    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

            DO NOT CALL: COMBATING ROBOCALLS AND CALLER ID SPOOFING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 27, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-123

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                             _________

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     31-614                WASHINGTON : 2019

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

            Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
                                         JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                           Ranking Member
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
      Vice Chairman                      YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 TONY CARDENAS, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina      JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois                 Massachusetts
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            GENE GREEN, Texas
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Michigan, opening statement.................................     4
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................    72

                                   Witnesses

    Ethan Garr, Chief Product Officer, Robokiller....................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    89
    Aaron Foss, Founder, Nomorobo....................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    94
    Maureen Mahoney, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Scott Hambuchen, Executive Vice President--Technology and
      Solution Development, First Orion..............................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    99

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of multiple trade associations.........................    74
    Statement of the Electronic Privacy Information Center...........    76
    Statement of CTIA................................................    80
    Statement of USTelecom...........................................    83
    Statement of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.........    85

            DO NOT CALL: COMBATING ROBOCALLS AND CALLER ID SPOOFING

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
                                            Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta,
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Lance, Guthrie,
    Bilirakis, Mullin, Costello, Duncan, Walden (ex officio),
    Schakowsky, Dingell, Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and Pallone
    (ex officio).
        Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Daniel
    Butler, Staff Assistant; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff
    Assistant; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce
    and Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
    Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight and
    Investigations, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena
    Hernandez, Press Secretary; Zach Hunter, Director of
    Communications; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Drew McDowell,
    Executive Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External
    Affairs; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
    Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Jerry Leverich,
    Minority Counsel; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst;
    and Michelle Rusk, Minority FTC Detailee.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. I would like to call the
    Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to
    order. And the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
    an opening statement.
        Good morning again. We thank our witnesses for being here.
    We especially appreciate your patience and flexibility,
    adjusting your travel plans after the hearing was rescheduled
    from last week.
        We want to thank you for being here to help us explore the
    range of solutions and strategies available to consumers to
    combat the scourge of robocalls, caller ID spoofing, and
    telemarketing scams. It is critical that we help consumers
    understand their options when it comes to robocalls and
    spoofing.
        For example, consumers can download robocall-blocking apps
    for their mobile phones and contact their landline and wireless
    providers for call-blocking options.
        They can register their home or mobile phones with the
    national Do Not Call Registry, which protects their number from
    legitimate telemarketing calls they do not want to receive.
        And there are other commonsense strategies, like not
    answering your calls from unknown numbers and not following any
    prompts if you do not know who the call is from. For example,
    do not ``press 1 to take your name off this list.''
        Good options are available, but I think all of us,
    including industry, can and should do a better job of
    education, particularly with our seniors, to make sure that new
    scam ideas are stopped quickly.
        So what is a robocall? When the phone rings with an
    automated prerecorded telemarketing message, that is a
    robocall. They are a nuisance and they are illegal. Yet every
    day tens of thousands of American consumers report receiving a
    robocall. And I would like to just play a real quick
    ``robocall'' from the IRS.
        [Audio recording played.]
        Mr. Latta. And that message goes on.
        A staggering 3.2 billion robocalls were placed nationwide
    in the month of March, according to one source, alone. InOhio's
    419 area code alone, my area code, nearly 12 million robocalls
    were placed. For every month in the past year robocalls made up
    the majority of Do Not Call Registry complaints at the Federal
    Trade Commission.
        As technology evolves allowing for a greater volume of
    robocalls, so are the tactics used to trick consumers into
    answering. In the past scammers would fake caller ID
    information to trick consumers into thinking their bank was
    calling or the phone number was unknown. Scammers are now
    deliberately falsifying caller ID information knowing I am
    likely to answer a phone call that appears to be local from my
    family, a doctor, or the church. Neighbor spoofing, as it is
    known, is a deliberate tactic behind unwanted calls and texts
    to both wireline and wireless phones.
        Robocalls and spoofing have the potential for real
    financial harm. Fraud from unwanted calls amounts to almost
    $9.5 billion annually, according to the FTC. It is not hard to
    see how scammers could use deceptive tactics to convince
    people, often senior citizens, to hand over their personal
    information or to purchase fraudulent goods and services.
        Take the IRS tax scam, for example. You get that unexpected
    phone message claiming to be from the IRS. The call might say
    you owe taxes that must be paid immediately with a credit card
    or a debit card. Scammers have been known to use the threat of
    a lawsuit or arrest by the police to convince victims to hand
    over bank account information.
        Consumers may also get out-of-the-blue calls offering to
    help them lower debt or interest rates or promising other
    limited-time deals. Senior citizens are often targets of
    elderly-specific roboscams relating to Medicare, healthcare, or
    funeral arrangements. But they are not the only ones who fall
    victim to these scams.
        Fortunately, American consumers have options and strategies
    to fight robocalls and caller ID spoofing and to protect
    themselves, which we will explore today with our witnesses.
        The technology and tactics used by scammers may change, but
    as subcommittee chairman, I remain focused on empowering
    consumers and keeping them safe from unfair, deceptive, and
    malicious practices.
        Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
        And with that I will yield back and recognize the
    gentlelady from Michigan for 5 minutes.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good morning. We thank our witnesses for being here today.
    We especially appreciate your patience and flexibility
    adjusting your travel plans after this hearing was rescheduled
    from last week.
        Thank you for being here to help us explore the range of
    solutions and strategies available to consumers to combat the
    scourge of robocalls, caller ID spoofing, and telemarketing
    scams. It is critical that we help consumers understand their
    options when it comes to robocalls and spoofing.
        For example, consumers can download robocall-blocking apps
    for their mobile phones, or contact their landline and wireless
    providers for call-blocking options.
        They can register their home or mobile phones with the
    National Do Not Call Registry, which protects their number from
    legitimate telemarketing calls they do not want to receive.
        And there are common sense strategies like not answering
    calls from unknown numbers and not following any prompts if you
    do not know who the call is from-for example do not ``press 1
    to take your name off this list.''
        Good options are available, but I think all of us,
    including industry, can and should do a much better job of
    education, particularly with our seniors, to make sure that new
    scam ideas are stopped quickly.
        So what's a robocall? When the phone rings with an
    automated, pre-recorded telemarketing message that's a
    robocall. They're a nuisance, and they're illegal. Yet, every
    day tens of thousands of American consumers report receiving a
    robocall.
        A staggering 3.2 billion robocalls were placed nationwide
    in the month of March, according to one source. In Ohio's 419
    area code alone, my local area code, nearly 12 million
    robocalls were placed. For every month in the past year,
    robocalls made up the majority of Do Not Call Registry
    complaints at the Federal Trade Commission.
        As technology evolves allowing for a greater volume of
    robocalls, so are the tactics used to trick consumers into
    answering. In the past, scammers would fake caller ID
    information to trick consumers into thinking their bank was
    calling or the phone number was ``unknown.'' Scammers are now
    deliberately falsifying caller ID information knowing I'm
    likely to answer a phone call that appears to be local, from my
    family, doctor or church. ``Neighbor spoofing,'' as it's known,
    is a deliberate tactic behind unwanted calls and texts to both
    wireline and wireless phones.
        Robocalls and spoofing have the potential for real
    financial harm. Fraud from unwanted calls amounts to almost
    $9.5 billion annually, according to the FTC. It's not hard to
    see how scammers could use deceptive tactics to convince
    people--often senior citizens--to hand over their personal
    information or to purchase fraudulent goods and services.
        Take the IRS tax scam, for example: you get an unexpected
    phone message claiming to be from the IRS. The call might say
    you owe taxes that must be paid immediately with a credit card
    or debit card. Scammers have been known to use the threat of a
    lawsuit, or arrest by the police, to convince victims to hand
    over bank account information.
        Consumers may also get out-of-the blue calls offering to
    help lower debt or interest rates, or promising other ``limited
    time'' deals. Senior citizens are often targets of elderly-
    specific robocall scams relating to Medicare, health care, or
    funeral arrangements. But they are not the only ones who fall
    victim to these scams.
        Fortunately, American consumers have options and strategies
    to fight robocalls and caller ID spoofing, and to protect
    themselves, which we will explore today with our witnesses.
        The technology and tactics used by scammers may change, but
    as subcommittee chairman I remain focused on empowering
    consumers and keeping them safe from unfair, deceptive, and
    malicious practices.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today for
    this important discussion.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding today's hearing on robocalls and spoofing.
        And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
        Robocalls are a great annoyance for American families,
    especially American seniors. One third of the calls now are
    unwanted robocalls. Just in March, a record 3 billion robocalls
    were placed to American consumers, and about a quarter of those
    calls are scam calls.
        We are now at a point in my household when the hard line
    rings I tell my husband, ``Don't answer it.'' And he thought I
    didn't pay our taxes. He got pretty upset with me actually. It
    took me a while to convince him I had.
        I hear repeatedly from my constituents that they want these
    calls to stop. One constituent in Ann Arbor wrote:
        ``My landline and cell numbers are both on the Federal Do
    Not Call Registry. I checked. I am so angry about all the calls
    from offshore call banks telling me that my computer is broken
    or that I need help with medical insurance and my college
    loans.
        ``Exactly what does the Do Not Call list do? Not answering
    and letting someone call back isn't an option, as I have an
    elderly parent who does call. I am also not wanting to go to
    the expense of updating my phone system to get caller ID.''
        There were many more just like this, and to no one's
    surprise there wasn't one letter in support of robocalls.
        Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been
    listening to their constituents and we are taking action. This
    week Democrats are introducing three bills to help stop
    robocalls.
        Ranking Member Pallone introduced the Stopping Bad
    Robocalls Act, which would strengthen the Telephone Consumer
    Protection Act and help the FCC take action against
    robocallers.
        Congresswoman Eshoo introduced the HANGUP Act, which would
    require debt collectors contracted with the Federal Government
    to get consumers' permission before robocalling or auto dialing
    consumers.
        And last, but certainly not least, today we have released a
    discussion draft titled the CEASE Robocalls Act. This draft
    legislation would lift the common carrier exemption in the
    Federal Trade Commission Act so that the FTC can take action
    against these smaller Voice over Internet Protocol, otherwise
    called VoIP services, that are a huge player and heavily
    involved in illegal robocalls.
        I am looking forward to getting feedback from all of you
    today about the discussion draft.
        Today we will hear from witnesses about some of the
    exciting and promising tools available to consumers wishing to
    block robocalls. But consumers don't just need new tools. They
    need new protections.
        We have put forward commonsense ideas to stop Americans
    from being harassed by unwanted calls. I hope we can all work
    together to move this legislation forward and make progress on
    the issue because many of us are growing tired of having to
    leave their phones on silent.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the
    chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I share the passion of the rest of the members here about
    these unwanted, unnecessary, and oftentimes fraudulent calls. I
    get them on my cell phone all the time. They appear to be
    coming from I think my home at times, they are that good
    anymore. And we have got to do something about this. And we
    have. I am going the talk about that in my opening statement
    here a bit.
        And then we appreciate our witnesses for being here.
        Robocalls and caller ID spoofing have exploded in recent
    years, 3 billion calls placed last month alone, they estimate.
    And we all get them. And they interrupt our dinners, they
    interrupt our family time, they interrupt meetings. They are
    real annoying, to say the least.
        At worst, they have the potential to scam and defraud both
    consumers, seniors, and others. According to the Department of
    Justice, scams targeting the elderly are increasing
    dramatically and fraudsters steal an estimated $3 billion from
    American seniors every year. It is now more important than ever
    to educate consumers on how to detect and avoid fraud stemming
    from these robocalls.
        The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications
    Commission, as well as our committee, have taken steps to
    protect consumers from robocalls and spoofing. Both the FTC and
    the FCC operate consumer complaint Web sites and hotlines where
    consumers can report illegal telemarketing calls. Reporting can
    help the agencies crack down on illegal callers and improve the
    data they share with the industry players and
    telecommunications companies, who then develop solutions. The
    Federal Trade Commission also manages the Do Not Call Registry,
    where anyone can register their home or mobile phone for free.
        Here at the Committee we recently passed the RAY BAUM'S
    Act, which includes provisions directing the Federal
    Communications Commission to expand and clarify the prohibition
    on misleading or spoofed caller ID information. It also
    requires that they, in consultation with the Federal Trade
    Commission, create consumer education materials on how to avoid
    this type of spoofing. These provisions were signed into law by
    the President in March.
        This is just one of many steps in the right direction. But
    as communication technology continues to advance, so do the
    tools and tactics of these illegal telemarketers, and they use
    those tactics and tools to evade existing protections. So we
    have to stay ahead of them. So-called neighbor spoofing is one
    of the most effective new tactics. It is particularly hard to
    detect. Scammers use phone numbers with your area code and/or
    an area code nearby, and that gets your trust. Many consumers
    are likely to answer when it looks like the call could be
    coming from, let's say, their child's school, their local
    church, or their dentist's office.
        What do we need to do to stop these bad actors? As I said
    earlier, I, for one, am pretty sick and tired of them.
        We also finished up another tax season last week. IRS
    scammers are going after taxpayers as well. Using the internet
    and social media, fraudsters can convincingly portray IRS
    employees by naming a few identifying facts, like your home
    address or current city of residence.
        To avoid falling prey to these calls and others never give
    personal identifiable information over the phone. Government
    officials will never ask you for your bank account information
    or Social Security number over the phone. Consumers should hang
    up and then they should call the IRS office and check if it was
    a legitimate call.
        And the bad actors keep evolving. So we need to make sure
    that our consumers have what they need to stay ahead of them.
    There are a wide array of technical and marketplace solutions
    consumers can use to block, avoid, or otherwise protect
    themselves from robocalls or caller ID spoofing. There are now
    500 call-blocking apps for Android, Apple, and other devices.
    Many home phone providers offer the option to add robocall-
    blocking functions to their service for free, and today,
    because of our witnesses, we will hear from some of these
    innovators.
        And again, we thank you for your work and your willingness
    to be here.
        I have found, too, if I just let it go to voicemail they
    never leave voicemail, and then I know it is just a spoof.
        So anyway, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of
    my time. Thanks for having this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for being here
    today. Robocalls and caller ID spoofing have exploded in recent
    years, with over 3 billion calls placed last month alone. We
    all get them. Whether they're interrupting a family sitting
    down to dinner in Bend, or ringing during a meeting in
    Washington, everyone experiences the pervasive and invasive
    effects.
        At best, these calls are annoying. At worst, they have the
    potential to scam and defraud consumers, especially senior
    citizens. According to the Department of Justice, scams
    targeting the elderly are increasing dramatically, and
    fraudsters steal an estimated 3 billion dollars from American
    seniors each year. It is now more important than ever to
    educate consumers on how detect and avoid fraud stemming from
    robocalls.
        The Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications
    Commission, as well as our own Committee, have taken steps to
    protect consumers from robocalls and spoofing. Both the FTC and
    FCC operate consumer complaint websites and hotlines where
    consumers can report illegal telemarketing calls. Reporting can
    help the agencies crack down on illegal callers and improve the
    data they share with industry players and telecommunications
    companies, who then develop solutions. The FTC also manages the
    National Do Not Call Registry, where anyone can register their
    home or mobile phone for free.
        Here at the Committee, we recently passed the RAY BAUM'S
    Act, which includes provisions directing the FCC to expand and
    clarify the prohibition on misleading or spoofed caller ID
    information. It also requires that they, in consultation with
    the FTC, create consumer education materials on how to avoid
    this type of spoofing. These provisions were signed into law by
    the president in March.
        This is just one of many steps in the right direction, but
    as communication technology continues to advance, so do the
    tools and tactics illegal telemarketers use to evade existing
    protections. So-called ``neighbor spoofing'' is one of the most
    effective new tactics, and it is particularly hard to detect.
    Scammers use phone numbers with your area code or an area code
    nearby to engender trust. Many consumers are likely to answer
    when it looks like the call could be coming from their child's
    school, their local church, or their dentist's office.
        We also finished up another tax season last week. IRS
    schemes are on the rise as scammers deceive individuals into
    giving up their personal or financial information. Using the
    internet and social media, fraudsters can convincingly portray
    IRS employees by naming a few identifying facts, like your home
    address or current city of residence. To avoid falling prey to
    these calls and others, never give personally identifiable
    information over the phone. Government officials will never ask
    for your bank account information or social security number
    over the phone. Consumers should hang up and call their local
    IRS office to check if the call they received was legitimate.
        The bad actors clearly keep evolving, and we need to make
    sure consumers stay one step ahead. There are a wide array of
    technical and marketplace solutions consumers can use to block,
    avoid, or otherwise protect themselves from robocalls and
    caller ID spoofing. There are now over 500 call blocking apps
    for Android, Apple, and other devices. Many home phone
    providers offer the option to add robocall blocking functions
    to their service for free. Today, we'll hear from a few of the
    innovators in robocall blocking and advanced caller ID
    technology on how to implement these strategies for both
    landline and mobile phones.
        There is no silver bullet to solve the problem of unwanted
    calls, but we owe it to our constituents to present all the
    options available. Improving education and awareness will be
    key to preventing consumer harm. I want to thank our witnesses
    again for being here today, and I look forward to this
    important discussion.

