Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two factfinding commissions: one commission to review the treatment by our Government during World War II of American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Inouye, Cardin and Wyden have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation and will be introducing an identical bill in the House of Representatives.

The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans.

But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved.

While I commend our Government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the Government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and their families as ``enemy aliens.'' The U.S. Government unfairly subjected many to arrest, detainment, and relocation. Indeed, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Even less well known is the U.S. policy coordinated with many Latin American countries that resulted in thousands of European Americans, including German and Austrian Jews, being arrested, shipped to the United States by U.S. military transport, and interned. Many European Americans and European Latin Americans were later repatriated or deported to European Axis nations during World War II, and some were exchanged for Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations. We must learn from this history and explore why we failed to protect the basic freedoms of our fellow Americans and those brought here from Latin America.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. Government to complete the accounting of this period in our Nation's history. It is now time to create independent, fact finding commissions to conduct a full and thorough review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were taken from their homes, shipped to the United States, and interned here.

There has been no justice for the European Americans and European Latin Americans who were repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than 60 years ago. Americans must learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. Their numbers are rapidly dwindling. I spoke on the Senate floor in the last Congress about one such former internee, Max Ebel, who died still waiting for his country to acknowledge his internment and those of many other European Americans. If we wait any longer, even more people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past.

We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

I was very pleased that the Senate approved this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority as an amendment to the immigration bill in 2007. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act again this Congress, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for eight years. It is long past time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history.

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

We are facing a profound economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. Countless working families who were already living on the edge of financial disaster have been hit hard, and they have nothing to fall back on. Their faith in the American dream has been replaced by fear for their families and their future.

We have already taken some much-needed actions to put our country back on track, but more needs to be done. In these perilous times, working families need security. They need new skills and new opportunities. And they need a voice in the decisions that will affect their families and their futures.

Now more than ever, workers need someone on their side, fighting for them. Now more than ever, they need unions. Unions were fundamental in building America's middle class, and they have a vital role to play today in restoring the American dream for working families.

First and foremost, unions enable workers to obtain their fair share of the benefits that their hard work creates. Union wages are 30 percent higher than nonunion wages. Eighty percent of union workers have health insurance, compared to only 49 percent of their nonunion counterparts. Union members are four times more likely to have a guaranteed pension.

Equally important in this crisis, unions provide greater security and greater promise of fair treatment. At a time when workers who lose their jobs can remain unemployed for a year or more, those who are represented by a union have better job security and the assurance of knowing they will have a voice at the table when difficult decisions are made.

It is little wonder that so many Americans want a union on their side. In a recent survey, more than half of all nonunion workers-- nearly 60 million men and women--say they would join a union if they could.

The problem is that most workers who want a union can't get one. Those who attempt to exercise this fundamental right often find that the current system is rigged against them.

Unscrupulous employers routinely break the law to keep unions out. They fire union supporters. They intimidate workers, harass them, and discriminate against them. They close down whole departments--or even entire plants--to avoid a union. A recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that union supporters are fired in more than one quarter of all union organizing campaigns.

Even when workers prevail in a union election, employers can steal the victory by refusing to bargain fairly for the first union contract. They drag their feet, delay bargaining, and use a variety of other tactics to prevent an agreement. One study found that in more than a third of hard-won union elections, workers are denied a contract because of employers' delaying tactics.

Many of these abuses by employers are illegal, but employers have no incentive to change their behavior. The penalties for violating workers' rights are so weak that they simply become a minor cost of doing business.

Obviously, not all employers see unions as the enemy. Many successful companies have allowed their workers to organize without threats or dirty tricks. They have formed strong partnerships with their employees, and they have prospered. But these individual good examples are not enough to solve the problem. We need to deal with the bad actors. We need to stop the lawbreaking that has become alarmingly common and provide stronger protections for workers' rights.

That is why we need the Employee Free Choice Act. This important legislation will give American workers the real freedom to choose a union without fear of threats or intimidation.

First, the bill gives workers two possible ways to choose whether they want a union. They can rely on an election, or--if they fear intimidation from their employer during the election process--they can use a process called majority sign-up, which enables workers to choose whether they want a union by deciding whether to sign their name on a card calling for a union.

Majority sign-up has always been a valid way to form a union. Since 2003, more than half a million private sector workers have formed a union through this efficient and democratic process.

The problem is that under current law, workers may use the majority sign-up process only if their employer agrees. That is not fair. Workers--not their bosses--should get to choose how they make the important decision about whether they want union representation. The Employee Free Choice Act puts this choice in workers' hands.

Second, the bill ensures that workers who choose a union will have a fair process for getting a first contract. It provides that if the union and the employer don't reach a contract within 90 days, either side can seek mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The agency has provided collective bargaining mediation services--including mediation of first contract negotiations--for more than 50 years, and it has an 86 percent success rate.

In the rare instance when the mediation process fails, the bill provides for binding arbitration, which will be handled by a panel of highly qualified arbitrators who have long experience in developing contract provisions that are fair to both sides. This type of arbitration is a tried-and-true method of resolving contract disputes that is already used in the rail and airline industries, and for public sector workers in at least 25 States.

