Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009

Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. One of the most recent scams is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senators Snowe, McCaskill and Klobuchar--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009-- to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing.

What is caller I.D. spoofing? It's a technique that allows a telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone to hide behind a misleading telephone number to try to scam consumers or trick law enforcement officers.

Let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller I.D. spoofing has been exploited during the past 4 years:

In one very dangerous hoax, a 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 the past year, there have been several instances of fraudsters using caller I.D. fraud to pose as court officers calling to say that a person has missed jury duty. The caller then says that a warrant will be issued for their arrest, unless a fine is paid during the call. The victim is then induced to provide credit card or bank information over the phone to pay the ``fine.''

Furthermore, while these examples are serious enough, think about what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into answering the telephone, giving out personal information, or telling the person on the other end of the line about their current whereabouts. The results could be tragic.

There are a number of Internet Web sites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminals and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the Web site which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. screen.

A new Web site--Dramatel.com--even offers a prepaid calling card platform that combines a caller I.D. spoofing service with other features that allow a fraudster to disguise their voice and record the entire call. It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose this service could possibly offer--other than providing a tailor-made mechanism for criminals to prey on innocent victims.

In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that criminals need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be a representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief can then ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account information. Once a thief gets hold of this sensitive personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card account, health information, and who knows what else.

Furthermore, even if a consumer does not become a victim of stalking or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the line.

In June 2007, I chaired a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on caller I.D. spoofing. At that hearing, there was broad consensus that caller I.D. spoofing was quickly developing into a major area of consumer abuse and criminal fraud. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act on this latest scam. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them believe their activities are, in fact, legal. Well, it's time to make it crystal clear that spoofing is a scam and is not legal.

How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009 address the problem of caller I.D. spoofing?

Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and prohibits fraudsters from using caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information with the intend to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made

using Voice-Over-Internet, VoIP, service.

Anyone who violates this anti-spoofing law would be subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to one year in jail, as set out in the Communications Act. Additionally, this bill empowers States to help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters.

I invite my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, McCaskill, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009. We should not waste any more time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (S. 30) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, today we consider S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act. It is the Senate companion to House legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis by our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), ranking Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill directs the FCC to adopt the regulations prohibiting caller ID spoofing in which a caller falsifies the original caller ID information during the transmission of a call with the intent to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully to obtain anything of value. The bill makes anyone who knowingly and willingly engages in caller ID spoofing eligible for criminal fines.

Spoofing has been possible for many years, but generally required expensive

equipment in order to change the outgoing call information. But with the growth of voice over Internet protocol usage, spoofing has become easier and considerably less expensive, and a number of Web sites are now offering spoofing services. Consequently, those who want to deceive others by manipulating caller ID can now do so with relative ease.

Spoofing threatens a number of business applications, including credit card verifications and automatic call routing, because these systems rely on the telephone number as identified by the caller ID system as one piece of their verification and authentication process. It is also commonly used in the commission of frauds of various kinds.

At other times, spoofing may be used to protect individuals. For example, domestic violence shelters sometimes use spoofing to mask the identity of the caller for protective purposes.

By prohibiting the use of caller ID spoofing only where the intent is to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, this measure addresses the nefarious uses of the technology while continuing to allow legitimate uses such as use in shelters for the victims of domestic violence.

In the rulemaking that the FCC will conduct pursuant to new subsection 227(e)(3) of the Communications Act, the committee anticipates that the commission will consider imposing obligations on entities that provide caller ID spoofing services to the public. The widespread availability of caller ID spoofing services presents a significant potential for abuse and hinders law enforcement's ability to investigate crime.

The prohibition in this bill on the use of those services with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value could be of limited value if entities continue to provide those services without making any effort to verify their users' ownership of the phone number that is being substituted.

With our action today, this measure will be forwarded to the President for his signature. I want to thank and commend our colleagues, Mr. Engel and also Mr. Barton, for their commitment to the matter. And I want to commend Senator Nelson of Florida and all Members who, on a bipartisan basis, have contributed to and supported the legislation now before the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chief sponsor of the House companion measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I do so to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for their kind remarks. I want to thank them for the collaboration and the friendship over the years.