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
    minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I just
    want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this
    hearing.
        This is one of the biggest complaints I get from senior
    citizens. And actually at my house, when I go back home after a
    week, I get calls saying the IRS is going to come over and I
    owe taxes. And I hear constituents complain about that, and I
    explain to them the IRS doesn't call you and tell you by phone.
    You will get a letter and keep in touch with us.
        The other frustration is that on my cell phone, I haven't
    applied for a loan for many years, but I keep getting texts
    saying: Your $250,000 loan has been approved. I thought about
    saying: Send it to me and I will go to Costa Rica or someplace.
        But it is frustrating to seniors, particularly if you are
    home all day, or young mothers who have children that they are
    worried about with all these kind of calls. So we need both the
    two agencies, the FCC and FTC, see what we can do. If they
    don't have the tools for it we need to do it.
        And I thank you for having the hearing.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back.
        And that will conclude the member opening statements. The
    chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        And again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
    here with us today, taking the time to testify before the
    subcommittee. Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to
    give 5-minute opening statements followed by a round of
    questions from the members.
        Our witness panel for today's hearing includes Mr. Ethan
    Garr, the Chief Product Officer of RoboKiller; Mr. Aaron Foss,
    Founder of Nomorobo; Ms. Maureen Mahoney, the Policy Analyst at
    Consumers Union; and also, Mr. Scott Hambuchen, the Executive
    Vice President of Technology and Solution Development at First
    Orion.
        So again, we want to thank you very much for being here.
        And, Mr. Garr, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

     STATEMENTS OF ETHAN GARR, CHIEF PRODUCT OFFICER, ROBOKILLER;
    AARON FOSS, FOUNDER, NOMOROBO; MAUREEN MAHONEY, POLICY ANALYST,
         CONSUMERS UNION; AND SCOTT HAMBUCHEN, EXECUTIVE VICE
      PRESIDENT--TECHNOLOGY AND SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT, FIRST ORION

                        STATEMENT OF ETHAN GARR

        Mr. Garr. I think we are going to begin with a clip.
        [Audio recording played.]
        Mr. Garr. Chairman Latta and members of the committee, I am
    Ethan Garr from RoboKiller, and what you just heard was one of
    our Answer Bots wasting a telemarketer's time.
        Answer Bots are the solution to the robocall epidemic, and
    on June 19, 2021, RoboKiller and our Answer Bots will have
    solved this problem. See, on that date, at our current
    trajectory, we will have 10 million users deploying hundreds of
    millions of our time-wasting Answer Bots.
        This will reduce spammers' revenue by more than 50 percent.
    That is enough of a disruption to their bottom line to put them
    out of business. We are attacking spammers where it hurts, in
    their wallets.
        RoboKiller answers the calls it blocks with these Answer
    Bots, and they are smart. They know how to press 1 to reach the
    human behind Rachel from Cardholder Services. They know how to
    turn the tables on spammers and waste their time instead of
    yours. This is time that they no longer have to scam and steal
    not just from our users, but from anyone else, as well. This
    problem has gotten worse despite call-blocking technologies,
    despite legislation and enforcement.
        But we are different. Our call-blocking competitors have
    approached this problem from the caller ID angle. But spoofing,
    caller ID blocking, and other tools limit the value of such
    approaches. It is a cat-and-mouse game that can really never be
    won. We are not interested in playing the game. We would rather
    steal the cheese that the spammers are after.
        The spammers' business model is based on making billions of
    calls, knowing that only a small percentage will get answered,
    and an even smaller percentage of those will connect human
    telemarketers with viable targets. They don't have to be
    surgical in their strikes. Robocalls let the most vulnerable in
    our society self-select themselves as victims.
        So a relatively small pool of humans, often on the other
    side of the world, are just waiting for their auto-dialed
    robocall systems to connect, waiting for someone's grandmother
    to press 1 and say ``Hello.'' But Answer Bots' inanimate
    identities cannot be stolen. Their invisible wallets can't be
    infiltrated. They can keep spammers wrapped up on calls for
    hours. And they are protecting you even if you don't have
    RoboKiller. Every minute our Answer Bots are engaging
    telemarketers is a minute they don't have to speak to someone
    else.
        Our competitors are helping their users, but they are also
    helping scammers. Telemarketers are happy to skip a well-
    educated executive with a call-blocker app to get to the
    elderly grandmother who they know is more likely to fall victim
    to their scams. With Answer Bots our users are helping
    everyone.
        Unfortunately, you can't solve this problem with
    legislation alone. A three-man IRS scam operation in a seedy,
    nondescript room in another country isn't worried that the long
    arm of the American justice system is ever going to knock on
    their door. As it became cheaper and cheaper to make calls, the
    incentive to deploy more robocalls has increased exponentially,
    as did the incentive to ignore the laws.
        The Do Not Call Registry did exactly what it was supposed
    to do, but, unfortunately, not at all what people expected it
    to do. So stopping the tiny percentage of legal robocalls that
    fell under the Do Not Call list purview was almost no help to
    consumers who were expecting a panacea.
        Beyond the Do Not Call list the government's efforts have
    been well intentioned and well executed. They just don't have
    broad implications on the problem. Despite the FCC and FTC's
    well-publicized multimillion dollar enforcement actions, with
    that estimated $9.5 billion in yearly phone scam revenue these
    efforts are just not a real deterrent.
        No, the real solution to this problem is already in the app
    store, and it is called RoboKiller. And you can take pride in
    the fact that the government efforts have made this happen. We
    weren't in this fight until the FTC had the vision to look
    beyond legislation and enforcement towards innovation.
        When the FTC created the Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back
    competition in 2015 they got us, TelTech, into this fight. We
    have been innovating for 14 years, helping consumers use
    technology to protect their privacy and security on their
    phones.
        From unmasking blocked calls with TrapCall, to recording
    calls with TapeACall, to helping people keep their numbers
    secure with SpoofCard, we have always been focused on giving
    people control of their phones.
        The robocall competition ignited our passion and is
    accomplishing your goals to help Americans end the robocall
    epidemic.
        We have already started to see the impact. When we heard a
    telemarketer say in an exasperated voice, ``Oh, no, everyone
    has got RoboKiller today,'' we knew we had turned the tide.
    When we heard another angrily yell at one of our Answer Bots,
    ``Oh, which one are you, the guy with the baby, the guy on the
    movie set?'' then we knew we were winning the fight.
        From an adorable Southern belle to a guy dealing with a
    gazelle running around his apartment, our robots are hilarious,
    but just as important, they are effective.
        Earlier this week we were able to showcase RoboKiller and
    Answer Bots at the FTC and FCC's joint technology expo, and
    today we have the privilege of testifying in front of this
    subcommittee. If you want us to help you solve this problem,
    please do more of this. Help us get more attention so that we
    can speed up our growth.
        We are not worried about putting ourselves out of business
    by solving the problem. We have built a culture of innovation.
    So when the scammers start ringing doorbells after we have
    solved this problem we will have a solution for that, too.
        Answer Bots wasted more than 25,000 hours of human
    telemarketers' time last month. For 150,000 users that
    represented hundreds of thousands of blocked calls and the
    peace of mind that when their phone rang it wasn't a harassing
    call from a scammer. For thousands of other Americans who have
    yet to purchase RoboKiller, that was 25,000 hours where they,
    too, were protected from those otherwise engaged telemarketers.
        This robocall problem has grown into a true epidemic. Ever
    since I have been speaking, 2,700 unwanted calls are being made
    to American citizens every second. But it is over. RoboKiller
    and our Answer Bots are on the case.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garr follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony today.
        And, Mr. Foss, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

                        STATEMENT OF AARON FOSS

        Mr. Foss. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Pallone, and
    members of the committee, thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        My name is Aaron Foss. I am the founder of Nomorobo and the
    winner of the FTC Robocall Challenge.
        And since launching in 2013, Nomorobo has stopped almost
    650 million robocalls from reaching American citizens. And
    while that number is huge, it is a mere drop in the bucket of
    this problem. According to our data, approximately 40 percent
    of all calls on a landline network are unwanted robocalls.
        So I am here today to give you a view from the trenches.
    And let me start off by telling you the good news. The same
    technology that created this problem, low-cost voice-over-IP
    service, is now being used to successfully stop it.
        In its first year Nomorobo stopped 15 million robocalls
    from reaching American consumers. That was in the entire first
    year. And we are now stopping double that amount every single
    month. Thirty million robocalls a month are being stopped by
    Nomorobo. And this is much better than the old solution of,
    ``Only answer numbers that you recognize.''
        And when I first started this crusade carriers believed
    that FCC regulations prohibited them from blocking robocalls.
    But since the FCC clarified that those regulations do indeed
    allow robocall blocking, carriers have been quick to act. Today
    Nomorobo is supported by most of the major VoIP carriers in the
    United States and directly integrated with some of the largest.
        And mobile technology companies, like Apple and Google,
    have also done a great job in making their smartphone
    ecosystems robocall-blocker friendly. They now allow developers
    to create and distribute robocall-blocking apps to hundreds of
    millions of users. This wasn't always the case, especially when
    I started.
        And there used to be a lot of fear when it came to stopping
    robocalls. Many people thought that technology couldn't
    differentiate between good and bad robocalls. And Nomorobo
    proved this incorrect. The service is 97 percent effective, and
    our false positive rate is only one-tenth of 1 percent.
        So on the one hand I know that for over 1.6 million
    Nomorobo users we have solved their robocall problem once and
    for all. Their phones are now peaceful and quiet. And I wish I
    could stop my testimony right there and we could end the
    conversation right now.
        Unfortunately, I can't. It is a jungle out there, and the
    robocallers have started to use more advanced tricks and
    tactics. We have to continually stay one step ahead of the bad
    guys. Simple blacklists are no longer as effective in stopping
    robocalls as they once are.
        Last summer we noticed an explosion in neighbor spoofed
    calls. These are the calls where the robocall caller uses a
    fake number that looks very similar to the recipient's number.
    Last summer they used to represent less than 2 percent of all
    robocalls, but beginning in July of 2017 they represented
    almost 20 percent of all robocalls. That is a 10x increase.
        Now, luckily, technology like Nomorobo can quickly detect
    and stop new robocalling patterns like neighbor spoofing. And
    while the carriers are also working on a solution, verifying
    and certifying caller ID, it is still years away.
        Robocallers are flexible and quickly and continually change
    their tactics. The tools to fight them also have to be flexible
    and adaptable.
        We are at a very interesting point in the robocall battle.
    Technology has proven that it is the safe and effective
    solution in the fight. Regulators have cleared the path for
    carriers to roll out robocall-blocking solutions to their
    customers. Consumers have shown that they want these services,
    they trust these services, and are even willing to pay for
    these services.
        And robocall blocking is a virtuous cycle. The more people
    that use robocall blockers, the less effective robocalling
    becomes. The less effective robocalling becomes, the less
    robocalls are made. Everyone wins, except for the robocallers.
        And to close, I just want to remind everyone why we are
    solving this problem. This isn't just about stopping a minor
    annoyance. Robocalls present a significant threat, particularly
    to some of our most vulnerable citizens.
        I was reminded of this the other day when I received the
    following email. As everybody knows, my testimony is sworn so I
    am really not making this up.
        It said: ``My name is Phil. I just wanted you to know how
    thankful I am for your service. I have a bad brain injury and
    the calls I was getting fooled me. Thank you for offering the
    service for free. My income has been tough to manage, and
    adding an extra cost, even small, can add up each month.''
        I thank the committee for continuing to do everything in
    its power to make robocall-blocking solutions, like Nomorobo,
    available to all Americans.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Foss follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you for your testimony.
        And, Ms. Mahoney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MAUREEN MAHONEY

        Ms. Mahoney. Chairman Latta, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I work for
    Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports.
        Since 2015, in response to complaints from thousands of
    consumers who told us that robocalls were their top consumer
    complaint, we have conducted our End Robocalls campaign, which
    calls on the major phone companies to offer to all of their
    customers free, effective tools to block unwanted robocalls.
        Nearly three-quarters of a million people have signed this
    petition, and they have told us that they are overwhelmed by
    the harmful, abusive, and irritating robocalls that intrude on
    their privacy, take their money, and allow scams to enter their
    homes.
        Robocalls have reached epidemic proportions. Since 2006 the
    number of complaints to the FTC about violations of the Do Not
    Call list has exploded. And the volume of robocalls is on the
    rise, as well. Last month, 3 billion robocalls were placed to
    consumers in the United States.
        Unwanted calls undermine the quality of the phone service
    for which consumers pay dealer. For example, sometimes these
    robocalling campaigns relentlessly target certain consumers.
    One consumer told us that she received an estimated 100 calls
    in a single day, which blocked incoming and outgoing calls for
    significant periods of time. Others have told us that unwanted
    incoming robocalls have delayed them from calling a medical
    professional.
        And robocalls cost consumers money. Vulnerable consumers,
    such as the elderly, may be unduly susceptible to telemarketing
    pitches for products that they don't want or need. Scam calls
    like Rachel from Card Services also seek to separate consumers
    from their money fraudulently.
        Consumers with prepaid or limited-minute calling plans may
    end up paying for robocalls. And often consumers have to pay
    for call-blocking devices or services, which further push the
    costs of robocalls onto consumers.
        We appreciate the progress that the phone companies, the
    FCC, and the FTC have made thus far in addressing robocalls.
    For example, AT&T and T-Mobile have begun to offer free
    robocall-blocking tools to their customers. In addition, the
    FCC has approved new rules that give phone companies the leeway
    to immediately block certain clearly illegally spoofed calls
    that they see coming through their networks. They have also
    opened an inquiry into the development of caller ID
    authentication technology to address call spoofing. And the FTC
    has initiated a series of contests, as my copanelists well
    know, to encourage developers to create and innovate
    antirobocall technology.
        But more action is needed to fully address the robocall
    problem. The blocking under the FCC's new rules will not reach
    the vast majority of robocalls. Essential legal protections
    against robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
    or the TCPA, remain at risk. And enforcement efforts have not
    been enough to stop illegal robocalling. Therefore, we support
    the following additional reforms.
        First, the FCC should require providers to offer technology
    to identify and block spoofed and unwanted calls. Congress can
    assist by supporting the ROBOCOP Act, which would direct the
    FCC to develop rules to implement these technologies.
        Second, ensure that consumers have strong legal protections
    against unwanted calls. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
    recently struck down portions of the FCC's 2015 rules covering
    the definition of an autodialer and the safe harbor for
    robocalls made to reassigned numbers. The FCC will likely open
    a proceeding to explore open issues related to the definition
    of an autodialer, and we urge them to implement rules that
    maintain important protections against unwanted robocalls so
    that consumers have a means of controlling or stopping them.
        Third, increase protections against unwanted debt
    collection calls. Congress should pass the HANGUP Act to remove
    the exemption placed in the TCPA for Federal debt collection
    robocalls. While the exemption should never have been passed in
    the first place, we urge the FCC to issue rules to implement
    the provision to provide clarity and to ensure that consumers
    have a way to limit and stop these calls.
        And finally, empower the FTC to counter illegal calls.
    Congress should allocate to the FTC greater resources for
    enforcement and the development of antirobocall technology. It
    should also remove the common carrier exemption in the FTC Act
    so that the FTC can directly call on phone service providers to
    be part of the solution.
        Thank you for your attention to this important consumer
    issue, and I look forward to addressing any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mahoney follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Hambuchen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF SCOTT HAMBUCHEN

