PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 18, 2012
E911 Surcharge Fairness Act of 2011 - Prohibits any state or local government from: (1) imposing a new unfair or inequitable E911 fee, tax, or surcharge with respect to any prepaid mobile service, provider, or customer; or (2) enforcing a new or existing E911 fee in an unfair or inequitable manner.
Defines "E911 fee" as any 911 or E911 fee, tax, or surcharge specifically imposed or designated by a state or local government for the support of 911 or E911 communications systems and related public safety purposes.
Defines as "unfair or inequitable" any E911 fee that: (1) cannot be collected from end-users who are the intended payors of the fees under the existing wireless business model of the prepaid mobile service provider, or (2) is enforced in a manner that imposes strict liability on a prepaid mobile service provider for its inability to collect such fee as so prescribed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Defines an "unfair or inequitable manner" as: (1) the imposition against a prepaid mobile service provider or seller of any E911 fee that the provider cannot collect from its end-user customers who are the intended payors of the fees under its existing wireless business model, (2) the enforcement of an E911 fee against a prepaid mobile service provider in a manner that creates strict liability for the provider or seller for its inability to collect as so prescribed, or (3) the imposition of a E911 fee in a manner that results in the fee being subject to other state or local taxes when such taxes are not equally imposed on the E911 fees paid by postpaid mobile service customers.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 14, 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.3788 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.3788 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.3788 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.3788 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.