[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 773-777]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 774]]

        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 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

[[Page 775]]

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.
       ``(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;

[[Page 776]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 777]]

     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.).

                          ____________________