find which are located overseas, those are the true ones 
driving a lot of this issue. The private right of action 
provisions within TCPA are not utilized to go after those bad 
actors. Instead, a cottage industry has developed to go after 
simply where there are opportunities to make money.
    And also the provisions of the PRA within TCPA are 
extremely broad compared to other Federal statutes. There's no 
caps on recovery, as you see in HIPAA, no safe harbor provision 
you see in COPPA, no cap on attorney fees that you see in other 
statutes. And so it has created a class action factory that is 
being exploited by just a handful of firms--
    Mr. Palmer. So it has become a predatory use of the private 
right of action. I saw where one of the judgments was for $260-
something million. So how do we respond to that?
    Mr. Waguespack. I think we borrow from other statutes 
already in place at the Federal level. You look to HIPAA to put 
a cap on the total recovery. They set that at 25,000. There is 
no cap here. It is up to 15,000 per occurrence under this 
statute, which absolutely drives those numbers up.
    And most of these suits, they are not trying to win in 
court, they are just trying to drive discovery to make it very 
expensive and drive settlement. And you are seeing it play out 
time and time again. In fact, there is one law firm that has 
done over 155 cases over a 3-year period on this front. They 
have developed a niche market. There is even one plaintiff who 
has done almost 125 himself on this issue.
    So you have a handful of folks exploiting this system. That 
is not helping the consumers that desperately need some of the 
help from these scam robocalls.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes for her questions.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Unwanted calls continue to be the top consumer complaint 
received by the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. In 
2024, Americans received over 52 billion robocalls, and 49 
percent of those robocalls were scams or from telemarketers.
    Mr. Bercu, how has the robocall and robotext threat 
landscape changed since the implementation of the TRACED Act 
and STIR and SHAKEN?
    Mr. Bercu. So I think we have made a lot of progress. But 
as you are recognizing, there is work left to do. We have seen 
complaints. They are still too high, but they have dropped 
pretty dramatically from the highs from several years ago.
    We have seen some of the bad actors, instead of--for scam 
robocalls, they are about 50 percent of what they once were for 
scam robocalls. But we have seen the scammers move from mass 
robocalls to more targeted, more sophisticated attacks where 
they know exactly who they are calling. So that is a little bit 
of how this has changed over time.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. So we still have more to do.
    With the work left undone in the fight against phone scams, 
it baffles me that the Trump administration is undermining the 
government institutions that combat them. In March, President 
Trump attempted to illegally removed Senate-confirmed 
Commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission, an independent 
agency with the explicit mission to protect the public from 
unfair and deceptive business practices like unlawful 
telemarketing and robocalls. And in April, in accordance with a 
Trump administration instruction, the Department of Justice 
announced plans to dissolve its consumer protection branch, 
which tries cases targeting large-scale scams against seniors, 
AI, and cybercrimes against consumers, and illegal 
telemarketing. This just makes no sense.
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, FCC, FTC, and the 
Department of Justice have all been hit by early retirements, 
terminations, and deferred resignations. And they are all 
agencies that combat the robocall problem we are gathered to 
discuss today.
    Mr. Winters, how does an unstable and depleted FCC and FTC 
workforce impact the role both agencies play in addressing the 
robocall scams?
    Mr. Winters. Thanks for the question. I mean, these 
underresourced consumer protection agencies is just a big win 
for scammers, right? Less cops on the beat mean less 
consequences, and they can sort of act with impunity. And so 
what we need to be doing--and I think was reflected in all of 
our testimony today, is that we need more enforcement, more 
resources, and more proactive behavior. And everything from 
firing Commissioners to budget cuts goes exactly against that.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Last week, President Trump released 
a detailed Fiscal Year 2026 funding proposal. If enacted, this 
proposal would make permanent and add to the number of fired 
Federal employees, including 74 at the FCC, 83 at the FTC, and 
32 of which are identified as consumer protection roles. The 
proposal also cuts 42 million from the FTC and more than 18 
million of which would go directly toward protecting consumers.
    Mr. Winters, what would happen to the robocall-fighting 
infrastructure if the Federal Government pulled back from its 
role, whether it be from a lack of manpower, funds, or general 
disinterest in holding scammers accountable?
    Mr. Winters. In the interest of time, I'll be simple, in 
that it will get worse.
    Ms. Clarke. And what do the government actions we have 
discussed today tell the scammers and fraudsters who conduct 
robocalls and texts about the priorities of the U.S. 
Government? Do you think actions like these make robocalls more 
likely to occur in the future?
    Mr. Winters. Yes. I mean, I think it incentivizes bad 
behavior. It makes people feel like we are absolutely not going 
to be able to--we're not going to get enforcement action 
against us, it is going to be hard to track. It is hard to 
track when you have a full-court press against it, and we have 
seen that for years. But if we are pulling back, then that is 
even, you know, an unimaginable harm for American consumers.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Well, Mr. Chairman, in their written 
testimony, several of today's witnesses said Congress must 
increase support for and prioritize enforcement actions if we 
truly want to stop bad actors. The experts are calling for more 
funding and enforcement, not less. And I ask my colleagues 
across the aisle to listen to them.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Clarke.
    Next is the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for being 
here. I appreciate you all being here this morning.
    So, Mr. Bercu, in July of 2020 the FCC first selected 
USTelecom, the Broadband Association's Industry Traceback 
Group, as the single registered consortium to conduct private-
led traceback efforts, and has redesigned USTelecom's ITG each 
year since.
    So could you kind of explain--I know I am going between two 
hearings, so if you are repetitive, it helps me to repeat 
anyway, so how does traceback work and how has the USTelecom 
ITG helped the FCC with its efforts to fight illegal robocalls?
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, absolutely. So traceback helps solve for 
one of the problems, which was when a call is spoofed and we do 
not know where it is coming from, the carrier does not know 
exactly where it came from--STIR/SHAKEN helps with that, but 
traceback goes even farther. And we go hop by hop in a 
semiautomated system through a portal, and we find out exactly 
where it is coming from. And in fact, in our tracebacks we have 
identified over 2,000 providers from 75 different countries. So 
we will trace it all over the world until we can find out who 
is making the calls and actually disrupt it there.
    Our data has been used for virtually every robocall 
enforcement by the FCC, by the FTC, by the State AGs, so it has 
been a very successful partnership with the industry and 
government.
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, should the technology not be in place to 
say if I am sitting in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and a phone 
call is coming in from Nigeria that is not in my data in my 
cell phone or anything like that, should that be--there is 
technology that can block that from coming. I mean, you have to 
sign up for it, I gather, but there is technology that keeps 
that from coming to your phone, does it not?
    Mr. Bercu. So the challenge is that there is not perfect 
information at the carrier side about where that call is coming 
from. STIR/SHAKEN helps with that. I am optimistic that a 
recent rule clarification the FCC did last year, that will 
continue to advance STIR/SHAKEN and the impact there. But that 
is the challenge. And so there's definitely tools to achieve 
that, but the carriers do not have perfect information to know 
that call is coming from Nigeria.
    Mr. Guthrie. My understanding is that when a lot of these 
robocalls happen, they are not like I am calling Neal Dunn in 
Florida and faking him out on something, like I am a criminal 
in Bowling Green calling Neal Dunn in Florida. It is usually, 
spam is just thousands of calls instantaneously going out. Can 
carriers not determine that and block those calls?
    Mr. Bercu. So that type, it still happens, but that is at a 
fraction of what it once was, thanks to enforcement, thanks to 
the TRACED Act, thanks to STIR/SHAKEN. Those types of calls are 
down, depending on the data you look, about 50 percent.
    Where we see fraud calls, a lot of the robocalls that 
people still hate, a lot of those are illegal telemarketing. 
That is the majority of the robocalls people get, where it is 
telemarketing that no one consented to and they are violating 
the TCPA.
    But what we are seeing with the scams are the scams are 
getting more sophisticated, more targeted, where they are 
targeting individuals.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, so Ms. Leggin, could you talk about how 
the CTA is trying to help fight these spam calls and robocalls?
    Ms. Leggin. Sure thing. Thank you for the question.
    As Josh said, the----
    Mr. Guthrie. I think you probably need your mic. There you 
go.
    Ms. Leggin. Try that again?
    Mr. Guthrie. Perfect. It was on?
    Ms. Leggin. Is it on now?
    Mr. Guthrie. Maybe just closer to it. Yes, closer to it.
    Ms. Leggin. Sorry. Cannot see if it is on or not.
    Thank you for the question.
    Like Josh's members, the wireless industry are dedicated to 
protecting consumers from illegal and unwanted robocalls. We 
helped lead the way in developing the STIR/SHAKEN framework, 
and we supported this committee's efforts through the TRACED 
Act to promote the deployment of that. And it is now working 
well as a call authentication tool to help protect consumers 
from spoofed calls. It is just one tool in the toolbox, though, 
so especially over the last few years we have been developing 
lots of different call blocking, labeling, filtering tools to 
complement STIR/SHAKEN as part of a multipronged approach to 
protect consumers from robocalls.
