```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S170-S175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 22. A bill to designate certain land components of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and 
activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to Senator Bingaman's 
introduction today of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. I 
strongly support this bill and Senator Bingaman's leadership in 
sponsoring it, and urge my colleagues to vote for its prompt passage.
  This omnibus legislation includes no fewer than 20 bills of interest 
to California, including 14 bills to increase our water supply and to 
restore our rivers and groundwater quality, 3 bills to designate 
additional wilderness areas, and 3 other National Park Service, Bureau 
of Land Management, and Forest Service bills.
  I would like to speak at some length about one of these bills, the 
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which I have introduced 
with Senator Boxer to bring to a close 18 years of litigation between 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Users Authority 
and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Before I discuss the San 
Joaquin bill, however, I would like to review the other 19 California 
bills in the omnibus legislation introduced today. These include the 
following:

          Additions to National Wilderness Preservation System

  Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wilderness,
  Riverside County Wilderness, and the
  Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness;

                       Bureau of Land Management

  Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria land 
exchange;

                             Forest Service

  Mammoth Community Water District land conveyance;

                         National Park Services

  Tule Lake Segregation Center Resource Study;

                         Bureau of Reclamation

  San Diego Intertie feasibility study,
  Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project authorization,
  Rancho California Water District project authorization,
  Santa Margarita River project authorization,
  Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District project authorization,
  North Bay Water Reuse Authority project authorization,
  Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project authorization,
  Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin project authorization,

[[Page S171]]

  GREAT Project authorization,
  Yucaipa Valley Water District project authorization,
  Goleta Water District Water Distribution System title transfer,
  San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, and the
  Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

  I would like to say a few words about the water project 
authorizations and wilderness bills, in addition to the San Joaquin 
River Settlement legislation.
  In the Western U.S., drought, population growth, increasing climate 
variability, and ecosystem needs make managing water supplies 
especially challenging. The 9 California water recycling projects 
included in the omnibus bill offer a proven means to develop cost 
effective alternative water supply projects. Together they will help 
the state reduce its dependence on imported water from both the Lower 
Colorado River and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.
  Among the other bills to benefit California water supply and quality, 
one codifies the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 
Program, MSCP, a 50 year plan to protect endangered species and 
preserve wildlife habitat along the Colorado River.
  The three wilderness bills in this package would together protect a 
wilderness about 735,000 acres of land in Mono, Riverside, Inyo, and 
Los Angeles Counties, and within Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. 
This will protect spectacular lands ranging from the High Sierras to 
the magnificent California deserts. I want to thank Senator Boxer in 
particular for her leadership on these bills.
  I would like to devote most of my remarks to the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Settlement Act, a bill Senator Boxer and I have cosponsored 
that approves, authorizes and helps fund an historic Settlement on the 
San Joaquin River in California. This Settlement restores California's 
second longest river, while maintaining a stable water supply for the 
farmers who have made the San Joaquin Valley the richest agricultural 
area in the world. One of the major benefits of this settlement is the 
restoration of a long-lost salmon fishery. The return of one of 
California's most important salmon runs will create significant 
benefits for local communities in the San Joaquin Valley, helping to 
restore a beleaguered fishing industry while improving recreation and 
quality of life.
  This San Joaquin Settlement bill is nearly identical to the bill that 
we introduced in the waning days of the 109th Congress, and 
reintroduced at the beginning of the 110th Congress as S. 27. However, 
the bill we are introducing today does reflect a few significant 
changes resulting from discussions among the numerous Settling Parties 
and various ``Third Parties'' in the San Joaquin Valley of California. 
During the past year the parties to the settlement and these affected 
third parties, such as the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, have 
agreed to certain changes to the legislation to make the measure PAYGO 
neutral and to enhance implementation of the settlement's ``Water 
Management Goal'' to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to 
Friant Division long-term water contractors. The legislation that we 
are introducing today incorporates these changes, which are supported 
by the State of California and major water agencies on the San Joaquin 
River and its tributaries.