        Mr. Hambuchen. Chairman Latta, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear today. I am
    Scott Hambuchen, an executive with First Orion Corporation.
        Today consumers are being scammed out of hundreds of
    millions of dollars and are now conditioned to not answer the
    phone unless they know who is calling. This lack of trust in
    the voice channel must change.
        First Orion partners with carriers to offer their
    subscribers protection from scams and unwanted calls. First
    Orion also offers consumers mobile apps, such as PrivacyStar,
    to protect their cell phones from these calls. These offerings
    use sophisticated analytics to identify calls that are highly
    likely to be scams.
        First Orion analyzed over 34 billion calls this past year
    and labeled 3.5 billion of them Scam Likely, giving consumers a
    warning before they answer. In addition, consumers can opt in
    to blocking calls labeled Scam Likely so their phone never
    rings. In 2017 we blocked over 500 million of these calls for
    consumers.
        Most of the larger carriers have launched some form of scam
    protection. First Orion is the chosen provider for T-Mobile's
    groundbreaking offering last year, deploying our Scam Likely
    solution to over 58 million subscribers for free. We also know
    there are over 500 apps in the Google Play and Apple App Stores
    that are free or available for a small month monthly charge.
        Despite these efforts, we are still getting fraudulent and
    unwanted calls. The fraudsters are sophisticated, evolving
    their practices to avoid being labeled and blocked. They
    operate like a business and constantly change their tactics to
    appear legitimate.
        Scammers use methods that legitimate callers often use,
    such as prerecorded messages, automated robocalls, and altering
    their caller ID, commonly referred to as spoofing.
        Some robocalls are legitimate and wanted, such as automated
    notices from your child's school. And yet some scams are not
    robocalls. Both are still growing.
        Spoofing is no different. Legal spoofing by a national
    pharmacy chain letting customers know their prescription is
    ready and spoofing the number for the local pharmacy is
    helpful. However, neighbor spoofing, inserting a random number
    with the same area code and prefix as the called number to get
    a consumer to answer a scam call, is illegal and much harder to
    detect.
        Let me be clear. We are in an arms race, not a marathon
    with a finish line, at least until we make it unprofitable. Our
    approach provides consumers the best information available--who
    is calling and why--allowing consumers to decide if they should
    answer.
        We also allow consumers to block future calls from that
    number or call category. We offer more information, including a
    calling number, the company name if available, the call
    category, and the ability to file complaints that we send to
    the FTC.
        We take great care in applying labels using sophisticated
    algorithms based on calls we see, input from consumers, and
    many other sources of intelligence. No one piece of data ever
    generates a Scam Likely label.
        Our labeling methods are constantly evolving to respond to
    new threats. In response to neighbor spoofing, we have evolved
    our analytics to soon start identifying individual calls, not
    just the calling number, as Scam Likely. As a result, we expect
    the number of identified scam calls to rise from 12 percent
    today to 15 percent.
        Of course, any algorithmic approach has some errors.
    Reported cases of false positives are a fraction of 1 percent
    for us. So calling parties can easily fix an incorrect label,
    we launched CallTransparency.com, a website that provides
    legitimate callers the opportunity to register their numbers
    and avoid the Scam Likely tag.
        The FCC has wisely established a light touch regulatory
    regime that allows continued development of call labeling and
    blocking solutions, with the potential for profound consumer
    benefits. We also commend the multiyear FTC focus on these
    issues and their role with complex multiagency enforcement
    actions.
        Finally, we will continue working with call originators to
    further enhance our solutions, although we do oppose any
    regulation or industry efforts that may help scammers, such as
    call block indicator tones.
        To conclude, the one area where First Orion believes that
    industry and government can do more together is expanding
    consumer education about scam calls and what tools are
    available to them.
        Mr. Chairman, First Orion appreciates the opportunity to
    appear today. We are available to provide any additional
    information the committee may request. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hambuchen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
    with us today. We really appreciate the information.
        And that will conclude our witness opening statements, and
    we will move on to the 5-minute questions from our members, and
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Foss, since you won the FTC Robocall Challenge, what
    are the challenges your company has experienced in getting
    Nomorobo developed and installed on landline and mobile phones?
        Mr. Foss. So I think that the major challenge that we had
    has changed. So when we first started off it was absolutely the
    carrier integration problem. That seems to be thawing.
        What the major problem I think right now is, is on the
    customer, the consumer confusion side. I even hear this
    mentioned a lot now where people say to put your landline and
    your mobile number on the Do Not Call list.
        There is actually no point in putting your mobile number on
    the Do Not Call list. The way the TCPA is written, it is
    actually illegal to call mobile phones unless you have
    expressed written permission.
        So when I actually even hear things like, ``Well, you know,
    my number is on the Do Not Call list, why do I keep getting
    calls?'' or when people say, ``Well, put your mobile and your
    landline on the Do Not Call list,'' then what are you going to
    do there? I feel like it is very, very confusing right now.
        I think the biggest problem with the adoption of these
    things is that consumers don't really understand. If they
    understood that there were these technologies that are
    available, if they understood where the government steps in and
    know what it can do to help, I think that that would go a long
    way now.
        Mr. Latta. And going along with that then, where have you
    received support and encouragement in that mission to protect
    your consumers? Where has that support been?
        Mr. Foss. From the consumers themselves. And maybe it is
    just like an American trait. We have a great military. We have
    great police. And people still protect themselves in their own
    homes through various means. They have firearms. They have
    security systems. Americans do take protecting themselves as a
    responsibility.
        So I think that the easiest place that we have been able to
    find it, when consumers understand that they can go and protect
    themselves, that they don't have to rely on the government,
    that they don't have to rely on the carriers, that really
    empowers consumers to protect their lines.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Garr, as a winner yourself, can you share the
    challenges and support for the RoboKiller company's experience
    since the FTC contest?
        Mr. Garr. Sure. I also would say that we have gotten
    incredible support from consumers.
        People are really angry about this problem. My uncle calls
    me up probably once every 2 months and screams about the
    robocalls and telemarketers he is dealing with.
        Consumers are passionate about solving this problem. So we
    see, especially in ratings and reviews, that customers are
    really passionate about what we are doing. They want us to
    succeed and make their lives better.
        Certainly the challenges are that scammers are constantly
    working at this problem, too. So more randomness, new
    technologies, that is always a challenge.
        We are always getting a lot of support from the FTC and the
    FCC. Since we won the competition we are really fortunate to be
    really partnered with these agencies. Again, being invited to
    speak today, having the chance to go to the technology expo on
    Monday, these are really important to our growth.
        We really feel like we have a solution in RoboKiller and
    our Answer Bots that scales. The only way it scales is if we
    get the word out there, and being able to participate in things
    like this has really been a supportive part of the effort.
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask this, if I could ask everyone real
    quickly, because I don't have a lot of time. But what can be
    done to stimulate more technological solutions and marketplace
    innovations to help consumers fight back against robocalls and
    spoofing?
        Maybe, Mr. Hambuchen, we can start with you and just work
    back down real quick.
        Mr. Hambuchen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, we certainly think awareness with consumers is a big
    part of that. The more complaints they file, the more data we
    have, the more we will be able to combat this.
        As you know, our business, we look at labeling and giving
    consumers choice in blocking these calls, and so the more
    information we have, the more we can fight the scammers.
        Because what you have to realize is these scammers are very
    sophisticated. They are using data and technology today much
    like a marketer, a direct marketer would to target these
    individuals. And so to combat that we need more data, more
    sophistication, and more analytics deployed in the carrier
    networks to detect that.
        Mr. Latta. Ms. Mahoney, I have got about 40 seconds left.
        Ms. Mahoney. Thank you.
        We think the FCC should require the phone companies to
    implement advanced call-blocking technology. I think that will
    provide important incentives for perfecting and improving it.
    And we also commend the FTC for its efforts so far to spread
    this technology, and we think they should be allocated more
    funds to be able to continue these efforts.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Foss, I have 17 seconds.
        Mr. Foss. I will go with educate, education, making
    consumers aware of what is out there and showing them that it
    is a real solution.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Garr.
        Mr. Garr. In my very short time here, real time information
    is always useful. We can always use that to be more effective
    in deploying our Answer Bots for the consumers.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired, and I recognize the gentlelady from
    Michigan for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Mahoney, I would like to explore some of your testimony
    regarding the FTC's authority under the Telemarketing Sales
    Rule to stop these illegal robocalls.
        I am concerned by reports that there are a handful of small
    Voice over Internet Protocol, VoIP, services that are enabling
    these calls.
        During the Senate hearing on this same topic last week we
    learned that these small VoIP carriers openly advertise short-
    duration calls, which is code for robocalls. They even offered
    to blend robocall traffic in with normal calls to avoid
    detection.
        Ms. Mahoney, are these VoIP services contributing to the
    proliferation of robocalls?
        Ms. Mahoney. Thank you for your question.
        Again, we commend the FTC for its work so far on the
    robocall issue, their enforcement efforts in particular. But we
    did learn last week from the Senate hearing that there are
    carriers wherein their primary line of business is to carry
    this fraudulent traffic.
        I think if the FTC had more authority to go after them,
    they could use their enforcement muscle to really help crack
    down on this illegal activity.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        Do you think that going after the carriers that aid and
    abet illegal robocallers would help reduce the number of
    unwanted callers?
        Ms. Mahoney. I do.
        Mrs. Dingell. I certainly think that shutting these
    operations down would be an effective enforcement tactic, but
    when it comes to these unscrupulous VoIP carriers the FTC says
    its hands are tied because common carrier activities are exempt
    from the FTC Act.
        Today we are releasing a draft bill that would lift that
    exemption for FTC enforcement against illegal telemarketing and
    robocalls, something that the FTC has testified that they
    support in the past.
        Does Consumer Union support expanding the FTC's authority
    under the Telemarketing Sales Rule to reach common carriers?
        Ms. Mahoney. We do. We think this is a good idea and will
    help the FTC crack down on this illegal activity.
        Mrs. Dingell. In 1990 Congress passed the Do Not Call
    Registry after hearing numerous complaints about unwanted
    calls. That law worked for a while, but one quick glance at
    your call history shows it is clearly not working anymore, and
    all of you have testified making that clear, too, that we need
    to do something.
        Ms. Mahoney, do you agree that existing law is insufficient
    and more can be done here in Congress to help consumers rid
    themselves of these unwanted calls?
        Ms. Mahoney. Yes. We have long been calling on the phone
    companies to offer free, effective antirobocall blocking
    technology. We do think the FCC should require the phone
    companies to offer this technology so that all consumers are
    covered. For example, consumers with traditional landline
    phones do not have effective, free protections against these
    robocalls.
        So those are the important reforms that we would support.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        And I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the
    chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I was actually just trying to download one of your apps
    here. I am real ready to do this.
        Look, I think we are all really frustrated. We now know
    that the Do Not Call Registry isn't that effective because
    these people are operating illegally to begin with. We have
    been through TCPA issues. It is already illegal to robocall a
