[House Report 109-395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-395

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



 
        LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PHONE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

                                _______
                                

 March 16, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4709]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4709) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
strengthen protections for law enforcement officers and the 
public by providing criminal penalties for the fraudulent 
acquisition or unauthorized disclosure of phone records, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 4709, the ``Law Enforcement and Phone 
Privacy Protection Act of 2006'' is to provide explicit 
protection for the privacy of confidential telephone records, 
including call logs, and to establish specific criminal 
penalties for the fraudulent acquisition or disclosure of such 
records without the consent of the consumer.
    The bill targets ``pretexting'' and other fraudulent 
tactics by unscrupulous businesses that operate in a gray area 
of the law. It prohibits unauthorized access or trafficking in 
confidential phone records. The bill also provides enhanced 
criminal penalties for anyone who engages in large-scale 
operations to violate its provisions or who discloses or uses 
such fraudulently obtained records in furtherance of crimes of 
violence, including domestic violence and stalking, or to kill, 
injure, or intimidate a witness, juror, confidential informant, 
or law enforcement officer.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Recent investigations by law enforcement authorities, 
including the Chicago Police Department and the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (FBI), and numerous media reports have 
documented the ease with which any party, without proper 
authorization, may obtain the confidential calling records of 
consumers.\1\ Services that operate under a variety of names 
have advertised the ability to retrieve the recent calling 
history of any telephone number, often within a matter of 
hours, to anyone willing to pay a fee of approximately $100.\2\ 
Many of these companies have operated on the Internet, but some 
experts believe there may be thousands of other companies and 
investigators who provide this service that have not been 
subject to public and media scrutiny.\3\ These companies 
typically do not inquire about the customers' reason for 
seeking confidential calling records. In addition, these 
enterprises often only request readily available public 
information such as the name and telephone number of the person 
whose records their customer wishes to obtain.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Frank Main, Anyone Can Buy Cell Phone Records: Online Services 
Raise Security Concerns for Law Enforcement, Chi. Sun-Times, January 5, 
2006, at A3.
    \2\ Frank Main, Foreign Internet Services Selling U.S. Phone 
Records: Congress Bids to Make it Illegal Because of Privacy Concerns, 
Chi. Sun-Times, February 9, 2006, at A6.
    \3\ Jonathan Krim, Online Data Gets Personal: Cell Phone Records 
for Sale, Wash. Post, July 13, 2005, at B1.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee is aware of reports that many of these 
services employ a variety of fraudulent schemes and devices to 
obtain these records.\5\ More often than not, these frauds are 
perpetrated directly on phone service providers, whose business 
operations require them to maintain detailed individual calling 
records and who need to be able to respond in a timely manner 
to legitimate consumer requests for the release of their own 
personal account information.\6\ Experts believe the most 
common method of obtaining these records from telephone 
companies is the practice of ``pretexting.'' Pretexting occurs 
when an unauthorized individual calls the phone company posing 
as someone who is authorized to receive the information 
lawfully, such as the actual phone service subscriber or 
another employee of the target phone company.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Sheryl Harris, Your Private Data Fuels Entire Online Industry, 
Clev. Pl. Dealer, March 9, 2006, at C1.
    \6\ Dave Gussow, Verizon Lawsuit Says Phony Callers Are Committing 
Fraud, St. Pete. Times, January 30, 2006, at 1D.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once in possession of these private consumer calling 
records, these services, which some have dubbed ``data 
bandits,'' \8\ deliver them, often by e-mail or fax to their 
customer with no concern for how the information will be 