Mr. Stearns and I have participated together in developing the ideas, developing the legislation, and bringing through the Communications Subcommittee all of the bills that that subcommittee acted on legislatively in this 2-year session of Congress. I appreciate so much the good ideas Mr. Stearns shared, his work with me to ensure that all of our legislation had a bipartisan foundation, and I think what we were able to do was a better product by virtue of the fact that we worked together. It has been a privilege over the years to have the opportunity to work with him. He is an outstanding legislator.

I want to commend him for the fine work that he has done, and mostly thank him for the friendship and the partnership that he and I have enjoyed together. And I want to say thank you to my friend (Mr. Barton) with whom I was privileged to work on the Energy Subcommittee when he was chairman and I was the ranking member. During the time he chaired the full committee, I had the privilege of participating with him on a whole range of undertakings, and I admire very much the leadership that he has provided as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and more recently as the ranking member.

So, thank you, gentlemen, for those kind remarks. I am humbled by them. And I appreciate your taking very much the occasion of our debate on this legislation to make those comments.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge support of the legislation currently pending, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which addresses an issue that Mr. Barton and Mr. Engel and the Energy and Commerce Committee have been working on since the 109th Congress. In fact, back in April of this year, the House passed our version, H.R. 1258. The legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive practice of manipulating caller ID information, a practice known as caller ID spoofing.

Everyone is now familiar with the caller ID product that provides to a consumer the name and number of who is placing an incoming call. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, caller ID spoofing is yet another tool available to criminals to hijack the identity of consumers.

As with other scams, the Internet is making caller ID spoofing even easier today. There are Web sites that offer subscribers, for a nominal fee, a simple Web interface to caller ID spoofing systems that lets them appear to be calling from any number they so choose. Some of these Web services have boasted that they do not maintain logs and fail to provide any contact information. Some even offer voice scrambling services to further the deception of the consumer.

The FCC has investigated this spoofing problem, but currently there is no prohibition against manipulating caller ID information with the intent to harm others. Today's bill remedies this problem.

This bill specifically prohibits knowingly sending misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Deception with intent is our target. We drafted and amended the language carefully to ensure that we only prohibit those practices intending to do harm.

There are sometimes legitimate reasons why someone may need to manipulate caller ID. For example, domestic violence shelters often alter their caller ID information to simply protect the safety of victims of violence. Furthermore, a wide array of legitimate uses of caller ID management technologies exists today, and this bill protects those legitimate business practices.

For example, caller ID management services provide a local presence for teleservices and collection companies. These calling services companies are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission, which require commercial callers to project a caller ID that can be called back. This bill is not intended to target lawful practices protecting people from harm or serving a legitimate business interest.

My colleagues, this is a good piece of bipartisan consumer protection legislation. And while I normally hesitate to take the Senate's work product without some kind of amendment on our side, I want to thank my friends on both sides of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle here in the House of Representatives, including the many chairmen over the years, including Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Boucher, as well as Mr. Upton, who was also chairman of this subcommittee. I also want to thank this Congress' lead sponsor and hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend, Eliot Engel from New York.

I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), the distinguished Member who also has been active in this, in fact has had a separate bill, so he was sort of a forerunner on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just would echo the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) about Mr. Boucher. Having worked with Mr. Boucher, he and I have cosponsored many bills across the spectrum. Recently, obviously, we worked on privacy together. And also, we tried to hammer out some kind of compromise on net neutrality. Net neutrality was difficult because the FCC was attempting to move it to title II. We finally got them to stop that. In fact, the court stopped them. Again, Mr. Boucher and I met with the stakeholders across the board to try and see if there was some compromise. We both agreed it should be under the jurisdiction of the Congress and not the FCC acting unilaterally, as it appears they are going to do on December 21 when they vote for net neutrality, which I am against. But I have to admire Mr. Boucher's perseverance, his stick-to-it-ness, whether it is trying to reach compromise on legislation, or his reach-out to stakeholders. For example, on the privacy, he had a comment period on his privacy bill that I cosponsored, which is unusual around here. A lot of times we say we don't have an opportunity to even read the bills before they are voted on, but in fact, under Mr. Boucher's leadership as chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, he took his bill and offered it as a draft to get stakeholders' comments. That is a credit to his leadership.