    At CTIA, we are developing the next generation of call 
authentication, which is branded calling or RCTA's BCID, or 
branded calling ID, which gives consumers even more information 
about who is calling and why, to help empower consumers about 
whether to answer the phone again, as well as protecting them 
by providing consumer resources to educate them about which 
calls to ignore, so that we are kind of coming at it from all 
fronts.
    Mr. Guthrie. I assume that could be a competitive thing 
between providers to say, ``Hey, if you use our service, we can 
help you block your robocalls.'' I assume that would be.
    So Mr. Waguespack, how about increasing fines for illegal 
robocalls? What would that--would such a change affect 
legitimate businesses? And how could we improve collection of 
existing fines or overall enforcement?
    Mr. Waguespack. You know, obviously, FCC and FTC, I think, 
have done a really great job working with industry partners to 
develop through traceback and other initiatives to identify 
those, so we definitely encourage strong enforcement. And add 
that DOJ should also go after these bad actors any way we can. 
We think going through those channels as compared to unleashing 
a small niche cadre of plaintiff firms to go after quite 
frankly credible businesses just because they cannot find the 
bad actors has been the wrong minor approach within TCPA.
    So it is that private right of action that truly we think 
is a disincentive to businesses to reach out to develop those 
partnerships with their consumers that, quite frankly, most of 
their consumers want.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. Well, my time has expired, and 
I yield back. Appreciate you all being here. Thanks.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Next up is the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Pallone.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much. And, look, I think we all 
know we have to do more to stop these dangerous and unwanted 
calls and texts that continue to bombard Americans. I mean, I 
get so many myself every day. And they are not just harassment, 
they are causing real harm. The phone scams alone defrauded 
Americans of $25 billion in 2023.
    Now, the TRACED Act, which I authored in 2019, required the 
implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication 
technology to help verify the legitimacy of calls. So I wanted 
to ask Mr. Bercu, you run the Industry Traceback Group, which 
traces calls to their origin as required by the TRACED Act on 
behalf of the communications industry. In your testimony, you 
discuss how industry is utilizing this framework to fight the 
problem of robocalls and to protect consumers from scam 
artists.
    What more can industry do to protect consumers from 
unwanted and dangerous robocalls and robotexts? I am going to 
ask you a question and then Mr. Winters, so a couple minutes.
    Mr. Bercu. Sure. So thank you for the question, Ranking 
Member Pallone.
    I think the industry, we do have blocking and labeling 
deployed. We do--STIR/SHAKEN is deployed. I think there is a 
lot at work there. But I think what our experience shows is 
that when we are dealing with whether it is the illegal 
telemarketers, whether it is the criminal fraudsters abroad, 
they do not stop because it gets a little bit harder. This is 
their business, so they keep trying to find new paths.
    So I think what we see with Traceback, we are tracing them 
back, we have adapted to tracing back the targeted scam calls, 
working closely with the financial sector, other sectors as 
well. And I think that is more of the work to be done, 
complemented by very aggressive enforcement against the actual 
bad actors.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. So in March, President Trump 
illegally, in my opinion, fired the two Democratic FTC 
Commissioners, meaning that their crucial voices are missing 
from any discussion at FTC of how to better protect consumers 
from robocalls and robotexts. And they have my full support in 
their ongoing lawsuit to be rightfully restored at the FTC, and 
I think that is the very first step that needs to be taken.
    But just last year, I introduced, and I mentioned also, the 
Do Not Disturb Act, a comprehensive piece of legislation that 
aims to build on the success of the TRACED Act. And it would 
ensure that scam artists using illegal robocalls or robotexts 
cannot exploit new loopholes as new technology makes it even 
easier for fraudsters to steal from Americans.
    So, Mr. Winters, I have 2 questions. You have 2 minutes.
    Do you agree there is a need for legislation to provide 
updates to current laws like last year's Do Not Disturb Act, 
and do the FTC and FCC need more authority from Congress to 
fight text message scams? Is it just money and enforcement, or 
do they actually need more authority, if you will?
    Mr. Winters. Thank you. Yes, so on that first question, I 
think there is a lot more that Congress can do, and there is 
more that they need to do. And so whether that is some of the 
provisions in the Do Not Disturb Act, like codifying the rule 
about AI disclosures and increasing penalties for AI-generated 
scam calls, there is a lot more that can be done by Congress, 
including giving more resources to not just FCC but to State 
attorneys general, who are leading the forefront of a lot of 
this work, and increasing collaboration.
    Mr. Pallone. But do they need more authority, though?
    Mr. Winters. They do need more authority. One thing in 
particular is that they are not able to directly collect fines. 
They have to refer fine collection to the Department of 
Justice. And so they have to rely on another overworked agency 
to collect fines. And we see a lot of times, although there are 
big headlines and numbers of fines, the FCC might not actually 
be able to resolve and get a lot of that money back. So that is 
one thing that needs to be done in terms of authority.
    And they also need the authority to put more automatic 
suspension and provisions in the robocall mitigation database, 
so that when there are repeat bad actors, they are 
automatically taken out. They cannot just stay in the robocall 
mitigation database. There is not enough sort of continued 
standards and continued enforcement using that.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, as you can 
see, I think there is no question more authority is needed for 
the agencies. But I will repeat what I said earlier, which is 
they also need more resources and staff, and cutting back on 
staff and firing, you know, some of the Commissioners is 
certainly not the way to go if you really want to try to 
improve the situation with robocalls. And so I would not only 
ask that we try to move toward more authority to fight these 
scams, but also provide the resources, not cut the resources, 
not cut the staff.
    And with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
    I am up next. So welcome everybody. I am glad you are able 
to join us.
    Ms. Leggin, I will direct my questions to you this morning.
    According to the FCC, text message scams have increased 
500-fold in recent years. How have scams become more 
sophisticated over the years?
    Ms. Leggin. Thanks for the question. CTIA and our members 
are dedicated to protecting consumers from scam and spam text 
messages while also making sure that legitimate ones go 
through, because we know that consumers open and read and trust 
their text messages as one of the most preferred platforms for 
communications today.
    Over the years, we have seen bad actors increasingly target 
text messaging because they know that consumers open and read 
those texts. So as bad actors have evolved and enhanced their 
tactics, we've evolved and enhanced our defenses as well. So 
over the years, we've enhanced our blocking/filtering tools by 
enhancing them with machine learning and AI. We have launched 
the Secure Messaging Initiative, which is our work to partner 
with law enforcement to give them actionable information about 
bad actors so that they can go and take traffic off at the 
source, and those are working to help the FCC, the FTC, DOJ, 
and the attorney general enforcement task force in giving them 
information they can go after bad actors with.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you very much. You also answered 
my follow up.
    Are mobile carriers and other industry players doing enough 
to address the growth in scam and illegal robotexts?
    Ms. Leggin. Our industry is really dedicated to this issue. 
As just one metric, we blocked over 55 billion texts last year 
while also making sure that the legitimate ones go through and 
supporting over 2 trillion legitimate texts. So it really is 
always a balance. But we've dedicated a lot of different 
resources to enhancing our protections against bad actors.
    In terms of more things we can do, again, we can welcome 
help from Congress in prioritizing resources towards 
enforcement so that the agencies we work with can take on more 
of those cases, do more investigations, and go after the bad 
actors to stop that traffic at the source.
    Mr. Balderson. All right, thank you.
    How well are mobile carriers engaging with States and other 
entities for information sharing and enforcement? For example, 
with the scam toll text, did mobile carriers pause delivery and 
contact State toll authorities to verify the legitimacy of the 
numbers?
    Ms. Leggin. Our members were focused on the toll road scams 
as well as the other versions of that as part of our work to 
protect consumers from all those types of scams that 
impersonate legitimate businesses.
    The wireless carriers as well as other partners in the 
messaging ecosystem, including providers of other types of 
messaging apps that were targeted by that type of scam, 
including over-the-top online-based and at-base messaging, all 
were working together to share information with law enforcement 
to help them find the bad actors responsible and take them off 
the field.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. How can we get mobile 
carriers to better engage and pull their weight to stop the 
flood of robotexts at the same level as robocalls? At the same 
level they did for robocalls, I'm sorry.
    Ms. Leggin. The wireless industry and our messaging 
ecosystem partners are really focused on this issue. For years, 
we have been seeing bad actors really target the voice network 
because there were not blocking and other protections in place 
until the last few years.
    In text messaging, we have actually had the ability to 
block and to filter and to employ up-front vetting and 
verification for decades. And so for a long time the messaging 
platform was really protected from bad actors. Of course, bad 
actors are getting more sophisticated and over the last few 
years targeting text messaging more. But this has been an area 
of focus and a priority for our members for years. And we 
continue to dedicate significant resources toward protecting 
consumers while maintaining trust in text messaging.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you very much. I yield back my 
remaining time.
