PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 25, 1996
Telemarketing Fraud Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 - Amends the Federal criminal code to direct the court, in sentencing for telemarketing fraud, to order that the defendant forfeit to the United States any property: (1) used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of such offense; and (2) constituting, derived from, or traceable to the gross receipts that the defendant obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the offense. (Sec. 3) Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines to: (1) provide a sentencing enhancement for specified telemarketing fraud offenses by at least four levels (at least eight levels for telemarketing offenses that target persons over age 55); and (2) increase the offense level for any fraud offense by at least two levels if the defendant conducted activities to further the fraud from a foreign country. (Sec. 5) Requires the court to order restitution for specified telemarketing fraud offenses for which an enhanced penalty is provided. (Current law requires the court to order restitution for any such offense.) (Sec. 6) Applies penalty enhancement provisions for telemarketing fraud offenses to conspiracy to commit such offenses.
People & committees
Rep. Heineman, Frederick K. (Fred) [R-NC-4] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11129-11129)
Mr. McCollum moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E869)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1499 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1499 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1499 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1499 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.