As Mr. Barton pointed out, we are going to miss him. He provides strong, competent leadership, and we wish him well and thank him for his service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me time, Mr. Speaker. As we're talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's an interesting period in our country's history because, just in the last few months since President Obama's taken office, our country has lost 2 million more jobs; 2 million more Americans are out of work, are part of those statistics. I think it's much more than statistics. It's policies by this administration that have caused those 2 million Americans to lose their jobs since January.

If you go back to the stimulus bill, that was the bill that was touted at stopping the bleeding. All of us on this side that opposed that bill, that opposed spending $800 billion of money that we don't have, said back then that that bill would actually make matters worse because it was adding mountains of debt to our children and grandchildren, but also it wasn't addressing the problems in our economy.

In fact, now we're seeing unemployment at 9.5 percent, approaching 10 percent, with 2 million more Americans having lost their jobs since President Obama took office. And what's this administration saying? Are they finally admitting that the stimulus was a failure? No. In fact, some in the White House are calling for another stimulus bill, more spending.

In fact, just last week at a convention of the AARP, Vice President Joe Biden said, ``We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.'' Those are words the Vice President actually said just last week.

And so as this mountain of debt is piling up on the backs of our children and grandchildren, as the President is running car companies and running banks and running all of these other institutions--with over 30 czars, and it's not working--their own Vice President is saying they need to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.

These are ludicrous policies. We have got to go back to common sense. We've got to go back to fiscal discipline and start balancing our budget like every other State is dealing with their budgets, like American families are dealing with these tough economic times as they're pulling back and living within their own means. It's the Federal Government here in Washington that seems to be out of control on a spending frenzy.

Then, just a few weeks ago, they brought this cap-and-trade national energy tax, where they're literally proposing a policy that would run millions more American jobs out of this country to places like China and India, where they'll actually emit more carbon than we do here in America to do the same thing, while rising utility rates on every American family.

The President's own budget director said that the cap-and-trade energy tax would add another $1,200 a year to every American family's utility bills. So, as they're thinking about turning on their air conditioner in the summer, they're going to be thinking about whether or not they will pay these higher electricity rates.

These policies are helping lead to this rapid unemployment that is now approaching double digits. And the latest here we have in front of us in Congress is this debate over the President and Speaker Pelosi and others' proposal to have a government takeover of our health care system, where the estimates are that we would have hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, over $580 billion in new taxes on the backs of small businesses.

You would have $240 billion in fines in their approach on the backs of American families, including--get this. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. In the President's takeover, proposal to take over the health care system by the government, they have $29 million in penalties against people who are uninsured. It's in the bill.

They have the ability for this health care czar--a health care czar that would literally be able to tell Americans whether or not they can see a doctor and which doctor they can see. It actually gives the authority to this bureaucrat in Washington to disqualify a company's entire health benefits plan.

So if you like the health care you have, the health care czar in their bill allows the health care czar to take your health care benefits away.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

If you look at these policies--and the American people out there across the country are looking at these policies, and that's a good thing because as they look at these policies, and they hear the leadership here in Washington, the people running Congress, saying they need to ram these policies through before the next 2 weeks are over, I think people are figuring it out. They're saying, Wait a minute.

Many Members who actually voted for that cap-and-trade energy tax didn't even read the bill because they dropped 300 pages of amendments down the day of the vote. And we know they're going to try to do the same thing again on this government takeover of health care, and people are sick and tired of it. People are finally saying, Enough is enough; control spending and these czars; stop running car companies; stop running banks; and, surely, don't try to have some government bureaucrat take over our health care system.

So hopefully we won't add millions more Americans to these statistics that we're talking about today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding to me. I want to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his kind words, and also the kind words of the gentleman from Virginia.

I rise today in strong support of my legislation, the Truth in Caller ID Act. This is about as bipartisan as a bill can be. We have passed this bill several times in the House only to have it not move through the other body, and I am delighted that for the first time we have had it passed in the other body. So now when we pass this bill, hopefully the President will sign it into law and we will finally have a stoppage of this fraud which is being perpetrated on the American people.

I originally read an article in the newspaper on a plane talking about what was going on with spoofing, and I remember thinking, This is ridiculous. How could this be legal? How could we just turn a blind eye to it? And then I realized we needed to have legislation.

We have been supported every step of the way, again, bipartisan, by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). We have all worked on this legislation together.