    cell phone.
        And it seems to me that technology holds the best promise
    here, because we can make some changes in statute probably, but
    at the end of the day isn't it really you all and your brain
    trust that are going to come up with the technology every day
    to try and stay ahead of the spoofers every day because they
    got people doing this, right?
        Do you want to address that? What is the best thing a
    consumer can do? And what should we do to get at this?
        Mr. Garr. We passionately believe that disruption of the
    telemarketers' business is the key to solving this problem. We
    believe that our Answer Bots, which wastes scammers time----
        Mr. Walden. Love it.
        Mr. Garr [continuing]. Can solve this problem.
        Yes, they are entertaining, yes, they are fun, yes, you can
    create your own. These are great things for consumers. But they
    serve a really important, valuable purpose. That, again, is
    time.
        Not just that our user is protected. If you are downloading
    RoboKiller right now, yes, you will be protected from that
    call, but the great thing is that somebody else is being
    protected at the same time because the calls that we are
    blocking and answering with our Answer Bots are wasting those
    spammers' time. And I am telling you, sometimes it is for 47
    minutes at a time.
        Mr. Walden. See, I really like that, because I want to get
    even with these people.
        I remember a decade or so ago when pop-up ads were the rage
    on the internet. Every time I would work on a Word document or
    something, you have these pop-up ads. I threatened to do a
    death penalty for pop-up ad people, because you couldn't get
    anything done. And now we are all getting interrupted with
    these calls.
        By the way, I have just downloaded your app. I may move
    down the table here. But I am going to be in the ``get even''
    mode here real soon with these scammers.
        Mr. Garr. We are the ``get even'' guys.
        Mr. Walden. I like that a lot, because I think that is what
    you have to do, is create economic harm on them. Because it is
    hard to chase them around the globe, right?
        So when I get one of these calls, I have tried to like talk
    to them, and they are really sweet except they don't answer, it
    is a robovoice for a while. So what happens? Does somebody
    actually answer? And what are they really after, just my
    financial information?
        Mr. Garr. It really depends on the nature of the call. And,
    again, like what is really incredible is how effective they can
    be at reaching their victims.
        That IRS scam that was played at the beginning of this
    testimony, that particular robocall asks you to call back a
    specific phone number. That means when you call them back you
    are self-selecting yourself as a victim.
        They don't want people who have RoboKiller. They don't want
    people who have another product. They want to get past them and
    get to the human being.
        Mr. Walden. So they have a sweatshop caller center overseas
    most likely. Most of this is going on overseas, right?
        Mr. Garr. They are not a monolith. I speak to a lot of
    scammers. You would think it is full-time job for me.
        Mr. Walden. Is this your voice on one of these?
        Mr. Garr. The one we played was my voice, yes.
        We talk to a lot of these scammers. It is not one, there is
    not one image of them. It is three guys working together in
    disparate locations. It is a bullpen of 100 people.
        I ask them, ``How many people are in your room?'' And
    sometimes you get, ``Oh, there is just me. It is just me.'' And
    sometimes you can hear people in the background. Sometimes you
    can tell it is a big bullpen.
        Mr. Walden. Stunning they are not truthful to you.
        Mr. Garr. Yes, exactly. We really encourage consumers not
    to trust anything the spammers say or do. Don't press 1 to get
    off their list because why would you trust someone who is out
    to get you in the first place?
        Mr. Walden. Right. I was going to ask you that, because
    they do have, like, press 1 if you want off, you do this or
    that. Bottom line is you should just hang up, right, or, no, do
    your deal.
        Mr. Garr. Yes. If you have RoboKiller we will take care of
    it for you. But, yes, I think if you are going to engage never
    give out personal identifying information.
        Mr. Walden. And so when somebody is using, let's just say,
    your app, I am trying not to hawk one service over another
    here, but let's say they use your app. Is that counting against
    their phone minutes or anything like that? Our phone minutes, I
    mean the consumers.
        Mr. Garr. For our users? No.
        Mr. Walden. So it is not tying up my phone line?
        Mr. Garr. No, no, no. The call is being forwarded to us,
    and then we are answering that call. So the user is just
    getting a notification on their phone saying RoboKiller has
    blocked this call, that it is a spam call.
        Mr. Walden. And how do you know that it is not a real call?
        Mr. Garr. That is our special sauce. We are using a lot of
    tools. When we won the FTC's competition, we demonstrated how
    audio fingerprinting could be used to attack this problem. That
    is one of the tools we use, along with machine learning, lists
    that we find and build, using our own consumer's consumer
    information. As we grow we are building a larger and larger
    ecosystem to learn from.
        Mr. Walden. OK. My time has expired. But thank you all for
    the good work you are doing. This is what it is going to take.
    And I am all about getting even with these people.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for holding this
    hearing.
        Ms. Mahoney, I appreciate the work Consumers Union does
    trying to make America aware of options they do have to
    protect. I am especially concerned about protecting those more
    vulnerable to fraud.
        Do you think the elderly specifically are likely to know
    about the apps and the technologies that exist to protect them
    from robocalls?
        Ms. Mahoney. We think more consumers should be made aware
    of some of the options that are out there. We would like to see
    consumers taking more advantage of them.
        Oftentimes elderly consumers do have traditional landline
    phones, and existing call-blocking solutions are not adequate
    for those types of phone service.
        So we would like to see more technologies that are
    available to them, as well as more education and awareness for
    these consumers to be able to take advantage of existing tools.
        Mr. Green. Several witnesses have mentioned that AT&T and
    T-Mobile have begun offering free robocall-blocking tools to at
    least to some of their customers, and I am glad to hear,
    especially since you also mentioned that some of the
    competitors only provide products that consumers have to pay
    for.
        How can we explain why only some of their customers have
    access to these tools and not all their customers?
        Ms. Mahoney. Thank you for your question.
        Again, we think that all consumers should have access to
    these tools, and we do think the FCC should require the phone
    companies to offer to all of their customers these tools.
        I think it is possible that phone companies in the short-
    term do not see market incentives for providing these solutions
    to all of their customers. So that is why we would like to see
    more pressure on them to take action.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Hambuchen, in your testimony you mentioned
    there are over 400 apps available to consumers that offer
    robocall and spoofing protection. Since these apps are so
    widely available, what do you think are the biggest obstacles
    to better protection from robocalls for these consumers that
    are particularly vulnerable to scammers?
        Mr. Hambuchen. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
        One of the largest issues is that the scammers are very
    savvy, very technologically savvy, and so a lot of these apps
    work based off of just a list of numbers that are going to be
    blocked or identified. And so that takes time to compile that
    information.
        What the scammers have learned is that rotating that number
    or these neighbor spoofing-type solutions they can avoid those
    simple lists of numbers that should be blocked.
        And so part of what First Orion is doing is developing
    technology that allows us to rapidly look at all that
    information and instead of just looking at the number, looking
    at the characteristics of the incoming call and identifying
    that information so that, regardless of what number that
    scammer may call from, we can identify that information and
    block that call or label it as a scam.
        Mr. Green. Of these 500 apps that are available, what kinds
    of options are available to customers that don't have a
    smartphone?
        Mr. Hambuchen. Well, that is a tough one. Most of the apps
    are really for the Google Play Store for Android devices, the
    Apple App Store, which are iOS devices, maybe a handful for
    Windows smartphones. But for the feature phone you really have
    to rely on the carriers' in-network solution for any of that
    scam protection.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, the
    vice chairman of the subcommittee.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for being here. It is good to have you
    here on this really important issue.
        I just downloaded one of your apps, as well. And I have
    been getting calls all the time, and I just don't even answer
    my phone anymore. So I am eager to get a call and listen to the
    exchange if it happens.
        But all of you, I appreciate you being here, and we will
    start out with Mr. Hambuchen.
        What is it about the distributed--you answered a little bit
    of this, but I want to see if there is anything you missed out
    on that--what is it about the distributed interconnected nature
    of the internet that allows bad actors to provision cheap and
    easy robocalls over VoIP? What is it just about the nature of
    it, I guess.
        Mr. Hambuchen. Well, I think the distributed nature, what
    you just described, the internet is connected, right, all of it
    is connected.
        So what has happened is the cost for any company to be able
    to create and launch call campaigns off the internet connected
    to the carrier networks, the cost of that has come down so
    dramatically over the last couple of years it makes it very
    easy for scammers to launch millions of calls at very low cost.
    And it has also helped the legitimate businesses also reach
    their customers with legitimate services.
        So again, I think what we have got to do is find ways to
    look at that data, analyze that information, and apply it back
    into the carrier network.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Let me ask, so the internet itself obviously
    is old relatively, but it seems like these calls have been
    increasing really in the last few months, maybe the last year,
    exponentially. Did something change or did they just figure
    something out?
        Mr. Hambuchen. I think as the solutions are deployed and
    starting to stop some of the calls, so you have heard from all
    of us the number of calls that we have been able to block or
    deter, again, the scammers are able to increase their volume.
    So they are going to get their number of calls out there
    whatever it takes to hit their number of scams.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And to all the industry representatives,
    when a customer downloads your app, has your service added to
    their landline, what is their typical experience in the next
    few days and weeks, zero robocalls, 90 percent reduction?
        Mr. Garr, if you want to start.
        Mr. Garr. We expect our customers to see more than 90
    percent reduction in standard telemarketing calls.
        Mr. Kinzinger. That is awesome.
        Mr. Foss. We don't get any of the data back on the mobile
    side, there is a privacy issue over there, so I can't tell you
    the exact number.
        But what I will tell you is from the very moment that you
    install Nomorobo and if you go back to your recent call lists
    and we start labeling all those as robocallers, people will be
    like: Wow, I knew that that is what that was. So from the very,
    very moment they get a visceral feedback that it is working.
        Mr. Hambuchen. About 12 percent of the calls that come to
    our consumers are labeled Scam Likely.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
        Mr. Foss, are you aware of robocallers spoofing the
    telephone numbers of fire department, EMS, police, sheriff,
    anything like that?
        Mr. Foss. Yes. So the spoofing known and good robocallers,
    even on our--like if there is something on a white list or
    something, does happen.
        According to our data it is very, very small, and that
    attack is actually relatively easy to prevent. So, for
    instance, with our blacklist solution, when an attack is
    actually going on, that number is on our blacklist. When the
    attack stops it can be rolled off.
        And as we get integrated with more and more carriers and
    things we can give those analytics back, and we can tell those
    public safety organizations: Hey, your numbers are being
    spoofed, switch on over to see it, something like that.
        One of the new techniques that literally just started this
    week, though, it actually happened, it was attacking some
    people in Texas and California and New York, and it was aimed
    at Chinese Americans.
        And they were using a variation on neighbor spoofing. They
    would call from a 212 09244 number, which is where the Chinese
    consulate was. The message was in Mandarin. And when we started
    detecting this we couldn't understand--because the messages,
    again, were all in Mandarin--we couldn't understand what was
    going on.
        When we looked at the analytics and we looked at the area
    codes and the exchanges that this robocaller was targeting, it
    was absolutely places with high Asian populations.
        One of the ones that popped up was Webster, Texas. Like, I
    don't understand. It was San Francisco, New York, those kinds
    of things, and then Webster, Texas. When you go and look at the
    demographic makeup of Webster, Texas, it is predominantly
    Asian.
        So these spoofing issues, yes, can they go and spoof real
