[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6257-H6260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2007
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 251) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
manipulation of caller identification information, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 251
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
2007''.
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.--
``(A) Deadline.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe
regulations to implement this subsection.
``(B) Consideration of related regulations.--In conducting
the proceeding to prescribe the regulations required by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Commission shall
examine whether the Commission's regulations under subsection
(b)(2)(B) of this section should be revised to require non-
commercial calls to residential telephone lines using an
artificial or pre-recorded voice to deliver a message to
transmit caller identification information that is not
misleading or inaccurate.
``(4) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to authorize or prohibit any
investigative, protective, or intelligence activities
performed in connection with official duties, and in
accordance with all applicable laws, by a law enforcement
agency of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision of a State, or by an intelligence agency of the
United States.
``(5) Savings provision.--Except for paragraph (3)(B),
nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect or
alter the application of the Commission's regulations
regarding the requirements for transmission of caller
identification information, issued pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-243) and the
amendments made by such Act.
``(6) 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, or
terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone
network.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
[[Page H6258]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which I offer today with
an amendment under suspension of the rules. This is a consensus,
noncontroversial bill, and it is sponsored by our colleague,
Representative Eliot Engel from the State of New York. A similar bill,
sponsored by full Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton, passed
the House in the last Congress unanimously.
I want to commend Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee
Ranking Member Fred Upton for his work and cooperation on this measure,
and I commend full committee Chairman John Dingell for his excellent
efforts on this bill as well.
This legislation addresses issues regarding so-called ``caller ID
spoofing.'' ``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 put 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 their true and accurate call origination
information is disclosed as well.
For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their
offices 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 offices can be reached
for return calls; that gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to
call back, but keeps confidential lines that must remain 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 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 whistle blowers have additional reasons for why their calling
information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these
practices, and I think the legislation needs some improvement and
clarification in these areas.
What we seek in caller ID policy is balance. This has been the case
since we held hearings in the Telecommunications Subcommittee in the
early 1990s on caller ID, when we sought to take into account emerging
caller ID technology in a way that also allowed callers to block their
origination number on a per call or per line basis. Technology also
allowed call recipients to refuse to receive calls by anyone who is
blocking their caller ID information from going through.
This is much-needed legislation. I urge support by all Members of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I request such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 251, the Truth in
Caller ID Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, Mr. Engel of New York,
for his work here; also the ranking member, Joe Barton of Texas, for
his leadership on this very important piece of legislation.
My colleagues, millions of Americans use caller ID in order to secure
greater privacy for their families. Yet, as new technologies continue
to be developed, caller ID spoofing, as brought out by the gentleman
from Massachusetts, has become a problem for both consumers and
businesses.
This bill protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive
manipulation of caller identification information, a practice which has
been defined and is clearly delineated as ``spoofing,'' ``caller ID
spoofing.''
Now, this occurs when a caller masquerades as someone else by
falsifying a number that appears on the recipient's caller ID display.
The most important point about this discussion is that caller ID
spoofing can make a call appear to come from any phone number the
caller wishes. The increasing use of VOIP, which is voice over Internet
protocol, that we see in America and other Internet telephone services,
has made it much easier for people to make any number appear on a
caller ID system.
In addition, several Web sites have sprung up to provide caller ID
spoofing services, eliminating the need for any special hardware to
replicate this. Although these caller ID spoofing services promote
themselves for use in prank calls or for simple entertainment purposes,
and that's what they propose only, they say, such services can be
easily accessed and used by criminals.
{time} 1150
So Caller ID spoofing has emerged as a useful tool for identity
thieves and other scam artists. In addition, my colleagues, many
business functions, from credit card verification to automatic call
routing, depend on caller ID for security purposes, which spoofing can
render useless.
So this bill, H.R. 251, prohibits sending misleading or inaccurate
caller ID information with the intent to defraud or cause harm. The
Energy and Commerce Committee drafted the language in this bill so
carefully that it will go after the bad actors but, at the same time,
preserve the ability to manipulate the caller ID information for
legitimate purposes, such as the protection for victims of domestic
violence.