    Next up is the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
    So I just got back along with many of our colleagues on 
this committee from a conference on artificial intelligence. 
And so I would like to talk with you about that today, because 
I think it is really being implemented in a disturbing way by 
scammers to find new ways to deal with Americans. A lot of us 
have been hearing these chilling stories about how somebody 
gets called by somebody who they think is their child or their 
parent and asked for money, and the voice sounds eerily like 
their loved one.
    So, Mr. Winters, I want to ask you, how has AI technology 
been used to create more sophisticated robocall and robotext 
scams that target consumers?
    Mr. Winters. Thanks for the question. It has been in a lot 
of different ways, and so I will categorize the two different 
types of AI systems in it. So one in text generation services, 
like sort of as I mentioned in my opening statement, whether it 
is something like ChatGPT or cloud that you might have played 
around with, or one of the ones that even has less moderation, 
you can create a bunch of texts really quickly that have good 
grammar and, you know, seems like--you do not have the bells 
going off in your head from them. So you can do that.
    You can have a list of people's names, target-based off 
their location, other information you have, have it connect to 
a link of, you know, a wallet or a Zelle or something like 
that. So it is just a sort of scale and accuracy and 
plausibility thing.
    The other big category is the sort of impersonation of 
people, whether that be through voice or video. And that is 
where you see the really harrowing stories of sort of like 
real-time fraud and deepfake stuff that, you know, have not 
only caused a lot of emotional harm but have sort of ruined 
people's lives. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. So this kind of goes without saying, but 
because of this degree of sophistication, even when you have an 
educated consumer, it becomes much more difficult to identify 
these scams?
    Mr. Winters. Absolutely. I mean, I think that one thing is 
it is really difficult and kind of an impossible proposition to 
have all American people be able to spot when something is AI 
in the moment and then not respond to the emotional sort of 
``I'm your son and I'm in jail'' thing, even if you are able to 
flag that. And then not all AI-generated anything will be a 
scam or a fraud, so it is complicated there. Because you do not 
necessarily want to teach that, or it will just get people 
paranoid. So it is really--it should be on the companies and on 
the enforcement----
    Ms. DeGette. Right, so if we are not going to rely on the 
consumers by education, Ms. Leggin, what more can industry do 
to filter these messages and prevent them from ever getting to 
the victims?
    Ms. Leggin. So as Mr. Winters said, it is a balanced 
approach to make sure that we are blocking the messages that we 
do not want consumers to receive and they do not want to 
receive, while also making sure that legitimate ones go 
through.
    Ms. DeGette. That is right.
    Ms. Leggin. So with AI-enhanced scams, for example, there 
are aspects of that that we can also detect using AI by 
analyzing vaster quantities of data, by enhancing our existing 
tools and algorithms and frameworks, and then by complementing 
those with large fraud teams to help protect consumers from 
scams.
    Ms. DeGette. And do you think that the Federal agencies 
have the necessary authorities to fight against these scams? Or 
can companies do it themselves? Do they have the authority to 
do it?
    Ms. Leggin. We value our partnerships with all the law 
enforcement entities, including the FCC, FTC----
    Ms. DeGette. Right. Do you think they have enough authority 
to do it?
    Ms. Leggin. We think----
    Ms. DeGette. Yes or no will work.
    Ms. Leggin. We think that the best authority, the best way 
for them to continue to help us, is by prioritizing resources 
towards enforcement.
    Ms. DeGette. Resources. So that means Congress and the 
administration have to adequately fund them, right?
    Ms. Leggin. We continue to work----
    Ms. DeGette. No, a yes or no will work.
    Ms. Leggin. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Mr. Winters, do you think they have enough 
authorities?
    Mr. Winters. No.
    Ms. DeGette. And why is that?
    Mr. Winters. I mean, if they did and they had the resources 
as well, I think we probably would not be here today. You know, 
they need an ability to, as I mentioned, follow up on the fines 
that they levy and actually collect those. They need sort of 
required transparency and basic moderation obligations for AI 
companies. There are lots of things that just using something 
like unfair deceptive practices authority are--
    Ms. DeGette. OK, thanks. We look forward to working with 
you to see what new authorities we want.
    Mr. Winters. Definitely.
    Ms. DeGette. I just have a little time left, so I want to 
ask you one more question. In the bill, the great big bill, a 
couple weeks ago that we are now learning all of the things 
that were included, one of the things that was included in the 
reconciliation package was a 10-year moratorium on State and 
local enforcement of their own AI bills.
    Does a 10-year moratorium on State AI bills prevent States 
from using evolving technologies to help fight this program? 
And do you think that's something Congress should look at, Mr. 
Winters?
    Mr. Winters. So we vehemently oppose the moratorium 
provision. I do not think the moratorium as written would stop 
State agencies from using AI, but it would harm consumers 
without a doubt.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is my good friend Mr. Griffith from Virginia.
    Mr. Griffith. Let me start in a little bit different 
direction than I planned on going, Ms. Leggin. You were asked 
about adequate funding a minute ago, and I got the sense that 
while you were told to give a yes or no answer, you wanted to 
see the Federal Trade Commission and others to receive adequate 
funding. But it seemed to me that you were not trying to get 
into the debate as to what the definition of adequate funding 
is. Am I correct that I read your body language correctly? That 
you did not want to get into that debate, but you do want them 
to be adequately funded?
    Ms. Leggin. That is right. It is up to each agency to 
allocate resources to their enforcement teams. But what we have 
said and what we are seeing with our work with our enforcement 
partners, is that sometimes the consumer fraud protection folks 
lack the personnel or resources they need to go after cases. So 
we welcome, you know, information collection or just a way to 
try to allocate the existing resources----
    Mr. Griffith. But it is also true that AI may make this 
much more efficient, and so we are looking forward to that too. 
Is that not correct?
    Ms. Leggin. That is right, AI----
    Mr. Griffith. I have to move on to what I was really going 
to go after. But for you and Mr. Bercu, the good news is that 
the fraud, while terrible, is on the downward slope. And I hear 
from my constituents all the time about receiving robocalls. 
And a couple of years ago, it was all about the fraudulent 
stuff, and they were concerned about that. But I will tell you, 
in the last year, particularly in the last few months, the real 
concern has become Medicare and particularly Medicare Advantage 
solicitors calling up the folks in my district. And I have an 
older population, generally speaking, than most districts. And 
they are just driving them crazy with all these calls.
    And a 2023 survey estimated that 30 percent of Medicare 
Advantage-eligible beneficiaries received seven or more calls a 
week.
    I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman and witnesses, I have had 
constituents who have told me if they only got seven a day, 
they would be thrilled. That would be a down number.
    So what can we do? Because this is a huge issue in my 
district. What can we do to make that situation better?
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, I think that those calls, if they are 
robocalls, if they are telemarketing calls, they may be in 
violation of the TCPA, they may be in violation of the 
telemarketing sales rules.
    Mr. Griffith. So how do we get them to use--because I have 
asked. I have said to folks as I have been talking with them, 
``Have you put yourself on the Do Not Call list?'' And they 
said, ``Yes, but it does not seem to change anything.'' So how 
do we make that better?
    Mr. Bercu. I mean, so one of the things is--and we would be 
happy to work with you--we have got to trace back those calls. 
We have to see who is ignoring the law, get that information, 
get that to the right enforcement authorities to go after them. 
And we have seen success with that. Like, the auto warranty 
campaign was the same. We worked very closely with the States 
and the FCC, and that went from the most prolific robocall 
campaign in America to basically zero right now. So that is the 
answer there.
    Mr. Griffith. All right, well, I will be glad to work with 
you in any way, because when I start going to events and I 
start hearing this at, you know, at a majority of the events I 
go to, whether it be a street festival or a meeting of folks, 
that tells me we have a problem.
    Ms. Leggin, I got the toll texts. Of course, I called my 
staff assistant and said, ``How come you have not kept my 
account up to date?''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Griffith. Not realizing--I was on the road. And she 
said, ``It is a scam, do not worry about it.''
    But I have gotten a number of those things since then and 
some others, and apparently somebody out there thinks I need a 
new job. And I click delete. I report as junk and delete. Does 
that do any good?
    Ms. Leggin. It certainly does. That is one of the key tools 
that the wireless industry and our partners on the device side 
have made available for consumers, to delete, report junk. You 
can also forward your scam texts to 7726, which spells ``spam'' 
and both of those are key inputs for wireless providers and our 
messaging partners in making our algorithms and filtering and 
blocking more sophisticated and responsive to what we are 
hearing from consumers out there, like you and others in this 
room that have gotten those types of texts.
    In addition, we look at those types of scams and we develop 
evidence on them and refer them to our law enforcement partners 
through our Secure Messaging Initiative as well, so that we are 
working to target the bad actors responsible.