    numbers like the Chinese consulate, like the public safety
    organizations? Yes.
        But more importantly, it is much more important to stop
    them as they are happening in real time, report that back. That
    is a solvable problem.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Mr. Garr, in 10 seconds do you have anything to add to
    that?
        Mr. Garr. I would just say that generally the bigger
    spammers, the cruise scams and things like that, are not using
    these highly targeted attacks. It is less surgical. They don't
    need to do that.
        What they want to do is, again, they want to get past the
    people who are savvy enough to have call-blocking apps and
    services and get to the people who are vulnerable. So they just
    want to make more and more calls.
        And that is why we feel that time is such an important
    factor here. We have to be hitting them where it hurts, which
    is in their wallet, and their wallet is connected directly to
    time. And that is how Answer Bots fight that problem.
        Mr. Kinzinger. All right. Thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        First, let me apologize. I had another meeting I had to be
    at, and so I am sorry that I didn't hear your testimony. I
    appreciate the written testimony that I have, though.
        And I have heard horror stories about debt collectors
    taking advantage of robocall technology, harassing consumers,
    often several calls a day to a single recipient, hundreds of
    calls a month, even after the recipient has asked that the
    calls stop.
        And, unfortunately, in 2015 Congress actually made it even
    easier for some debt collectors to harass consumers by allowing
    calls to be placed to a person's cell phone without the prior
    consent required for other robocalls.
        So let me ask Ms. Mahoney, can you elaborate for us on what
    you are hearing from consumers about harassment by debt
    collectors? And does debt collection make up a substantial
    portion of all robocalls?
        Ms. Mahoney. Thank you for your question.
        We have had a similar experience. We have heard from many
    consumers about unrelenting, harassing debt collection
    robocalls. And oftentimes they are intended for another person.
    It is very difficult to get these calls to stop because the
    caller does not believe that the consumer doesn't owe the debt.
        We heard from one consumer who is on a fixed income, has a
    limited-minute cell phone plan. She is constantly receiving
    unwanted debt collection robocalls that are intended for
    someone else and can't get them to stop. So she is very
    frustrated that she is essentially paying for these robocalls.
        And there are a couple of reasons why there are so many of
    these debt collection robocalls. I think there are strong
    incentives because of the inexpensive cost of sending out these
    messages for debt collectors to reach out to consumers.
        Also, as you note, exemption to the TCPA was slipped into
    the budget bill of 2015 that exempted debt collection robocalls
    made on behalf of the Federal Government. For example, to
    collect Federal student loan debt or tax debt.
        This was very unpopular when it passed. Nearly 200,000
    Consumers Union activists reached out to the FCC to ask them to
    implement strong rules in order to limit them.
        So we don't think this provision should have been passed in
    the first place. We do think it should be removed, for example,
    through the HANGUP Act.
        But in the meantime, the FCC has yet to finalize rules
    implementing this provision, and we do urge them to do so, so
    that there is some clarity around the issue and that consumers
    know how to stop these calls.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I would agree with that. I don't
    see why any debt collector, even for a Federal-backed loan,
    should be given free rein to harass consumers.
        In 2016 the Federal Communications Commission voted to
    adopt protections that would have established guardrails on
    these calls to limit their abuse, but those rules never went
    into effect.
        So, Ms. Mahoney, can you explain the status of those rules?
    And do you support them being allowed to go into effect? Is
    that what you were referring to earlier? The FCC. OK.
        Ms. Mahoney. Right. Exactly.
        So in the summer of 2016, the FCC did issue strong rules
    that would limit the amount of these debt collection robocalls
    that would be allowed to be sent to consumers without their
    consent, and also provided them the opportunity to stop these
    calls if they wanted to. Without these rules, consumers
    wouldn't have the ability to do so.
        However, those rules went to the OMB before they could go
    into effect, and in January 2017 they were withdrawn from
    consideration by the FCC.
        Ms. Schakowsky. They were what?
        Ms. Mahoney. Withdrawn.
        Ms. Schakowsky. What did you say about consideration? They
    were dropped from?
        Ms. Mahoney. I believe they were withdrawn by the FCC.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Withdrawn. Oh, OK.
        So you testified the Consumers Union supports a bill that
    would once again require Federal debt collectors to comply with
    the same rules as any other robocaller. Congresswoman Anna
    Eshoo is reintroducing the HANGUP Act, which you referred to,
    here in the House.
        Until we pass legislation like the HANGUP Act, what are the
    minimum protections that you would want to see in place to stop
    abusive practices?
        Ms. Mahoney. Right. So until these rules are implemented,
    actually that provision does not go into effect. However, there
    is a lack of clarity around the issue, so we are concerned that
    consumers will still get these unwanted robocalls from Federal
    debt collectors.
        We would like to see rules issued in the meantime so that
    consumers have additional protections against them. We would
    like to see that provision reversed. And we would like
    consumers to have the opportunity to block all unwanted calls
    through the expansion of technology that is available to them
    to do so.
        Ms. Schakowsky. All right. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding
    this hearing as well.
        And I thank the panel for their testimony. This is a very
    important issue. It affects our constituents.
        Mr. Garr, you mentioned that your technology does not--the
    constituent or the customer, the person does not have to answer
    the phone. In other words, it does not affect them, it doesn't
    interrupt them at all. In other words, they just see on the
    caller ID that a call was made and you interrupt the call. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Garr. Yes, we block the call.
        Mr. Bilirakis. You block the call.
        Mr. Garr. And then answer it with our Answer Bots.
        Mr. Bilirakis. So no inconvenience for the constituent?
        Mr. Garr. No. And all we do is we show them a notification
    on their phone so that they know that a call was received and
    that we blocked it.
        Our job is to give users control of their phone. I think
    what you are all talking about when you say, ``I don't even
    pick up my phone anymore, you know, we unplugged our
    landline,'' when you hear those stories, people are saying they
    have lost control of their phone.
        Our job, what we are passionate about at TelTech with
    RoboKiller, is making sure people have control of their phone
    once again.
        Mr. Bilirakis. And that is so very important because a lot
    of times when you have an elderly parent you want to make sure
    you pick up the phone. You never know, it is an emergency, it
    could be. Even with a mobile phone, I see robocall, but I
    identify, I see the number, and I know it is somebody that I
    know. So a lot of times I will pick up the phone.
        Mr. Garr. Absolutely. One of our pioneering technologies is
    a product called TrapCall, which unmasks blocked calls, which
    is a problem that is still prevalent today, but was a huge deal
    8, 9 years ago, it was all over the news. When people were
    getting blocked calls, it was really important for them to know
    who was calling from behind those blocked calls.
        We wanted to find a way to give people back that control of
    their phone without disrupting their whole life, without
    changing the way they interact with their phones.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. And for the rest of the panel, is that
    correct? All this other technology, which is great, and thank
    you for continuing to innovate until we solve this terrible
    problem. You are not interrupting the consumer in any way? In
    other words, the phone doesn't ring during dinner or during
    your favorite program, is that correct, as well?
        Mr. Foss. Correct. So on our landline product, the phone
    will ring once and then we answer it. It stops ringing, they
    will see the caller ID, so people can make sure that they know
    that it is working.
        On our mobile product, we give consumers the option, do
    they want to identify it as a robocall or just send it directly
    to voicemail. In that case, it is even one better. The only
    calls that come through are from people that you know or the
    calls that should happen.
        This is a story that literally just happened last month. My
    uncle wound up in the hospital unexpectedly. The ambulance had
    to come pick him up. And he called, and I didn't recognize the
    number. But I trust my product. I answered it. It turns out
    that he was in the hospital, and he told me what room he was. I
    had to go and pick up some stuff from his house for him.
        If I didn't answer unknown calls, I don't know what would
    have happened. And, ironically, when I went to pick up his----
        Mr. Bilirakis. That is a good example. That is my greatest
    fear.
        Mr. Foss. That is exactly right and it is really important.
    And, again, this is not a made-up story. And, no joke, when I
    went to pick up his stuff, he has an old flip phone, feature
    phone, it rang. And I figured it was one of his friends who was
    calling to find out what is going on. I answered it, and no
    exaggeration, it is, ``You have won a free cruise.''
        So on that point I was laughing because of all that was
    going on. But I am like, even I can't protect my uncle because
    he doesn't have the latest technology.
        So in one case the robocall blocking apps actually--I was
    immediately able to get in touch with the people that I care
    about that are having issues, and on the other hand, it was,
    wait, this same call, the same technology could have taken
    advantage of my uncle.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else want to comment on that?
        Mr. Hambuchen. Yes, Congressman, I will just add that at
    First Orion consumer choice is paramount. For our default
    solutions and carrier networks the labeling is what takes
    place.
        So you see the call with a label of Scam Likely or some
    other label, and then the consumer has the option to actually
    block any of these calls in the future so that their phone
    won't ring. And for non-Scam Likely tags, those things can
    actually be forwarded over to their voicemail so they don't
    miss a call if something did get blocked.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I have a question here. I know I am running
    out of time. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to ask a
    question?
        Mr. Latta. Sure.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Why don't I submit it for the record.
        But I just want to make a statement. Our constituents
    should not have to deal with this. They should have the right
    to enjoy the privacy in their own home. They shouldn't even
    have to play defense, in my opinion. So we have to do something
    about this.
        But I appreciate what you are doing to protect our
    constituents.
        But this is an issue we hear about on a daily basis from
    family members. My dad was a member of this committee. He
    complains to me all the time about these robocalls, and he is
    right.
        So thank you very much for what you do.
        Thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. And I will
    yield back and submit the question.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlemen yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the full committee for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am glad to hear that industry groups have been working on
    technology to root out caller ID spoofing with a system that
    can verify a call's true origin, and the call authentication
    trust anchor has been in development for some time now.
        My questions are for Ms. Mahoney.
        Do you support creating a call authentication trust anchor
    so that consumers know who is really calling them?
        Ms. Mahoney. Thanks for your question.
        There is broad consensus that caller ID authentication can
    be an important step in order to address the problem of call
    spoofing.
        And as my copanelists have mentioned, call spoofing and
    neighbor spoofing have become increasingly concerning. They do
    make it difficult for many call-blocking technologies to
    function. They allow spoofers to hide detection, which makes
    enforcement difficult, and generally just makes the robocall
    problem worse.
        So caller ID authentication has been in development for
    many years. This is a technology that would allow the
    originating provider to confirm or validate the accuracy of the
    caller ID information so that that can be traced all along the
    call path.
        And we would like to see the phone companies be required to
    implement some form of caller ID authentication with a certain
    set of consumer-friendly standards. For example, it should be
    free. It should have the capability to block spoofed calls as
    well.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, in July of last year the FCC started a
    process to explore the creation of a call authentication trust
    anchor, but the effort seems to have stalled out.
        So today I am releasing a discussion draft of the Stopping
    Bad Robocalls Act, and one provision in my draft bill would set
    a 1-year deadline for the FCC to adopt rules to create such a
    trust anchor to ensure consumers know who is calling when they
    answer the phone.
        So, again, Ms. Mahoney, do I understand correctly that
