[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3386-H3388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2006

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 5126) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
manipulation of caller identification information, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5126

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Caller ID Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING MANIPULATION OF CALLER 
                   IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.

       Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as 
     subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Prohibition on Provision of Deceptive Caller 
     Identification Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
     within the United States, in connection with any 
     telecommunications service or VOIP service, to cause any 
     caller identification service to transmit misleading or 
     inaccurate caller identification information, with the intent 
     to defraud or cause harm.
       ``(2) Protection for blocking caller identification 
     information.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to 
     prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability 
     of any caller identification service to transmit caller 
     identification information.
       ``(3) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations to implement this subsection.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) Caller identification information.--The term `caller 
     identification information' means information provided to an 
     end user by a caller identification service regarding the 
     telephone number of, or other information regarding the 
     origination of, a call made using a telecommunications 
     service or VOIP service.
       ``(B) Caller identification service.--The term `caller 
     identification service' means any service or device designed 
     to provide the user of the service or device with the 
     telephone number of, or other information regarding the 
     origination of, a call made using a telecommunications 
     service or VOIP service. Such term includes automatic number 
     identification services.
       ``(C) VOIP service.--The term `VOIP service' means a 
     service that--
       ``(i) provides real-time voice communications transmitted 
     through end user equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a 
     successor protocol, for a fee or without a fee;
       ``(ii) is offered to the public, or such classes of users 
     as to be effectively available to the public (whether part of 
     a bundle of services or separately); and
       ``(iii) has the capability to originate traffic to, and 
     terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone 
     network.
       ``(5) Savings provision.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to affect or alter the application of the 
     Commission's regulations regarding the requirements for 
     transmission of caller identification information for 
     telemarketing calls, issued pursuant to the Telephone 
     Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-243) and the 
     amendments made by such Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5126, the Truth in 
Caller ID Act of 2006, which was introduced by Chairman Barton and my 
friend Mr. Engel from New York. I also am a proud cosponsor, original 
sponsor, of the bill which was the subject of a legislative hearing in 
the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee and favorably reported 
by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 24, 2006.
  This legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive 
practice of manipulating, or spoofing, caller identification 
information. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a caller fakes his caller 
ID information, so that the numbers which appear on their caller ID 
screen is not the caller's actual phone number. In many cases, such 
spoofers are actually transmitting someone else's caller ID information 
instead of their own.
  Apparently, some spoofers just do it to play a practical joke on 
their friends, but there have been reports of much more sinister uses 
of spoofing.
  In some instances, spoofing is being used to trick people into 
thinking that the person on the other end of the phone is someone from 
a government agency or perhaps another trustworthy party. For example, 
in last month's AARP bulletin, there is a consumer alert describing a 
prevalent scam whereby spoofers get the local courthouse's phone number 
to pop up on peoples' caller ID screens and then tell the recipients of 
the calls that they are judicial officials in order to get unsuspecting 
victims to divulge personal information, whether it be Social Security 
numbers or driver's license numbers, who knows. Law enforcement 
officials are particularly concerned about senior citizens' 
susceptibility to such scams.
  Another reported case involved a SWAT team surrounding an apartment 
building after police received a call from a woman who said that she 
was

[[Page H3387]]

