Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007
A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 519.
December 5, 2007
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
February 28, 2007
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2360-2361)
February 28, 2007
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2361-2362)
February 28, 2007
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-1139.
June 21, 2007
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
June 27, 2007
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 110-234.
December 5, 2007
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 519.
December 5, 2007
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 704 on the floor
HK
BO
MC
DKA
DF+16
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 704 on the floor
Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to…
Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.
States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the
constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.
Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.
Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million.
The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.
Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.
This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home.
Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance.
This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country.
Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier, so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--the goal of strengthening the family unit.
Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain an immigrant visas to enter the country.
We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, an oversight in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take advantage of this family reunification provision.
Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises when these U.S. citizens have minor siblings. Since they do not qualify as an ``immediate relative,'' the minor siblings are denied admission. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her five year old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming to this country as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative.
For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekom Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted to as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their six-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.
It is difficult to determine the full extent of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year. So, this change will not lead to an influx of many immigrants, but it will reunite a number of families who have unnecessarily been kept apart.
If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now.
Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relative'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unfortunate problem that too many families have already had to face. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill. Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at…
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill.
Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.
These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans.
However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight.
The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities.
Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.
The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.
When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy.
Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions.
Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away.
This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job.
Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops.
We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 16 bipartisan cosponsors, to introduce the S. 700. Approximately 1 year ago, Senator Lincoln and I introduced the Collaboration for the Recovery of the…
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 16 bipartisan
cosponsors, to introduce the S. 700. Approximately 1 year ago, Senator Lincoln and I introduced the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA, an earlier bill to amend the Endangered Species Act or ESA. S. 700 is an updated version of the Endangered Species Recovery Act or ESRA, which we introduced on December 6, 2006. Like ESRA, S. 700 does not amend the current ESA, but builds on ideas set forth in the original CRESA. It creates policies that finance the recovery of endangered species by private landowners. S. 700 makes it simpler for landowners to get involved in conservation and reduces the conflict that often emanates from the ESA. It will be an important codification of much-needed incentives to help recover endangered species. And, since the introduction of CRESA 1 year ago, I'm proud to count over 100 different species and landowner organizations and advocates that have partnered with us in support of this important tax legislation.
Over 80 percent of endangered species live on private property. Under the current law, however, there are too few incentives and too many obstacles for private landowners to participate in conservation agreements to help recover species. S. 700, like the voluntary farm bill conservation programs that inspired its creation, will make it more attractive for private landowners to contribute to the recovery of species under the ESA.
This bill resulted from effective and inclusive collaboration among key stakeholders most affected by the implementation of the ESA. Landowner interests include farmers, ranchers, and those from the natural resource-using communities. For example, some current supporters of S. 700 who contributed invaluable advice are the American Farm Bureau and the Society of American Foresters. This could not rightly be called a collaborative project without the vital and necessary input received from the Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense and the National Wildlife Federation--key environmental groups that made significant contributions. They understand that landowner must be treated as allies to ensure success in the long-run for the conservation of habitat and species. Finally, while the genesis of this bill has many roots, a passionate catalyst was James Cummins of Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, whose great concern for the outdoors provided inspiration to move these ideas forward.
These experts worked together to craft S. 700, which provides new tax incentives for private landowners who voluntarily contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The tax credits will reimburse landowners for property rights affected by agreements that include conservation easements and costs incurred by species management plans.
For landowners who limit their property rights through conservation easements, there will be 100 percent compensation of all costs. That percentage declines to 75 percent for 30-year easements and 50 percent for cost-share agreements.
It is worth noting that this is the same formula that works successfully for farm bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. Private property owners are appropriately rewarded for crucial ecological services that they provide on their property. The public benefits from these services, which ensure biodiversity. While the primary returns from this investment are protection and recovery of endangered species, the public will also undoubtedly gain additional benefits such as aesthetically pleasing open space, a reduction in the number of invasive species and enhanced water quality.
The legislation provides a list of options that give landowners a choice--a crucial element for the success of this proposal. For some landowners, a conservation easement will be the most attractive option. Easements are flexible tools that can be tailored to each landowner and species' interests. An easement restricts certain activities, but it still works well with traditional rural activities such as ranching and farming. For agreements without easements, there is flexibility to do what is necessary for the concerned species without the need to sacrifice property rights into perpetuity.
The tax credits provide essential funding that is necessary to respect private property rights. Wildlife should be an asset rather than a liability, which is how it has sometimes been viewed under the ESA. With wildlife becoming valuable to a landowner, those who may have been reluctant to participate in recovery efforts in the past will be more likely to contribute with these new incentives. When people want to take part in the process and do not fear it, the likelihood of conflict and litigation is reduced. For years, this type of conflict has proven costly not only financially to individuals and the government, but also in terms of relationships between people who share the land and natural resources. With a new trust and new model for finding conservation solutions, we can improve and expand our conservation work.
