[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S315-S319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 117. A bill to designate a mountain peak in the State of Montana
as ``Alex Diekmann Peak''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 117
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 ``Alex Diekmann Peak
Designation Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that Alex Diekmann--
(1) was a loving father of two and an adoring husband who
lived in Bozeman, Montana, where he was a renowned
conservationist who dedicated his career to protecting some
of the most outstanding natural and scenic resource areas of
the Northern Rockies;
(2) was responsible during his unique conservation career
for the protection of more than 50 distinct areas in the
States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, conserving for the
public over 100,000 acres of iconic mountains and valleys,
rivers and creeks, ranches and farms, and historic sites and
open spaces;
(3) played a central role in securing the future of an
array of special landscapes, including--
(A) the spectacular Devil's Canyon in the Craig Thomas
Special Management Area in the State of Wyoming;
(B) crucial fish and wildlife habitat and recreation access
land in the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, along the Salmon
River, and near the Canadian border; and
(C) diverse and vitally important land all across the Crown
of the Continent in the State of Montana, from the world-
famous Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to Glacier National Park
to the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, to the recreational trails,
working forests and ranches, and critical drinking water
supply for Whitefish, and beyond;
(4) made a particularly profound mark on the preservation
of the natural wonders in and near the Madison Valley and the
Madison Range, Montana, where more than 12 miles of the
Madison River and much of the world-class scenery, fish and
wildlife, and recreation opportunities of the area have
become and shall remain conserved and available to the public
because of his efforts;
(5) inspired others with his skill, passion, and spirit of
partnership that brought together communities, landowners,
sportsmen, and the public at large;
(6) lost a heroic battle with cancer on February 1, 2016,
at the age of 52;
(7) is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their 2 sons, Logan
and Liam; and
(8) leaves a lasting legacy across Montana and the Northern
Rockies that will benefit all people of the United States in
our time and in the generations to follow.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF ALEX DIEKMANN PEAK, MONTANA.
(a) In General.--The unnamed 9,765-foot peak located 2.2
miles west-northwest of Finger Mountain on the western
boundary of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Montana (UTM
coordinates Zone 12, 457966 E., 4982589 N.), shall be known
and designated as ``Alex Diekmann Peak''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the
peak described in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a
reference to ``Alex Diekmann Peak''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Cornyn,
Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Flake, Mr. Hatch, and
Mr. Tillis):
S. 119. A bill to impose certain limitations on consent decrees and
settlement agreements by agencies that require the agencies to take
regulatory action in accordance with the terms thereof, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for too long, American families,
farmers, and job creators have suffered under President Obama's
regulatory onslaught. His administration threw caution to wind, pumping
out regulation after regulation and further entangling the government
into Americans' daily lives.
In November, the American people issued a strong rebuke to President
Obama's overreach and his administration's way of doing business.
They want a new direction. They want more accountability. They want
more transparency. They want the government off their backs so that
they can get back to making this country great again.
President-elect Trump has committed to working with Congress to roll
back the regulatory overreach of the Obama administration, and to
making the government more answerable to the people.
So, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation that
will help achieve these goals and ensure a more accountable and
transparent government going forward.
By some estimates, Federal Government regulations impose over $2
trillion in compliance costs--on the American economy. The cost of
complying with all these regulations falls particularly heavy on small
businesses.
It is no wonder why many American businesses have shut down or moved
overseas. How many innovators dreamed of starting a small business but
decided against it when faced with the burden and uncertainty of our
regulatory state?
We have to do better.
The Federal Government should do everything possible to promote job
creation. To accomplish that, common sense would tell us that the
government needs to remove bureaucratic barriers rather than put up new
ones.
But as we all know, the Obama administration showed time and again
that it would rather push forward with its regulatory agenda than ease
the burden on our economy and job creators.
Adding insult to injury, the Obama administration often kept folks in
the dark about new regulatory initiatives.
Through secretive litigation tactics, the administration took end-
runs around our nation's transparency and accountability laws. It is a
strategy known as sue-and-settle, and regulators have been using it to
speed up rulemaking and keep the public away from the table when key
policy decisions are made.
Sue-and-settle typically follows a similar pattern.
First, an interest group files a lawsuit against a federal agency,
claiming that the agency has failed to take a certain regulatory action
by a statutory deadline. The interest group seeks to compel the agency
to take action by a new, often-rushed deadline. All too often, the
plaintiff-interest group will be one that shares a common regulatory
agenda with the agency that it sues, such as when an environmental
group sues the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
Next, the agency and interest group enter into negotiations behind
closed doors to produce either a settlement agreement or consent decree
that commits the agency to satisfy the interest group's demands. The
agreement is then approved by a court, binding executive discretion.
