[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE CELLULAR PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM JOHNSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 11, 1997

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity to introduce the Cellular Protection Act of 1997. This bill 
takes a serious step forward in helping our law enforcement combat a 
growing type of crime, cellular cloning.
  For those who are not familiar with cellular cloning, the process is 
simple. It usually involves criminals seated in parked cars outside of 
airports or along busy roadways to harvest electronic serial numbers 
[ESN's] from legitimate cell phone users. Special software and 
equipment are used to insert the stolen numbers into other cell phones, 
the clones. The cloned phones charge their calls to the account of the 
lawful, unsuspecting user. Like me. For instance, my phone was cloned 
while coming out of Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. I was faced with over 
$6,000 in illegal charges on my bill.
  As you may know, it is estimated that the cellular industry lost $650 
million due to fraud in 1995, much of it as a result of cloning fraud. 
I have talked with many people in the telecommunications industry about 
this problem. My district is home to the largest concentration of 
telecommunications companies in the Nation.
  The Secret Service has doubled the number of arrests in the area of 
wireless telecommunications fraud every year since 1991, with 800 
individuals charged for their part in the cloning of cellular phones 
last year.
  The sad thing is they probably could have caught a lot more of them. 
However, current law requires prosecutors to prove that a cloner acted 
with the intent to defraud. The Cellular Telephone Protection Act of 
1997, removes this burden.
  This legislation clarifies, that--except for law enforcement and 
telecommunications carriers--there is no lawful purpose for which to 
possess, produce, or sell hardware or software configured for cloning a 
wireless telephone or its ESN.
  This is good commonsense legislation that is supported on both sides 
of the aisle, the Department of Justice, U.S. Secret Service, and the 
wireless industry.

                          ____________________