Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to publish, within 180 days of enactment, a report on the Commission’s enforcement of section 721 of the Communications Act (Kari’s Law). The report must summarize multi-line telephone system manufacturer and vendor compliance, identify compliance obstacles, suggest ways to improve FCC enforcement, and recommend any needed Congressional action.
Liberals emphasize enforcement and stronger follow-through.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting directive: it identifies the responsible agency, sets a 180-day deadline, and enumerates the report contents tied to enforcement of section 721 (Kari's Law).
The bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to publish, within 180 days of enactment, a report on the Commission’s enforcement of section 721 of the Communications Act (Kari’s Law).
The report must summarize multi-line telephone system manufacturer and vendor compliance, identify compliance obstacles, suggest ways to improve FCC enforcement, and recommend any needed Congressional action.
Definitions for “Commission” and “multi-line telephone system” are included.
Very limited, administrative mandate with low fiscal impact and bipartisan characteristics makes enactment likely absent procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting directive: it identifies the responsible agency, sets a 180-day deadline, and enumerates the report contents tied to enforcement of section 721 (Kari's Law).
Liberals emphasize enforcement and stronger follow-through.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
The clearest budget scorecard attached to this bill: what it changes for direct spending, revenue, and the deficit.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 21, 2026
Liberals emphasize enforcement and stronger follow-through.
Generally supportive as a consumer-protection and public-safety oversight measure.
Sees transparency about implementation of Kari’s Law as important to ensure 911 access and corporate accountability.
Worried the requirement is modest and could end with a report without enforcement follow-through.
Favorable as a modest, evidence-gathering oversight step to check implementation of existing law.
Views the bill as pragmatic and low-cost, providing a factual basis for policy decisions.
Wants clear metrics and budget implications included to inform measured responses.
Cautiously accepting because the bill mandates only a report, not new regulation.
Supports public-safety aims but worries a report could justify future regulatory expansion and increase compliance costs for manufacturers.
Prefers limited federal action and attention to burdens on industry.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very limited, administrative mandate with low fiscal impact and bipartisan characteristics makes enactment likely absent procedural obstacles.
The House fast-tracked this bill — skipping normal debate — and it passed with a two-thirds majority. It now moves to the Senate.
Suspending the rules allows the House to bypass normal debate procedures and pass a bill immediately with a two-thirds vote.
Liberals emphasize enforcement and stronger follow-through.
Very limited, administrative mandate with low fiscal impact and bipartisan characteristics makes enactment likely absent procedural obstacl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting directive: it identifies the responsible agency, sets a 180-day deadline, and enumerates the report contents tied to enforcement of sect…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.