S170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 7, 2009 

S. 47

At the request of Mr. ENSIGN, the 

names of the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. THUNE) and the Senator from 

Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN) were added as cosponsors of S. 47, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on telephone and other 

communication services. 

S. 132

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the 

name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 

ROBERTS) was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 132, a bill to increase and enhance 

law enforcement resources committed 

to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent 

gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent 

criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes. 

S. 133

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

(Mrs. MURRAY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 133, a bill to prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal economic 

assistance from using such funds for 

lobbying expenditures or political contributions, to improve transparency, 

enhance accountability, encourage responsible corporate governance, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 160

At the request of Mr. LIEBERMAN, the 

names of the Senator from Missouri 

(Mrs. MCCASKILL), the Senator from 

Delaware (Mr. CARPER) and the Senator 

from Louisiana (Ms. LANDRIEU) were 

added as cosponsors of S. 160, a bill to 

provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

ON JANUARY 6, 2009 

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself 

and Mr. CASEY): 

S. 32. A bill to require the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission to hold 

at least 1 public hearing before 

issuance of a permit affecting public or 

private land use in a locality; to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek 

recognition to speak on legislation I 

am introducing that will require the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least one public hearing 

before issuance of a permit affecting 

public or private land use in a locality. 

I introduced legislation on this issue at 

the end of the 110th Congress, and fully 

expect it to remain relevant as we 

move forward with upgrades to our energy infrastructure, possibly as part of 

an economic stimulus package. The 

legislation has been updated; namely, 

it now allows for a second hearing 

when officially requested by a county 

or local government to address issues 

not addressed at the original hearing. 

Increasing demand for electricity 

throughout the Northeast is putting a 

strain on energy infrastructure in my 

State, necessitating new transmission 

lines and natural gas pipelines and the 

expansion of existing ones. In southwestern and northeast Pennsylvania 

transmission line expansions are 

planned over hundreds of miles of private property, while in the southeast 

natural gas pipeline expansions are underway. 

There is no doubt these projects can 

be invasive, and rarely do they fail to 

be controversial. I make a point of 

touching all of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties each year. In traveling Pennsylvania this Fall I heard a lot of complaints, which didn’t come as a surprise. I heard frequently from constituents who oppose these infrastructure 

projects, and who felt their concerns 

were being ignored by the energy companies and by FERC. 

I realize there will always be some 

opposition to large infrastructure 

projects. What is unacceptable, however, is for the people of my State to 

feel that their voices were not heard, 

that their issues were ignored. It may 

be the case that these projects are necessary. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission is the authority, and in 

exercising its authority it must be sensitive to local concerns. 

To address this I propose simply that 

FERC hold a hearing in these affected 

communities. In many cases this is already done, but my legislation makes 

it mandatory. State Public Utility 

Commissions, who have a great say in 

these matters, are beyond Congress’ 

reach. But where the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission is involved we 

can take steps to ensure that our constituents’ concerns receive due consideration. Holding a hearing may not 

lead to all sides agreeing on the proper 

route forward, but at the very least my 

Pennsylvania constituents will come 

away with the satisfaction of having 

publicly aired their grievances. 

To ensure that constituent concerns 

are given all due consideration, my legislation allows for affected parties to 

petition for a second hearing, provided 

certain conditions are met. In order for 

a second hearing to occur, a county 

government, or a municipal government within the affected county, must 

petition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a second hearing. A second hearing will only occur 

to address an issue that was not addressed at the initial hearing, and the 

hearing shall occur between 30 and 60 

days after approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

The safeguards included in this legislation are critical to protecting individual property rights. As the Nation 

moves forward in making needed updates to its infrastructure, defending 

citizens’ constitutional right to redress 

their government with their concerns 

should be paramount for this Congress. 

I will continue to fight to allow my 

constituents to be heard when Federal 

projects will affect their rights as 

homeowners and landowners. 

f 

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, 


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


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
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
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