  The Settlement has two goals: to restore and maintain fish 
populations in the San Joaquin River, including a selfsustaining salmon 
fishery, and to avoid or reduce adverse water supply impacts to long-
term Friant water contractors. Consistent with the terms of the 
Settlement, we expect that both of these goals will be pursued with 
equal diligence by the Federal agencies.
  Without this consensus resolution of a long-running western water 
battle the parties will continue the fight, resulting in a court-
imposed judgment. It is widely recognized that an outcome imposed by a 
court is likely to be worse for everyone on all counts: more costly, 
riskier for the farmers, and less beneficial for the environment.
  The Settlement provides a framework that the affected interests can 
accept. As a result, this legislation has enjoyed the strong support of 
the Bush Administration, California Governor Schwarzenegger's 
Administration, the environmental and fishing communities and numerous 
California farmers and water districts, including the Friant Water 
Users Authority and its member districts that have been part of the 
litigation.
  When the Federal Court approved the Settlement in late October, 2006, 
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne praised the Settlement for 
launching ``one of the largest environmental restoration projects in 
California's history.'' The Secretary further observed that ``This 
Settlement closes a long chapter of conflict and uncertainty in 
California's San Joaquin Valley . . . and open[s] a new chapter of 
environmental restoration and water supply certainty for the farmers 
and their communities.''
  I share the Secretary's strong support for this balanced and historic 
agreement, and it is my honor to join with Senator Boxer and a 
bipartisan group of California House Members who have previously 
introduced and supported this legislation to authorize and help fund 
the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement.
  During the past year we have worked with the parties to the 
settlement, affected third party agencies and the State of California 
to ensure that the legislation complies with congressional PAYGO rules.
  In May of 2008, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved 
amendments agreed to by the parties that allow most Friant Division 
contractors to accelerate repayment of their construction cost 
obligation to the Treasury. This change both increases the amount of 
up-front funding available for the settlement and decreases the bill's 
PAYGO ``score'' by $88 million, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. In exchange for agreeing to early re-payment of their 
construction obligation, Friant water agencies will be able to convert 
their 25-year water service contracts to permanent repayment contracts.
  The amendments also included new provisions to enhance the water 
management efforts of affected Friant water districts. Specifically, 
the legislation now includes new authority to provide improvements to 
Friant Division facilities, including restoring capacity in canals, 
reverse flow pump-back facilities, and financial assistance for local 
water banking and groundwater recharge projects, all for the purpose of 
reducing or avoiding impacts on Friant Division contractors resulting 
from additional River flows called for by the Settlement and this 
Legislation.
  Near the end of the 110th Congress, parties to the Settlement and 
affected third parties came to agreement on additional provisions that 
would greatly facilitate passage of the bill by making it PAYGO-
neutral. The legislation we are introducing today includes substantial 
funding, including direct spending on settlement implementation during 
the first ten year period of $88 million gained by early repayment of 
Friant's construction obligation, and substantial additional funding 
authorized for annual appropriation until 2019, after which it then 
becomes available for direct spending again. This additional funding is 
generated by continuing payments from Friant water users and will 
become directly available to continue implementing the settlement by 
2019 if it has not already been appropriated for that purpose before 
then.
  In 2006, California voters showed their support for the settlement by 
approving Propositions 84 and 1E, that will help pay for the 
Settlement, with the State of California now committing at least $200 
million toward the Settlement costs during the next 10 years. When 
State-committed funding, direct spending authorized by the bill, and 
other highly reliable funding including pre-existing payments by water 
users are added together, there is at least $380-390 million available 
for implementing the Settlement over the next 10 years, with additional 
dollars possible from additional federal appropriations.
  Nevertheless, it is my intention to work with the Chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee during the 111th Congress to 
find a suitable offset that will allow restoration of all of the direct 
spending envisioned by the settlement without waiting until 2019.
  Today's legislation continues to include substantial protections for 
other

[[Page S172]]

water districts in California who were not party to the original 
settlement negotiations. These other water contractors will be able to 
avoid all but the smallest water impacts as a result of the settlement, 
except on a voluntary basis. These protections are accomplished while 
ensuring a timely and robust restoration of the River and without 
creating any new precedents for implementing the Endangered Species 
Act. Similarly, there is no preemption of State law and nothing in the 
bill changes any existing obligations of the United States to operate 
the Central Valley Project in conformity with state law.
  The bill we are introducing today contains several new provisions to 
strengthen these third-party protections in light of the changes made 
to address PAYGO. These include safeguards to ensure that the San 
Joaquin River Exchange Contractors and other third parties will not 
face increased costs or regulatory burdens as a result of the PAYGO 
changes.
  Support of this agreement is almost as far reaching as its benefits. 
This historic agreement would not have been possible without the 
participation of a remarkably broad group of agencies, stakeholders and 
legislators, reaching far beyond the settling parties. The Department 
of the Interior, the State of California, the Friant Water Users 
Authority, the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of 13 other 
environmental organizations and countless other stakeholders came 
together and spent countless hours with legislators in Washington to 
ensure that we found a solution that the large majority of those 
affected could support.
  At the end of the day, I believe that this San Joaquin bill is 
something that we can all feel proud of, and I urge my colleagues to 
move quickly to approve this omnibus public lands legislation and 
provide the administration the authorization it needs to fully carry 
out the extensive restoration opportunities and other actions called 
for under the Settlement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 24. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
strengthen the earned income tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are 
introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009. 
Since 1975, the earned income tax credit, EITC, has been an innovative 
tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan 
referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, 
the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more 
children out of poverty than any other government program.
  It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can 
strengthen it. Census data and the events of Hurricane Katrina 
reiterated the fact that there is a group of Americans that are falling 
behind. The poverty rate for 2007 was 12.5 percent and this is 
basically the same as the rate for 2006. In 2007, there were 37.3 
million living in poverty.
  We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day 
trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic 
policies of the last 8 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to 
help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to 
start.
  The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 strengthens 
the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage 
penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more 
children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and 
simplifying the credit.
  First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it 
permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many 
single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in 
their EITC. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry.
  Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three 
or more children. Under current law, the credit amount is based on one 
child or two or more children. This legislation would create a new 
credit amount based on three or more children. One of the purposes of 
the EITC is to lift families above the poverty level. Because the EITC 
adjustment for family size is limited to two children, over time large 
families will not be kept above the poverty threshold.
  Under current law, the maximum EITC for an individual with two or 
more children is $5,028 and under this legislation, the amount would 
increase to $5,656 for an individual with three or more children. 
Increasing the credit amount would make more families eligible for the 
EITC. Currently, an individual with three children and income at and 
above $40,295 would not benefit from the credit. Under this 
legislation, an individual with children and income under $43,276 would 
benefit from the EITC.
  Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for 
childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers 
offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to 
equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in 
reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and 
employer portion of the payroll tax.
  For 2008, the EITC will fully offset the employee share of payroll 
taxes only for childless workers earning less than $5,720. A typical 
single childless adult will begin to owe Federal income taxes in 
addition to payroll taxes when his or her income is only $10,655, which 
is below the poverty line.
  The decline in the labor force of single men has been troubling. 
Boosting the EITC for childless workers could be part of solution for 
increasing work among this group. Increasing the EITC for families has 
increased labor rates for single mothers and hopefully, it can do the 
same for this group.
  This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayers and 
married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate 
of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum 
credit amount for an individual would increase from $457 to $913. The 
doubling of the phase-out results in taxpayers in the same income range 
being eligible for the credit. In addition, the legislation would 
increase the credit phase-out income level from $7,470 to $13,800 for 
2009 and $14,500 for 2010.
  Under current law, workers under age 25 are ineligible for the 
childless workers EITC. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act 
of 2009 would change the age to 21. This age change will provide an 
incentive for labor for less-educated younger adults.