    Consumers Union supports a deadline to get this call
    authentication program in place?
        Ms. Mahoney. Again, thank you for your efforts to help spur
    this technology. We would like to see the FCC issue rules and
    require the phone companies to implement this technology by a
    certain deadline.
        Mr. Pallone. Now, how would creating a call authentication
    system help put an end to bad actors masking their caller ID
    information or spoofing and preying on unsuspecting consumers,
    and seniors in particular?
        Ms. Mahoney. Well, since call spoofing has made it so
    difficult for call blocking, again, from enforcement efforts,
    and it tricks consumers into picking up their phone, cracking
    down on call spoofing would improve the functioning of call-
    blocking tools and it would allow consumers to trust their
    caller identification information again.
        Mr. Pallone. Now, would an authentication system also make
    enforcement easier by helping track the source of illegal
    robocalls?
        Ms. Mahoney. Yes. That has been a focus of the phone
    companies in order to speed up this process. Since calls are
    routed through multiple carriers, it can be time consuming to
    track them down to their original location.
        The phone companies have been exploring things like trace
    back to speed this process. But caller ID authentication would
    overall speed up this process and make it much more effective.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, you mentioned in your testimony that
    because of a court ruling, the definition of autodialer is
    unclear. In the wake of that court case, do you generally
    support a clarification of that definition?
        Ms. Mahoney. Yes. The ball is in the FCC's court in order
    to clarify a definition of an autodialer that protects all
    consumers and the existing autodialers that are in use. But we
    appreciate any assistance in that.
        Mr. Pallone. And I have also heard that many consumers are
    plagued by robocalls they receive as a result of reassigned
    phone numbers.
        Do you support requiring the FCC to establish a nationwide
    database of consumer telephone numbers that have been
    reassigned to other consumers so we can help stop these
    annoying calls?
        Ms. Mahoney. Yes. We urge the FCC to implement regulations
    to create the reassigned number database, as proposed, in order
    to cut down on this problem of wrong number robocalls.
        Mr. Pallone. And the bill I released, I mentioned,
    addresses the issue with the definition of an autodialer and
    would require the FCC to establish a database of reassigned
    numbers.
        I know we have heard a lot about neighbor spoofing, but I
    recently heard from a constituent about something perhaps even
    more alarming. Instead of the first six digits looking like her
    phone number, so she would think it was a neighbor calling, the
    first six digits looked like a phone number of a relative that
    frequently calls.
        I don't know how the spoofing companies would know what
    calls are coming in, but if there is some sort of access to
    caller information, I think we should stop it.
        Do you have any thoughts on this report that I am
    mentioning?
        Ms. Mahoney. I have not personally heard from any consumers
    about this happening, but scammers are smart and they are
    constantly thinking of ways in order to trick consumers into
    handing over their money or personal information, so I wouldn't
    put it past them. And certainly we hear often about neighbor
    spoofing, in which the first six digits are spoofed.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this timely
    hearing.
        I got a Facebook post on my feed the other day from a
    constituent. She said this:
        ``I realize we deregulated cell phone marketing awhile
    back. Woo-hoo. But the Do Not Call options don't work.
        ``I am on a Do Not Call list,'' she said. ``I punched the
    number to take me off the list and they just call from another
    number, a number that, by the way, you can't call back. Yes,
    you can block, and I do, but the bots just call from another
    number.
        ``What kind of scam business thinks this works? I wouldn't
    in a million years get their extended warranty, health
    insurance, et cetera.''
        I, too, have been called just recently by the IRS.
    Apparently I was involved in some tax fraud, and if I didn't
    call them right away, I face jail time.
        I called them back, or I answered one of their calls, it
    came right in, I can't remember if I called back, whatever,
    because I wanted to know. I told them who I was. I told them
    that I was going to investigate whether they were legitimate.
    And I said, ``If you are a fraud, we will find out, and the
    authorities will knock on your door.''
        The guy offered to give me his badge number and to spell
    his name. He didn't do a very good job pronouncing his name and
    definitely couldn't spell it. He had to spell it per letter, A
    as in apple, that sort of thing. I never did get his name right
    because he didn't speak English very well.
        Then just this week I was called by the Social Security.
    They were out of Texas. But they called me and said that I was
    involved in Social Security fraud.
        For the people that are watching, the IRS does not call you
    and the Social Security Administration does not call your
    phone. They send you something in the mail and you call them.
        So I want all the people across America not to fall for
    this scam. But it raises an important issue that we are talking
    about today.
        And I want to ask you guys. Let's take a hypothetical
    scenario that a robocaller would get hold of a home security
    company that a consumer uses or a bank number even, a number
    that they would recognize, and they started using that.
        How would it work in your system if that happened, if they
    spoofed a legitimate number, not one of the cell phone
    exchanges from my area that I would recognize? ``Well, maybe
    that is somebody that I know and I don't have them in my
    contacts.'' They use a legitimate number that might be your
    local bank, and the consumer wouldn't complain about that
    number because they don't want to not have their bank call
    them, right? What would happen and how would that work?
        Mr. Garr. That is a great question. And I think it is
    really important when you think about call-blocking technology
    that it is just as important that you are removing numbers from
    the list as adding numbers to the list, and that is what we
    think we do really well.
        Our algorithms are working in real-time to understand
    patterns of calls. So what you are describing, if it happens,
    it is very unlikely that it is a single call coming from that
    number. It is multiple calls coming from the same number, even
    if they are spoofing a legitimate number.
        We see that spike because we have a large ecosystem of
    users, we have just on RoboKiller 164,000 users now, a large
    ecosystem of users potentially seeing that call. If we are
    seeing that call in real-time come in, we know that it is
    likely a scam, and we are able to prevent, block against that.
    So we are an able to adapt really quickly.
        And I think, going back to what you are saying, consumers
    should always remember when the phone rings, my grandfather's
    principle, which is honest people are always willing to put
    things in writing. So if you get a call and someone is asking
    you for personally identifying information, even a company you
    work with, ask yourself why, and say, ``You know what, if you
    want to ask me that question, send me a certified letter.''
        Scammers aren't going to take the time. Again, this is all
    about time. Scammers want to get past you, as a skeptic, and
    get to somebody they can target. They want to get to the
    vulnerability people.
        Mr. Duncan. And it is the seniors that are the most
    vulnerable in this. I really think there ought to be a public
    service commercial that runs on the TV during the time that
    seniors are watching to warn them that the IRS will never call
    you, don't give any of your personal information.
        We have done a lot. All of us have done messaging within
    our ability.
        Let me ask you this. Could they theoretically spoof the
    House of Representatives' number and put that in?
        Mr. Garr. Sure. Caller ID is not something that you should
    automatically trust or can automatically trust.
        But spoofing is a complicated issue. I don't know what
    phone system you use, but there is a very good chance that the
    phone system in this building spoofs calls. Spoofing is not a
    monolith. Spoofing is used for legitimate purposes all the
    time.
        Mr. Duncan. Spoofing is used for legitimate purposes all
    the time?
        Mr. Garr. Absolutely.
        Mr. Duncan. Give me an example. Give the committee an
    example of that.
        Mr. Garr. Sure. My stepfather is a veterinarian. When he
    has to call a client back at night for an emergency he spoofs
    his office number so that he is not giving away his personal
    home number or mobile number, and also so that his customer
    knows that it is him calling, it is his animal hospital
    calling.
        Lots of people use spoofing for legitimate purposes all the
    time. Again, it is not just a monolith, you can't look at it
    and say all spoofing is bad.
        Mr. Duncan. Just by the use of the word ``spoof'' tells me
    it is bad, that you have got to use that terminology.
        Mr. Garr. Yes, it has a terrible connotation.
        Look, I am not saying that robocallers aren't using it for
    illegitimate purposes and that is not a problem we need to work
    on. What I am saying is that spoofing is a tool, and people are
    using it for legitimate purposes all the time.
        Somebody used the example of your pharmacy calling you.
    When you see CVS calling you, it is always CVS. How do they do
    that calling from multiple CVSs? Probably using spoofing. I
    can't say that for 100 percent sure. But spoofing is used all
    the time to maintain a consistent----
        Mr. Duncan. Just that phrase, Mr. Chairman, that spoofing
    is used for legitimate purposes strikes me as odd.
        I know I am out of time. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. So to follow on that point he just made. So if
    one of us uses our personal cell and calls a constituent back
    and it shows up U.S. House of Representatives, our office
    number, that is spoofing, by definition?
        Mr. Garr. I think you are saying using your mobile number?
        Mr. Guthrie. Yes, using my own personal number and the
    office number shows up on their caller ID.
        Mr. Garr. What I was more saying is that if you are calling
    from an office number here and it says U.S. House of
    Representatives, there is probably, in a building this size,
    hundreds of different phone numbers, hundreds of different
    phone lines. The system, I think it is called the PBX, is using
    spoofing so that you maintain that unique number that the
    person on the outside sees on their caller ID.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. I see what you are saying. All right.
    Thanks. I was just asking if that was an example.
        So I have a question for the technology companies
    addressing the issue head on. Mr. Foss and Mr. Garr and Mr.
    Hambuchen, do any of your companies approach the robocall
    problem by diverting calls to voicemail directly? And have
    provider's legitimate call originators or any regulators
    expressed concerns about that?
        Mr. Foss. I think you have touched on something very
    important. And the wording that we all use, again the spoof,
    the setting of the caller ID, when we say blocking or stopping,
    labeling those, I think it is really important, you have
    touched on something really important.
        On our product, on mobile, when we say block the call, that
    is shorthand for it goes directly to voicemail. One of the
    other representatives said, like, if you don't answer it, it is
    just like declining it and then they don't leave a message.
        That is incredibly safe because everybody misses calls all
    the time. Everybody is always kind of worried, ``Oh, are we
    going to miss it.'' Like, we just dump it to voicemail.
        On our mobile product, when we say that we block a call or
    stop a call, we actually prompt the user to type in a captcha.
    So it says, ``This phone is protected by Nomorobo, please type
    the number 3286.'' It picks a random number. And if they type
    it in, proving they are human, we let the call through.
        So it is really important to understand that blocking the
    call and making it disappear into the ether is not the right
    way to do it.
        But putting up a challenge, getting them over to voicemail
    and then allowing the user to go and check that or to add that
    to their contacts, that is really what we are talking about
    when we are talking about stopping the call. It is really
    important.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Any other answers from the other two of
    you?
        Mr. Hambuchen. Sure. At First Orion the approach we take is
    we are labeling calls with Scam Likely when we know it is a
    scam. We also have other labels, such as Telemarketer or
    Nuisance Likely, based on what we know about that number.
        As I mentioned, we think consumers should have choice. And
    so consumers can see the label for any of these calls, but can
    also have those calls what we would call blocked.
        Scam Likely calls, when we say blocked, they go away, they
    don't go to voicemail. All the other types of calls would go to
    voicemail. So if it was a telemarketer, a survey, account
    service, or some other type of label, those would go to your
    voicemail.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Mr. Garr. Yes, if I can just say, some originators have
    complained. But, again, our users are looking for control of
    their phones. It is their phones, not the originator's, not
    anyone else's.
        There is a difference between legal and illegal versus
    wanted and unwanted and our users are asking us to prevent
    unwanted calls. Just because a debt collector may be a legal
    telemarketer and just because a political robocall--and I
    understand why you guys may use them at times--may be a legal
    call, that doesn't mean that the consumers want to receive