    Mr. Griffith. All right, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Waguespack--and I hope I get your name right.
    Mr. Waguespack. That is pretty good.
    Mr. Griffith. All right, not too bad.
    I do not know that I really have a question for you, but I 
will just make a comment. As a recovering attorney, I hate the 
whole strike suit industry where they get an itch and they just 
go after things. I want people to be able to sue when they are 
legitimately harmed. And I just make the offer that if I can 
work with you in any way to try to make the law so that it lets 
the legitimate complaint go forward but stops the strike suits 
where they are just trying to make it expensive and get a 
settlement--you talked about that earlier--just let me know 
what I can do to be of assistance. I will try.
    Mr. Waguespack. I appreciate that. That is the balance we 
are looking for, and the balance is found in other Federal 
statutes all across the Code.
    Mr. Griffith. All right, I appreciate it, and yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Griffith.
    Next up is Mrs. Trahan.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, I am glad to know that the frustration of unwanted 
robocalls is as universal in Congress as it is with our 
constituents. According to one estimate, Massachusetts 
residents received over 43 million robocalls in the month of 
May alone. Each of these unwanted calls wastes the precious 
time of the people we represent, and there are real risks that 
the caller on the other end is a scammer looking to swindle 
them out of hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
    The scourge of robocalls and robotexts must end. And yet 
the Trump administration does seem determined to cut 
enforcement agencies like the FCC and the FTC who fight for 
Americans every single day.
    Mr. Winters, can you just explain in brief the role that 
the FCC plays in combating robocalls and texts and how this 
agency works with private-sector partners to do that?
    Mr. Winters. Sure, thanks for the question.
    The FCC has a lot of responsibility and a big thing, you 
know, to cover. But one of the things they do is maintain and 
establish the robocall mitigation database. They have 
enforcement and investigation teams for, you know, reading 
consumer complaints, taking them in, analyzing it, and trying 
to do enforcement when possible. And I think they also, you 
know, work with industry colleagues--and maybe I will speak 
more to that--to try to ensure that they are doing as much as 
they can.
    But I think already, even when there were no cuts to 
staffing, it is really hard for them to actually make 
meaningful consequences for the repeat bad actors, whether it 
is certain ability to get the fines themselves, or the fact 
that there is a relatively low standard for the robocall 
mitigation database. There are all sorts of reasons why, even 
if fully staffed, they do not have quite the right authorities 
or the right approach. And so, you know, to cut their staffing 
would make it even harder.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you. In February, President Trump signed 
the Executive Order 14215, incorrectly named Ensuring 
Accountability for All Agencies. This EO strips the 
independence from many of our regulatory agencies, including 
the FCC. And the FCC is essential in the fight against illegal 
robocalls, making the actions of the Trump administration all 
the more concerning.
    Mr. Winters again, what effects will there be in the fight 
against illegal robocalls and texts if the Trump administration 
undermines the independence of Federal agencies like the FCC?
    Mr. Winters. Thanks. Yes, the independent nature of the FCC 
and the FTC both is essential for them to be able to focus on 
consumer protection and not go down political pursuits. I 
highlighted a little bit in my oral and wrote more about it in 
my written testimony. But particularly at the FCC, this 
relationship with the White House has taken priority and makes 
it so Chairman Carr is most of the time talking about DEI 
hiring practices at companies and threatening to pull licenses 
for airing interviews with Democratic candidates, for example, 
as well as, you know, just focusing on, you know, providing 
contracts for people like Elon Musk in getting Spectrum lines.
    All of that focus is not on consumer protection, right? And 
one of the reasons why is because of that lack of independence 
where they cannot focus on that because they are sort of, you 
know, focusing on the priorities of the President.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you. The FCC's budget justification 
lists cracking down on illegal robocalls as a performance 
indicator for the agency, which is a necessary priority. 
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has doubled down on its 
mission to hamstring the Federal Government's ability to hold 
robocall scammers accountable by proposing to eliminate 74 
positions at the FCC in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
    The FCC, however, is not alone in fighting robocalls. 
Industry has, in many instances, implemented solutions and 
voluntarily adopted best practices. Yes, they can always do 
more. But as lawmakers, we should look to build upon their good 
work while identifying gaps where the Federal Government can 
add value.
    Ms. Leggin, can you discuss the importance of public-
private partnerships in combating robocalls and robotexts and 
suggest specific ways in which Congress can accelerate the 
efforts that industry has already taken?
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you. Public-private partnerships are a 
key tool in helping us go after bad actors so that we are 
stopping robocalls and robotexts at the source. CTIA's members 
participate in the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group to help 
identify the bad actors behind illegal robocalls, and our 
members on the wireless side, and then also throughout the 
messaging ecosystem, participate in CTIA's Secure Messaging 
Initiative, which convenes the messaging ecosystem to share 
information among each other and with our law enforcement 
partners across the Federal agencies and with the State 
attorney general enforcement task force so that they can take 
that information and go after the bad actors as well.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses. I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
holding today's hearing. And thank you for all of the witnesses 
who have agreed to testify today.
    When I return to my district, Pennsylvania's 13th 
Congressional District, I hear about the pervasive and 
unrelenting illegal robocalls and texts that my constituents 
are faced with, often on a daily basis. So many of my 
constituents are senior citizens. I sat down and did a senior 
citizen seminar twice in the district in the last month, and 
you hear recurrent themes. You hear the ``Grandma, grandma, 
it's Mike, I'm in Mexico and I'm in jail. I need your help. I 
need it.'' It sounded just like Mike. I hear that repeatedly 
when I have these roundtable discussions with seniors.
    And it seems like the scammers are getting creative and 
finding actually new ways to trick us with incredible-looking 
text messages and very convincing grandma and grandpa calls. 
Scammers have even learned how to incorporate AI into 
intimidating loved ones to convince them to turn over personal 
information. Credit card numbers, bank numbers. Too many of my 
constituents are risking their retirement savings, and 
subsequently they lose faith in the system that we have set in 
place to protect them.
    We need to do better. We need to both educate consumers and 
anticipate the next angle of attack that these scammers will 
take, particularly with the assistance of our partners in law 
enforcement and the DOJ.
    Mr. Bercu, your testimony mentioned a project piloted by 
the Industry Traceback Group, ITG, in partnership with banks 
and carriers aimed at tackling fraud and consumer financial 
losses. Can you elaborate on the pilot goals and successes thus 
far, and is there collaboration with law enforcement?
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, absolutely. I think some of the most 
promising work our industry is doing is partnering across 
sectors, because the fraudsters are hurting our collective 
customers, whether that is banks or the carriers and your 
constituents.
    So what we have been doing is working with banks to help 
them identify where their number has been spoofed, and a few 
carriers. So working with the carriers, getting examples of 
calls that the carriers see from the bank's number, getting 
that back to the bank, and the bank can tell us, ``Oh, those 
were not us.''
    And what we are doing with that is two things. We are able 
to trace that back, find out who made the calls, find out who 
was spoofing the number, get that information in the hands of 
law enforcement to take action with it, but also help the bank 
identify and look at those customers and say, ``Oh, did any of 
these customers that got the fake call pretending to be us have 
a suspicious transaction?'' and helping to find that. And I 
think criminal enforcement has to be key here, because that--we 
know the scammers will use any tool available to them, and they 
will not stop just because it gets a little harder. They keep 
evolving. And so the key is going after them, and we stand 
ready to continue to support that.
    Mr. Joyce. And I agree, the scammers certainly have the 
ability to be incredibly crafty, devious, and downright evil in 
this regard.
    Talk to me about how you interface with financial 
institutions to make them aware of these situations.
    Mr. Bercu. So I think that is actually one of the promising 
things going on across the industry, is that we work directly 
with a lot of the financial institutions, we work with tech 
companies, others. Marriott was mentioned before. We worked 
very closely with Marriott to trace the calls pretending to be 
Marriott. So that is what we are doing. But there are broader 
conversations now about how the industries can even keep 
growing and continue to integrate.
    In my opening testimony, one thing I mentioned that I think 
Congress can do to help here is a safe harbor for that fraud 
information sharing, because I think there are questions about 
rules and risks when you do share information. So I think that 
is one way we can continue to lock those good partnerships.
    Mr. Joyce. And thank you. Thank you for being proactive in 
this.
    Mr. Waguespack, many of my constituents are in rural 
central Pennsylvania, where internet connectivity is difficult 
and educational digital resources on illegal robocalls are 
inaccessible. How can Federal agencies and industry partner, 
coordinate efforts to better educate consumers specifically in 
rural areas with limited internet access in those digital 
resources?
    Mr. Waguespack. Well, I think on leaning into what has been 
done since TCPA was first initiated, where you have private-
sector solutions going in and working with--we have talked a 
lot about FCC and FTC, but also the local law enforcement and 
local financial institutions on the ground there, putting that 
initiative out there.
    Mr. Bercu talked about some of the information sharing that 
is done with the banks to prevent the fraud. There is also a 
second level down that is a good example of the education 
program. Through the bankers association, they have armed about 
2,000 banks out there to talk to their consumers, ``Here is a 
hit list of the things we will never ask you for, so if you get 
an email that has this, this, this, or this, ignore it, it is 
spam, here is how you call us back.'' And so we can use the 
private sector, I think, to develop some of that messaging and 
make sure consumers can be informed with the decisions they 
need to be able to fight back on their own.
    Mr. Joyce. I thank all of the witnesses for presenting here 
today. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is the gentlelady from Texas, Mrs. Fletcher.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And thanks to our Chairman Palmer 
and Ranking Member Clarke for convening this hearing today. 
Thank you to our witnesses for all of your testimony. I think 
it has been really helpful for all of us. And as we have heard 
throughout the morning, abusive robocalls and robotexts are not 
just nuisance, right? They are a danger. And we need to do 
something about that.
    I appreciate the work that you are doing, and also the 
issues that you have brought to our attention this morning and 
the conversation around what we can do about it.
    You know, I am concerned, as several of my colleagues have 
mentioned, that we are hearing consistently from you we need 
more enforcement, we need more coordination, we need adequate 
resourcing, and we need adequate staffing to be able to do some 
of the things we are doing in a complex and challenging 
environment where the technology is moving faster than 
Congress, faster than our agencies. And what we are seeing at 
the same time is that those resources both in terms of money 
and staff are being cut from the administration. As we speak, 
they are asking Congress to rescind additional funding. They 
are stopping funding.
    And so, you know, as several of my colleagues have noted, 
agencies like the FCC, the FTC, and the DOJ have actually 
utilized the law that we passed together, the work that we have 
done collaboratively, to und the problems and really conduct 
meaningful enforcement that has stopped scammers. And now, it 
seems like the administration is taking the cops off the beat 
in this area and in many others.
    Mr. Winters, you noted in your testimony and you mentioned 
just earlier this morning that the Trump administration has 
taken steps to dissolve the DOJ's consumer protection bureau. 
And I believe you just said the Consumer Protection Branch of 
the DOJ, you just told us this morning that they had 
successfully prosecuted a case and stopped scammers who had--I 
guess it was against the data brokers who had sold the data of 
30 million Americans. And that data winds up in the hands of 
criminals who use it in these scams and others. So I think it's 
really important that we understand that these agencies need to 
be fully funded and that shuttering something like the DOJ's 
Consumer Protection Branch, this expert-led enforcement agency, 
really puts our communities at more risk. It is not something 
we should be doing.
    You also mentioned in your testimony that the CFPB, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the work that it has 
done in this area, and the administration is also shuttering or 
attempting to shutter that agency that Congress created and 
that has been really critical to protecting consumers. And 
that's what we're talking about in this hearing: protecting 
consumers, protecting American citizens from these scams.
    I think that what we are hearing this morning also calls on 
all of us on this committee to redouble our efforts to do our 
work around creating comprehensive privacy laws that protect 
American consumers. Because what I am hearing from you and what 
we are seeing is that our data is being stolen, is being sold, 
is being used. And it is being used by these scammers.
    So can you take, with the time that we have, just can you 
talk a little bit more about cutting the DOJ's Consumer 
Protection Branch as well as the CFPB, and what that would 
mean, Mr. Winters, in terms of protecting American consumers? 
In this larger context, if you want to talk too about the 
effort to take away the staff and the funding for these 
agencies that are protecting consumers from robocalls and 
robotexts that we are all clearly worried about and clearly 
concerned. We want to address how is this going to help or hurt 
us in that effort.
    Mr. Winters. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the 
question. I mean, very simply, taking resources away from these 
agencies, and in the case of the CFPB and this part of the DOJ, 
completely trying to stop all of their work is absolutely not 
going to help in the fight against these harms.
    On the DOJ consumer protection case that I mentioned, yes, 
that is a data broker that sold a list of over 30 million 
elderly Americans directly to a scammer. It is not just that it 
ended up in the scammer's hands. Data brokers will sell to 
anyone at any time. And so what Congress needs to do for both 
scam reasons and lots of other reasons is pass comprehensive 
data privacy law with data minimization and a private right of 
action and a few other key things. Or at least, if you want to 
be more focused, it should be focused on restricting the sale 
of consumer data.
    CFPB specifically, shuttering that really cuts off a 
central resource for people that are victims of scams, 
especially. They have had, you know, counselors, people that 
answer the phone and take complaints and try to get things 
resolved for you. There are a bunch of great stories of people 
that literally had their scams resolved. You know, they got 
money back from their bank with the help of CFPB professionals. 
So they can do things on enforcement and work with financial 
actors where people are losing their money. But they also are 
just critical support. And they provide also tracking of those 
complaints and, you know, gets it to State AGs and those who 
can help.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Winters. I have gone over my 
time. I do have more questions for the panel, so I will submit 
them for the record, and I will yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Americans received over 52 billion robocalls in 2024, which 
is nearly 200 calls for every American adult. Americans also 
have lost 25 billion annually to scams that begin as spam 
calls. Unfortunately, we know the scammers often target older 
Americans who are especially vulnerable victims to these scams. 
Older adults in particular lost 4.9 billion through all types 
of fraud last year alone.
    I know I listened to the exchange that you had with my 
colleague, Representative DeGette. But I want to delve into 
this with the senior perspective.
    Certain scams put even the most technically savvy at risk, 
scams that in some cases mimic law enforcement, hospitals, or 
Medicare, or the voices of family members seeming to be in 
danger or in need of money.
    So, Mr. Winters, what specific tactics do scammers use to 
target seniors and other vulnerable groups?
    Mr. Winters. Yes, I mean--and thank you for the question--
scammers in general capitalize on uncertainty and fear. And 
especially for seniors, especially those who are on a fixed 
income, all sorts of concerns about an unpaid bill, a toll 
account that you do not quite have set up yet, Medicare, you 
know, potential fraud and targeting, like, they are going to be 
thinking that the senior citizens are good targets for it. This 
is exactly why we had the case where a data broker bought a 
large list of senior citizens and targeted them with scams. And 
that is, you know, a terrible thing.
    And so, again, yes, they try to capitalize on uncertainty 
and fear. And that is why you see lost bills, job 
opportunities, especially in this current climate where a lot 
of people are getting fired and the economic uncertainty is 
everywhere, the job opportunity scams are going to be--more 
people are going to fall for them because, you know, you want a 
job, you need a job, you need to pay your bills.
    So, you know, I think that those are some of the ways in 
which they are targeting everyone but, you know, are hitting 
seniors most.
    Mr. Tonko. And what prevention strategies have been the 
most successful in that fight against illegal robocalls and 
texts?
    Mr. Winters. Yes, so, you know, there have been really 
strong enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission of 
voice-over-internet providers. So, you know, I think the most 
appropriate and effective enforcement is going sort of 
upstream, especially when you are trying to get accountability 
for some of the actors that are providing the content or the 
delivery or the targets of some of these scams.
    One other really good case was the Rytr case by the FTC 
last year, where they targeted using the means and 
instrumentalities concept. In this case, it was a tool that 
generated lots of fake reviews, and the FTC was cracking down 
on fake reviews. But you can use that same tool to generate 
sort of an endless list of scam texts. And that sort of, you 
know, is a force multiplier for scammers.
    And again, you know, the use of these AI tools makes it 
harder because, you know, there are no typos, it comes in, you 
know, perfect English, and there's no, you know, these weird 
links that we have all sort of become accustomed to, so that 
makes it even tougher.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Ms. Leggin, how is the wireless 
industry working to protect that older community and otherwise 
more vulnerable customers?
    Ms. Leggin. That is a priority for the wireless industry. 
And to do that, we work with AARP and we support their National 
Elder Fraud Coordination Center, which works to take reports of 
victim losses in and then bring cases against bad actors.
    We also were happy to participate in the FTC's Stop Senior 
Scams Working Group, and we led the working group focused on 
text messaging issues, which was a cross-sector effort to 
explore ways that we could do more to protect older Americans 
from scams.
    We also participate in other working groups with consumers 
directly to try to push out our educational materials so that 
they know which text not to click on, which calls not to 
answer. And we have those resources on our website and our 
members' websites as well.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And the AARP that you mentioned has 
said that, and I quote, ``The alarmingly high levels of fraud 
against older adults underscores that stronger protections are 
urgently needed.''
    So as technology evolves, so must our ability to combat 
these illegal and harmful calls and texts. Mr. Bercu, what 
additional tools does the Industry Traceback Group need to 
protect Americans from fraudulent calls or fraudulent texts?
