Caller ID Spoofing Bill To Resurface Next Congress
Legislation to outlaw Caller ID spoofing is certain to come up next year, even though it failed to pass the Senate before the 109th Congress adjourned, lawmakers said during a vigorous midnight floor debate. Several hearings were held during the past session of Congress on spoofing, and on the last day of the session, the House took up a Judiciary Committee measure (HR-5304) near midnight.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The bill passed after 2-1/2 hours of angry debate between Reps. Cannon (R-Utah) and Scott (D-Va.), but not in time for the Senate to act. Scott said he hoped to bring up the bill early next session in an improved version so Congress could have a product “everybody could be proud of.” He objected strongly to the bill as written, calling it a “work in progress.” For nearly 2 hours Scott argued with Cannon for failing to include input from the FBI and Justice Dept. and to create a bipartisan bill.
While the legislation has bipartisan support in principle, there were no Democratic co-sponsors, Scott said, objecting that FBI input wasn’t included in drafting the bill. “We had indicated to the other side that we would bring it up as one of the first bills next year if we could get the FBI consideration,” Scott said. Instead, Scott said Republicans handed him the legislation just as the debate started.
Scott wanted to ensure that the bill didn’t impose mandatory sentencing and that it wouldn’t disallow caller ID spoofing in some instances where it would have legitimate uses, such as in women’s shelters. Rep. Murphy (R-Pa.), who helped draft the bill, said he worked with the Justice Dept. to ensure that legitimate uses would be allowable under the draft language: “My understanding is the wording of this does address that… The bill is only related to those who harass or defraud others, so only specifically in the commission of a crime.”
Cannon introduced a 5-page letter from the Justice Dept. analyzing the bill. Scott objected when he saw the letter’s long list of detailed suggestions. “These are substantive recommendations that we are just going to ignore by taking this bill up in the middle of the night right here at the end of the session with a bill that has been handed to this side at the last minute,” Scott said.
Earlier in the evening, Cannon had downplayed the importance of the letter, saying the items on the list weren’t recommendations of things “needed to improve the bill, but suggestions for improvement.” He also argued that many of the points raised in the letter had already been accommodated in the bill, and then suggested that Scott, who’s likely to be named chairman of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, “can bring this up and improve it with all of the comments and suggestions that the Justice Department has proposed.”