used.\9\ By scrutinizing the records of whom one chooses to 
call and for how long one converses, criminals and unscrupulous 
individuals can obtain a great deal of useful and potentially 
sensitive personal information. A careful examination of these 
records can reveal much about a person's business and personal 
relationships, including details that may involve their 
medical, financial, professional, or family life. In some 
instances, calling records may even be used to identify the 
physical location of the caller. This raises particular 
concerns for undercover law enforcement officers, and victims 
of stalking and domestic violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Patricia Sabatini, Calling for Privacy, Pitt. Post-Gaz., 
January 22, 2006, at D1.
    \9\ Peter Sensson, Call May Be Private, But Record of It Isn't, 
Char. Obs., January 19, 2006, at 1D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armed with this knowledge and alarmed at the widespread 
availability and easy accessibility of these records, the 
Chicago Police Department and the FBI have reportedly warned 
their personnel to take steps to safeguard their personal 
information, including their home and cell phone numbers.\10\ 
Law enforcement officials are particularly troubled by the 
potential danger that these activities pose to undercover 
operatives and confidential informants.\11\ Law enforcement 
investigations and the lack of any identifiable prosecutions 
for this fraudulent conduct under existing Federal criminal 
statutes have clearly demonstrated the need to move 
expeditiously to enact an explicit Federal criminal statute 
that prohibits the fraudulent acquisition or transfer of 
confidential personal calling records. The Committee considers 
this legislation to be urgently needed to preserve consumers 
privacy rights and to protect the personal safety of domestic 
violence victims, confidential informants, witnesses, jurors, 
and law enforcement personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Main, Anyone Can Buy Cell Phone Records, supra note 1.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The House Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on 
H.R. 4709.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 2, 2006, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4709 without an 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the committee consideration of 
H.R. 4709.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 4709, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                    March 16, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4709, the Law 
Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa Z. 
Petersen.
            Sincerely,
                                 Donald B. Marron, Acting Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4709--Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4709 would not have a 
significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill 
could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates 
that any such effects would not be significant. H.R. 4709 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 
affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 4709 would establish a new federal crime for 
fraudulently obtaining, purchasing, or selling confidential 
phone records. The bill also would specify enhanced penalties 
for using such records to commit a crime. Because the bill 
would establish a new offense, the government would be able to 
pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. 
We expect that H.R. 4709 would apply to a relatively small 
number of offenders, however, so any increase in costs for law 
enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not 
be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 4709 
could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government 
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. 
Criminal fines are recorded in the budget as revenues, 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO 
expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would 
not be significant because of the small number of cases likely 
to be affected.
    On March 9, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
2178, the Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 2, 
2006. The two pieces of legislation are similar, and our cost 
estimates are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Melissa Z. 
Petersen. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
4709 will help to provide additional protections for 
confidential phone records information.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.