    Mr. Bercu. Thank you for the question. So I mentioned in my 
opening testimony I think there are ways to build on what is 
working and reinvest in our work. We are always adapting to the 
threat. A few years ago, we were only really tracing illegal 
robocalls. Now we are tracing threatening calls, we are tracing 
targeted scams. And I think that doubled last year, how many we 
traced. So we are always adapting and I think Congress's 
support through targeted immunity, through extending the cycle, 
will allow us to continue to invest and to innovate.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you very much.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is the gentlelady from New York, Ocasio-Cortez, 
please.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Winters, I want folks back home to kind of understand 
why this problem is happening. You know, the average American 
receives about 15 robocalls each month, but obviously, 
depending on who you are, you could be experiencing that in a 
day. And we know that it was not always like this. So I want 
folks to understand what the root of this problem is, so that 
they also understand what some of our solutions can be.
    Is it fair to say that essentially back in the day, calls 
used to be routed through phone wires, through your telecom 
company, and so your telecom provider, whether it was Verizon 
or AT&T or T-Mobile, they were responsible for routing the 
calls and therefore they were kind of able to trace who was 
making them, is that right?
    Mr. Winters. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And then, as internet applications 
started to grow, then voice service providers and calls over 
digital services started to really expand in their 
infrastructure. And so it was not just your cell phone provider 
or even your landline provider that was in charge of your phone 
calls, it then became kind of these other kind of internet 
companies, right?
    Mr. Winters. Yes, there are a lot of intermediary service 
providers. Sometimes a call will go through like eight or 10 of 
them before reaching you through AT&T or whatever.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, so it was really in that switch 
from call and telecom providers to the expanding growth of 
internet providers that really kind of allowed the volume of 
these calls to blossom, because we were not just talking about 
telecom regulation but internet regulation, right?
    Mr. Winters. I think that's definitely a lot of the reason 
to blame for those additional intermediary providers that are 
harder to track through.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so it is no longer about who your 
personal provider is. As you said, you could have eight, you 
could have 10 of these companies routing this call. So you have 
the person who wants to make this robocall, and then it just 
leapfrogs between all these intermediary companies.
    Mr. Winters, how many of these intermediary companies 
currently exist? And does the Government have any way to keep 
track of who these actors are?
    Mr. Winters. Thanks for the question. Yes. It is kind of an 
unanswerable question. I think since we have been there, there 
are probably additional companies that have popped up and 
registered on the robocall mitigation database. I think last 
time I checked a few days ago, it was over 9,500 of these 
intermediary service providers. And so, you know, there is a 
list online. It is not a high barrier to entry. You have to, 
you know, register that you are a company, you have to put a 
robocall mitigation plan in the form. But there is not a lot of 
vetting there, right?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And if these kind of abusive companies--
sure, they have to register. But if we find that they are not 
complying, the consequence just seems to be that they get 
delisted from the database, correct?
    Mr. Winters. Only sometimes. Not even that sometimes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. But without any additional 
penalties, is there anything to stop these companies from just 
immediately getting relisted?
    Mr. Winters. No. You can, you know, if you are delisted, 
you can get another corporation and set it up and sign up 
again.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So if you are a bad actor in this space, 
someone that is, you know, really perpetuating spam calls, in 
some cases fraudulent calls, you can be found to be breaking 
these rules, you can get delisted from the FCC, and then you 
can just turn around and it is, what a hundred bucks to----
    Mr. Winters. I think that is not even necessarily in force 
yet, but yes, it will be a hundred bucks.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, it's a hundred bucks, and maybe you 
will have to pay it, maybe not.
    Mr. Winters. Mm-hmm.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So clearly, there is an enforcement 
problem here in keeping these bad actors out of the space.
    In your opinion as a consumer protection advocate, how can 
we as Congress work to strengthen some of these protections? 
And what do you think some of the best solutions here are?
    Mr. Winters. Yes, I think particularly to the lack of 
accountability in the robocall mitigation database, you know, 
there are a few really easy things that either the FCC can do 
or Congress can instruct the FCC to do to speed that up, I 
guess. There is a really low barrier. Right now, you have to 
have reasonable precautions of taking--you know, to mitigate 
robocalls. And that standard should be increased to effective, 
actual implementation. There should be requirements for the 
downstream providers, the bigger companies, to have 
responsibility for the calls that they are taking in from those 
eight to 10, whatever, plus intermediary service providers. 
And, you know, there is just insufficient tracking, 
insufficient consequences for repeat offenders, even--even 
under the company they are doing.
    And one thing we advocate for to try to increase that 
accountability, because it is genuinely a difficult problem to 
try to track all these service providers, even if there is a 
full-court press. But one proposal we have put out there is to 
implement bonding for robocall mitigation database members, so 
that a third party is incentivized to make sure that they are 
actually doing what they say they are going to do and help 
protect consumers. So very happy to work with your office to 
try to make that happen. Thanks.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being 
here today.
    Americans lose billions of dollars every year to phone-
based scams. We must crack down on illegal robocalls and 
robotexts.
    With the recent enactment of laws that further empower 
enforcement agencies, there has been progress toward protecting 
people from these predatory practices, but not enough.
    I want to recognize former Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who 
represents a district neighboring mine. She has represented 
that for over 30 years before her recent retirement. I want to 
thank her for her leadership on this issue.
    She introduced key legislation like the Hangup Act and the 
Robocalls and Texts Act, and I am proud to help uplift some of 
that work that she led on in this committee and hopefully carry 
it forward in the future.
    As we have heard today, more must be done to keep up with 
the rapidly advancing technology and the increasingly 
sophisticated tactics that scammers are using. Enforcement 
agencies need the tools and resources to stay ahead. The more 
sophisticated the methods, the more likely people fall victim 
to them. As more companies integrate AI into their products, it 
is becoming even harder for consumers to distinguish legitimate 
communication from fraud.
    Mr. Bercu, you mentioned AI-generated messages are harder 
to detect and can present challenges for enforcement. How can 
the Government and industry better coordinate to establish 
safeguards to limit harm to people from illegal calls using AI?
    Mr. Bercu. Thank you for the question. I think it--the fact 
that the criminal actors behind these calls use AI just 
underscores they will use every tool, every channel available 
to them to defraud Americans. And I think that is one of the 
challenges we have, is they are not going--they are already 
violating the law with impunity. They are committing fraud, 
that is violation of the criminal code. So that is one of the 
things I think we think, is we do need a national strategy. We 
do need to prioritize criminal enforcement, because they are 
going to continue to use the tools.
    And from the carrier perspective, there is not going to be 
a good way to know which tools they are using because, as Mr. 
Winters pointed out, they are so far upstream from where our 
members sit.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. We know that certain people 
in our communities are particularly vulnerable, like seniors 
and individuals with limited English proficiency. Mr. Winters, 
what can the FTC in coordination with other agencies do to be 
proactive in protecting vulnerable populations from these kinds 
of scams?
    Mr. Winters. Thank you for the question. You know, I think 
it is a lot of the same, of working to cut off the problem at 
the source, right? So whether we are talking about an AI tool 
that makes it super easy to generate a million texts that 
threaten to be immigration enforcement or something, for 
example. The enforcement action should target those developers 
that are putting those products out there.
    Same thing goes for, you know, putting liability and 
responsibility for people throughout the call stream, to make 
sure that the calls they are taking content from are, you know, 
actually doing what they're saying they're going to do. But I 
think that the FTC and all these, you know, State attorneys 
general as well can be doing more to do better investigation of 
the members of the robocall mitigation database, making sure 
that the STIR/SHAKEN protocols are implemented, you know, 
thoroughly and it actually does what it is supposed to do. I 
think a lot of times, we see scam calls that have the high 
level of attestation, despite that being the whole point. So I 
think that there is just a lot more that they can do together.
    Mr. Mullin. And you also strongly assert, Mr. Winters, in 
your testimony that the FTC's overall enforcement capacity has 
been diminished by the recent unlawful firings of two 
Democratic Commissioners and deep staff and budget cuts at the 
agency. So how are those agency cuts going to hinder FTC's 
ability to advance its efforts to combat illegal robocalls and 
robotexts?
    Mr. Winters. It will hurt their ability to do so. As we 
have talked about, it is already a really difficult issue, even 
if you are trying your best and have all the resources you can. 
If you are taking people away, especially at an agency like the 
FTC that has a really broad jurisdiction, of course you are 
going to have less resources, less creative cases, just 
because, you know, more things are being put on less people, 
and the priorities are not there either. And so especially 
without the Commissioners, two of the five Commissioners, you 
do not get dissent, you don't get the conversations that might 
generate more creative ideas or different ideas. And so between 
that and the staffing, it will just make it a lot harder.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Next up is the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 
witnesses being here.
    I want to take a little bit different approach on this and 
just talk about a little bit of the impact that I am not sure 
has been fully discussed today, and that is to physicians. And 
in the process of getting screenshots of the physicians in my 
district, and one in particular who is showing me kind of the 
impact of about 20 a day that they are getting, that is really 
preventing--these calls, these robocalls are preventing that 
physician from being able to take calls from the ER or from 
labor and delivery. And it is pretty concerning.
