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 Under this legislation, the investment income test would be repealed.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
S174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 7, 2009 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE