This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, committees such as Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, members such as Jerry Moran.
Issued
August 3, 2026
senate side of the record
People
1
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
1
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 422, S. 2666.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2666) to direct the Federal Communications
Commission to establish a taskforce on unlawful robocalls,
and for other purposes.
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Foreign Robocall Elimination
Act”.
SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY TASKFORCE ON UNLAWFUL ROBOCALLS.
(a) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) Commission.—The term “Commission” means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(2) Consortium.—The term “Consortium” means the
consortium described in section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune
TRACED Act (Public Law 116-105).
(3) Federal agency.—The term “Federal agency” has the
meaning given the term “agency” in section 551 of title 5,
United States Code.
(4) Taskforce.—The term “taskforce” means the taskforce
on unlawful robocalls established under subsection (b).
(5) Unlawful robocall.—The term “unlawful robocall”
means a telephone call made in violation of subsection (b) or
(e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227).
(b) Establishment.—Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Commission, after consultation
with the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General,
shall establish a taskforce on unlawful robocalls.
(c) Membership.—
(1) In general.—The taskforce shall be composed of the
following members:
(A)(i) A representative of each Federal agency that the
Chairman of the Commission, in consultation with the Chairman
of the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General,
considers appropriate.
(ii) With respect to each Federal agency considered under
clause (i) to be appropriate, the Chairman of the Commission
shall appoint a representative of that Federal agency to the
taskforce based on the recommendations of the head of that
Federal agency.
(B) Seven representatives of private sector entities, to be
appointed as described in paragraph (2)—
(i) 3 of whom shall be representatives from private sector
entities with expertise in combating unlawful robocalls,
including—
(I) voice service providers;
(II) analytics providers;
(III) technologists; and
(IV) technology experts;
(ii) 1 of whom shall be a representative from the
Consortium;
(iii) 1 of whom shall be a representative of a marketing
business that communicates with consumers by telephone as
part of the normal course of business of that marketing
business;
(iv) 1 of whom shall be a representative of a business or
nonprofit organization that communicates with consumers by
telephone for non-marketing purposes on a regular basis; and
(v) 1 of whom shall be a representative of an organization
that advocates on behalf of customers and who has relevant
experience and expertise in combating unlawful robocalls.
(2) Appointment of representatives of private sector
entities.—
(A) In general.—Notwithstanding any provision of chapter
10 of title 5, United States Code, the members of the
taskforce described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be jointly
appointed by the Chairman of the Commission, the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission, and the Attorney General.
(B) Inability to reach agreement.—
(i) In general.—Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), if the
Chairman of the Commission, the Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission, and the Attorney General cannot reach agreement
regarding an appointment described in subparagraph (A), as
determined by the Chairman of the Commission, the Chairman of
the Commission shall make that appointment.
(ii) Notice of appointments.—Not later than 48 hours
before appointing a member to the taskforce under clause (i),
the Chairman of the Commission shall provide notice of the
proposed appointment to the commissioners of the Commission.
(iii) Request for vote.—If, after receiving notice under
clause (ii) of a proposed appointment under clause (i), a
commissioner of the
Commission requests that the proposed appointment be subject
to a vote of the Commission, the Chairman of the Commission
may not make that appointment unless a majority of the
commissioners of the Commission vote to approve the
appointment.
(d) Report.—
(1) In general.—The taskforce shall prepare a report on
unlawful robocalls, which shall contain recommendations and
advice for Federal agencies with jurisdiction relevant to
combating unlawful robocalls, and for Congress, regarding the
most effective ways to combat unlawful robocalls made into
the United States from outside the United States.
(2) Matters to be studied.—In preparing the report
required under paragraph (1), the taskforce shall—
(A) compare the estimated number of suspected unlawful
robocalls made within the United States with the estimated
number of unlawful robocalls made into the United States from
outside the United States;
(B) determine which foreign countries serve as the foreign
points of departure for the highest volume of unlawful
robocalls made into the United States;
(C) determine the magnitude of financial loss and the
number of instances of stolen identity that occur within the
United States each year as a result of unlawful robocalls
made from outside the United States;
(D) examine methods for encouraging the adoption of caller
identification authentication technology in foreign
countries;
(E) examine and provide information on options for how
countries can collaborate on solutions to authenticate and
verify international calls, including relevant analytics
relating to unlawful robocalls and technical options that can
be used with respect to that authentication and verification;
(F) examine how better implementation of technical
solutions, such as traceback and caller identification
authentication technology in foreign originating countries,
would improve coordination between the United States and
foreign countries in combating unlawful robocalls;
(G) determine whether—
(i) the technical standards commonly known as “STIR/
SHAKEN” adequately provide call authentication for unlawful
robocalls from foreign originating providers or foreign
intermediate providers through gateway providers in the
United States; and
(ii) it would be desirable to encourage other countries to
adopt the standards described in clause (i);
(H) examine ways to provide incentives to foreign countries
to cooperate with law enforcement efforts in the United
States to combat unlawful robocalls;
(I) examine whether any Federal agency, or any other
organization, that combats unlawful robocalls needs
additional resources in order to more effectively combat
unlawful robocalls made into the United States from outside
the United States;
(J) specifically consider whether the ability of the
Attorney General to conduct enforcement activities with
respect to unlawful robocalls would be increased through the
establishment of an office within the Department of Justice
dedicated to those enforcement activities;
(K) examine how increased criminal penalties based on the
volume of unlawful robocalls could help prevent unlawful
robocalls made into the United States;
(L) examine how many enforcement activities the Attorney
General has undertaken in the year preceding the date on
which the preparation of the report begins, including in
response to referrals made by the Commission;
(M) specifically determine how the Attorney General has
pursued forfeiture amounts in enforcement activities with
respect to unlawful robocalls;
(N) seek input, as appropriate, from technologists and
private sector innovators to find solutions for combating
unlawful robocalls;
(O) identify a list of best practices regarding the
identification and blocking of unlawful robocalls that
telephone service providers and providers of technology
solutions can voluntarily implement to improve the
effectiveness of mitigating unlawful robocalls made into the
United States from outside the United States;
(P) evaluate whether requiring periodic public disclosure,
in whole or in part, of the results of trace backs conducted
by the Consortium would impact the integrity and
effectiveness of the trace back process of the Consortium,
including by—
(i) revealing investigative methods;
(ii) allowing consumers and businesses to avoid providers
with a track record of making unlawful robocalls;
(iii) exposing proprietary, competitively sensitive, or
confidential information of legitimate providers or entities;
(iv) strengthening accountability and deterrence;
(v) enabling the initiators of unlawful robocalls to evade
detection, adapt tactics, or exploit system vulnerabilities;
(vi) improving the efforts of voice service providers to
block calls that are determined to be unwanted based on
reasonable analytics;
(vii) impeding cooperation with future law enforcement
investigations or future consumer protection efforts; or
(viii) ensuring fairness in the reporting of trace back
information; and
(Q) examine mechanisms for improving compliance with the
requirements imposed pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the
Pallone-Thune TRACED Act (47 U.S.C. 227b-1, 227 note).
(3) Report to congress.—Not later than 360 days after the
date on which the taskforce is established under subsection
(b), the taskforce shall submit to Congress the report
prepared under this subsection.
(e) Use of Funds.—Notwithstanding section 1346 of title
31, United States Code, funds made available by this or any
other Act to the Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or
the Department of Justice may be used by the applicable
Federal agency for coordination with, participation in, or
recommendations involving the taskforce, as required under
this section.
(f) Termination.—The taskforce shall terminate on the date
that is 90 days after the date on which the taskforce submits
to Congress the report prepared under subsection (d), as
required under paragraph (3) of that subsection.
SEC. 3. FCC NOTICE PROVISION.
Section 13(d)(2) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act (Public
Law 116-105) is amended by striking “annually” and
inserting “once every 3 years”.
SEC. 4. REGISTERED CONSORTIUM CONDUCTING PRIVATE-LED EFFORTS
TO TRACE BACK THE ORIGIN OF SUSPECTED UNLAWFUL
ROBOCALLS.
(a) Immunity for Receiving, Sharing, and Publishing Trace
Back Information.—Section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED
Act (Public Law 116-105; 133 Stat. 3287) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
“(3) Immunity for receiving, sharing, and publishing trace
back information.—
“(A) Definition.—In this paragraph, the term `covered
information'—
“(i) means information regarding suspected—
“(I) fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful robocalls;
“(II) illegally spoofed calls; and
“(III) other illegal calls; and
“(ii) includes—
“(I) call detail records of calls described in clause (i);
“(II) the names of, and other identifying information
concerning, the voice service providers that originated,
carried, routed, and transmitted calls described in clause
(i); and
“(III) information about the entities that made calls
described in clause (i), including any contact information of
individuals that such an entity provided to the voice service
provider that originated the call.
“(B) Trace back immunity.—No cause of action shall lie or
be maintained in any court against the registered consortium
for receiving, sharing, or publishing covered information or
information derived from covered information.”.
(b) Publication of List of Voice Service Providers.—
Section 13(e) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act (Public Law
116-105; 133 Stat. 3287) is amended to read as follows:
“(e) List of Voice Service Providers.—
“(1) Publication of list.—The Commission, or the
registered consortium in consultation with the Commission,
may publish a list of voice service providers based on—
“(A) information obtained by the consortium about voice
service providers that refuse to participate in private-led
efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful
robocalls; and
“(B) other information the Commission or the consortium
may collect about voice service providers that are found to
originate or transmit substantial amounts of unlawful
robocalls.
“(2) Enforcement.—The Commission may take enforcement
action based on the information described in paragraph
(1).”.
SEC. 5. ROBOCALL MITIGATION DATABASE.
(a) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) Commission.—The term “Commission” means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(2) Robocall mitigation database.—The term “Robocall
Mitigation Database” has the meaning given the term in
section 64.6300 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.
(3) Unlawful robocall.—The term “unlawful robocall” has
the meaning given the term in section 2(a).
(b) Bond Requirement.—
(1) In general.—The Commission shall issue rules to
require that, subject to the other provisions of this
section, before a provider may file a certification to the
Robocall Mitigation Database, the provider shall post a bond
in an amount that is not more than $100,000, if the
Commission determines that posting such a bond is necessary
to preserve the integrity of the Robocall Mitigation
Database.
(2) Excepted providers.—
(A) In general.—In issuing rules under paragraph (1), the
Commission shall establish criteria to exempt a provider from
the requirement to post a bond described in that paragraph if
that requirement, as applied to the provider, is not
necessary to deter unlawful robocall activity.
(B) Considerations.—In establishing criteria under
subparagraph (A), the Commission shall require consideration
of whether a provider—
(i) is registered with the Commission under section 64.1195
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation) and makes contributions under section 254(d) of
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d));
(ii) holds a certificate of authority, license, or
registration with a State public utility commission;
(iii) is an issuer, the securities of which are listed on a
national securities exchange; and
(iv) otherwise presents indicia of being a bona fide,
established communications service provider, such that
requiring the provider to post a bond under paragraph (1)
would impose unnecessary burdens without materially improving
enforcement of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 227).
(c) Implementation.—In implementing this section, the
Commission shall—
(1) require the posting of a bond under subsection (b)(1)
from providers that do not demonstrate—
(A) legitimate, ongoing operations;
(B) regulatory oversight sufficient to ensure
accountability; or
(C) the ability to pay fines or forfeitures imposed by the
Commission or other governmental
enforcement authorities with respect to violations of Federal
or State laws or regulations;
(2) establish categorical exemptions for identifiable
classes of legitimate providers that satisfy the criteria
established under subsection (b)(2); and
(3) minimize administrative and financial burdens on
compliant, established, and regulated providers while
ensuring effective enforcement of section 227 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2666), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.