    So apparently, the apps that they are using to either 
diagnose or have conversations with their patients--the Abridge 
app is one of them, and then there is another app, and I am not 
familiar with these, so I am not the expert on this--but you 
cannot use those apps when calls are coming in.
    And so I just wrote down from the screenshot the calls that 
recently came in. This was from last week on Friday: 2:31, 
2:53, 2:57, 3:48, 3:53, 3:58, 3:59, 4:38, and 4:48. And in that 
period of time, starting at 2:30, ending at almost 5:00 p.m., 
you know, there were a number of patients that were disrupted.
    So I know we are beating a dead horse with just how painful 
these things are. But that actually is pretty serious, you 
know, when they cannot take a call from the labor and delivery 
section saying, ``Hey, we have an incident here that you need 
to get up pretty quick and, you know, deliver.''
    So I will start with Ms. Leggin. And, by the way, thank you 
all. I know we are all working together to try to solve these. 
But, you know, to what extent do you see TCPA and TRACED being 
effective? And then I will go a step further. I mean, we have 
had these discussions already in this hearing but, you know, 
the sense of urgency and what else needs to be done to prevent 
that physician and all the other physicians from having to deal 
with that in the middle of what could be an emergency situatio.
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you for the question. And that seems like 
a serious issue.
    TRACED and the TCPA are great tools that are helpful and 
helping bring enforcement actions against bad actors under the 
TCPA if you are violating those consent, autodialer, 
prerecorded voice provisions. But unfortunately, bad actors do 
not care about the TCPA or other laws, so they are going to 
spam you no matter what. And that is where our work with law 
enforcement partnerships on the calling side through the ITG or 
on the texting side through the Secure Messaging Initiative--to 
bring investigations against those bad actors so that we are 
stopping those at the source are really helpful.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes, go ahead.
    Ms. Leggin. And I was just going to say you have heard me 
say throughout this hearing, we would welcome help from 
Congress in prioritizing resources towards enforcement to bring 
more cases against those bad actors.
    Mr. Pfluger. What do you think we can do--and anybody is 
open to answer this. What do you think we can do for hospitals 
in general? You know, for those that are providing emergency 
services. Because nobody is using a pager anymore. It is all 
cell phone. Maybe they need to go back to that.
    But what can we do to think creatively to really stop that 
for those--I mean, every constituent of mine wants it stopped. 
But are there specific ideas?
    Ms. Leggin. That is a good question. You know, it is a 
really challenging issue, especially when we want to make sure 
that critical public safety, public health services need to get 
their calls through. You know, the same tools that we apply to 
protect consumers can protect, you know, the personal lines of 
physicians and other things. Call blocking, call labeling, call 
filtering services, and then combining that with enforcement so 
that we are stopping those at the source.
    Mr. Pfluger. This particular physician goes through, 
deletes and, you know, reports junk and does--reports it and 
does all that. So it sounds like it has been a continued issue.
    I will go to Mr. Bercu. When we look at the gaps, and just 
kind of building on this same theme, you know, are there 
specific things that you would have us do to address those gaps 
and, if so, maybe describe how they affect, let's just go with 
the physician sector, healthcare.
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, absolutely. And I think, by the way, I 
think we have the right framework. Mr. Winters was talking 
about the robocall mitigation database, and I could not agree 
more, we need to find ways to quickly find the bad actors in 
that database, get them out. The FCC does require that 
providers have to do due diligence about who they take traffic 
from. So we are developing the data to see who keeps taking 
traffic from these shell companies. So I am optimistic we will 
continue to make progress.
    There are--as Ms. Leggin mentioned, there are blocking, 
labeling, and specific-use cases. I know we work sometimes with 
some companies that sit on the inbound call side for a 
hospital. And we have had successful--and they have really 
sophisticated tools to see which is the consumer and which is 
not. So those are some of the things I would recommend that the 
doctor looks into.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Next up is Mr. Allen for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Allen. I want to thank Chairman Palmer for convening 
this hearing. And you probably heard this today from every 
district in the country, but my constituents frequently express 
their frustration with the persistent barrage of illegal 
robocalls, robotexts. They are a nuisance, and they are a 
significant distress, anxiety, particularly for our elderly 
population, because some of these folks are up to no good and 
are taking advantage of our constituents.
    These communications often exploit our most vulnerable 
individuals. And it is really eroding our trust in the 
telecommunications systems. I look forward to receiving updates 
on the progress made under existing laws and exploring 
actionable next steps to protect consumers and strengthen 
enforcement. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here 
with us.
    Mr. Bercu and Ms. Leggin, there has been a lot of public 
and private action in the fight against illegal robocalls, both 
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under the 
TRACED Act. Generally, robocall numbers have been on a downward 
trend over the years.
    If illegal robocalls trends have dropped, why am I still 
getting so many complaints from my constituents?
    Mr. Bercu. Yes, I think some of the members sort of 
expressed that. There are really positive numbers, the 50 
percent reduction in scam robocalls. But not everyone is having 
the same experience. Some people do get more than others. So 
that is an ongoing challenge.
    But there again, I think we have the right framework. We 
are tracing back those illegal calls. Some of those are illegal 
telemarketing. We are tracing them back. That information is 
making its way to enforcement.
    And in terms of the scam calls in particular, we know that 
they are going to keep going. Just because it gets a little 
harder does not mean they say, ``OK, we are going to go do 
another line of business.'' They are just going to keep coming 
through a new channel, through a new method, through a new 
shell company. And so that is really where we think the answer 
has to be actually going after them with criminal enforcement. 
And we think that should be a priority.
    Mr. Allen. Ms. Leggin, would you care to add to that?
    Ms. Leggin. I agree with what Mr. Bercu said. You know, the 
framework that we have in place continues to show progress, and 
we continue to build upon that with new tools and enhance those 
tools with machine learning and AI and the latest technologies 
to make them even better. And I agree that more focus on 
enforcement by taking those bad actors off the field is where 
we need help.
    We saw a group of State attorneys general, for example, 
recently get a judgment against prolific robocaller Jonathan 
Spiller, so that that prevents him from starting new businesses 
or otherwise kind of popping up again after getting an 
enforcement action against him.
    So things like that will continue to help make a big 
difference and continue to drive those robocall numbers down.
    Mr. Allen. So we are identifying these bad actors. It is 
just a matter of prosecuting them?
    Mr. Bercu. In many cases we are, where we are getting good 
data that can further the investigation. It is one of the 
reasons that I am actually optimistic about continuing to work 
across sectors, because we can now combine some of our data 
with some data that the banks can get that through, as Ms. 
Leggin mentioned, the AARP's National Elder Coordination 
Council. Really aggregate data. Because that is one of the 
challenges. If it is one scam, it is hard to get a prosecutor 
involved. But if you can show it is a multimillion-dollar scam, 
you can. So that is still where some of the work needs to go.
    Mr. Allen. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Waguespack, in April 2025, FCC issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. They proposed a 2-year time line for 
providers to maintain non-IP infrastructure to either complete 
their IP transitions or fully implement one or more of the 
available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their 
non-IP network.
    In your opinion, is the FCC's 2-year time line reasonable?
    Mr. Waguespack. I would yield to my colleagues to the right 
on more of the technical time line there, because they are the 
ones that are going to be implementing some of that.
    I would say from our perspective, if I could just--since I 
have the mic for a second--bring in another universe of 
recipient of a lot of these robocalls that we have not really 
addressed yet, is what lies in between business and consumers a 
lot of times is small business. Because a lot of those 
recipients, they are kind of part consumer, part business 
owner. Their cell phone becomes their business phone and their 
residential phone, et cetera. They cannot qualify for Do Not 
Call if it is considered business or not.
    That is a vulnerability that we hear a lot from our members 
on small business. And it is also a vulnerability that is being 
exploited from some of these predatory lawsuits I mentioned 
earlier in my opening statement.
    Mr. Allen. All right, you have answered my second question 
there about the impact, particularly in rural areas, and other 
non-IP networks.
    Ms. Leggin, in your testimony you discuss how CTIA and its 
wireless partners embark on the next generation of call 
identification solutions, namely branded calling. What is 
branded calling, and how will it help reduce scams and scam 
calls?
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you for the question. CTIA is building 
the next generation of branded calling by bring together the 
wireless ecosystem players to give the consumer more 
information about who is calling and why. And branded calling, 
as the name suggests, means that the logo of the caller comes 
through.
    This framework provides verified identity of the caller and 
builds upon the STIR/SHAKEN framework to make that information 
that comes through to the caller even clearer and better. So by 
doing so, we help empower the consumer to make better choices 
about do you want to answer the call or not. And we think that 
will be a really helpful tool in continuing to protect 
consumers from scam calls.
    Mr. Allen. Good. I thank all of you. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking 
Member Clarke.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a 
request for unanimous consent. Representative Sorensen sent a 
letter to the chair and myself about the importance of taking 
action and his bipartisan QUIET Act, which addresses some of 
the issues raised here today.