  Fourth, the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 
simplifies the EITC by modifying the abandoned spouse rule, clarifying 
the qualifying child rules, and repealing the disqualified investment 
test. Current rules require parents to file a joint tax return to claim 
the EITC. This can create difficulty for separated parents. If parents 
are separated and not yet divorced, complex rules govern whether the 
custodial parent may claim the EITC if a separate return is filed. The 
custodial parent must be able to claim head-of-household filing status. 
This test requires that a parent must pay more than half of household 
expenses from her own earnings, rather than from child support payments 
or program benefits. Under this legislation, the requirements by 
permitting a separated parent who lives with for more than six months 
of the year and also lives apart from his/her spouse for at least the 
final six months of the year to claim the EITC.
  Under current law, two adults who live in the same household with a 
child may each qualify to claim the child for the EITC, but only one 
taxpayer may claim the child and the other taxpayer is not eligible to 
claim the childless worker EITC. Under this legislation, filers who are 
eligible to claim a child for the EITC but do not do so are eligible to 
claim the smaller EITC for workers not raising a child. For example, a 
mother and aunt living in the same house who are both qualified to 
claim the child would be able to receive the EITC. The one who claims 
the child would get the larger amount and the other would be eligible 
for the smaller childless worker credit.
  Under current law, low-income filers are ineligible for the EITC if 
they have investment income such as interest, dividends, capital gains, 
rent or royalties that exceeds $3,950 a year. Very few EITC claimants 
have investment income above this level. This income

[[Page S173]]

test creates a ``cliff'' because those workers with investment income 
of $2,951 would be unable to claim any EITC. This provision discourages 
savings among low- and moderate-income families. Under this 
legislation, the investment income test would be repealed.
  This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put 
more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and 
help individuals who want to make a living by working. I urge my 
colleagues to support an expansion of the EITC.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN:
  S. 26. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reset the 
income threshold used to calculate the refundable portion of the child 
tax credit and to repeal the sunset for certain prior modifications 
made to the credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to once again 
raise an issue that is near and dear to my heart--an issue that is of 
great importance to working families across this country. In 2001 and 
again in 2003, Senator Snowe and I worked together to ensure that low-
income working families with children receive the benefit of the Child 
Tax Credit. Last year, we were successful in improving the credit to 
ensure that more working families are able to receive its benefit for 
the tax year 2008, and I come here today to introduce legislation that 
will ensure this important provision continues to provide tax relief 
for our working families in the future.
  The change we made to the credit last year will ensure the Child Tax 
Credit is available for all working families. As some of my colleagues 
may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable child tax credit, 
working families must meet an income threshold. If they don't earn 
enough, then they don't qualify for the credit. The problem is that 
some of our working parents are working full-time and yet they still 
don't earn enough to receive a meaningful benefit from this provision 
because they just don't have a high enough income.
  It is wrong to provide the credit to some hardworking Americans, 
while leaving others behind. That is why we temporarily lowered the 
income threshold to $8,500 in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
last Fall. As a result, the single, working parent that is stocking 
shelves at your local grocery store for minimum wage will receive a 
meaningful credit this year.
  This improvement to the credit must be made permanent to ensure that 
our tax code works for all Americans, especially those working parents 
forced to get by on the minimum wage. Today, we are introducing the 
Working Family Child Assistance Act, legislation which makes the 
refundable Child Tax Credit permanent and sets the income threshold at 
a reasonable level so that all working parents, including those making 
the minimum wage, receive the benefit of the credit.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration 
to ensure that those low-income, hard-working families that need this 
credit the most do receive its benefits.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON, of Florida (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, and Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 30. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
manipulation of caller identification information; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public 
safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in 
the digital age. One of the most recent scams is known as caller I.D. 
``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senators 
Snowe, McCaskill and Klobuchar--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009--
to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing.
  What is caller I.D. spoofing? It's a technique that allows a 
telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the 
recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone 
to hide behind a misleading telephone number to try to scam consumers 
or trick law enforcement officers.
  Let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller I.D. spoofing 
has been exploited during the past 4 years:
  In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to 
shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what 
they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really happened 
was a caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking that 
the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that 
neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive 
telephone number.
  In another example, identity thieves bought a number of stolen credit 
card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. 
information to make it look like the call originated from the credit 
card holder's phone line, and used the credit card numbers to order 
cash transfers, which the thieves then picked up.
  In other instances, callers have used spoofing to pose as Government 
officials. In the past year, there have been several instances of 
fraudsters using caller I.D. fraud to pose as court officers calling to 
say that a person has missed jury duty. The caller then says that a 
warrant will be issued for their arrest, unless a fine is paid during 
the call. The victim is then induced to provide credit card or bank 
information over the phone to pay the ``fine.''
  Furthermore, while these examples are serious enough, think about 
what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his 
victim into answering the telephone, giving out personal information, 
or telling the person on the other end of the line about their current 
whereabouts. The results could be tragic.
  There are a number of Internet Web sites--with names like 
Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminals 
and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay 
money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the Web site which 
phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free 
line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading 
phone number on his or her caller I.D. screen.
  A new Web site--Dramatel.com--even offers a prepaid calling card 
platform that combines a caller I.D. spoofing service with other 
features that allow a fraudster to disguise their voice and record the 
entire call. It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose this service 
could possibly offer--other than providing a tailor-made mechanism for 
criminals to prey on innocent victims.
  In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that 
criminals need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone 
number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be a 
representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief 
can then ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal 
account information. Once a thief gets hold of this sensitive personal 
information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card 
account, health information, and who knows what else.
  Furthermore, even if a consumer does not become a victim of stalking 
or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers 
pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. 
to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone 
call and trust the person on the other end of the line.
  In June 2007, I chaired a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on caller 
I.D. spoofing. At that hearing, there was broad consensus that caller 
I.D. spoofing was quickly developing into a major area of consumer 
abuse and criminal fraud. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications 
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act on 
this latest scam. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the 
fraudsters that use them believe their activities are, in fact, legal. 
Well, it's time to make it crystal clear that spoofing is a scam and is 
not legal.
  How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009 address the 
problem of caller I.D. spoofing?
  Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and 
prohibits fraudsters from using caller identification services to 
transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information with the 
intend to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. 
This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made

[[Page S174]]

using Voice-Over-Internet, VoIP, service.
  Anyone who violates this anti-spoofing law would be subject to a 
penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to one year in jail, as set out 
in the Communications Act. Additionally, this bill empowers States to 
help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters.
  I invite my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, McCaskill, Klobuchar 
and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009. We 
should not waste any more time in protecting consumers and law 
enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 30

       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 
     2009''.

     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 Inaccurate Caller 
     Identification Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
     within the United States, in connection with any 
     telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to 
     cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit 
     misleading or inaccurate caller identification information 
     with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain 
     anything of value, unless such transmission is exempted 
     pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(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) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the 
     Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Content of regulations.--
       ``(i) In general.--The regulations required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include such exemptions from the 
     prohibition under paragraph (1) as the Commission determines 
     is appropriate.
       ``(ii) Specific exemption for law enforcement agencies or 
     court orders.--The regulations required under subparagraph 
     (A) shall exempt from the prohibition under paragraph (1) 
     transmissions in connection with--

       ``(I) any authorized activity of a law enforcement agency; 
     or
       ``(II) a court order that specifically authorizes the use 
     of caller identification manipulation.

       ``(iii) 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.
       ``(4) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the enactment 
     of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the Commission shall 
     report to Congress whether additional legislation is 
     necessary to prohibit the provision of inaccurate caller 
     identification information in technologies that are successor 
     or replacement technologies to telecommunications service or 
     IP-enabled voice service.
       ``(5) Penalties.--
       ``(A) Civil forfeiture.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any person that is determined by the 
     Commission, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
     section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be 
     liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. A 
     forfeiture penalty under this paragraph shall be in addition 
     to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of 
     the forfeiture penalty determined under this paragraph shall 
     not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount 
     for each day of a continuing violation, except that the 
     amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed 
     a total of $1,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.
       ``(ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under 
     clause (i) shall be recoverable pursuant to section 504(a).
       ``(iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be 
     determined under clause (i) against any person unless such 
     person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or 
     section 503(b)(4).
       ``(iv) 2-year statute of limitations.--No forfeiture 
     penalty shall be determined or imposed against any person 
     under clause (i) if the violation charged occurred more than 
     2 years prior to the date of issuance of the required notice 
     or notice or apparent liability.
       ``(B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully and 
     knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction 
     thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or 
     3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, 
     in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for such a 
     violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the 
     provisions of section 501 relating to imprisonment or the 
     imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
       ``(6) Enforcement by states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a State, or 
     any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions on 
     behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action, 
     as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that State 
     in an appropriate district court of the United States to 
     enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties for 
     violation of this subsection, whenever the chief legal 
     officer or other State officer has reason to believe that the 
     interests of the residents of the State have been or are 
     being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this 
     subsection or a regulation under this subsection.
       ``(B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other State 
     officer shall serve written notice on the Commission of any 
     civil action under subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such 
     civil action. The notice shall include a copy of the 
     complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except 
     that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such 
     prior notice, the State shall provide such notice immediately 
     upon instituting such civil action.
       ``(C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving the notice 
     required by subparagraph (B), the Commission shall have the 
     right--
       ``(i) to intervene in the action;
       ``(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(iii) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph 
     shall prevent the chief legal officer or other State officer 
     from exercising the powers conferred on that officer by the 
     laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer 
     oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of 
     witnesses or the production of documentary and other 
     evidence.
       ``(E) Venue; service or process.--
       ``(i) Venue.--An action brought under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be brought in a district court of the United States 
     that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under 
     section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(ii) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) process may be served without regard to the 
     territorial limits of the district or of the State in which 
     the action is instituted; and
       ``(II) a person who participated in an alleged violation 
     that is being litigated in the civil action may be joined in 
     the civil action without regard to the residence of the 
     person.

       ``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) Caller identification information.--The term `caller 
     identification information' means information provided 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 IP-enabled voice 
     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 IP-enabled voice service. Such term includes 
     automatic number identification services.
       ``(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice 
     service' has the meaning given that term by section 9.3 of 
     the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as those 
     regulations may be amended by the Commission from time to 
     time.
       ``(8) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this 
     subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 165. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to prevent credit 
card issuers from taking unfair advantage of college students and their 
parents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit 
Card Protection Act of 2009 with my colleague Senator Durbin. This 
legislation will help prevent college students from compiling massive 
credit card debt while in school.
  College students have become the target of credit card companies 
advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow 
credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students 
free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card

[[Page S175]]

application. Additionally, students receive card solicitations through 
mail to their on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before 
they arrive at the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing 
strategies have worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates 
hold a credit card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The 
average college student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card 
debt, double the amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students 
are leaving school with multiple credit cards and debts amounting 
upwards of $10,000.
  Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an 
apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to 
the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, 
many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit 
Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt 
while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires 
credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and 
then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student 
without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must 
cosign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. 
These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for 
credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' 
ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy.
  It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young 
consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a 
student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in 
student loan debt. Paying for housing, health-care and student loans 
already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge 
credit card payment on top of all of the other bills can lead to 
financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their 
feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from 
irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt 
repayment.
  The current economic situation has exposed many bad habits of both 
the financial industry and the average consumer. The savings rate of 
our country has significantly declined over the past decade as consumer 
spending and borrowing steadily increased. While it is necessary for 
Congress to implement policies which will allow Americans to save more 
of their income, it is equally important for consumers to put into 
practice controlled and prudent spending habits.

                          ____________________
```