    them. So it is really important that we give them the control
    to do that.
        But, again, we are forwarding the calls--we are answering
    the calls that we are blocking. That gives the users control
    over those calls to decide what to do with those calls after
    the fact. They can hear these Answer Bots.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you, Mr. Garr. I will continue with
    you.
        What can be done to enhance consumer education from a
    parent's child who might be getting their very first
    smartphone, for a senior citizen with a traditional landline,
    and a mobile phone?
        Mr. Garr. Again, I think there are a couple things that you
    should always be teaching people about the use of their phones.
    One is that caller ID is not something you can trust out of
    hand. And when someone calls you, unless it is someone directly
    that you know, a really trusted source, there is no reason ever
    to give them your personally identifying information.
        Especially when they are using time to put pressure on you,
    that is the time to push back and say, ``If this is a
    legitimate call, if this is a legitimate request, put it in
    writing, I will be happy to answer you.''
        Like I said, my grandfather always said, honest people will
    always put things the writing, and I think that is a principle
    that we should always adhere to when we are thinking about this
    these calls.
        But, again, if you put something like RoboKiller on your
    phone and you get Answer Bots working for you, you are
    preventing these calls from ever even reaching you and you are
    protecting yourself and the people around you.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
        And I am about out of time so I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you guys for taking the time on this day to just
    come and visit with us. We all know it is a problem. It is just
    unique to find individuals that are putting so much time to it.
        Used to be you could just get rid of your landline and that
    solved the issue. Now even my cell phone, as my colleagues have
    stated up here, their cell phones are being called now.
        So can you guys just elaborate, how effective are the Do
    Not Call lists from State to national? Are they even worth the
    time that we put them in place?
        Go ahead, Mr. Foss.
        Mr. Foss. So the Do No Call Registry was created back in
    the early 1990s with the TCPA, it was implemented in the early
    2000s. Think of the world back then. We didn't have cell
    phones. The Internet didn't exist.
        Mr. Mullin. We did, but they were bag phones.
        Mr. Foss. Exactly. Car phones, right.
        The world has changed. So at that time it was legitimate
    telemarketers and there was no way to tell them to stop. That
    made sense then as an opt-out mechanism. Legal robocallers,
    they will go and follow the rules.
        Today the robocallers don't follow the rules. Nobody is
    downloading the Do Not Call list. It is like having a Don't Rob
    Me list and that all the criminals have to go in. And, look, it
    hasn't kept up with the time.
        I personally think that we should clarify that everything
    is just opt-in. If you are calling somebody to sell them
    something, anything with money, to collect a debt or something,
    I just think you need to have express written permission. It
    would save a lot of this whole, the patchwork of regulations
    and rules and clarifications, and this law came in and this was
    taken and that, if you have to opt in.
        Mr. Mullin. But how could you opt-in, because I don't think
    anybody gave them their phone numbers to begin with.
        Mr. Foss. Correct.
        Mr. Mullin. So how would that system work? Because it is
    not enforceable the way that it is now. I don't think anybody
    opted in to begin with.
        Mr. Foss. Correct. If it was opt-in, and we could basically
    say, which is pretty much what we are trying to say right now,
    is that any of those types of calls are illegal, right, and
    therefore the----
        Mr. Mullin. My point is, is that if you are already on the
    Do Not Call list, it already is illegal, but it is not being
    enforced.
        Mr. Foss. If you are on the Do Not Call list and they call
    a landline, there are all these different kind of--the truth in
    this lies in the gray area, right?
        And then when the carriers, the different regulations and
    things, when it gets that one bad actor, and they say, well,
    common carrier, we don't have to--these criminals are always
    going to look for that one little sliver and go and run through
    there. And at best, it is going to take years to go and
    litigate.
        If those things were more, ``Did you have express written
    permission to call that person?'' OK, show it to me.
        Mr. Mullin. Even what you said earlier, though, you don't
    need more regulations, just what is put in place, you actually
    would. If you put in opt-in, you would have to have regulations
    that stated that you have to opt-in, but then the enforcement
    arm is still there. Well, the enforcement arm isn't working on
    the Do Not Call list.
        So explain to me how that would work, because we are all
    in. We would be all in on that. Do we need to give the FTC or
    the FCC more broad powers, more teeth? Is that how that works?
    Because you have got to have it--regulations have got to take
    place for even the opt-in process.
        Mr. Foss. So let me give you an exact example of this. They
    are always skirting around this.
        Mr. Mullin. We know they are skirting around.
        Ms. Foss. Right. What is an ATDS, what is an automated
    telephone dialing system? Now there are a lot of the debt
    collection companies, HCI, they will manually push a button,
    they will have somebody, which gets around all the TCPA laws.
        I don't even care if those calls are made with an automated
    dialer, I don't care if it is made from a computer, I don't
    care if it is somebody that is pushing that button, if you are
    trying to sell somebody, to scam somebody, to take some money,
    do something like that, yes, you should not be able to do that.
        And then I would think it would give more teeth to the FTC
    to go after these and the FCC would be able to give a lot less
    cover.
        Mr. Mullin. All that is great, but it still goes back to
    the same thing. It doesn't make any difference if it is not
    enforceable.
        Mr. Foss. Correct.
        Mr. Mullin. If someone else wants to jump in this. How
    would you enforce it?
        Ms. Mahoney. I do think it is important that consumers have
    legal protections against unwanted robocalls. Phone companies
    are reluctant to block so-called legal robocalls. So if
    consumers don't have these protections, they won't be able to
    take advantage of some of the blocking.
        Mr. Mullin. How would it be enforced? That is what I am
    trying to get to. Does anybody have an idea how this thing
    could be enforced, how Congress could help push that to the
    next level?
        Mr. Garr. Truthfully, I don't think a Do Not Call list is
    the solution.
        Mr. Mullin. I agree. Well, it is not working, obviously.
        Mr. Garr. I don't think it can. There is even a theory that
    the Do Not Call list actually empowers telemarketers, because
    if people get a call who are on the Do No Call list, they
    automatically by default think, ``Well, it must be legitimate,
    I am on the Do Not Call list. So I will answer this question.''
        So the telemarketers have this thought that, ``Hey, if I
    get someone on the Do Not Call list, they are an even better
    target.'' I don't think legislation alone is the solution.
        Mr. Mullin. Just technology.
        Mr. Garr. I think technology is the solution.
        Mr. Mullin. So that leads to my question, where I was
    trying to get to. So it is not regulation in your opinion, it
    is the private industry that is going to drive the end to
    robocalls essentially.
        Mr. Garr. We believe we are already doing it.
        Mr. Mullin. Do you agree?
        Mr. Hambuchen. Sure. I would just add one thing. I think
    you are right in terms of technology and innovation are what is
    going to solve the problem. And recently, over the last couple
    of months, the rules were clarified on enabling carriers to
    start blocking scam calls, unwanted nuisance calls for
    consumers.
        So allowing industry to start spurring innovation on top of
    that, I think you are going to see an explosion over the next
    couple of years of solutions to combat the problem.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you. And I am out of time. Thank you so
    much, once again, for being here and taking the time.
        This is something, I feel like, that we are going to be
    relying more and more on private industry to drive and help
    solve this problem, which is typically what happens in our
    country to begin, which is great. The government's
    responsibility is to help you guys, you entrepreneurs, go out
    and thrive and create and solve problems or create opportunity.
        So thank you for doing what you are doing. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And the gentleman's time
    has expired, and seeing no other members wishing to ask
    questions.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for today's hearing. It
    has been very, very informative. Because, again, it is an issue
    out there that we all hear about, and I tell you, as the
    gentleman from South Carolina that not only heard from the IRS,
    but the Social Security. But it is an issue and we hear it. And
    people say, ``What are we supposed to do?''
        And some people, I have heard, in our districts, they
    actually fall for it and they send the money in. And all of a
    sudden they find out they are $5,000, $10,000 out, and they
    don't have $5,000 or $10,000 to be out. So it is really
    important that the public is protected out there, and that is
    what we are here to do.
        So again, I want to thank you all for being here.
        But before we do conclude today, I want to also include the
    following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous
    consent: a joint letter from multiple trade associations; a
    letter from the Electronic Privacy Information Center; a letter
    from CTIA; a letter from USTelecom; and a letter from the U.S.
    Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
    that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
    for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit the response
    within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
        And without objection, the subcommittee will stand
    adjourned. Thank you very much for being here.
        [Whereupon, at 10:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Even in today's divisive climate, certain things still
    unite us as Americans. High on that list is our universal
    frustration with robocalls. They interrupt family dinners,
    evenings out, and even an occasional Congressional hearing. We
    might be tempted to ignore them, but when we check the caller
    ID, the number looks familiar. Is it our child's school, or the
    doctor's office, or a neighbor? Reluctantly, we pick up only to
    hear that we have won a free cruise, that Rachel from
    cardholder services can get us a better interest rate, or that
    a virus has been detected on our computer.
        An estimated 18 billion unwanted calls were placed in the
    U.S. last year. That is a 76 percent increase over the previous
    year. The nuisance is so great that people are disconnecting
    their landlines altogether. But these calls are much more than
    a nuisance. They cause enormous economic harm. In 2016, more
    than 22 million Americans lost a total of $9.5 billion in
    robocall scams-an average $430 per person. Some victims have
    been conned out of their entire life-savings.
        It is no surprise that unwanted telemarketing and robocalls
    top the consumer complaint list at both the Federal Trade
    Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC). Both agencies are taking action to stop them. But
    unfortunately, illegal robocalls are proliferating. Staggering
    profit margins mean that even large fines won't deter bad
    actors. For every dollar robocallers spend, they make as much
    as 20 dollars profit. That's a 2,000 percent profit margin.
        Moreover, we are caught in an escalating technology arms
    race. Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology and
    autodialing enable law-breakers to place more calls at just a
    fraction of a cent per call from anywhere in the world. And
    sophisticated Caller ID spoofing tools have led to a dramatic
    rise in robocalls appearing to come from your area code and
    even similar phone number to yours. As law enforcement gets
    better at tracing robocalls back to their true point of origin,
    the scammers find new ways to mask their identity.
        Given this reality, it is clear that reactive policing, no
    matter how aggressive, is not enough. Consumers need better
    proactive tools to block robocalls.
        I understand the FTC and FCC are promoting the development
    of new tools, including at a joint technology expo earlier this
    week. And two of our witness are winners of past FTC contests
    to spur the creation of call-blocking apps. I look forward to
    hearing about those tools from our witnesses and from Consumers
    Union on any regulatory gaps we need to close or enforcement
    tools we should add to the federal arsenal.
        As a start, today I'm releasing a discussion draft of my
    Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. With this discussion draft, we
    begin the task of crafting serious legislation to address these
    annoying calls consumers face day in and day out.
        This discussion draft includes a number of common sense
    proposals to help protect consumers, and I'm interested in
    feedback as to how this draft can be refined and improved
    before introduction. Among other things, my discussion draft
    would put the teeth back into the Telephone Consumer Protection
    Act, enact strong consumer protections for allowed calls, give
    the FCC tough enforcement tools to use against robocallers, and
    require the FTC and FCC to work together to reduce unwanted
    calls by 50 percent annually year over year.
        I urge my colleagues to review this draft, and work with me
    to help stop these unwanted calls. Thank you.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]