Section 1. Short title

    This section establishes the short title of this 
legislation as the ``Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy 
Protection Act of 2006.''

Sec. 2. Findings

    This section makes various findings with regard to the need 
and purpose of the legislation.

Sec. 3. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining 
        confidential phone records information of a covered entity

    This provision adds a new 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1039 that provides 
explicit criminal penalties for fraudulently obtaining or 
providing confidential phone records information of a consumer 
held by a telephone company or IP-enabled voice service.
    Specifically, the legislation would make it a crime to 
knowingly and intentionally obtain, or attempt to obtain, 
confidential phone records of a company that provides telephone 
service (a ``covered entity'') using a fraudulent scheme or 
device, including ``pretexting,'' or without authorization from 
the customer via the Internet. A person convicted under this 
section would be subject to a fine up to $250,000 (individuals) 
or $500,000 (organizations), or imprisonment up to 20 years, or 
both.
    In addition to creating a crime for obtaining confidential 
information of a covered entity by fraud, the legislation 
criminalizes the sale, transfer, or attempts to sell or 
transfer, such records without authorization, allowing fines up 
to $250,000 (individuals) or $500,000 (organizations), 
imprisonment up to five years, or both. This provision is 
intended to act as a deterrent for those who are in a position 
that requires access to this type of information from taking 
advantage of such access to compromise the private information 
of consumers. The legislation also includes criminal penalties 
for individuals who purchase confidential phone records 
information knowing the records were obtained without 
authorization. This provision allows for a fine up to $250,000 
(individuals) or $500,000 (organizations) and imprisonment up 
to five years, or both.
    In addition to the penalties for the underlying crimes, the 
legislation allows for enhanced penalties for cases in which 
the information is used to commit further crimes, is used to 
further a crime of violence, or causes substantial financial 
harm. Specifically, it allows a judge to add up to five years 
and up to one million dollars in fines to a sentence for 
violations of this act while violating another U.S. law or as 
part of a pattern of illegal activity that meets specified 
thresholds. Additionally, anyone who violates or attempts to 
violate any of the provisions of this Act in connection with 
either a Federal crime of domestic violence or crimes that 
relate to the safety of law enforcement officers, their 
families, or persons involved in the judicial process, may be 
fined up to an additional $250,000 (individuals) or $500,000 
(organizations), imprisoned up to an additional 5 years, or 
both.
    This section makes it clear that the Committee intends for 
the law to apply to offenses that occur beyond U.S. territorial 
and maritime borders. The Committee recognizes that many of the 
companies may operate overseas; however, if these companies are 
in violation of this law and the result harms U.S. citizens, 
they should be prosecuted under U.S. laws.
    This section makes it clear that nothing in the Act is to 
be construed to impede compliance with a lawful request by a 
law enforcement agency to produce such records. It is the view 
of this Committee that this provision is not intended to 
prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective or 
intelligence activity of a law enforcement or intelligence 
agency.
    Finally, this section provides definitions that are 
intended to apply only to the activities specified in this Act 
and should not be construed to affect other laws or statutes. 
The intent of H.R. 4709 is to prevent unauthorized or 
fraudulent use of consumer telephone records. The Committee 
does not intend that H.R. 4709 be construed to prevent 
legitimate, legally authorized use of such information by 
covered entities for business purposes. For purposes of this 
bill, the Committee intends that the exceptions contained in 47 
U.S.C. 222(d) apply to uses of information by both 
telecommunications carriers and Internet Protocol-enabled voice 
service providers.

Sec. 4. Sentencing guidelines

    This section requires the United States Sentencing 
Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal 
sentencing guidelines and policy statements that will apply to 
any persons convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1039 18 not later 
than 180 days after date of enactment.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining 
                    confidential phone records information of a covered 
                    entity

