Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague.

I rise to speak about S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009,
addressing the serious problem of caller ID fraud that allows a caller
to hide his true identity. They do this through Web sites that will let
you choose any number to show up on the caller ID. The Web sites even
offer options to disguise your voice, such as making a man or woman’s
voice appear as the opposite gender.

I am glad to see the Senate is finally acting on this issue that I
first raised in 2006 when I introduced H.R. 5304, known as the PHONE
Act, or the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement
Act.

[Time: 12:30]
My bill passed the full House on December 9, 2006, and while it didn’t
make it through the Senate, several Members of the House pressed on.
Congressman BOBBY SCOTT and I reintroduced this legislation in the 110th
and 111th Congresses. The House passed the bill in March of 2007 by a
vote of 413-1. And I would like to thank my colleagues in this session
of Congress for overwhelmingly voting in favor of the Murphy-Scott Phone
Act a year ago tomorrow by a vote of 418-1.

Caller ID can have legitimate uses to protect victims or when law
enforcement are trying to track down criminals. However, here we are
concerned about illegitimate uses.

When I first introduced the PHONE Act, several problems were already
beginning to emerge. On one level friends were using it to prank others,
and just to annoy them. On another level, there were famous or infamous
cases where the harassment involved well-known personalities, *.*.*.

But caller ID is also employed for more sinister reasons. My own
office experienced this when an organization used a phony caller ID
system to make it appear as though my congressional office was calling
constituents. Constituents were understandably puzzled and annoyed when
bombarded by these calls. Unfortunately, we were not able to track down
the perpetrators. In total, at least 42 House Republicans from 14 States
were targeted in their home districts by similar harassing phone calls
using
call spoofing. Although I believe that action alone constitutes a fraud
in posing as a Federal elected official’s office, that is not the worst
case.

In several cases, police and FBI have been subjected to so-called
“swatting” calls when a caller uses another person’s caller ID to
phone the authorities, report a fake crime in progress, which draws a
police and SWAT team response. Luckily, no one has been harmed in these
cases, but you can imagine the potential tragedy when a team of police
with guns drawn respond to the scene of what they believe is a dangerous
ongoing crime. It is more than just a false alarm to a fire department.
It can
lead to serious injury for police and the community, and that is why we
must pass this bill before someone gets hurt.

Here are some other reports. A woman from Pennsylvania discovered her
phone number was appearing on other people’s caller ID, and it was
being used as a vehicle to harass people.

In the wake of the Haitian earthquake, the Virginia State Police
warned citizens to be vigilant against scam artists using phony caller
ID numbers to obtain donations. Under such circumstances, perpetrators
can pose as a legitimate charity to fool others into donating to an
illegitimate account.

We have heard of cases where a county courthouse number appears as
citizens are told they missed jury duty and are asked to give their
credit card number to pay a fine.

Last December, another case in Pennsylvania occurred when a woman
claimed to have shot her baby. It turned out to be a hoax. The police
and detectives were forced to spend their Christmas Day wasting valuable
resources investigating what was presented as a gruesome crime that was
never committed.

These are just a few examples, and if we do not enact this
legislation into law, I worry we will read about many more cases of call
spoofing, including some that will inevitably end in tragedy.

Because of these, I am still a supporter of enhanced penalties when
caller ID spoofing is used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, we
should not stop with this legislation. The Truth in Caller ID Act
provides for civil penalties under the Communications Act of 1934. My
legislation, the PHONE Act, which has already passed the full House,
provides for criminal penalties under the U.S. criminal code.

But I want to thank Congressman Engel and Congressman Barton for
being leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives in
introducing their version. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Truth in
Caller ID Act, and let’s hope in the future we can pass enhanced
criminal penalties such as those in my PHONE Act bill. Together these
pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive set of civil and
criminal penalties to enable us to effectively combat caller ID
spoofing.

Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague.