Noticeably absent from these negotiations, however, are the very
parties who will be most impacted by the resulting regulations.
Sue-and-settle tactics undermine transparency, public accountability,
and the quality of public policy. They can have sweeping consequences.
For example, the Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan,
which is the most expensive regulation ever to be imposed on the energy
industry, arose out of a sue-and-settle arrangement.
These tactics also undermine congressional intent.
The Administrative Procedure Act, APA, which has been called the
citizens' ``regulatory bill of rights,'' was
[[Page S316]]
enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the regulatory
process. A key protection is the notice-and-comment process, which
requires agencies to provide notice of proposed regulations and to
respond to comments submitted by the public.
Rulemaking through sue-and-settle, however, frequently results in re-
aligned agency agendas and short deadlines for regulatory action. This
makes the notice-and-comment process a mere formality. It deprives
regulated entities, the States and the general public of sufficient
time to have any meaningful input.
The resulting regulatory action is driven not by the public interest,
but by special interest priorities, and can come as a complete surprise
to those most affected by it.
Sue-and-settle litigation also helps agencies avoid accountability.
Instead of having to answer to the public for controversial regulations
and policy decisions, agency officials can just point to a court order
entering the agreement and say that they were required to take action
under its terms.
We should also keep in mind that these agreements can have lasting
impacts on the ability of future administrations to take a different
policy approach--such as to remove regulatory burdens on farmers. Not
only does this raise serious concerns about bad public policy, it also
puts into question the constitutional impact of one administration's
actions binding the hands of its successors.
Sue-and-settle, and the consequences that come from such tactics, is
not a new phenomenon. Evidence of sue-and-settle tactics and closed-
door rulemaking can be found in nearly every administration over the
previous few decades.
But without a doubt, there was an alarming increase under the Obama
administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that just during
President Obama's first term, 60 Clean Air Act lawsuits against the EPA
were resolved through consent decrees or settlement agreements.
And since 2009, sue-and-settle cases against the EPA have imposed at
least $13 billion in annual regulatory costs.
But we now have an opportunity to curb these abuses, and an incoming
administration that has committed to reining in the regulators.
That is why today I am introducing the Sunshine for Regulatory
Decrees and Settlements Act. Senators Blunt, Inhofe, Cornyn, Cruz,
Fischer, Rubio, Flake, Hatch, and Tillis are cosponsors of this
important bill. And I'm pleased that Representative Doug Collins
introduced a companion bill today in the House.
The Sunshine bill increases transparency by shedding light on sue-
and-settle tactics. It requires agencies to publish sue-and-settle
complaints in a readily accessible manner.
It requires agencies to publish proposed consent decrees and
settlement agreements at least 60 days before they can be filed with a
court. This provides a valuable opportunity for the public to weigh-in,
which will increase accountability in the rulemaking process.
The bill makes it easier for affected parties, such as States and
businesses, to intervene in these lawsuits and settlement negotiations
to ensure that their interests are properly represented. It requires
the Attorney General to certify to a court that he or she has
personally approved of the terms of certain proposed consent decrees or
settlement agreements. And it requires courts to consider whether the
terms of a proposed agreement are contrary to the public interest.
The bill also makes it easier for succeeding administrations to
modify a prior administration's consent decrees. That way, one
administration won't be forced to continue the regulatory excesses of
another.
The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act will shine
light on the problem of sue-and-settle. It will help rein in backroom
rulemaking, encourage the appropriate use of consent decrees and
settlements, and reinforce the procedures that Congress laid out
decades ago to ensure a transparent and accountable regulatory process.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Tester):
S. 126. A bill to amend the Real ID Act of 2005 to repeal provisions
requiring uniform State driver's licenses and State identification
cards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, in 2005, the Federal Government enacted
the REAL ID Act, imposing Federal standards established by the
Department of Homeland Security to the process and production of the
issuance of States' driver's licenses and identification cards.
This law was an underfunded, top down, Federal mandate, infringing on
personal privacy, increasing the personal information susceptible to
cyber-attacks, and undermining State sovereignty. Furthermore, a REAL
ID compliant State ID will be required for all ``official federal
purposes,'' including boarding commercial aircraft, impeding the
movement of American citizens.
Montana led opposition to this Federal mandate. In 2007, Montana
enacted a law, after both chambers of the State legislature unanimously
passing legislation, refusing to comply.
That is why I am reintroducing the Repeal ID Act--to allow Montana
and other States to implement their laws, protecting their sovereignty
and citizens' information. Consistent with the Montana State
legislature, this legislation will repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Montanans are fully aware of the power that big data holds and the
consequences when that data is abused. Montana has shown how States are
best equipped to make licenses secure, without sacrificing the privacy
and rights of their citizens. The Repeal ID Act will allow us to strike
a balance that protects our national security, while also safeguarding
Montanans' civil liberties and personal privacy.
I want to thank Senators Paul and Tester for being original
cosponsors of this bill and I ask my other Senate colleagues to join us
in support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 126
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 ``Repeal ID Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORM STATE DRIVER'S
LICENSES AND STATE IDENTIFICATION CARDS.
(a) Repeal.--Title II of the Real ID Act of 2005 (division
B of Public Law 109-13) is amended by striking sections 201
through 205 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Criminal code.--Section 1028(a)(8) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``false or actual
authentication features'' and inserting ``false
identification features''.
(2) Intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of
2004.--
(A) In general.--Subtitle B of title VII of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-458) is amended by inserting after section
7211 the following:
``SEC. 7212. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
CARDS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Driver's license.--The term `driver's license' means
a motor vehicle operator's license (as defined in section
30301(5) of title 49, United States Code).
``(2) Personal identification card.--The term `personal
identification card' means an identification document (as
defined in section 1028(d)(3) of title 18, United States
Code) that has been issued by a State.
``(b) Standards for Acceptance by Federal Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Limitation on acceptance.--No Federal agency may
accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or
personal identification card newly issued by a State more
than 2 years after the promulgation of the minimum standards
under paragraph (2) unless the driver's license or personal
identification card conforms to such minimum standards.
``(B) Date for conformance.--The Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall establish a date after which no
driver's license or personal identification card shall be
accepted by a Federal agency for any official purpose unless
such driver's license or personal identification card
conforms to the minimum standards established under paragraph
(2). The date shall be as early as the Secretary determines
it is practicable for the States to comply with such date
with reasonable efforts.
[[Page S317]]
``(C) State certification.--
``(i) In general.--Each State shall certify to the
Secretary of Transportation that the State is in compliance
with the requirements of this section.
``(ii) Frequency.--Certifications under clause (i) shall be
made at such intervals and in such a manner as the Secretary
of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, may prescribe by regulation.
``(iii) Audits.--The Secretary of Transportation may
conduct periodic audits of each State's compliance with the
requirements of this section.
``(2) Minimum standards.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall establish, by regulation, minimum
standards for driver's licenses or personal identification
cards issued by a State for use by Federal agencies for
identification purposes that shall include--
``(A) standards for documentation required as proof of
identity of an applicant for a driver's license or personal
identification card;
``(B) standards for the verifiability of documents used to
obtain a driver's license or personal identification card;
``(C) standards for the processing of applications for
driver's licenses and personal identification cards to
prevent fraud;
``(D) standards for information to be included on each
driver's license or personal identification card, including--
``(i) the person's full legal name;
``(ii) the person's date of birth;
``(iii) the person's gender;
``(iv) the person's driver's license or personal
identification card number;
``(v) a digital photograph of the person;
``(vi) the person's address of principal residence; and
``(vii) the person's signature;
``(E) standards for common machine-readable identity
information to be included on each driver's license or
personal identification card, including defined minimum data
elements;
``(F) security standards to ensure that driver's licenses
and personal identification cards are--
``(i) resistant to tampering, alteration, or
counterfeiting; and
``(ii) capable of accommodating and ensuring the security
of a digital photograph or other unique identifier; and
``(G) a requirement that a State confiscate a driver's
license or personal identification card if any component or
security feature of the license or identification card is
compromised.
``(3) Content of regulations.--The regulations required
under paragraph (2)--
``(A) shall facilitate communication between the chief
driver licensing official of a State, an appropriate official
of a Federal agency and other relevant officials, to verify
the authenticity of documents, as appropriate, issued by such
Federal agency or entity and presented to prove the identity
of an individual;
``(B) may not infringe on a State's power to set criteria
concerning what categories of individuals are eligible to
obtain a driver's license or personal identification card
from that State;
``(C) may not require a State to comply with any such
regulation that conflicts with or otherwise interferes with
the full enforcement of State criteria concerning the
categories of individuals that are eligible to obtain a
driver's license or personal identification card from that
State;
``(D) may not require a single design to which driver's
licenses or personal identification cards issued by all
States must conform; and
``(E) shall include procedures and requirements to protect
the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold
driver's licenses and personal identification cards.
``(4) Negotiated rulemaking.--
``(A) In general.--Before publishing the proposed
regulations required by paragraph (2) to carry out this
title, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a
negotiated rulemaking process pursuant to subchapter IV of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C. 561 et
seq.).