  (a) Criminal Violation.--Whoever knowingly and intentionally 
obtains, or attempts to obtain, confidential phone records 
information of a covered entity, by--
          (1) making false or fraudulent statements or 
        representations to an employee of a covered entity;
          (2) making such false or fraudulent statements or 
        representations to a customer of a covered entity;
          (3) providing a document to a covered entity knowing 
        that such document is false or fraudulent; or
          (4) accessing customer accounts of a covered entity 
        via the Internet without prior authorization from the 
        customer to whom such confidential records information 
        relates;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 
20 years, or both.
  (b) Prohibition on Sale or Transfer of Confidential Phone 
Records Information.--Except as otherwise provided by 
applicable law, any person, including any employee of a covered 
entity or any data broker, who knowingly and intentionally 
sells, transfers, or attempts to sell or transfer, confidential 
phone records information of a covered entity, without 
authorization from the customer to whom such confidential phone 
records information relates, shall be fined under this title, 
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
  (c) Prohibition on Purchase of Phone Records Information.--
Except as otherwise provided by applicable law, any person who 
purchases confidential phone records information of a covered 
entity, knowing such information was obtained fraudulently or 
without prior authorization from the customer to whom such 
confidential records information relates, shall be fined under 
this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  (d) Enhanced Penalties for Aggravated Cases.--Whoever 
violates, or attempts to violate, subsection (a) while 
violating another law of the United States or as part of a 
pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000, 
or more than 50 customers of a covered entity, in a 12-month 
period shall, in addition to the penalties provided for in 
subsection (a), be fined twice the amount provided in 
subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section 
3571 of this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
both.
  (e) Enhanced Penalties for Use of Information in Furtherance 
of Certain Criminal Offenses.--
          (1) Whoever, violates, or attempts to violate, 
        subsection (a), (b), or (c) knowing that such 
        information may be used in furtherance of, or with the 
        intent to commit, an offense described in section 2261, 
        2261A, 2262, or any other crime of violence shall, in 
        addition to the penalties provided for in subsection 
        (a), (b), or (c), be fined under this title and 
        imprisoned not more than 5 years.
          (2) Whoever, violates, or attempts to violate, 
        subsection (a), (b), or (c) knowing that such 
        information may be used in furtherance of, or with the 
        intent to commit, an offense under section 111, 115, 
        1114, 1503, 1512, 1513, or to intimidate, threaten, 
        harass, injure, or kill any Federal, State, or local 
        law enforcement officer shall, in addition to the 
        penalties provided for in subsection (a), (b) or (c), 
        be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 
        5 years.
  (f) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
extraterritorrial jurisdiction over an offense under this 
section.
  (g) Nonapplicability to Law Enforcement Agencies.--Nothing in 
this Act shall be construed to prevent, hinder, or otherwise 
delay the production of confidential phone records information 
from a covered entity upon receipt of a lawful request from a 
law enforcement agency, or any officer, employee, or agent of 
such agency, in accordance with other applicable laws.
  (h) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Confidential phone records information.--The term 
        ``confidential phone records information'' means--
                  (A) information that--
                          (i) relates to the quantity, 
                        technical configuration, type, 
                        destination, location, or amount of use 
                        of a service offered by a covered 
                        entity subscribed to by any customer of 
                        that covered entity; and
                          (ii) is made available to a covered 
                        entity by a customer solely by virtue 
                        of the relationship between the covered 
                        entity and the customer; or
                  (B) information contained in any bill, 
                itemization, or account statement related to a 
                product or service provided by a covered entity 
                to any customer of the covered entity.
          (2) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity''--
                  (A) has the same meaning given the term 
                ``telecommunications carrier'' in section 3 of 
                the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153); 
                and
                  (B) includes any provider of IP-enabled voice 
                service.
          (3) Customer.--The term ``customer'' means, with 
        respect to a covered entity, any individual, 
        partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, 
        or corporation, or authorized representative of such 
        customer, to whom the covered entity provides a product 
        or service.
          (4) IP-enabled voice service.--The term ``IP-enabled 
        voice service'' means the provision of real-time 2-way 
        voice communications offered to the public, or such 
        class of users as to be effectively available to the 
        public, transmitted through customer premises equipment 
        using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a 
        fee (whether part of a bundle of services or 
        separately) with 2-way interconnection capability such 
        that the service can originate traffic to, and 
        terminate traffic from, a public switched telephone 
        network.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                        THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
