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
January 7, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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. 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 9—COMMEMORATING 90 YEARS OF U.S.- 

POLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, 

DURING WHICH POLAND HAS 

PROVEN TO BE AN EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG PARTNER TO THE 

UNITED STATES IN ADVANCING 

FREEDOM AROUND THE WORLD 

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. 

VOINOVICH, and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: 

S. RES. 9 

Whereas the United States established diplomatic relations with the newly-formed 

Polish Republic in April 1919; 

Whereas the year 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of democracy in Poland, as well as 

the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism in Poland; 

Whereas the year 2009 marks the 10th anniversary of Poland’s accession to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); 

Whereas the year 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program in Poland; 

Whereas Poland has overcome a legacy of 

foreign occupation and period of communist 

rule to emerge as a free and democratic nation; 

Whereas Poland has strongly supported the 

United States diplomatically and militarily, 

as well as supporting United States-led efforts in combating global terrorism, and has 

contributed troops to the coalitions led by 

the United States in both Afghanistan and 

Iraq; and 

Whereas Poland has cooperated closely 

with the United States on issues such as democratization, nuclear proliferation, human 

rights, regional cooperation in Eastern Europe, and reform of the United Nations: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) celebrates the 90th anniversary of U.S.- 

Polish diplomatic relations; 

(2) congratulates the Polish people on their 

great accomplishments as a free democracy; 

and 

(3) expresses appreciation for Poland’s 

steadfast partnership with the United 

States. 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise 

today to offer a resolution commemorating several remarkable milestones 

in the U.S.-Poland partnership. This 

year marks the 90th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United 

States and Poland, the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Exchange Program with Poland, and the 10th anniversary of Poland’s accession to NATO. 

The U.S.-Polish friendship formally 

began in 1919 and has endured through 

two world wars, the Cold War, and the 

emergence of a vibrant democracy 

after the fall of communism. This partnership has been bolstered by two unqualified successes of U.S. diplomacy. 

The Fulbright Exchange Program has 

nurtured the pursuit of higher learning 

for Polish and American students, professors, and researchers, for many decades offering Poles a rare window into 

the opportunities afforded by democratic society. Such exchanges invigorated intellectual thought and creativity in Poland, Eastern Europe, and 

the West and helped to hasten the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. 

Poland exhibited great energy in undertaking economic, political, and 

military reforms, and the NATO alliance was strengthened by Polish membership in 1999. Poland today remains 

the closest of our allies, having contributed great wherewithal to combating global terrorism and bringing 

stability to Afghanistan and Iraq. In 

recognition of the profound successes 

of the U.S.-Polish alliance, I am 

pleased to introduce this resolution 

congratulating the Polish people on 

their great accomplishments as a free 

democracy and expressing our country’s appreciation for Poland’s steadfast partnership. 

I am hopeful that my colleagues will 

join me in supporting this important 

legislation. 

f 

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous 

consent that John Branscome, a 

detailee in my office, be granted the 

privileges of the floor for the duration 

of today’s session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT—NOMINATIONS TO OFFICE 

OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent 

that the nominations to the Office of 

Inspector General, except the Office of 

Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, be referred in each 

case to the committee having primary 

jurisdiction over the department, agency, or entity and, if and when reported 

in each case, then to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs for not to exceed 20 calendar 

days, except in cases when the 20-day 

period expires while the Senate is in recess or adjournment the committee 

shall have 5 additional calendar days 

after the Senate reconvenes to report 

the nomination, and that if the nomination is not reported after the expiration of that period, the nomination be 

automatically discharged and placed 

on the Executive Calendar. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

WEEKEND SESSION 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are 

going to be in a weekend session. All 

Democratic Senators have been told 

this, and Republican Senators have 

been notified. We earlier anticipated 

that the vote would be early Sunday, 

but I have worked with the Senate 

staff and we are going to be protected 

with postcloture time by having that 

vote at 2 p.m. So what we will do is 

come in Sunday at 1 p.m. and have a 

vote at 2 p.m. 

There are a few procedural games 

people can play, if they desire, and I 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE