S172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 7, 2009 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 7, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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, hardworking 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 sharpshooting 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE