PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Laid on the table. See S. 493 for further action. (consideration: CR H645)
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Feb 24, 1998
Wireless Telephone Protection Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to penalize those who use, produce, traffic in, have control or custody of, or possess hardware or software knowing that it has been configured for altering or modifying a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain unauthorized access to telecommunications services. Permits an officer, employee, or agent of, or a person under contract with a facilities-based carrier, for the purpose of protecting that carrier's property or legal rights, to use, produce, have custody or control of, or possess such hardware or software. Defines a "facilities-based carrier" as an entity that owns communications transmission facilities, is responsible for the operation and maintenance of those facilities, and holds an operating license issued by the Federal Communications Commission. Provides increased penalties for a second or recurrent offense for fraudulent activities involving counterfeit communications access devices. Sets penalties for attempts to engage in such activity. Defines "scanner receiver" to include a device or apparatus that can be used to intercept an electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or other identifier of any telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument (thus bringing such devices within the scope of code prohibitions against fraud and related activity in connection with access devices). Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and the policy statements of the Commission, if appropriate, to provide an appropriate penalty for offenses involving the cloning of wireless telephones, including offenses involving an attempt or conspiracy to do so, taking into account specified factors.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX-3] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Laid on the table. See S. 493 for further action. (consideration: CR H645)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 414 - 1 (Roll no. 25).
House roll call 25 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 414 - 1 (Roll no. 25).
House roll call 25 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2460.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Mac Collins to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 368 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2460 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. After passage of the bill, it shall be in order to consider in the House S. 493. It shall be in order to consider a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2460 as passed by the House.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 368. (consideration: CR H637-645)
Rule H. Res. 368 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 368 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2460 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. After passage of the bill, it shall be in order to consider in the House S. 493. It shall be in order to consider a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2460 as passed by the House.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 239.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-418.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-418.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2460 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.2460 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.2460 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.2460 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.