being held hostage in an apartment; and as it turned out, it was a 
false alarm. Caller ID was spoofed to make it look like it was coming 
from the apartment. Apparently, it was somebody's idea of a bad prank.
  In other instances, criminals are stealing credit card numbers, 
getting the phone number of the actual card holders, and then using 
those credit cards to get unauthorized wire transfers. In such cases, 
the criminals spoof their caller ID information so that the number 
which pops up on the wire transfer company operator's screen is that of 
the actual card holder, and because such caller ID information matches 
the actual card holder's phone number on record with the credit card 
company, the wire transfer company uses it to authorize the wire 
transfer. Thus, spoofing enables the crime to be consummated.
  And, of course, many of us are familiar with our own credit card 
companies which may ask us to call from our home phones to authenticate 
and activate those new cards. If our new cards are stolen out of the 
mail, then criminals may be able to spoof our home phone numbers and 
authenticate and activate our new cards from the convenience of their 
own homes, hotel rooms, or wherever else they might call from.
  While such spoofing has been technically possible for some time, it 
used to require specific phone connections and expensive equipment. 
However, with the advent of VoIP, voice over Internet protocol, over 
the computer it has become easier for callers to transmit any caller ID 
information that the caller might choose. Moreover, there are online 
companies which offer spoofing services for just a couple of bucks for 
anyone with any phone.
  Unfortunately, nefarious uses of spoofing appear to be proliferating, 
and there is no law, no law, that protects the American public from it. 
The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006 would make spoofing illegal.
  More specifically, this legislation adds a new subsection (e) to 
section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934. New subsection (e)(1) 
makes it unlawful for any person within the United States in connection 
with any telecommunications service or VoIP service to cause any caller 
identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller 
identification information with the intent to defraud or cause harm.
  The carefully crafted language in this legislation ensures that other 
spoofing activities which are legitimate, such as the uses for domestic 
violence services or to route-enhanced 911 calls, are not prohibited. 
Additionally, the bill provides a savings clause to clarify that 
nothing in the act is intended to alter the obligations of 
telemarketers under the existing FCC do-not-call regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good strong piece of consumer protection 
legislation that clearly is bipartisan. I want to thank my friends on 
both sides of the aisle who have worked particularly hard to create 
this good bill, including Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 
Ranking Member Markey and, of course, the sponsor of this bill, 
Congressman Engel from New York. I would urge all my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, spoofing is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID 
information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination 
number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be 
subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, 
personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise with the safety of the call 
recipient in danger. On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing 
always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be 
circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if the true 
and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well.
  What we seek in caller ID policy is balance, and I believe the 
legislation before us today, after changes were made in committee 
consideration, more adequately strikes the historic balance we have 
sought to achieve for consumer privacy and security.
  For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their 
office, but in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally 
public and, therefore, remain useful to us, it may be necessary to keep 
such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID 
information indicate a different number at which our offices can be 
reached for return calls. That gives the recipient a legitimate phone 
number to call back, but keeps confidential lines private.
  There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other 
professionals who would similarly like to keep direct, confidential 
lines private in this way who have no direct intention of misleading 
anyone. In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman 
at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to 
safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip 
lines or whistleblowers have additional reasons for why their calling 
information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these 
practices, and I think the legislation now incorporates the notion that 
the intent of the caller is vitally important in gauging whether 
spoofing unfairly violates privacy and security.
  With that, I commend the chairman for the changes he was willing to 
make in the committee deliberations of the bill, and I congratulate him 
and I congratulate Mr. Engel from New York for his splendid work on 
this legislation. Mr. Dingell and I have enjoyed working on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), an original cosponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me the 
time to speak on this very important bill.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID 
Act, and I commend Chairman Barton for introducing this legislation and 
moving it forward.
  I know firsthand that there is a need for this legislation. In my own 
congressional district, just as in many others, prerecorded telephone 
call campaigns have misidentified the sponsors by forging the caller 
identification number to make it appear that my own congressional 
office was doing the calling. You can imagine how surprised I was to 
see my number appear on a screen from political prerecorded messages 
attacking me. It is called spoofing.
  H.R. 5126 would prohibit the manipulation of caller identification 
information, or call spoofing, which occurs when a caller falsifies the 
caller identification number displayed in the caller ID screen. Many 
companies now offer sophisticated software that permits caller 
identification information to be manipulated and increasingly allows 
con artists to scam consumers, sometimes with complicated schemes that 
ask consumers to provide personal identification data, such as names, 
addresses, Social Security numbers, and bank account information.

                              {time}  2015

  With the increasing frequency of identity theft, we must do all that 
we can to end opportunities for falsification of this data.
  I introduced similar legislation to prohibit caller identification 
last year. Let us make caller identification truthful and accurate. I 
strongly support Chairman Barton's legislation and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to 
me, and I am proud to rise in strong support of this legislation and 
proud to be the lead Democrat on the bill. All too often we hear and 
experience the partisan divide in Washington, but this bill and the 
process that so quickly got this bill to the floor has been truly 
bipartisan.
  I must start with thanking my friend and chairman, Mr. Barton, for 
his leadership on this bill; and I must also note the invaluable 
assistance of our subcommittee Chairman Upton, and I thank him for his 
kind words. I also would like to thank our ranking Democrats, Mr. 
Markey and Mr. Dingell as well.
  When someone looks at caller ID, they have the right to expect that 
the

[[Page H3388]]

person or phone number listed is truly that person. The average citizen 
has no idea that caller ID can be manipulated so that the person or 
number appearing is totally false.
  I first learned of caller ID spoofing when I read news articles about 
our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) becoming a victim of it. 
His own constituents thought they were receiving calls from his 
district office, and these calls were far from appropriate.
  I then learned that this technology is being used across the country 
to allow unscrupulous people to trick unsuspecting people to release 
personal information. It is so easy for someone to pretend to be Chase 
Manhattan or Citibank or even a person's doctor. These services even 
provide technology to change the sound of a person's voice. I could set 
it to sound like a 25-year-old woman or an 80-year-old man.
  Mr. Speaker, I quickly became convinced we needed to address this 
issue quickly, because obviously what these people are doing is legal 
and we are playing catch-up to catch up with them. Having thought about 
this issue in great depth, I became convinced what happened to our 
colleague from Pennsylvania was just a harbinger of what is to come.
  I believe that right now there are people in our country who plan to 
use this technology to interfere with our elections. Just imagine, the 
day before an election, a group of people using this technology make 
hundreds of calls pretending to be leaving a message from the office of 
a candidate. That message could be rude, insulting, crude, slanderous, 
sexist, or racist, and it would look like the candidate or the 
candidate's organization made the calls. The damage would be done, and 
these people who will do anything to destroy our democracy will have 
won. But today, the House takes a bold step toward protecting our 
Nation from these insidious criminals.
  Finally, I would like to thank my staff and the committee's staff who 
worked on this legislation. Pete Leon of my staff, Kelly Cole and Will 
Norwind from the majority, and Johanna Shelton, Pete Filon, and Colin 
Crowell from the minority.
  I hope we can pass this without any opposition.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5126, the ``Truth 
in Caller ID Act.'' And I commend the Chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, and Representative Eliot Engel for 
introducing this bipartisan bill.
  Many consumers subscribe to caller ID services that let them know the 
number of an incoming telephone call and the name of the caller. 
Consumers often rely on this caller ID information to decide whether to 
answer a call. Consumers should be able to trust that the caller ID 
information has not been changed for fraudulent or harmful purposes.
  Until recently, manipulating caller ID information, also called 
``spoofing,'' was difficult and required expensive equipment. 
Unfortunately, advances in technology have allowed individuals with 
fraudulent intent, and others seeking to do harm, to easily spoof their 
caller ID information, making calls appear to originate from a 
different person, organization, or location. As such, the recipient of 
a call that has been spoofed may answer the call thinking that it is 
coming from someone from whom it is not.
  There are legitimate reasons to spoof caller ID information. For 
example, a domestic violence clinic may alter its caller ID information 
to mask its identity. This is important for the safety of victims of 
domestic violence since many victims seek help while they are still 
living with their abuser.
  Caller ID spoofing, however, can be used for nefarious purposes. In a 
widely reported case, SWAT teams were dispatched to an apartment 
building in New Brunswick, New Jersey, last year after authorities 
received a call from a woman saying that she was being held hostage. 
The caller had spoofed the caller ID information to make it appear as 
though the call was coming from inside the building.
  Caller ID spoofing is also used to gain personal information from a 
consumer so a criminal can more easily steal the consumer's identity. 
Equally troubling is the use of such spoofing by predators to cause 
physical or emotional harm to their victims.
  H.R. 5126 will help put an end to caller ID spoofing for fraudulent 
or harmful purposes. Specifically, the Act makes it unlawful for 
someone to change their caller ID information with the intent to 
defraud or cause harm to another person.
  This bill is good consumer protection legislation. I am pleased to 
support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5126, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________