I rise to speak about S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009,
addressing the serious problem of caller ID fraud that allows a caller
to hide his true identity. They do this through Web sites that will let
you choose any number to show up on the caller ID. The Web sites even
offer options to disguise your voice, such as making a man or woman’s
voice appear as the opposite gender.

I am glad to see the Senate is finally acting on this issue that I
first raised in 2006 when I introduced H.R. 5304, known as the PHONE
Act, or the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement
Act.

[Time: 12:30]
My bill passed the full House on December 9, 2006, and while it didn’t
make it through the Senate, several Members of the House pressed on.
Congressman BOBBY SCOTT and I reintroduced this legislation in the 110th
and 111th Congresses. The House passed the bill in March of 2007 by a
vote of 413-1. And I would like to thank my colleagues in this session
of Congress for overwhelmingly voting in favor of the Murphy-Scott Phone
Act a year ago tomorrow by a vote of 418-1.

Caller ID can have legitimate uses to protect victims or when law
enforcement are trying to track down criminals. However, here we are
concerned about illegitimate uses.

When I first introduced the PHONE Act, several problems were already
beginning to emerge. On one level friends were using it to prank others,
and just to annoy them. On another level, there were famous or infamous
cases where the harassment involved well-known personalities, *.*.*.

But caller ID is also employed for more sinister reasons. My own
office experienced this when an organization used a phony caller ID
system to make it appear as though my congressional office was calling
constituents. Constituents were understandably puzzled and annoyed when
bombarded by these calls. Unfortunately, we were not able to track down
the perpetrators. In total, at least 42 House Republicans from 14 States
were targeted in their home districts by similar harassing phone calls
using
call spoofing. Although I believe that action alone constitutes a fraud
in posing as a Federal elected official’s office, that is not the worst
case.

In several cases, police and FBI have been subjected to so-called
“swatting” calls when a caller uses another person’s caller ID to
phone the authorities, report a fake crime in progress, which draws a
police and SWAT team response. Luckily, no one has been harmed in these
cases, but you can imagine the potential tragedy when a team of police
with guns drawn respond to the scene of what they believe is a dangerous
ongoing crime. It is more than just a false alarm to a fire department.
It can
lead to serious injury for police and the community, and that is why we
must pass this bill before someone gets hurt.

Here are some other reports. A woman from Pennsylvania discovered her
phone number was appearing on other people’s caller ID, and it was
being used as a vehicle to harass people.

In the wake of the Haitian earthquake, the Virginia State Police
warned citizens to be vigilant against scam artists using phony caller
ID numbers to obtain donations. Under such circumstances, perpetrators
can pose as a legitimate charity to fool others into donating to an
illegitimate account.

We have heard of cases where a county courthouse number appears as
citizens are told they missed jury duty and are asked to give their
credit card number to pay a fine.

Last December, another case in Pennsylvania occurred when a woman
claimed to have shot her baby. It turned out to be a hoax. The police
and detectives were forced to spend their Christmas Day wasting valuable
resources investigating what was presented as a gruesome crime that was
never committed.

These are just a few examples, and if we do not enact this
legislation into law, I worry we will read about many more cases of call
spoofing, including some that will inevitably end in tragedy.

Because of these, I am still a supporter of enhanced penalties when
caller ID spoofing is used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, we
should not stop with this legislation. The Truth in Caller ID Act
provides for civil penalties under the Communications Act of 1934. My
legislation, the PHONE Act, which has already passed the full House,
provides for criminal penalties under the U.S. criminal code.

But I want to thank Congressman Engel and Congressman Barton for
being leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives in
introducing their version. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Truth in
Caller ID Act, and let’s hope in the future we can pass enhanced
criminal penalties such as those in my PHONE Act bill. Together these
pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive set of civil and
criminal penalties to enable us to effectively combat caller ID
spoofing.

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding to me. I want
to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his kind words, and
also the kind words of the gentleman from Virginia.

I rise today in strong support of my legislation, the Truth in Caller
ID Act. This is about as bipartisan as a bill can be. We have passed
this bill several times in the House only to have it not move through
the other body, and I am delighted that for the first time we have had
it passed in the other body. So now when we pass this bill, hopefully
the President will sign it into law and we will finally have a stoppage
of this fraud which is being perpetrated on the American people.

I originally read an article in the newspaper on a plane talking
about what was going on with spoofing, and I remember thinking, This is
ridiculous. How could this be legal? How could we just turn a blind eye
to it? And then I realized we needed to have legislation.

We have been supported every step of the way, again, bipartisan, by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton). We have all worked on this legislation together.

I introduced the bill because we need an immediate change in our laws
to help prevent identity theft, to crack down on fraudulent phone
calls, and to protect legitimate uses of caller ID technology. We have
seen, as my colleagues have mentioned, a large number of cases of caller
ID fraud leading to illegal or even violent activities.

Last year, the New York City Police Department uncovered a massive
identity theft ring where criminals stole more than $15 million from
over 6,000 people. They were able to perpetrate this fraud in many
instances by using caller ID spoofing. In another case, a person in New
York called a pregnant woman who she viewed as a romantic rival,
spoofing the phone number of the woman’s pharmacist. She tricked the
woman into taking a drug used to cause abortions.

Caller ID fraud has even been used to prank call the constituents of a
Member of this body, with the caller ID readout saying it came from
that Member’s office. Just imagine if people committed this fraud in the
days leading up to a close election. You could see it. You spoof a
number of your political opponent. You call someone at 3 o’clock in the
morning. You say something obnoxious on the phone, and then the
constituents are angry and are not going to vote for that person. This
is all perfectly
legal, up until the passage of this bill. [Page: H8379]
I have said again and again that one of the most troubling aspects of
caller ID spoofing is not simply that it is legal. What disturbs me is
how incredibly easy it is to carry out caller ID fraud. Criminals use a
tool called a spoof card to change their outgoing caller ID; so you
could look at it and see a phone number, any phone number that that
person wants to put down, they can do it, and the person getting the
call has totally no idea where it is coming from or thinks it is coming
from a
place where obviously it is not.

This technology can even be used to disguise someone’s voice in order
to trick people. If it is a man doing it, he can change the voice to
sound like a woman, and vice versa. So it can be done completely to
trick people.

This can trick people, corporations, or even banks. Imagine senior
citizens who see the number of their bank put up when they take a look
and see who is calling and it is fraudulent, or their doctor or their
pharmacist or a close family member or a close family friend. This is
terrible, and this tool is available to anyone with access to a Web
browser. So, as was pointed out, the technology has gotten easier and
easier for someone to perpetrate this fraud.

This legislation will outlaw caller ID spoofing when the intent is to
defraud, cause harm, or lawfully obtain anything of value. And, let me
say, we have had many, many hearings on this bill.

The reason why this outlaws caller ID spoofing when the intent is to
defraud or cause harm, as my colleagues have pointed out, we put that in
the bill based on the hearings we had because we don’t want some
legitimate reasons to use this technology to be outlawed. So it is only
outlawed when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain
anything of value.

We won’t be challenging the rulings for legitimate uses of this
technology. For example, domestic abuse shelters will still be able to
change the number on caller ID to protect the occupants of the shelter.
We have some scrambling right here in the Capitol, as a result, to
protect very important private numbers. That won’t be changed.

So, again, I am pleased this bill passed the House in the 109th and
110th Congress. This is now the 111th. We are about to pass it. The
Senate has done it for the first time. So I look forward to the
President signing this bill into law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Truth in Caller ID Act
to outlaw this type of fraud once and for all. I thank my colleagues
again for their support.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which
addresses an issue that Mr. Barton and Mr. Engel and the Energy and
Commerce Committee have been working on since the 109th Congress. In
fact, back in April of this year, the House passed our version, H.R.
1258. The legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive
practice of manipulating caller ID information, a practice known as
caller ID spoofing.

Everyone is now familiar with the caller ID product that provides to a
consumer the name and number of who is placing an incoming call. Madam
Speaker, unfortunately, caller ID spoofing is yet another tool available
to criminals to hijack the identity of consumers.

As with other scams, the Internet is making caller ID spoofing even
easier today. There are Web sites that offer subscribers, for a nominal
fee, a simple Web interface to caller ID spoofing systems that lets them
appear to be calling from any number they so choose. Some of these Web
services have boasted that they do not maintain logs and fail to provide
any contact information. Some even offer voice scrambling services to
further the deception of the consumer.

The FCC has investigated this spoofing problem, but currently there
is no prohibition against manipulating caller ID information with the
intent to harm others. Today’s bill remedies this problem.

This bill specifically prohibits knowingly sending misleading or
inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm,
or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Deception with intent is our
target. We drafted and amended the language carefully to ensure that we
only prohibit those practices intending to do harm.

There are sometimes legitimate reasons why someone may need to
manipulate caller ID. For example, domestic violence shelters often
alter their caller ID information to simply protect the safety of
victims of violence. Furthermore, a wide array of legitimate uses of
caller ID management technologies exists today, and this bill protects
those legitimate business practices.

For example, caller ID management services provide a local presence
for teleservices and collection companies. These calling services
companies are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and Federal
Communications Commission, which require commercial callers to project a
caller ID that can be called back. This bill is not intended to target
lawful practices protecting people from harm or serving a legitimate
business interest.

My colleagues, this is a good piece of bipartisan consumer protection
legislation. And while I normally hesitate to take the Senate’s work
product without some kind of amendment on our side, I want to thank my
friends on both sides of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle here in
the House of Representatives, including the many chairmen over the
years, including Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, and
Mr. Boucher, as well as Mr. Upton,
who was also chairman of this subcommittee. I also want to thank this
Congress’ lead sponsor and hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, my good friend, ELIOT ENGEL from New York.

I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, today we consider S. 30, the Truth in
Caller ID Act. It is the Senate companion to House legislation that was
introduced on a bipartisan basis by our colleagues, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), ranking
Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill directs the FCC to adopt the regulations prohibiting caller
ID spoofing in which a caller falsifies the original caller ID
information during the transmission of a call with the intent to
defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully to obtain anything of value. The
bill makes anyone who knowingly and willingly engages in caller ID
spoofing eligible for criminal fines.

Spoofing has been possible for many years, but generally required
expensive [Page: H8378]
equipment in order to change the outgoing call information. But with the
growth of voice over Internet protocol usage, spoofing has become
easier and considerably less expensive, and a number of Web sites are
now offering spoofing services. Consequently, those who want to deceive
others by manipulating caller ID can now do so with relative ease.

Spoofing threatens a number of business applications, including
credit card verifications and automatic call routing, because these
systems rely on the telephone number as identified by the caller ID
system as one piece of their verification and authentication process. It
is also commonly used in the commission of frauds of various kinds.

At other times, spoofing may be used to protect individuals. For
example, domestic violence shelters sometimes use spoofing to mask the
identity of the caller for protective purposes.

By prohibiting the use of caller ID spoofing only where the intent is
to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, this
measure addresses the nefarious uses of the technology while continuing
to allow legitimate uses such as use in shelters for the victims of
domestic violence.

In the rulemaking that the FCC will conduct pursuant to new
subsection 227(e)(3) of the Communications Act, the committee
anticipates that the commission will consider imposing obligations on
entities that provide caller ID spoofing services to the public. The
widespread availability of caller ID spoofing services presents a
significant potential for abuse and hinders law enforcement’s ability to
investigate crime.

The prohibition in this bill on the use of those services with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value
could be of limited value if entities continue to provide those services
without making any effort to verify their users’ ownership of the phone
number that is being substituted.

With our action today, this measure will be forwarded to the
President for his signature. I want to thank and commend our colleagues,
Mr. Engel and also Mr. Barton, for their commitment to the matter. And I
want to commend Senator Nelson of Florida and all Members who, on a
bipartisan basis, have contributed to and supported the legislation now
before the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[Time: 12:20]