    I ask for unanimous consent for his letter to be entered 
into the record.
    Mr. Balderson. We received the letter. And seeing no 
objection, accept it.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Mr. Balderson. Next up, the gentleman from the great State 
of Ohio, Mr. Rulli, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman.
    The question will be directed at Ms. Leggin. This is a 
bipartisan issue and I think the most engaging, sensitive 
constituency that we have, I would say, over 60. When I was 
young, I used to listen to a lot of talk radio in the 1980s and 
the 1990s. And it was a subject then and it is just a subject 
as much right now today. They want to enjoy their peace and 
their tranquility. And these robocalls just keep ruining it.
    So what percentage of illegal robocalls and spam text 
messages originate abroad? And where do they primarily 
originate from? What part of the world?
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you for the question. It is a mix of 
robocalls and robotexts that come from both the U.S.----
    Mr. Balderson. Ms. Leggin, your mic, please. Sorry.
    Ms. Leggin. Sorry. Microphone.
    It is a mix. It comes from bad actors that are both located 
in the U.S. and outside the U.S. And we take seriously our work 
to protect consumers from illegal robocalls and robotexts that 
originate abroad. It continues to evolve. But southeast Asia is 
one area, including India, and the call centers there that Mr. 
Bercu mentioned earlier continues to be a source of illegal and 
unwanted robocalls and robotexts.
    So we support efforts like those at the FCC, where they 
have memorandums of understanding with international partners, 
with States to collaborate on enforcement against the bad 
actors located outside of the U.S.
    Mr. Rulli. Out of curiosity, do you think that America has 
migrated into an evolution where we have gotten better than we 
have in the early 1990s? Or not really?
    Ms. Leggin. We have definitely gotten a lot better than the 
early 1990s. And especially over the last 10 years on the 
robocall front, we have had a lot of attention to this issue 
from this committee, through the TRACED Act, from the FCC and 
other agencies giving us more tools, more authority to go after 
bad actors in this space. And there has been a lot of 
innovation in the texting space as well over the years to make 
our onboarding, our filtering, our blocking and consumer 
reporting tools even better. And we continue to enhance those 
very day.
    Mr. Rulli. Thank you so much. And then I have a question 
for Mr. Bercu. To fight against robocalls and spam texts, the 
FCC has formed international alliances and partnerships with 
countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Romania, 
Singapore, just to name a few. How should we move forward with 
helping the FCC handle enforcement with countries that are bad 
players, like in Laos and in Cambodia, who seem not wanting to 
get involved in the Government? How can we get more involved 
with these countries that are allowing these illegal procedures 
to happen?
    Mr. Bercu. That is a great question.
    Mr. Balderson. Is your mic on?
    Mr. Bercu. Sorry. That's a great question.
    So I think one of the things we would love to see is that 
is why we do need a national strategy, because the same people 
attacking us here are also attacking consumers in Canada and 
the U.K. and Thailand.
    I think as we go around the world, there is more of a 
coalition of the willing to go after the criminal actors here. 
And so, you know, the FCC has those MOUs with other countries. 
But we also need it coming from the criminal law enforcement 
authorities at that level, and working together to take down 
some of these entities. And organized crime, really, is what we 
are going after with those.
    Mr. Rulli. Do you think it is obtainable?
    Mr. Bercu. I think it is obtainable. I think we have seen 
some other countries take very aggressive actions. For example, 
Myanmar is now building out their reporting about these fraud 
centers in Myanmar. The Thai Government shut off the power, so 
they are going to generators. But I think there is room to 
continue to build on those and build those collaborations. 
Because again, those same entities are attacking us all over 
the world.
    Mr. Rulli. Outstanding. Thank you so much.
    And with that, I yield my time back to the chair.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Next up is the gentleman from 
Texas for 5 minutes, Mr. Weber.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Leggin, I am coming to you. I had to be at another 
hearing for a long time. I apologize if this is redundant.
    In many cases, robocalls are so believable that millions of 
Americans fall prey to the various scams every year. However, 
the recent rise in robotexts, as we call them, adds a new layer 
of complexity. What makes combating spam and scam texts--why is 
that more difficult than robocalls?
    Ms. Leggin. Thank you for the question. CTIA and our 
members throughout the messaging ecosystem take seriously our 
goal to protect consumers from illegal and unwanted robotexts. 
Voice and text are different technologies, and they present 
different ways that bad actors target consumers. So we've got 
different problems with different solutions.
    So it is just a different ecosystem where we still bring 
blocking tools to bear in the texting space. For example, we 
blocked over 55 billion scam texts just last year. But that is 
just one piece of the----
    Mr. Weber. Can I give you my cell phone and have you block 
some more?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Leggin. Happy to help, yes.
    We continue to up those efforts and bring new tools to 
bear.
    In messaging, we've got tools throughout the message flow, 
including up-front vetting and verification services that help 
identify whether legitimate businesses are who they say they 
are. And it helps deter bad actors from getting on the platform 
in the first place. We've got sophisticated algorithms, machine 
learning, AI, and fraud teams that look at ways to protect 
consumers from unwanted and illegal text messages in the 
middle, and then we've got consumer reporting on the back end 
so that you can delete and report junk, or you can forward your 
spam text to 7726. And the wireless industry takes those in to 
use to enhance our protection tools so that we are taking in 
that consumer feedback to make those tools even stronger.
    Mr. Weber. Do you know, this question may be a little bit 
to the left, do you know or are you all able to determine how 
many texts a company sends out at any given time? They send out 
a million, 10 million? Can you identify that, know that?
    Ms. Leggin. So companies use a variety of different 
platforms to send out their communications. So to us, that is 
not something that we look at. What we look at is trying to 
make sure that we are looking for suspicious patterns, 
indicators of spam or other illegal things to target those, to 
protect consumers from those. Otherwise, it's really a balance 
to protect consumers while also making sure that legitimate 
business communications go through.
    So like I said, we blocked 55 billion last year. But we 
also let--you know, supported 2 trillion texts to go through. 
So it is always a balance.
    Mr. Weber. Well, I think a trillion of those came to my 
cell phone.
    Mr. Bercu, I am going to come to you. As you are probably 
aware, there are varying levels of jurisdiction and oversight 
when dealing with either foreign or domestic entities.
    Now, I missed the first half of his question. So if this is 
redundant--did he ask you about this?
    Mr. Bercu. He may have but I am happy to----
    Mr. Weber. Well, what are some of the unique challenges 
regulators and law enforcement face when dealing with foreign-
originating robocalls? Is that what you all just went through?
    Mr. Bercu. We went through an aspect of that. But I am 
happy to talk about it. We have traced--in our tracebacks, we 
have traced calls----
    Mr. Weber. And how do they vary from domestic ones?
    Mr. Bercu. Yes. So I think in our experience, both on what 
we have seen through our tracebacks but also some public 
reporting, I think what we see is that illegal telemarketing, 
often that is homegrown and there are entities--John Spiller, 
Ms. Leggin mentioned earlier--that might be more local. But we 
do see a lot of the fraud comes from abroad, especially the 
scaled fraud.
    So in terms of other countries, I think those same actors 
are attacking everyone around the world. I think there is a lot 
of work to be done collaboratively with other countries. We 
have traced those, we do trace those, we find those entities. 
We sometimes see entities log into our portal saying they are a 
U.S. company but log in from abroad. So I think we are building 
that dataset and it can arm criminal law enforcement to go 
after it.
    Mr. Weber. OK, very quickly. Our first responders, medical 
professionals, and others often deal with individuals who are 
at their most vulnerable, making them a prime target for 
potential scams and attacks. So the question is going to be--
but I have one to ask real quick--how do we address spoofing 
related to hospitals, police, government agencies, and other 
public service entities? And I want to hone in on this as a 
question for the two of you all. And we will go back to you, 
Ms. Leggin. How about have you all ever encountered what is 
known as swatting?
    Ms. Leggin. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. And how often? Or would you put a percentage on 
that? And what do you do about it?
    Ms. Leggin. So we take swatting very seriously. You know, 
that is where someone calls in a fake emergency and has, you 
know, a police team go to your house. That is something where 
we are not really seeing that as much on wireless 911 calls as 
much as it is on other networks. But regardless, the same tools 
that protect consumers from illegal and unwanted robocalls--
like call authentication, like STIR/SHAKEN, call filtering, 
call blocking, and then tracing back calls after they have gone 
through to find the bad actor responsible--are all things that 
we encourage to address swatting, as well as partnerships with 
law enforcement to go after that criminal activity as well.
    Mr. Weber. OK. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Seeing no other Members here 
wishing to ask questions, I would like to thank our witnesses 
again for being here today. Without objection, that will be the 
order.
    Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they 
have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 
record. And I ask that the witnesses submit their response 
within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]