Provisions have been made to accommodate landowners whose taxes may be less than the tax credit provides. Partnerships in the agreements will allow any party to an agreement to receive a credit as long as they pay or incur costs as a result of the agreement. This language will allow creative collaboration among governments, landowners, taxpayers and environmentalists, further increasing the number of people involved in finding new solutions for conservation.
Furthermore, this bill also expands tax deductions for any landowner who takes part in the recovery plans approved under the ESA, and allows landowners to exclude from taxable income certain Federal payments under conservation cost-share programs. This will allow both individuals and businesses to deduct the cost of recovery work without bureaucratic obstacles.
This bill not only sets forth the financing for private landowners, but it also makes it easier to implement the agreements. Landowners will receive technical assistance to implement the agreements. Also, to remove some legal disincentives to recover species, liability protection may be provided to protect the landowners from penalties under the ESA. This removes the fear of trying to help endangered species. Currently, more species usually just means more liability for a landowner.
As a result of these incentives, I expect to see a phenomenal increase in the number of success stories. These stories will sound familiar to those creative collaborators working on the ground now where we have learned that the types of tools provided in this bill can work if offered consistently.
The Endangered Species Recovery Act is very exciting to those of us who value protecting our natural resources. It provides collaborative, creative ways to balance conservation with economic uses of our natural resources. It also preserves rural ways of life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation which will provide a new model for conservation to do better work. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues from Arkansas, Iowa and Montana for their essential expertise and support to create S. 700. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide assurance that…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide assurance that family pets would not be sold for laboratory experiments. Although the Animal Welfare Act provides a solid foundation to stop the mistreatment of animals, more needs to be done to protect pets and pet owners from the actions of Class B animal dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers.
Across the Nation, random source animal dealers acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats, many of them family pets, through deceit and fraud. Some of their tactics include tricking animals owners into giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone interested in pet adoption and the outright theft of family pets left unattended. The treatment of the animals captured and sold by random source dealers is often shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in squalid conditions with just enough food and water to keep them alive until sold.
This bill does not address the larger issue of whether animals should or should not be used in research facilities. Medical research is one of our primary weapons in the discovery of new drugs and surgical techniques that help develop cures for life-threatening diseases and animal research has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of scientific advances. Instead, this legislation targets the unethical practice of selling stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. While I do not believe that research laboratories intentionally seek out fraudulently obtained animals, it does happen. And it does need to be stopped.
My bill will strengthen the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories by making funds unavailable to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act. In doing so, it also simultaneously encourages the use of legitimate sources such as USDA- licensed Class A dealers. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to curb the abusive practices of random source dealers by supporting this bill.
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana, Senators Sununu, Leahy and Tester, to reintroduce legislation to address problems with the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Last year, Senator Sununu and I introduced S. 4117, the Identity Security Enhancement Act, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking process and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We joined together to convey our concerns with REAL ID to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to urge the Department to ensure that the forthcoming regulations implementing REAL ID addressed our concerns. Now, on the eve of DHS releasing the proposed REAL ID regulations, we once again introduce our legislation as a placeholder as Congress and the American people review how DHS proposes to implement this costly and controversial law.
I plan to hold a hearing on the REAL ID regulations in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee shortly, and I will develop comprehensive legislation to address any privacy and civil liberties issues arising under the Act and any unrealistic burdens placed on the states.
From the time the REAL ID Act became law nearly two years ago, hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association (NGA) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--have voice their strong opposition to REAL ID. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005 as there were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation.
Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act (P.L. 109-13) in Conference. It was wrong to include the legislation that has such a massive impact on State and local governments without their input. Not having a full debate on the measure to determine its impact has led an increasing number of State legislatures to introduce and pass legislation to condemn REAL ID and, in some cases, prohibit the state from spending money to implement the Act.
My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.
There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. The extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that will be required to connect the thousands of local Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) to one another and to a host of Federal agencies as required under REAL ID may not be practical. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). In addition, the costs to re-issue every current driver's license under the new screening process is estimated to cost approximately $8 billion over five years. Combined with the other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation, which leaves a hefty price tag for the states, especially for legislation that was passed with no review.
In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on states, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties.
As I said last year, the REAL ID Act will require every driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the state databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft.
Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the federal, state, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards.
Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide states with the means to implement data security and anti-hacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the Act.
REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security by giving us a false sense of security.
Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. Congress
has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students. Title I…
Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students.
Title I provides assistance to almost every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high numbers of low- income students, from preschool to high school.
Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail.
This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind.''
While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible.
During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.
Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds.
In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their
own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''
Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.
Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.
The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.
The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.
This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
Current law on Title I is much too vague.
It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.
The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.
Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.
I believe we should give the Department, States and districts a clearer guidance in law.
This legislation would: Define Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensure that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received . . . for indirect instructional services.''
By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution.
Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.
Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.
Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: Business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.
My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: first, I believe that states must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.
I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.
It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only about 9 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.
That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.
Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of federal funds to improve academic achievement.
It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the record.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, it is my honor to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to better the experience…
Mr. President, it is my honor to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to better the experience so many recovering military servicemembers and their families have in dealing with the military healthcare system and its bureaucracy.
It is not often that you read something in the paper that makes you sick, but this is precisely the feeling I had just over a week ago as I read a Washington Post article that spoke of awful living conditions and an interminable bureaucracy being experienced by our war wounded who are receiving outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
I will not stand aside as those who have fought for our country come home to fight new battles against a crippling bureaucracy just to get the compensation they have more than earned. They shouldn't have to live in substandard conditions while they are recovering from their injuries.
Our legislation directly tackles these problems. The principle is simple: our wounded and recovering servicemembers must receive the best treatment. They can't live in substandard housing as they recover. And they must have a user-friendly system to help them apply for the appropriate disability and benefits compensation. It's the least we can do for all they have done for us.
For example, each military department has a standard for their dormitories and barracks. I know that not every dormitory or barracks meets the highest standard that the service sets, but that each service is steadily working to reach this standard across their facilities. It is my belief, and this bill serves to establish, that the lowest standard acceptable for a returning wounded servicemember should be the highest existing standard in each military service. Facing the daunting challenge of recovering from war wounds--both psychological and physical--our returning servicemembers should not be living among vermin and mold. They should not be placed in temporary, cramped, makeshift, ancient or transient quarters. We're not demanding the Taj Mahal. We are demanding decent living conditions to help these injured men and women.
Further, when problems exist in the living quarters of our recovering servicemembers, they should be identified and repaired quickly. This bill establishes strict measures to facilitate reporting of unsatisfactory living conditions and to mandate timely repair. It also establishes measures to ensure that independent parties are inspecting living quarters in order to prevent any syndrome whereby those closely engaged in dealing with these facilities are overly focused on completing the mission with what they have as opposed to what they should have.
I was also appalled to learn of the extensive, confusing bureaucracy that greeted our recovering servicemembers in the outpatient care process. With numerous commands, organizations, advocates, doctors, commanders and any number of others involved in the process, recovering servicemembers found themselves navigating a complicated process and often without a map. They also have to fill out numerous forms, request records, check off bureaucratic blocks, get the right language in their doctor's evaluations, document their illnesses, capture the symptoms they are experiencing and more. It is safe to say that the process poses a daunting challenge to even a fully healthy individual--but imagine the challenge for someone far from home and facing the realities of the wounds of war.
Complicating the challenges, those tasked to provide these servicemembers and their families with assistance have been faced with large caseloads and insufficient resources. This legislation requires responsible caseloads for military leaders and caseworkers--and it requires that those providing this assistance not just have
a caseload that guarantees a recovering servicemember the attention they need and deserve, but that these caseworkers are well trained.
I also learned that those who come to military treatment facilities like Walter Reed to help their loved ones often face uphill battles. I am proud that this legislation reaches out to protect those loved ones who risk their livelihood to care for our recovering servicemembers by providing them medical care as well as protections to secure the jobs they leave behind.
Today, I visited Walter Reed, talked with our recovering servicemembers, toured the facilities and discussed these issues with Walter Reed's leaders. I can confidently say that those treating our servicemembers are with me--they want the very best for our recovering servicemembers and for their families. I know that the quality of care being provided at Walter Reed and at many other military hospitals is exceptional and I applaud the caregivers.
But I also know that we have all failed to provide the best service and support to many during the outpatient care process. Their living quarters were not the best. The Physical Disability Evaluation System they experience is too bureaucratic. It is time to deliver the best. This legislation seeks to provide it.
This is fair legislation. It balances requiring immediate changes with letting the Department of Defense study what is necessary and to subsequently implement incremental change. It empowers our physicians by not requiring random timelines for medical processing or medical care, but it requires that care and processing happen with manageable, understandable and streamlined procedures that equally empowers the servicemember. And this bill requires that trained, professional and caring providers be available to recovering servicemembers and their families in sufficient numbers and in the appropriate places throughout the care process.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Obama for his efforts in teaming with me to produce this important legislation. But mostly I want to thank all those serving our nation in uniform today. Their sense of duty is remarkable. Their sacrifice is great. Their heroism unmatched. They have given their best to our country and our country is committed to giving them the best in return.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Private Sector Preparedness I-- defining the problem and proposing solutions.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up, under sequential referrel, S. 1538, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and to consider certain military nominations pending before the committee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Working towards ending homelessness: Reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The hearing will focus on legislation introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), S. 704, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007, to protect consumers from deceptive practices involving caller identification information also known as caller ID ``spoofing.'' The hearing will also address issues related to the ability of consumers to port telephone numbers between competing voice service providers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The hearing will consider currently available technologies, and both State-sponsored and corporate programs that reduce total energy use and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on ``Barriers to work for individuals receiving social security disability benefits.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on a strategic assessment of U.S.-Russian relations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct an oversight hearing on law enforcement in Indian country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Civil Rights Division Oversight'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list:
Panel I: Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Panel II: Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC.
Brian Landsberg, Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, CA.
Helen Norton, Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity, Falls Church, VA.
Robert N. Driscoll, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a markup hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.
Agenda
I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation of Legal Basis for Warrantless Wiretap Program.
II. Bills: S. 1145, Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Whitehouse).
III. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 230, Designating July as National Teen Safe Driver Month (Isakson); S. Res. 235, Designating July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day'' (Whitehouse, Vitter); S. Res. 225, Designating the month of August 2007 as ``National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month'' (Biden, Grassley).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a roundtable entitled ``SBA Reauthorization: Small Business Venture Capital Programs,'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Thursday, June 21, 2007 from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Russell 325 for the purpose of conducting a hearing. The hearing will be concerning: America's farming population.
Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am…
Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007--to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing.
It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use telecommunications networks to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back against these threats, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft, the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records and spyware. It's now time to put an end to the practice of 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 two years:
In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting 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 recent months, there have been numerous 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.
According to experts, there are a number of Internet websites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminal and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these websites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the website 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.
In essence, these websites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves 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.
If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up the phone I expect my wife to actually be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D.
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 2007 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. This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made 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 Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am…
Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007--to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing.
It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use telecommunications networks to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back against these threats, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft, the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records and spyware. It's now time to put an end to the practice of 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 two years:
In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting 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 recent months, there have been numerous 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.
According to experts, there are a number of Internet websites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminal and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these websites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the website 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.
In essence, these websites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves 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.
If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up the phone I expect my wife to actually be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D.
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 2007 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. This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made 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 Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2 p.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. This hearing will consider the nominations of Mr. Bartholomew H. Chilton, of Delaware, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for the remainder of the term expiring April 13, 2008, and Ms. Jill E. Sommers, of Kansas, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for the remainder of the term expiring April 13, 2009.
PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following bills: S. 950, S. 704, S. 1650, S. 1661, and to consider nominations for promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 581 and
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27,2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1171, a bill to amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act and Public Law 87-483; to authorize the construction and rehabilitation of water infrastructure in Northwestern New Mexico; to authorize the use of the reclamation fund to fund the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund; to authorize the conveyance of certain Reclamation land and infrastructure; to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide for the delivery of water; and to resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Stealth Tax that's no longer a Wealth Tax: How to stop the AMT from Sneaking up on unsuspecting taxpayers.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 11:15 a.m. to hold a business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-628. We will be considering the following:
Agenda
1. S. 1695, Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
2. S. 1693, Wired for Health Care Quality Act.
3. S. 793, The Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act.
4. S. 1011, Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007.
11. Any nominations ready for action.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Violent Islamist Extremism: The European Experience.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of the Federal Death Penalty'' on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226.
Witness List
Panel I: Barry Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; David I. Bruck, Esq., Federal Death Penalty, Lexington, VA; The Honorable Roberto J. Sanchez Ramos, Secretary of Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico; David B. Mulhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; and William G. Otis, Falls Church, VA.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 in order to conduct a mark up on pending legislation before the Committee. The markup will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Building.
Immediately after the conclusion of our mark up, the Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Charles L. Hopkins, of Massachusetts, to be an
Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Operations, Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement).
I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Investing in Young Children Pays Dividends: The Economic Case for Early Care and Education'', in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the relationship between doctors and the drug industry.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Protecting Water Quality at America's Beaches.''
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with…
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects.
Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply.
Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers's operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs.
The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue in North Dakota.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake.
As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen more than 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, 6 miles or approximately one-third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges.
All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply.
The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs.
The bill will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to address the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue for the city of Devils Lake.
Mr. President, why hold off for tomorrow what we can do today? The current healthcare crisis in our Nation did not happen overnight. It has been accumulating as a result of a lack of serious…
Mr. President, why hold off for tomorrow what we can do today? The current healthcare crisis in our Nation did not happen overnight. It has been accumulating as a result of a lack of serious attention to the most pressing healthcare issues, including healthcare workforce shortages. As a husband and a parent, I pray every day that my wife and children will have access to the quality healthcare they deserve when they need it. As a public official, I believe that it is my responsibility to help make that care available for not only my own family, but also for the families in the State of Illinois and across the Nation.
The growing shortage of critical care physicians undermines the quality and availability of health care services in the United States. This shortage can be expected to disproportionately impact rural and other areas of the United States that already often suffer from a sub- optimal level of critical care services. When a loved one needs a critical care doctor, would we not want one to be available? If research tells us that their recovery may be better and their recovery time faster, would we not want our loved one to have access to a critical care doctor?
The Leap Frog Group has clearly documented that significant improvement in outcomes--in both quality and cost--result when a critically ill or injured patient is seen by an intensivist. With a greater use of intensivists, an estimated 54,000 deaths that currently occur in ICUs could be avoided. Unfortunately, only one-third of our critically ill citizens are treated by physicians and nurses specifically trained to manage their complex health issues.
In June 2003, Congress asked the Health Resources and Services Administration--HRSA--to examine the healthcare needs of a growing population and the availability of pulmonary and critical care physicians. In its May 2006 report to Congress entitled ``The Critical Care Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Critical Care Physicians,'' HRSA found that the country does not have enough physicians trained in critical care medicine to treat all those in need of the care. The report projected future demand for these services and found that, as a result of having to staff ICUs with critical care doctors, a total of 4,300 intensivist physicians will be needed when only 2,800 are available. The HRSA report recognized that the demand in the United States for critical care medical services is rising sharply and will continue to do so.
To proactively address the healthcare needs of our nation, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Crapo today to introduce legislation to address the looming shortage of critical care providers. Our bill, The Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act authorizes a series of modest and sensible measures that--if enacted now instead of waiting for this shortage to worsen--can help to obviate the problem.
First, the Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act would direct the Agency for Health Research and Quality to assess the current state of and recommend ``best practices'' for critical care medicine. The authorization of demonstration projects on innovations in ICU services and on family-centered, multi-disciplinary approaches to critical care services are important for determining how to improve the quality of the care delivered and how to best make use of our existing resources of critical care doctors.
Our bill would also expand telemedicine opportunities for critical care physicians to promote efforts relating to critical care and ensure that all communities have greater access to this important, lifesaving care. For our rural communities and medically underserved areas, the need for critical care doctors is exacerbated. This bill will hopefully expand the effectiveness of existing critical care providers in environments where intensivists are in short supply.
Finally, to address the supply problem, the bill would allow for the National Health Service Corps to support and encourage critical care providers to practice in medically underserved areas.
The Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act is strongly endorsed by the key medical specialty societies and patient groups involved in critical care medicine, including the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, the Association of Critical Care Nurses and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Foundation.
This multipronged approach is to look at both short term and long term solutions to a growing concern. But in today's complex healthcare situation, multiple solutions are a necessity. We do not want to face this shortage in the future in a direr situation as the nursing shortage currently is.
The answer to the opening question is simple. We must not hold off for tomorrow what we can do today, and we must not wait for our healthcare crisis to worsen. Our country will face a critical care workforce shortage. I want my family to have access to the best quality care when they need it, and this includes having access to a critical care doctor. Passage of the Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act is a step in that direction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable…
Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.
Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2007, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 48.5 cents per mile, nearly three and a half times the volunteer rate.
While we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups.
I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.
Many of my colleagues know the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. In fact, it is often the case that the senior meals program is the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, these programs are important not only for the essential nutrition services they provide, but also for the many other critical services that the frail elderly may need.
Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. Regrettably, the 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.
The same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.
By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2007 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 48.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees nearly three and a half times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.
This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the Tax Code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, and Representatives Eshoo and Ramstad, in reintroducing the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act. We face…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, and Representatives Eshoo and Ramstad, in reintroducing the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act.
We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's health care system. Today, roughly 45 million men and women are over age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 in the year 2011--only four years from now.
Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025.
Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be attributed to tremendous advances in health and medical research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system that require creative and innovative solutions.
In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep up with the health care needs of aging Americans.
Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and live independently longer. The overwhelming
majority of seniors in my State and across the Nation want to ``age in place''--in their homes--close to their loved ones. Indeed, a growing number of the baby boom generation support funding aging services technology research, and believe technology will allow them to live longer and more independently.
The application of technology in the aging health care services field would also help mitigate the burden on providers, by allowing physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health condition before a serious problem arises.
