Protect America Long-term Extension Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that focuses on eliminating online fraud and identity theft that is facilitated through the use of phishing schemes, as well as deceptive and misleading domain names. Phishing is a method of online identity theft that takes the form of fraudulent e-mails or fake Web sites in order to deceive the recipient into giving personal or financial account information. In addition to victimizing unsuspecting consumers, phishing scams maliciously exploit the trust that legitimate businesses have worked so hard to establish with consumers.

The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 would prohibit the practice of phishing--the deceptive solicitation of a consumer's personal information through the use of e-mails, instant messages, and misleading Web sites that trick recipients into divulging their information to identity thieves. The legislation would also prohibit related abuses, such as the practice of using fraudulent or misleading domain names, by defining them as deceptive practices under the FTC Act.

Additionally, the legislation seeks to solidify the integrity of domain name registration, a longtime goal for the Federal Trade Commission, by making it illegal for a domain name registrant to provide false or misleading identifying contact information in a WHOIS database when registering a domain name. Too often law enforcement officials have been hindered in their pursuit of phishers and other online scams

because the person responsible is hiding behind the anonymity of false registration information--this legislation would put an end to that practice by requiring accurate registration information about those that own Web sites and domain names that are used to harm consumers.

The reason it is imperative to address this through legislation is because online fraud and, more specifically, phishing scams are running rampant. A December 2007 New York Times article reported that more than 3.5 million Americans lost money to phishing schemes and online identity theft over a 12-month period ending in August 2007--this is a 57-percent increase over the previous year. The total amount lost by the victims, $3.2 billion dollars. The Anti-Phishing Working Group found, in November 2007, that 178 corporate identities and brands were hijacked and used for phishing scams, which is the highest number ever reported. All of these figures are very disconcerting and will only increase if we don't put greater effort on curtailing this online fraud.

Phishing and other forms of identity theft continue to have a detrimental effect on e-commerce by eroding consumers' confidence in online transactions. According to a 2007 Javelin Strategy & Research study, 80 percent of Internet users are concerned about being victims of online identity theft. What is more, a 2006 Zogby Interactive poll found that 78 percent of small business owners polled stated that a less reliable Internet would damage their business. While consumer confidence is critical in any commerce activity, it is paramount for online transactions. Phishing and other online fraud activities directly undermine that vital trust.

Phishing schemes aren't just isolated to individuals and e-commerce. Companies, organizations, and government agencies are also targets. A form of phishing known as spear phishing targets these entities to gain unauthorized access to the organization's computer system in order to steal financial information, trade secrets, or even top-secret military information. The security risks that phishing poses in the world of cyberterrorism is very significant.

But one doesn't have to look to some distant country to find the origin of traditional phishing schemes. The United States only until recently was consistently the top country that hosted the most phishing Web sites. While China now holds that claim, the United States is a very close second--hosting approximately 24 percent of phishing Web sites. So we can definitively do more within our borders to make the Internet notably safer.

Since President Bush signed the stimulus package into law earlier this month, millions of Americans will be expecting to receive tax rebate checks this May. But before those checks arrive, taxpayers should also expect to be targets of numerous phishing schemes between now and then. Many of these scams involve official-looking e-mail messages that try to trick the recipient into entering their personal information at a fake IRS Web site by stating in the e-mail that they are eligible for a refund check. This is not the first time the IRS identity has been misused for phishing scams, and it will continue if we don't do more to go after phishers.

And this is what the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 does. It looks to make the Internet safer and more reliable. It also facilitates the restoration of trust and consumer confidence that has been eroded by the prevalence of deceptive e-mails and Web sites, which has, in part, mired the Internet from achieving its full potential. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senators Bill Nelson, Stevens, and me in supporting the critical legislation.

Mr. President, in the Congress and in Washington these last years, there has been a tragic disconnect between the words spoken about keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country, and the actions actually taken to make those words count.

From the tragic conditions at Walter Reed to the backlog of claims at the Veterans Administration, there has been a long list of problems unaddressed--and of problems that arose because someone, somewhere didn't plan ahead to prevent problems for those who sacrifice for all of us.

Today we know from VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night and that nearly 400,000 veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year--a national disgrace to consider that in the richest country on the planet perhaps one out of every three homeless men sleeping in a doorway, alley or box once wore the uniform of our country.

We also know from the Bush administration's own U.S. Labor Department, that, for example, in 2006, the unemployment rate for young veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was 15 percent, more than triple the national average back then. We know that too many unemployed veterans are National Guard or Reserve troops who were called to duty but found when they came home that their old jobs were gone, that they'd lost their place in line in the local economy, or that the small businesses they'd left behind to serve overseas were in dire straits when they came home.

We know these two challenges--the homeless rates for veterans and the unemployment numbers for veterans--demand big solutions, and we are working to provide them.

But we should also know by now that the least we can do is stop these problems from becoming worse. We have seen a wave of foreclosures send a ripple effect across the economy. By late 2007, 2.5 million mortgages were in default--a 40 percent increase from just 2 years earlier. Last month, foreclosures in Massachusetts alone were up 128 percent from the previous January. In fact, in 2007 alone 1.6 million Americans defaulted on their home loans, and as many as 3.5 million more are expected to do the same by mid-2010.

Every U.S. Senator would agree that the thought of our men and women in uniform being thrown out of their homes because of mortgage foreclosures is miles beyond unacceptable. The question is, in the middle of a national housing crisis and a subprime mortgage collapse, what can be done--done at a minimum--to ensure that Washington acts to shield veterans from becoming the faces of the foreclosure crisis, and from making today's Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the faces of tomorrows' homeless and jobless populations.