the bill H.R. 4709, the ``Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy 
Protection Act of 2006,'' for purposes of markup, and move its 
favorable recommendation to the House.
    Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 4709, follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the sponsor of 
the legislation, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 
minutes to explain the bill briefly.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 
like to thank the original cosponsors of the legislation, the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Scott, 
for their help in drafting H.R. 4709, the ``Law Enforcement and 
Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006.''
    This bipartisan legislation provides new protections for 
the privacy of confidential telephone records, including 
calling logs. It establishes specific criminal penalties for 
the fraudulent acquisition or disclosure of these records 
without consumer consent.
    Few things are more personal and potentially more revealing 
than our phone records. The records of whom we call can reveal 
much about our business and personal lives. These records can 
reveal details of our medical or financial life and also 
disclose our physical location.
    Millions of Americans already voluntarily list their phone 
numbers in the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Others keep their 
telephone number unlisted. Federal law recognizes the right of 
Americans to maintain this kind of privacy by providing some 
limited protections for the confidential information contained 
in calling logs. Phone companies and others who have a 
legitimate interest in having this information may not release 
it without either consumer consent or a determination that 
certainly narrowly prescribed conditions exist.
    Unfortunately, current Federal statutes are inadequate to 
protect these records. Numerous companies and individuals offer 
to sell confidential phone records information, both cell and 
land line, to virtually anyone with no questions asked. This is 
data burglary. For an average of $100, these companies sell the 
confidential personal information of American citizens as a 
commodity. Many of these companies have operated on the 
Internet under a variety of names.
    In recent weeks, several States have taken civil 
enforcement action against these kinds of companies, filing 
suits that allege violations of various State deceptive trade 
practices statutes. However, civil enforcement alone is not 
enough. New Federal criminal penalties are needed to deter and 
penalize dishonest individuals and businesses, and put them out 
of business.
    The Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act 
imposes serious criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly and 
intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain the confidential 
phone records of a telephone company using a fraudulent scheme 
or device.
    This legislation is urgently needed to preserve consumers' 
privacy rights and to protect the personal safety of law 
enforcement personnel and victims of domestic violence.
    Mr. Chairman, enactment of this bill will send a clear 
signal that these breaches of privacy will no longer be 
tolerated.
    Also, Mr. Chairman, let me note that I understand that the 
Senate Judiciary Committee considered a companion bill this 
morning, and passed it under unanimous consent. The Senate bill 
was co-sponsored by Senator Specter, the Chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and the Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer, so this legislation is on a fast track, and much 
needed, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud to 
support this along with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. I 
ask unanimous consent that my statement in support of the bill 
as an original sponsor be included in the record at this time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. And without 
objection, all Members may put opening statements in the record 
at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 
 in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 
                            on the Judiciary
    I am pleased to join Lamar Smith as an original sponsor of this 
bill.
    Recent investigations undertaken by law enforcement officials have 
documented the ease with which an individual can obtain the 
confidential calling records of a third party. By simply contacting one 
of the many online data brokers, within a matter of hours, and after a 
small fee of approximately $100 dollars, the private records of anyone 
sitting in this room could be filtered into the public domain.
    Of course, it goes without saying, that if put into the wrong hands 
such information could be used to commit countless crimes of violence, 
including domestic violence offenses; or alternatively could be used to 
kill, injure, or intimidate witnesses, jurors, confidential informants, 
or law enforcement officers.
    Our bill seeks to stop these potential abuses from becoming a 
reality. It does so by making several important changes to current law. 
First, it establishes a new criminal offense against anyone who 
knowingly and intentionally obtains, or attempts to obtain, the 
confidential phone records of a third party through one of several 
enumerated schemes or devices to defraud. Penalties for violating this 
prohibition include a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than 
20 years, or both.
    Second, the bill establishes a new set of criminal penalties for 
anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or purchases the 
confidential phone records of a third party, without proper 
authorization or knowing that such records were obtained through fraud. 
Violators of either of these provisions are subjected to a maximum term 
of imprisonment of up to 5 years, in addition to whatever other 
criminal penalty that may apply.
    Finally, in an effort to offer increased protection to the likely 
victims of such activities, the legislation includes a series of 
enhanced criminal penalties against any individual who engages in any 
one of the aforementioned crimes knowing that such information was 
sought in furtherance of, or with the intent to commit a crime of 
violence or any one of nearly a dozen enumerated offenses. Individuals 
specifically protected under this provision, include potential victims 
of domestic-violence related offenses, jurors, criminal witnesses, 
confidential informants and law enforcement officers.
    I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this worthwhile 
measure.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Virginia
    MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING A MARKUP OF THIS IMPORTANT 
LEGISLATION. I WAS PLEASED TO JOIN WITH REPRESENTATIVES SMITH, CONYERS 
AND SCOTT TO INTRODUCE THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WHICH WILL HELP 
PROTECT PHONE RECORDS FROM THIEVES AND OPPORTUNISTS.
    THE SALE OF CONFIDENTIAL PHONE RECORDS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. FOR 
APPROXIMATELY $100, ANYONE CAN BUY AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE CELL PHONE 
CALL HISTORY. THESE HISTORIES CATALOUGE EVERY OUTGOING AND INCOMING 
CALL A CUSTOMER MAKES OR RECIEVES. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE 
AVAILABLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED SALE ON THE INTERNET.
    THE PRIMARY METHOD THIEVES USE TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION IS KNOWN 
AS ``PRETEXTING''. THIS INVOLVES AN INDIVIDUAL WITH SOME KEY 
INFORMATION--A CELL PHONE NUMBER OR POSSIBLY A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER--
PRETENDING TO BE THE SUBSCRIBER TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT AN ACCOUNT. 
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PHONE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT PUTS A STOP TO 
THIS BY IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ``PRETEXTING,'' AS WELL AS 
OTHER METHODS OF SEEKING TO OBTAIN SUCH RECORDS THROUGH THE USE OF 
FRAUD.
    FURTHERMORE, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PHONE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT 
WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE WHO ILLEGALLY OBTAIN OR 
SELL PHONE RECORDS KNOWING THEY WILL BE USED IN A CRIMINAL ACT. THIS IS 
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE PROTECTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND 
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHOSE CALL HISTORIES MAY BE PARTICULARLY 
DESIREABLE TO THOSE WHO WISH TO DO THEM HARM.
    WE ALL USE TELEPHONES AND CELL PHONES WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT 
INFORMATION ABOUT WHO WE RECEIVE CALLS FROM AND MAKE CALLS TO WILL NOT 
FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS. I URGE THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO 
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT PHONE RECORDS ARE ACTUALLY 
PROTECTED.
    THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN FOR HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT MARKUP.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California
    I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I believe it 
provides critical privacy protections to the more than 180 million 
Americans who use cell phones. It will also protect the privacy of more 
than 100 million American homes with wired telephones. And it will 
protect Voice over IP users, now more than 2 million Americans and 
rapidly rising.
    I think we've heard too many stories of how easy it is to 
fraudulently obtain cell phone call records and even cell phone 
locations. We've heard of how one political blog bought Wesley Clark's 
cell phone records, but the fact is lots of ordinary Americans have 
reason to be concerned about the privacy of their phone records. 
Imagine what a criminal organization could do with the cell phone call 
records of an undercover law enforcement agent, or what an abuser could 
do with a spouse's cell phone location. No one should be able to get 
another person's phone records through fraud, and this bill makes it a 
crime to purchase or use phone records obtained through fraud.
    I want to thank Chairman Smith of the IP Subcommittee and Ranking 
Member Conyers for their leadership in drafting this legislation, which 
I believe represents a sensible, bipartisan solution to a growing 
problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to report this bill 
favorably.

    Mr. Conyers. And I noticed that we not only seek to curb 
these abuses of personal telephone called from data brokers, 
but we are also attempting to punish those who sell these 
confidential records without proper authorization. So we are 
trying to hamper this activity both ways, and I think that it's 
incredibly important that we protect people in the way that 
we're doing by putting criminal penalties to the selling of 
confidential calling records to others.
    In the Judiciary Committee, it never stops--does it?--that 
we are constantly coming across new schemes to avert and avoid 
the legal consequences of activity. There are new plans being 
hatched almost every month. And this is an important one. I 
can't help but feel that every Member of this Committee will 
feel very strongly about the steps that we are taking today. 
And I return any unused time----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to--I will put my statement 
in the record, but I am happy to be a cosponsor of this 
legislation. I think it is an important issue, but it also 
approaches the solution in the proper way. And I hope that we 
will get unanimous support for the measure, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Conyers. I return my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Are there amendments?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no amendments, a 
reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the motion 
to report the bill favorably. All in favor, say aye? Opposed, 
no?
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
motion to report favorably is agreed to.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 
technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 
2 days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit 
additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.
    [Intervening business.]
    The business noticed on today's schedule having been 
concluded, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                  