``(B) Representation on negotiated rulemaking committee.--
Any negotiated rulemaking committee established by the
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to subparagraph (A)
shall include representatives from--
``(i) among State offices that issue driver's licenses or
personal identification cards;
``(ii) among State elected officials;
``(iii) the Department of Homeland Security; and
``(iv) among interested parties.
``(C) Time requirement.--The process described in
subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in a timely manner to
ensure that--
``(i) any recommendation for a proposed rule or report is
provided to the Secretary of Transportation not later than 9
months after the date of enactment of this Act and shall
include an assessment of the benefits and costs of the
recommendation; and
``(ii) a final rule is promulgated not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
``(c) Grants to States.--
``(1) Assistance in meeting federal standards.--Beginning
on the date a final regulation is promulgated under
subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall
award grants to States to assist them in conforming to the
minimum standards for driver's licenses and personal
identification cards set forth in the regulation.
``(2) Allocation of grants.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall award grants to States under this
subsection based on the proportion that the estimated average
annual number of driver's licenses and personal
identification cards issued by a State applying for a grant
bears to the average annual number of such documents issued
by all States.
``(3) Minimum allocation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2),
each State shall receive not less than 0.5 percent of the
grant funds made available under this subsection.
``(d) Extension of Effective Date.--The Secretary of
Transportation may extend the date specified under subsection
(b)(1)(A) for up to 2 years for driver's licenses issued by a
State if the Secretary determines that the State made
reasonable efforts to comply with the date under such
subsection but was unable to do so.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation for each of the fiscal years 2005 through
2009, such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
section.''.
(B) Effective date.--Section 7212 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as added by
subparagraph (A), shall take effect as if included in the
original enactment of such Act on December 17, 2004.
______
By Mr. NELSON (for himself, Mrs. Fischer, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr.
Blunt):
S. 134. A bill to expand the prohibition on misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, fraudulent and abusive phone scams plague
thousands of Americans each year. These deceitful practices cause
serious financial harm to victims, and have even led to tragedy in a
few cases. Both the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
where I serve as Ranking Member, and the Special Committee on Aging,
where I previously served as Chairman, have explored the continuing
severe impact of these scams. Consumers continue to lose millions of
dollars each year to fraudulent phone scams, many of which originate
from other countries. And the impacts of these scams are very real to
the consumers who suffer. According to an October 2015 press report
from CNN, one poor soul took his life earlier that year after being
tricked into spending thousands of dollars in a vain attempt to collect
on his winnings in the Jamaican lottery--winnings that were non-
existent because it was all a scam perpetrated by phone-based
fraudsters.
Nearly all of us have trained ourselves to ignore phone calls and
text messages from numbers that are not familiar to us. But these
sophisticated scammers know that--and have changed their tactics.
Scammers today impersonate government institutions, promote fraudulent
lottery schemes, and tailor their calls to individuals in order to
coerce victims into paying large sums of money. Many scammers use
spoofing technology to manipulate caller ID information and trick
consumers into believing that these calls are local or come from
trusted institutions.
In 2009, I introduced the Truth in Caller ID Act to prohibit caller
ID spoofing when it is used to defraud or harm consumers. That law
provided important tools for law enforcement and the Federal
Communications Commission, FCC, to go after fraudsters and crack down
on these phone scams. I was pleased when my Congressional colleagues
joined with me to pass that legislation and the President signed it
into law. This was a huge win for consumers and the first step toward
ending these abusive practices.
Recognizing the pace at which phone scam technologies evolve, the law
directed the FCC to prepare a report to Congress outlining what
additional tools were needed to curb other forms of spoofing. In 2011,
the agency provided its recommendations to Congress on how to update
the law to keep pace with new spoofing practices, such as text
messaging scams.
The bill Senators Fischer, Klobuchar, Blunt and I have introduced
today responds to the FCC's recommendations and builds on the 2010 Act
to ensure the law keeps up with these spoofing scams. As these scams
become increasingly sophisticated, we need to make sure that consumer
protections and tools for law enforcement
[[Page S318]]
keep up. That is why this legislation is so important.
The Spoofing Prevention Act of 2017 would extend the current
prohibition on caller ID spoofing to text messages, calls coming from
outside the United States, and calls from all forms of Voice over
Internet Protocol services.
Additionally, for the first time, this bill would ensure consumers
have access to information on a centralized FCC website about current
technologies and other tools available to protect themselves against
spoofing scams.
Finally, the Act directs the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
to conduct a study to assess government and private sector work being
done to curb spoofing scams, as well as what new measures, including
technological solutions, could be taken to prevent spoofed calls from
the start. I know industry, in cooperation with the FCC through its
Robocall Strike Force, already is making great strides in this area,
and I would expect the GAO to review that work closely.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Fischer, Klobuchar, Blunt, and
me in supporting the Spoofing Prevention Act of 2016 to ensure that law
enforcement and consumers have the updated tools they need to protect
against this fraudulent activity. And make no mistake, I will press the
FCC to continue to use its full authority under the Truth in Caller ID
Act to stop these scams, including consideration of technical
solutions--like call authentication--to protect consumers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 134
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 ``Spoofing Prevention Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
SEC. 3. SPOOFING PREVENTION.
(a) Expanding and Clarifying Prohibition on Misleading or
Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
(1) Communications from outside the united states.--Section
227(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service'' and
inserting ``or any person outside the United States if the
recipient of the call is within the United States, in
connection with any voice service or text messaging
service''.
(2) Coverage of text messages and voice services.--Section
227(e)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227(e)(8)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``telecommunications
service or IP-enabled voice service'' and inserting ``voice
service or a text message sent using a text messaging
service'';
(B) in the first sentence of subparagraph (B), by striking
``telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service''
and inserting ``voice service or a text message sent using a
text messaging service''; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Text message.--The term `text message'--
``(i) means a message consisting of text, images, sounds,
or other information that is transmitted from or received by
a device that is identified as the transmitting or receiving
device by means of a 10-digit telephone number;
``(ii) includes a short message service (commonly referred
to as `SMS') message, an enhanced message service (commonly
referred to as `EMS') message, and a multimedia message
service (commonly referred to as `MMS') message; and
``(iii) does not include a real-time, 2-way voice or video
communication.
``(D) Text messaging service.--The term `text messaging
service' means a service that permits the transmission or
receipt of a text message, including a service provided as
part of or in connection with a voice service.
``(E) Voice service.--The term `voice service'--
``(i) means any service that furnishes voice communications
to an end user using resources from the North American
Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American
Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section
251(e)(1); and
``(ii) includes transmissions from a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile
machine.''.
(3) Technical amendment.--Section 227(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)) is amended in
the heading by inserting ``Misleading or'' before
``Inaccurate''.
(4) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--Section 227(e)(3)(A) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(3)(A)) is amended by striking
``Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the
Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the Commission'' and
inserting ``The Commission''.
(B) Deadline.--The Commission shall prescribe regulations
to implement the amendments made by this subsection not later
than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date
on which the Commission prescribes regulations under
paragraph (4).
(b) Consumer Education Materials on How to Avoid Scams That
Rely Upon Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification
Information.--
(1) Development of materials.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, in
collaboration with the Federal Trade Commission, shall
develop consumer education materials that provide information
about--
(A) ways for consumers to identify scams and other
fraudulent activity that rely upon the use of misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information; and
(B) existing technologies, if any, that a consumer can use
to protect against such scams and other fraudulent activity.
(2) Contents.--In developing the consumer education
materials under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
(A) identify existing technologies, if any, that can help
consumers guard themselves against scams and other fraudulent
activity that rely upon the use of misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information, including--
(i) descriptions of how a consumer can use the technologies
to protect against such scams and other fraudulent activity;
and
(ii) details on how consumers can access and use the
technologies; and
(B) provide other information that may help consumers
identify and avoid scams and other fraudulent activity that
rely upon the use of misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information.
(3) Updates.--The Commission shall ensure that the consumer
education materials required under paragraph (1) are updated
on a regular basis.
(4) Website.--The Commission shall include the consumer
education materials developed under paragraph (1) on its
website.
(c) GAO Report on Combating the Fraudulent Provision of
Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the actions the Commission
and the Federal Trade Commission have taken to combat the
fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information, and the additional measures that
could be taken to combat such activity.
(2) Required considerations.--In conducting the study under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall examine--
(A) trends in the types of scams that rely on misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information;
(B) previous and current enforcement actions by the
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to combat the
practices prohibited by section 227(e)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(1));
(C) current efforts by industry groups and other entities
to develop technical standards to deter or prevent the
fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information, and how such standards may help
combat the current and future provision of misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information; and
(D) whether there are additional actions the Commission,
the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress should take to
combat the fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information.
(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives a report on the findings of the
study conducted under paragraph (1), including any
recommendations regarding combating the fraudulent provision
of misleading or inaccurate caller identification
information.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or the
amendments made by this section, shall be construed to
modify, limit, or otherwise affect any rule or order adopted
by the Commission in connection with--
(1) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Public
Law 102-243; 105 Stat. 2394) or the amendments made by that
Act; or
(2) the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
[[Page S319]]
____________________