We know that the soaring and staggering foreclosure statistics are directly affecting Americans from all walks of life, and our military is not exempt from the pain. The least we can do today is make it clear that we will pay some small measure of respect to veterans by helping them avoid foreclosure. They need more time and greater flexibility as they return to civilian life. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves has urged us to take preventative action. The Commission found that the transition from military to civilian life extends well beyond the current timelines which forces many service members to focus their attention on imminent foreclosure instead of first locating a competitive job or addressing any mental or physical health concerns that they may be facing.

That is why today I am introducing commonsense legislation that would protect servicemembers and veterans involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing a longer grace period for payment. My bill would extend the time from 90 days to 1 year the time period that a servicemember is protected from foreclosure. By extending the deadline to 1 year, I hope we can take one small step to prevent future homelessness throughout the veteran's community.

If America's leaders truly support our troops, we owe them more than a polite thank you and best wishes. We owe them action. We cannot tolerate a pattern in Washington that has persisted for too long-- provide lip service about supporting the troops but not the lifesaving body armor they need; talk a good game about veterans but cut funding for their healthcare. It is wrong, and it is time for it to end. We should act now to ensure that those saddled with the burden of the mortgage crisis are not those who have carried the greatest responsibility for America overseas in the fight for freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help protect consumers from high electricity prices that have followed deregulation of electricity markets. I am honored to have many of my colleagues joining me in offering this legislation--Senator Snowe, Senator Kerry, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Leahy.

Market pricing of electricity promised to bring lower costs to consumers. Unfortunately, consumers in organized market regions--those that have a Regional Transmission Organization or

Independent System Operator, RTOs or ISOs as they are called--are experiencing just the opposite: substantial, across-the-board problems with spiraling costs, unaccountable governance, and a chronic lack of oversight. Increasingly, RTOs/ISOs are adopting questionable, unproven, and expensive market mechanisms, and there seems to be little interest at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, or the RTOs/ISOs to question any of the economic theories behind these mechanisms. I note that on February 21, 2008, FERC finally took a step toward acknowledging that the markets are not working by issuing a proposed rule that would address some concerns. I believe, however, that the legislation I am introducing today will focus FERC on consumer issues, which were not adequately addressed in the proposed rule.

The goal of lowering costs to consumers has been lost in the race to create competitive electricity markets. In fact, something as simple as keeping costs to consumers as low as reasonably possible is not even part of the mandate, or mission statement, of any of the Nation's ISOs or RTOs! In New England, we have seen what can happen--there have been several instances in which ISO-New England has implemented expensive market mechanisms, over the objection of significant segments of electric stakeholders, without either conducting a cost-benefit analysis or comparing the costs of the proposed initiative with alternative means of achieving the desired results.

Showing the strong interest in this issue in the New England region, the legislation is supported by the Northeast Public Power Association, the Vermont Public Power Supply Authority, the Burlington Electric Department, Kennebunk Light & Power District, the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, and the Pascoag Utility District. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, and the Utility Consumers' Action Network support the legislation as well.

The legislation I am introducing today would refocus FERC on the consumer cost impacts of RTO/ISO actions. Consistent with existing law, the bill makes explicit that, when FERC considers the lawfulness of RTO/ISO rates, it must assess whether those rates will ensure that consumer costs are as low as reasonably possible consistent with the provision of reliable service. Also, in recognition of the uniquely important roles played by RTOs and ISOs, this bill requires FERC to make both goals--cost minimization and reliability--a part of each RTO or ISO's mission. These changes clarify and amplify existing law as applied to these important organizations, but do not alter, diminish, or imply an absence of similar requirements with respect to other public utilities regulated by FERC.

I believe these simple, commonsense issues, when posed by FERC to an RTO/ISO that is seeking approval for a rate, charge, or rule, will instill a much stronger sense of cost accountability. The bottom line, as I see it, is that this simple bill will likely yield substantial benefits for consumers and for many regional economies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing for adoption of the Consumer Protection and Cost Accountability Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. President, I would say that S. 2663 is a bipartisan piece of legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act. We have been working for months to get this going. It is my understanding now that Senators Pryor and Stevens asked that this matter move forward.

The other matter related to the FISA bill, we are trying to work something out with the House, and hopefully we can get something done on that soon.

Mr. President, tonight I am introducing and beginning the rule XIV process on two bills related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. One bill would extend the Protect America Act, the PAA, for 30 days, while the other would extend that law until July 1, 2009.

Earlier this year I introduced S. 2556 which would have extended the PAA for 30 days, and S. 2257, which would have extended the PAA until July 1, 2009. The bills I am introducing tonight would extend the PAA for the same periods of time, but they are drafted to take account of the fact that the PAA has expired. In addition, they contain a post hoc effective date that is intended to eliminate any potentially adverse legal effect resulting from the expiration of the PAA.

My purpose in introducing bills with two different extension lengths is to demonstrate once again that I am willing to extend the PAA for as long a time, or as short a time, as is needed to finalize a strong final bill.

Now that the House and Senate have both passed bills--H.R. 3773 and S. 2248--to strengthen the PAA, the right way to get to a final bill is through bipartisan negotiations. Unfortunately, my Republican friends appear unwilling to negotiate. We convened two negotiating sessions last week, but Republican staff members and administration lawyers declined to attend.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that the expiration of the Protect America Act has made America less safe, but he threatened to veto a bill extending that law while negotiators work on a final bill. The President's position is inexplicable and reckless.

The bottom line for Senate Democrats is clear: We want to give our intelligence professionals all needed tools while protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans. We are willing to extend the Protect America Act for as long as it takes to get a final bill.

Mr. President, I believe there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading.

I object, Mr. President, to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.