I introduced the bill because we need an immediate change in our laws to help prevent identity theft, to crack down on fraudulent phone calls, and to protect legitimate uses of caller ID technology. We have seen, as my colleagues have mentioned, a large number of cases of caller ID fraud leading to illegal or even violent activities.

Last year, the New York City Police Department uncovered a massive identity theft ring where criminals stole more than $15 million from over 6,000 people. They were able to perpetrate this fraud in many instances by using caller ID spoofing. In another case, a person in New York called a pregnant woman who she viewed as a romantic rival, spoofing the phone number of the woman's pharmacist. She tricked the woman into taking a drug used to cause abortions.

Caller ID fraud has even been used to prank call the constituents of a Member of this body, with the caller ID readout saying it came from that Member's office. Just imagine if people committed this fraud in the days leading up to a close election. You could see it. You spoof a number of your political opponent. You call someone at 3 o'clock in the morning. You say something obnoxious on the phone, and then the constituents are angry and are not going to vote for that person. This is all perfectly legal, up until the passage of this bill.

I have said again and again that one of the most troubling aspects of caller ID spoofing is not simply that it is legal. What disturbs me is how incredibly easy it is to carry out caller ID fraud. Criminals use a tool called a spoof card to change their outgoing caller ID; so you could look at it and see a phone number, any phone number that that person wants to put down, they can do it, and the person getting the call has totally no idea where it is coming from or thinks it is coming from a place where obviously it is not.

This technology can even be used to disguise someone's voice in order to trick people. If it is a man doing it, he can change the voice to sound like a woman, and vice versa. So it can be done completely to trick people.

This can trick people, corporations, or even banks. Imagine senior citizens who see the number of their bank put up when they take a look and see who is calling and it is fraudulent, or their doctor or their pharmacist or a close family member or a close family friend. This is terrible, and this tool is available to anyone with access to a Web browser. So, as was pointed out, the technology has gotten easier and easier for someone to perpetrate this fraud.

This legislation will outlaw caller ID spoofing when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or lawfully obtain anything of value. And, let me say, we have had many, many hearings on this bill.

The reason why this outlaws caller ID spoofing when the intent is to defraud or cause harm, as my colleagues have pointed out, we put that in the bill based on the hearings we had because we don't want some legitimate reasons to use this technology to be outlawed. So it is only outlawed when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

We won't be challenging the rulings for legitimate uses of this technology. For example, domestic abuse shelters will still be able to change the number on caller ID to protect the occupants of the shelter. We have some scrambling right here in the Capitol, as a result, to protect very important private numbers. That won't be changed.

So, again, I am pleased this bill passed the House in the 109th and 110th Congress. This is now the 111th. We are about to pass it. The Senate has done it for the first time. So I look forward to the President signing this bill into law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Truth in Caller ID Act to outlaw this type of fraud once and for all. I thank my colleagues again for their support.

I thank my colleague.

I rise to speak about S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, addressing the serious problem of caller ID fraud that allows a caller to hide his true identity. They do this through Web sites that will let you choose any number to show up on the caller ID. The Web sites even offer options to disguise your voice, such as making a man or woman's voice appear as the opposite gender.

I am glad to see the Senate is finally acting on this issue that I first raised in 2006 when I introduced H.R. 5304, known as the PHONE Act, or the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement Act.

My bill passed the full House on December 9, 2006, and while it didn't make it through the Senate, several Members of the House pressed on. Congressman Bobby Scott and I reintroduced this legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses. The House passed the bill in March of 2007 by a vote of 413-1. And I would like to thank my colleagues in this session of Congress for overwhelmingly voting in favor of the Murphy- Scott Phone Act a year ago tomorrow by a vote of 418-1.

Caller ID can have legitimate uses to protect victims or when law enforcement are trying to track down criminals. However, here we are concerned about illegitimate uses.

When I first introduced the PHONE Act, several problems were already beginning to emerge. On one level friends were using it to prank others, and just to annoy them. On another level, there were famous or infamous cases where the harassment involved well-known personalities, * * *.

But caller ID is also employed for more sinister reasons. My own office experienced this when an organization used a phony caller ID system to make it appear as though my congressional office was calling constituents. Constituents were understandably puzzled and annoyed when bombarded by these calls. Unfortunately, we were not able to track down the perpetrators. In total, at least 42 House Republicans from 14 States were targeted in their home districts by similar harassing phone calls using call spoofing. Although I believe that action alone constitutes a fraud in posing as a Federal elected official's office, that is not the worst case.

In several cases, police and FBI have been subjected to so-called ``swatting'' calls when a caller uses another person's caller ID to phone the authorities, report a fake crime in progress, which draws a police and SWAT team response. Luckily, no one has been harmed in these cases, but you can imagine the potential tragedy when a team of police with guns drawn respond to the scene of what they believe is a dangerous ongoing crime. It is more than just a false alarm to a fire department. It can lead to serious injury for police and the community, and that is why we must pass this bill before someone gets hurt.

Here are some other reports. A woman from Pennsylvania discovered her phone number was appearing on other people's caller ID, and it was being used as a vehicle to harass people.

In the wake of the Haitian earthquake, the Virginia State Police warned citizens to be vigilant against scam artists using phony caller ID numbers to obtain donations. Under such circumstances, perpetrators can pose as a legitimate charity to fool others into donating to an illegitimate account.

We have heard of cases where a county courthouse number appears as citizens are told they missed jury duty and are asked to give their credit card number to pay a fine.

Last December, another case in Pennsylvania occurred when a woman claimed to have shot her baby. It turned out to be a hoax. The police and detectives were forced to spend their Christmas Day wasting valuable resources investigating what was presented as a gruesome crime that was never committed.

These are just a few examples, and if we do not enact this legislation into law, I worry we will read about many more cases of call spoofing, including some that will inevitably end in tragedy.

Because of these, I am still a supporter of enhanced penalties when caller ID spoofing is used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, we should not stop with this legislation. The Truth in Caller ID Act provides for civil penalties under the Communications Act of 1934. My legislation, the PHONE Act, which has already passed the full House, provides for criminal penalties under the U.S. criminal code.

But I want to thank Congressman Engel and Congressman Barton for being leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives in introducing their version. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Truth in Caller ID Act, and let's hope in the future we can pass enhanced criminal penalties such as those in my PHONE Act bill. Together these pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive set of civil and criminal penalties to enable us to effectively combat caller ID spoofing.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit Card Protection Act of 2009 with my colleague Senator Durbin. This legislation will help prevent college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in school.

College students have become the target of credit card companies advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card

application. Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000.

Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must cosign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy.

It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in student loan debt. Paying for housing, health-care and student loans already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge credit card payment on top of all of the other bills can lead to financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt repayment.

The current economic situation has exposed many bad habits of both the financial industry and the average consumer. The savings rate of our country has significantly declined over the past decade as consumer spending and borrowing steadily increased. While it is necessary for Congress to implement policies which will allow Americans to save more of their income, it is equally important for consumers to put into practice controlled and prudent spending habits.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, commending the Bureau of Labor Statistics on its 125th anniversary.

In our current economic climate, there is a lot of discussion about economic data, what the data means for our recovery, and more importantly, how many of our fellow citizens are going back to work.

What is not talked about is the government agency that is responsible for gathering this data. For 125 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, has been charged with collecting and examining information related to our economic health. According to the BLS mission statement, the agency is the principal factfinding body for the Federal Government.

A survey of any economic analysis demonstrates that this information is widely used by academics, Federal and State governments, private companies, and news reporters. The agency has more than 2,000 economists in its headquarters and eight regional offices, gathering unemployment data, wage data, safety and health statistics, and a whole host of information to provide us with a clear picture of the state of the economy across this country. Congress relies on the statistics produced by the Bureau for a variety of programs and for guiding a myriad of policy decisions.

The Bureau examines payroll data and various demographics so that we have detailed information about employment by hours, by industry, and geographic areas. BLS also provides a snapshot of employee benefit plans or labor productivity.

When your children ask if they will ever use anything they learn in school in real life, you can point to the economists and statisticians at BLS as an example of putting math and science to work. When your children complain about how much time that they spend in school, you can tell them, according to the American Time Use Survey developed by BLS, 9 percent of the population is engaged in educational activities daily. I doubt if it brings them any comfort, though. That 9 percent spends, on average, 4.5 hours in class and 2.4 hours engaged in homework.

I rise today to commend the staff of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 125 years of dedicated service and urge the passage of S. Con. Res. 30, commending their service to the Nation. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I yield as much time as he may consume to Dr. Broun of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any additional speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.