A woman is calling, let's say, from a shelter and she wants to
protect her ID, or she doesn't want to disclose, get the phone number
disclosed where she is.
A single mother at home, she should have the opportunity to block her
phone number so people can't recognize that number and call her, harass
her or even use it in a way to bring harm to her.
So my colleagues, this is an important piece of bipartisan consumer
protection legislation. I urge all of you to support H.R. 251, the
Truth in Caller ID Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this
legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my good friend from
Massachusetts for recognizing me.
I'm very proud that this was the first bill that was reported from
our Telecommunications Subcommittee this year. We had extensive
hearings last year on the bill, and this bill is truly bipartisan.
I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Barton, for working with me
on this bill, as well as Chairman Dingell, Mr. Stearns and of course my
friend, Ed Markey.
When people look at their caller ID, they have a right to believe and
expect that the number that is there and the name of the person who is
listed there is truly the number and the name of the person calling
them. And I was shocked when I first heard that can you manipulate both
the name and the number. In fact, there are Web sites, you only have to
dial a Web site and pay a fee and you can manipulate the name, the
number. And there's even technology where you can change the sound of a
person's voice. So a 50-year-old male calling can sound like a 21-year-
old female, and the name is different, and the phone number is
different. That should not be.
Constituents thought they were receiving calls from congressional
offices at one time, and these calls turned out to be far from
appropriate.
Think of the mischief that can continue to happen. Unscrupulous
people can trick unsuspecting victims to release personal information
such as credit card numbers or Social Security numbers. It's easy for
someone to pretend to be with Chase Manhattan or Citibank when you take
a look and you see it says Chase Manhattan or Citibank and a number,
and someone calls and says, well, we just need to verify your Social
Security number with your account, and perhaps a senior citizen or
someone else would feel that they could trust the caller ID and give
personal information. This has to stop.
Having investigated this issue in great depth, I became convinced
that what was happening was only a harbinger of things to come. There's
a strong possibility that more and more
[[Page H6259]]
people will use this technology in political campaigns. Imagine calling
someone at 2 o'clock in the morning and having the number of the
opposite political campaign calling you to say vote for this candidate.
So this is ridiculous.
You could have insulting, slanderous, racist, sexist calls, and
people would think when they look at their caller ID that it's somebody
else calling, not the person who is calling.
Both the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Florida
pointed out numerous instances. So this is truly a bipartisan piece of
legislation, one that is needed, one that the American public is
probably not aware that needs to be corrected. People just don't think
that this can happen. They believe in what the caller ID says.
So I urge my colleagues to give this important legislation strong
support. This is a good step towards protecting our Nation from this
emerging technology. And again, the people who use this have to have
the intent to defraud in order to come under this statute. So this
protects everybody, as Mr. Markey pointed out.
There may be some instances, Mr. Stearns pointed out, where we would
want to protect this technology, where we would not want to give the
correct ID. This shows that if you have the intent to defraud, you can
be prosecuted under this. So it strikes a fair balance. Those were the
hearings that we had.
And, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and
I'm pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I request such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from New York mentioned about the harbinger of things
to come, and I think that's what we are all worried about, so I think
this is a great first step forward.
Just recently, my subcommittee, the Commerce Consumer Protection and
Trade, which Mr. Rush chairs and I'm ranking member of, we did a do-
not-call reauthorization, which is H.R. 2601. We dropped that bill last
week. We urge the conference committee to mark that up and get that
forward. It's part of the process here to protect consumers.
In fact, in the committee that I serve, we've done a lot of Internet
consumer protection, so I'm very wholeheartedly in support of this, and
I encourage some other bills. In fact, the gentleman from
Massachusetts' Social Security bill, H.R. 948, is an excellent bill; as
well as the Data Security bill, H.R. 958. So I think these are the
types of bills we need to protect consumers, and I very wholeheartedly
support them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to resume my service on the
Telecom Subcommittee in this Congress.
I also rise in strong support of the Truth in Caller ID Act, which
will prevent acts of identity theft and billions of dollars in consumer
losses each year.
I would like to engage the bill's sponsor, Mr. Engel, in a brief
colloquy to clarify the effect this bill has on other laws relating to
national security and law enforcement. The relevant section reads:
``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or
prohibit any investigative, protective or intelligence activities
performed in connection with official duties, and in accordance with
all applicable laws, by a law enforcement agency of the United States,
a State or a political subdivision of a State, or by an intelligence
agency of the United States.''
I'd like to ask the author what the meaning of this language is.
Mr. ENGEL. I want to assure the gentlewoman that this bill does not
confer or authorize any new powers for any intelligence or law
enforcement agency, nor does it prohibit any lawfully authorized
investigative, protective or intelligence activity of a law enforcement
agency of the United States, a State or a political subdivision of a
State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. Lawfully
authorized national security and law enforcement activities are
critical in this era of terror. Legislation designed to improve our
Nation's safety and security, like the Truth in Caller ID Act, should
not inadvertently impair them, nor should it expand them. This
carefully crafted bill, in my view, strikes the right balance. And I
would like to commend the author, Mr. Engel, Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell,
Mr. Markey, and Mr. Upton for their diligent work. I urge my colleagues
to support the legislation.
General Leave
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
{time} 1200
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by thanking all of the
Members, led by Mr. Engel; the very, very helpful comments from Ms.
Harman in clarification of the intent of this legislation; Mr. Dingell,
the chairman of the full committee; along with Mr. Barton, the ranking
member, Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns. This is a completely bipartisan
piece of legislation, and we thank them for this cooperation. This is
the way telecommunications legislation should be passed.
I would also like to commend the staff: Tim Powderly from the
majority staff and Neil Fried and Courtney Reinhard from the Republican
committee staff. I also want to thank Pete Goodloe and Gregg Rothschild
from Mr. Dingell's staff; Cristina Batt from Mr. Engel's staff; and
Colin Crowell on my staff, who has been doing this type of legislation
for 17 years, going back to the beginning of the discussion of all of
these caller ID-related issues.
And, finally, I would like to thank Johanna Shelton on her last bill
on the House floor. Johanna has been incredibly competent, more than
competent. She really brings the word ``excellence'' into congressional
and legislative service. And this will be her last bill on the floor,
and there is lamenting of a magnitude hard to fully measure on the
Democratic side that her leaving is creating, although I understand her
husband is not sharing that sentiment as she leaves her service here.
And it is that duality that we all have to deal with here in our
congressional service. But for my part, there has been no more
dedicated public servant that I have met in my time here in Congress,
and we will miss her service, and we thank her for all of her great
work.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
251, the ``Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007,'' which I co-authored with
my friend, Representative Engel from New York. This bill protects
consumers by prohibiting the deceptive manipulation of caller
identification information--a practice is known as caller ID
``spoofing.''
Caller ID technology is an invaluable tool. Millions of people rely
daily on the caller identification information that appears when their
phones ring. Unfortunately, criminals are using ``spoofing'' to
perpetrate fraud. ``Spoofing'' occurs when a caller masquerades as
someone else by falsifying the name or number that appears on the
recipient's caller ID display. Those who answer the phone and see the
number of a legitimate company or charity are far more likely to fall
victim to an illegitimate request for money or personal information.
Even worse, the Internet has made ``spoofing'' easy. Numerous
websites sell simple web interfaces to caller ID systems that allow
criminals to appear to be calling from any number they choose. Some of
these services boast that they do not maintain logs or provide any
contact information of their customers. Some even offer voice
scrambling services to enable a caller to sound like someone of the
opposite sex.
H.R. 251 prohibits sending misleading or inaccurate caller ID
information with the intent to defraud or cause harm. The bill is
drafted so that it will go after bad actors, but at the same time
preserve the ability to mask or block caller ID information for
legitimate purposes.
This is an important piece of bipartisan consumer protection
legislation.
I urge you to support H.R. 251, the ``Truth in Caller ID Act.''
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts
[[Page H6260]]
(Mr. Markey) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
251, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________