The bill we are introducing today would build on groundbreaking research and public-private partnerships to find evidence-based approaches to behavioral assessment and non-intrusive health monitoring. Improving in-home monitoring technologies and remote diagnostics will provide seniors and their caregivers with greater independence and flexibility. A recent study found that Americans, particularly those with chronic conditions, are already utilizing the Internet and online tools to better manage their health. Using technology to enhance health care professionals ability to access vital health information will not only improve diagnosis and treatment, but it will also inform the health decisions of seniors and their families.
Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion of overall federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to use precious health care dollars wisely and prudently as we seek creative ways to continue to provide quality health services to the elderly.
The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the needs of our burgeoning aging population.
We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing and implementing the tools and strategies to serve the senior population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.
Mr. President, as we all know, there was a tremendous amount of criticism of the Federal Government's response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. Things are better now and the region is slowly…
Mr. President, as we all know, there was a tremendous amount of criticism of the Federal Government's response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. Things are better now and the region is slowly recovering. But, having luckily survived the 2006 hurricane season with no major storms, and with the 2007 season a few months away, we must be sure that if we have another disaster, the Federal Government's response will be better this time around. Disaster response agencies have to be better organized, more efficient, and more responsive in order to avoid the problems, the delays, mismanagement, and the seeming incompetence that occurred in 2005.
Today, I am proud to sponsor legislation to improve the disaster response of one agency that had a great deal of problems last year, the Small Business Administration (SBA). This bill, the ``Small Business Disaster Recovery Improvement Act,'' makes a major improvement to the SBA's disaster response and provides them with an essential tool to ensure that they are more efficient and better prepared for future disasters--big and small. I should note that this bill is a result of intensive bipartisan work over the past couple of months on a larger SBA Disaster Reforms bill, S. 137, the ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act,'' which was introduced early in the 110th Congress. I feel strongly that this provision, an Expedited Disaster Assistance Loan Program for businesses, should be passed during this session of Congress, therefore I wanted to also introduce it in separate legislation for the 110th Congress. That said, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Small Business Committee, Senators Kerry and Snowe, respectively Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, as well as with my colleague Senator Vitter to include this provision along with more comprehensive SBA Disaster Assistance reforms that we hope to enact in the coming months.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit, our businesses and homeowners had to wait months for loan approvals. I do not know how many businesses we lost because help did not come in time. What these businesses needed was immediate, short-term assistance to hold them over until SBA was ready to process the tens of thousands of loan applications it received.
That is why this legislation provides the SBA Administrator with the ability to set up an expedited disaster assistance business loan program to make short-term, low- interest loans to keep them afloat. These loans will allow businesses to make payroll, begin making repairs, and address other immediate needs while they are awaiting insurance payouts or regular SBA Disaster Loans. However, I realize that every disaster is different and could range from a disaster on the scale of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita or 9-11, to an ice storm or drought. This legislation gives the SBA additional options and flexibility in the kinds of relief they can offer a community. When a tornado destroys 20 businesses in a small town in the Midwest, SBA can get the regular disaster program up and running fairly quickly. You may not need short-term loans in this instance. But if you know that SBA's resources would be overwhelmed by a storm--just as they were initially with the storms of 2005--these expedited business loans would be very helpful.
The Small Business Disaster Recovery Improvement Act will provide an
essential tool to make the SBA more proactive, flexible, and most important, more efficient during future disasters. If SBA is not in the business of short-term assistance for future disasters, I feel that we will again see businesses fail while waiting for SBA to get its act together. The agency has implemented some major changes to its Disaster Assistance Program but, if the storms of 2005 taught us anything it was that the best laid plans can fail. This Expedited Disaster Assistance Loan Program would ensure that SBA has a backup tool to provide immediate assistance to impacted businesses. Again, I look forward to working with both Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry during the coming weeks to ensure that the SBA has everything it needs to respond to future disasters.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America.
I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult life and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family and friends.
It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the opportunity to experience.
One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities.
Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas.
Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land to hunting.
Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities.
As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss'' of land area available for recreational hunting.
It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007'' meets these goals.
I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting by supporting this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal. I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal.
I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals. No one needs cloned milk and meat. Most Americans actively oppose it.
But the Food and Drug Administration has decided that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And, since they have decided this is ``safe,'' they will not require that it be labeled as coming from a cloned animal.
The American people don't want this. Gallup Polls report over 65 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk.
The National Academies of Science reported that so far, studies show no problems with food from cloned animals but they also admit that this is brand new science. What about the possibility of unintended consequences a few years from now? They cautioned the Federal Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent post-market surveillance.
So even if we agreed the science appears safe, we need to follow it closely. But, once the FDA determines this is safe they said they will allow the food to enter the market unidentified, unlabeled, unbeknownst to all of us and completely indistinguishable from all other food. We won't be able to tell which foods were made the good old fashioned way and which came from a cloned animal
Must we be compelled to eat anything a scientist can produce in the laboratory? Just because they can make it, should Americans be required to eat it? Of course not. The public deserves to know if their food comes from a cloned animal.
To help the American public make an informed decision on this, today I will introduce a bill to require all food that comes from a cloned animal to be labeled. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal or their offspring. We need to know and we must be able to decide for ourselves. And I mean all food--not just the packages we buy in the supermarket but the meals we choose from a menu.
The FDA has a responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Though many aspects of food safety are beyond their control--this is not. We do not know enough about the long term effects of introducing cloned animals, or their offspring, into our food supply to guarantee this is safe. Is this decision to allow cloned animals into our food supply influenced by factors other than keeping the public safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force a questionably scientific process on an unknowing public?
We simply don't have the same trust in the FDA as we once had. Recently the Wall Street Journal found that over half of Americans feel the FDA does not do a good job keeping our drug supply safe. We want to trust them with the safety of our food supply but what if they are wrong?
What if the FDA has made a mistake and finds out a few years from now that there was a problem with this. If we do not keep track of it from the very beginning--by clear and dependable labeling--we could contaminate our entire food supply. If the food is not properly labeled we can't remove it from the shelves like we did with problematic drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex. We must be proactive. We must label these foods.
I reject the notion that the FDA or anyone else should force Americans to accept and consume any product that can be manufactured in a lab--no matter how offensive the product is. We need to insist that the FDA treat the public fairly. If cloned food is safe, let it onto the market, but give consumers the information they need to avoid these products. We need to let Americans speak with their dollars and choose the food they have confidence is safe.
Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near…
Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards. Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.
In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the Northeast United States.
These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007, will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort today.
This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated facilities to operate.
Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that.
Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.
My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities. If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is not happening today.
The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be permanently assuaged.
Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other Americans.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I will be introducing a piece of legislation today which is a bill to cut at the heart of a rampant problem in this country; that is, identity theft. Last month, a bipartisan group of…
Mr. President, I will be introducing a piece of legislation today which is a bill to cut at the heart of a rampant problem in this country; that is, identity theft.
Last month, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary Chertoff on this very issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft. My bill tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies. It permits the Commissioner of Social Security to secure information with the Secretary of Homeland Security where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse, or violations of immigration law.
Specifically, it requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security upon discovery of a Social Security account number being used with multiple names or where an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year. It seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not. In the meantime, identity theft is plaguing innocent victims all across the country. We were reminded of the pervasiveness of this problem by the recent ICE raids of six Swift and Company meat-packing plants across the country last December. In total, agents apprehended 1,282 illegal alien workers on administrative immigration violations. Of these, 65 have also been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations.
Unfortunately, for the victims of identity theft, by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Ranked fifth in the Nation for identity theft, citizens of Colorado are no strangers to identity theft. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify. A 10-year-old child in Douglas County had his identity stolen, and his Social Security number was being used at 17 different jobs. Others get stuck with big tax bills for wages they never earned.
Clearly, identity theft is an issue that affects people of all ages and walks of life. Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims. By simply sharing this information, cases of identity theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have this existing information acted on, and my bill allows for this to happen. I urge colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Later on, when we are on S. 4, called Improving America's Security Act, which deals with implementation of more of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, I plan on offering an amendment that has similar language to this bill. This is an issue which is extremely important to victims. It is something we should address. I will give the Senate plenty of opportunity to deal with this issue.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government.
We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector companies from competing for a Federal contract. Under the law establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless whether a company in the private sector could provide the product better, cheaper, or faster.
Six years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision a year later. In 2004, we took another important step, enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal agencies.
Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports from Federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so hard for so long to establish.
In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a Nation that prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services should be treated any differently than the sale of products.
The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI must compete for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally passed country…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally passed country of origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill, but has twice voted to delay its implementation. Country-of-origin labeling is good for American consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers, and the time to implement it is now.
American farmers and ranchers raise the highest quality agricultural goods in the world. Country of origin labeling benefits farmers and ranchers by allowing them to market their world-famous products and consumers who deserve to know where their food comes from.
Any American consumer can look at the tag on their shirt or under the hood of their car and know where it was made. But when meats and produce move into the market place, their origin often becomes a mystery. Considering the importance of food to our health and safety, the growth of our children, and the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, we should have as much information about the origin of our food as possible.
When I was president of the Montana Senate in 2005, I helped lead the fight to pass and implement country of origin labeling because Congress had failed to act. In Montana we are particularly proud of the quality of our agricultural products, and of the people who raise them. Our clean air and water, well preserved natural environment, and modern agricultural practices make consumers want to buy Montana meats, fruits and vegetables. Our State government has given consumers the information and the choice to purchase American raised products through country of origin labeling.
As a dry land farmer from Big Sandy, Montana I know how challenging it is to be successful in agriculture. American farmers and ranchers need all the tools they can get. We no longer compete only with our local neighbors. We compete internationally with South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Country of origin labeling adds value in the market place that was already added by being grown on American farms and ranches.
American consumers will make choices to support our domestic industry and sometimes pay a premium to know that their food comes from the United States. They support American agriculture with its high-quality standards, where money made stays in our rural communities and in the hands of American farmers and ranchers instead of going overseas. The benefits of country of origin labeling are great, the costs are little and consumers have demanded it. Congress needs to take the next step and implement the program.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as a co-sponsor of the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007'' that would provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Federal…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as a co-sponsor of the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007'' that would provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Federal Pell Grant by eliminating the current tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant Program.
Federal Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.
However, the Pell Grant program's eligibility formula penalizes low- income students who attend very low-cost colleges by reducing the amount of the Pell Grant they can receive.
The formula bases eligibility for Pell Grant awards on the amount of tuition charged by the college and provides a lower ``alternate'' amount for low tuition colleges, known as the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision.
Community college students are significantly impacted by the tuition sensitivity provision because of low student tuition fees.
In California, due to a drop in tuition fees from $26 per unit to $20 unit, community college students enrolling this spring will otherwise be penalized with a $56 reduction in their 2007 Pell Grants and will endure another $112 hit in the 2007-2008 academic year if the tuition sensitivity provision is not eliminated.
Community college students represent approximately 46 percent of higher education students in California
receiving Pell Grants and are the only ones negatively impacted by this provision.
Any reduction of these vital grants to our lowest income students would have a major impact in their ability to afford college and continue their education, and we cannot allow this to happen.
This bill would ensure that our nation's community college students are not unduly penalized for receiving an affordable education at a low-cost college.
We must continue to do all we can to make a college education more accessible and affordable for all of our Nation's students.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and I in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for beef and other agricultural products, and set that date at September 30, 2007. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me in this effort, as does Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Tester, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator Enzi, and Senator Conrad.
Consumers drive our economy, and it is important that we provide them relevant information about the products they are purchasing. U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory COOL. They have a right to know where their food comes from. Labeling provides more product information, increased consumer choice, and the chance to support American agriculture. Labeling also allows our producers to distinguish their superior products. Trade is not going away. With increased trade comes an increase in the importance of country of origin labeling. Many nations already label food and other products--including the United States. If it is good enough for T-shirts, it ought to be good enough for T-bones.
Mandatory COOL was signed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill. I was an original supporter of COOL during the Farm Bill debate, and I have become increasingly frustrated with efforts to delay its implementation. The latest delay was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I voted against the bill for that reason.
Producers and consumers have waited long enough for country of origin labeling. It is high time we make it happen.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will bring parity to all renewable energy facilities that qualify for the production tax credit under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. I…
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will bring parity to all renewable energy facilities that qualify for the production tax credit under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code.
I have been a long-time supporter of the production tax credit. There are
significant wind facilities in Oregon, where we have over 335 megawatts of installed wind capacity. These facilities provide clean energy as well as important revenues to farmers and rural counties in Eastern Oregon.
Currently, however, some eligible renewable facilities get only half the per-kilowatt credit that other types of facilities receive. My goal here is to level the playing field for all eligible renewables without reducing the credit any facility currently receives. Therefore, my bill provides that all eligible facilities would receive the higher credit amount for each kilowatt of electricity produced.
I believe that this bill will help to provide the necessary incentives to diversify our renewable energy resources. It will also eliminate the competitive disadvantage that certain types of renewables currently face. Utilities have little incentive to select renewables that qualify for the lower credit rate when buying green power. The eligible facilities that receive the lower rate include open-loop biomass, incremental hydropower, and small irrigation systems, all of which are important energy sources that could help meet the growing demand for electricity in my State of Oregon and in many other parts of the country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing the credit rate for eligible renewables, and fostering the development and deployment of these important facilities.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 704 Reported in Senate (RS)]
Calendar No. 519
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 704
[Report No. 110-234]
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of
caller identification information.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 28, 2007
Mr. Nelson of Florida (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Stevens, and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following bill; which was
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
December 5, 2007
Reported by Mr. Inouye, with an amendment
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of
caller identification information.
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 2007''.
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
2007, 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 2007, 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.''
Calendar No. 519
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 704
[Report No. 110-234]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of
caller identification information.
_______________________________________________________________________
December 5, 2007
Reported with an amendment