PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 55 · Passed Senate · Dec 17, 2020
Fraud and Scam Reduction Act
This bill expands activities to address mail, telephone, and internet fraud, particularly such scams targeting older adults.
The bill establishes a Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group, which must create model educational materials to educate employees of retailers, financial-services companies, and wire-transfer companies on how to identify and prevent scams that affect older adults.
Further, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) must establish an advisory office in the Bureau of Consumer Protection to assist the FTC in monitoring scams targeting older adults, educating consumers, and receiving complaints.
People & committees
Rep. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE-At Large] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S7638-7639)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S7638-7639)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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. (text: CR H5827-5829)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5827-5829)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2610.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5827-5831)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 488.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 116-590.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 116-590.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.2610 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.2610 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.2610 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.2610 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.