HR-9814-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Joe Neguse (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to open a formal inquiry within 270 days examining the technical, legal, privacy, and cost challenges of transmitting caller location data alongside calls to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. It would also direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to complete a separate study and report to Congress within 180 days covering the same topics, including specific considerations for deaf and hard-of-hearing users who access 988 via video relay services. Neither the FCC inquiry nor the GAO study would mandate any new location-sharing requirements — both are information-gathering steps only.
Who benefits
People in mental health crises who call 988 and need emergency dispatch — better location data could enable faster physical response. Crisis counselors and 988 call center staff who currently lack reliable caller location. Emergency responders (police, EMS, fire) who may be dispatched from 988 calls. Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who use the 988 ASL video line, whose location challenges are explicitly included in the study. Veterans using the Veterans Crisis Line. Rural and low-population communities whose specific implementation challenges would be studied. Telecommunications companies and crisis centers that would gain regulatory clarity before any future mandate.
Who is hurt
Callers who value the anonymity of 988 contacts and may be deterred from calling if location sharing becomes standard practice in a future rule. Privacy advocates who may oppose any infrastructure that enables location tracking of mental health callers. Telecommunications service providers and handset manufacturers who could face compliance costs if the studies lead to future mandates. Local crisis centers and 911 system providers that may bear implementation costs under any eventual rule. The bill itself imposes no direct burdens, but the studies it initiates could lay groundwork for future regulations affecting these groups.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that 988 counselors currently have no reliable way to locate a caller in acute crisis, meaning that when someone needs emergency dispatch, precious minutes can be lost — a gap that does not exist for 911 calls. They contend that gathering rigorous data through the FCC and GAO before acting is the responsible approach, ensuring any future location mandate is technically feasible, legally sound, and privacy-protective. The bill's bipartisan sponsorship reflects broad agreement that the status quo — where a caller's life may depend on location data that counselors cannot access — warrants at minimum a thorough federal study.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating location transmission for 988 calls — even as a future possibility — could deter vulnerable people from calling at all, undermining the lifeline's core purpose. They contend that 988 was deliberately designed with a lower barrier to contact than 911, and that the perceived risk of being located may cause at-risk individuals, particularly those with prior negative law enforcement encounters, to avoid seeking help. Critics may also argue that the studies duplicate existing FCC and SAMHSA expertise, consuming agency resources without clear evidence that location data would improve outcomes over trained counseling alone.