Finally, the Employee Free Choice Act improves remedies for workers who face discrimination or retaliation when they seek to organize or obtain a first contract. Under the bill, employers will no longer be able to violate the law with impunity and write off the insignificant penalties as a minor cost of doing business. The act takes away these perverse incentives for employers to break the law by increasing the remedies for workers, and by imposing new penalties on employers who act illegally during organizing campaigns or first-contract bargaining. These important changes will put real teeth in the law, and give employers a financial reason to respect workers' rights.

With these basic reforms, the Employee Free Choice Act will fix the current broken system and level the economic playing field for millions of American workers. It will help them obtain real, tangible benefits that will make a difference in their lives and in the lives of their families.

By restoring fairness to the American workplace, and strengthening the voice of American workers, we can rebuild the land of opportunity-- a land with good jobs, fair wages, and fair benefits that can support a family. We can revitalize the American middle class and restore the American dream. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation and help put working families back on the path to prosperity.

March 12 is recognized as World Kidney Day, a day to raise awareness of the major health and societal costs of kidney disease. Today, 26 million American adults have chronic kidney disease, and 500,000 have irreversible kidney failure, or end-stage renal disease ESRD. These patients require dialysis or a kidney transplant to survive.

Fortunately, medical advancements have transformed organ transplantation from an experimental procedure into the accepted and often best treatment for organ failure. Transplantation has prolonged and improved the lives of thousands of Americans. Over 16,000 Americans received a kidney transplant in 2007, and 150,000 today are living with functioning kidney transplants.

Many of these kidney transplants were paid for by the Medicare system, which provides health care to aged and disabled Americans, as well as those living with ESRD. For these ESRD patients, Medicare also covers dialysis for patients who have not received a donor kidney and immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant recipients. Organ transplant recipients must take immunosuppressive drugs every day for the life of their transplant to reduce the risk of organ rejection.

In 2000, Congress wisely eliminated the 36-month time limitation for aged and disabled beneficiaries who had Medicare status at the time of transplant. So today, for an older or disabled person on Medicare, immunosuppressive drugs are covered by Medicare for the life of the transplant.

However, we still have an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for people with ESRD who are neither disabled nor elderly. For those transplant recipients, coverage for immunosuppressive drugs ends 36 months after transplantation. This is economically inefficient and morally wrong. Without regular access to immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many patients find themselves back in a risky and frightening place--in need of a new kidney.

Since Medicare covers the cost of the transplant for end stage renal disease, it makes sense for Medicare to preserve

this investment by covering antirejection drugs. It would be far less expensive for Medicare to cover immunosuppressive drugs at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 a year than to pay for dialysis--$71,000 a year--or another transplant, $106,000, if a patient's kidney fails and he is once again eligible for Medicare coverage.

I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran, the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients Act. This legislation would allow kidney transplant recipients to continue Medicare coverage for the purpose of immunosuppressive drugs only. All other Medicare coverage would end 36 months after the transplant.

It is time to take this step to provide continuous coverage for immunosuppressive drugs through Medicare. This is a logical and moral move that will reduce the need for dialysis and kidney retransplants and provide reliable, sustained access to critically important, lifesaving medications for thousands of Americans. In the long run, we will save both money and lives.

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

When consumers purchase tangible consumer products such as toasters or televisions, they can be reasonably confident that the products are safe for their families to use. In America we don't say ``buyer beware'' when it comes to lead paint in toys or risky drugs. But when Americans purchase financial products such as mortgages or credit cards, they often have little idea whether those products --and the mountain of fine print that come with them--are good for their families. Why?

The answer is that consumer products are subject to oversight, while financial products are not. Professor Elizabeth Warren, Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, was right when she said ``we need more oversight.'' That was more than a year ago.

Today there are no fewer than 10 Federal regulators with responsibility for consumer protections from predatory or deceptive financial products, but none have oversight as its primary objective.

The legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Schumer and Kennedy would create a Financial Product Safety Commission that would focus exclusively on the interests of consumers. I am pleased that Congressmen Bill Delahunt and Brad Miller will be introducing the House companion.

The objectives of the Financial Product Safety Commission would be to reduce consumer risk in using financial products, coordinate enforcement with other Federal and State regulators, and report to the public regarding the state of consumer financial product safety.

The Financial Product Safety Commission would fulfill that mission by preventing predatory and deceptive financial practices, educating consumers on the responsible use of financial products and services, establishing a regulatory floor beneath which consumer financial product safety could not fall, and recommending the steps that should be taken to improve the value of financial products for consumers.

The bill is supported by over 55 national and State organizations, including Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, La Raza, AFL-CIO, SEIU, National Consumer Law Center, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. I include a statement of support for the Record.

As Congress embarks on financial regulatory reform, our improved regulatory system must focus not just on the safety and soundness of the providers of financial products but also on the safety of the consumers of financial products. The Financial Product Safety Commission will do just that.

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

Mr. President, prepaid telephone calling cards are used by many Americans to stay in touch with loved ones around the country and throughout the world. Unfortunately, some providers and distributors of these cards are scamming consumers--by imposing undisclosed junk fees, charging exorbitant rates, and selling cards that expire shortly after consumers start using them.

Over the past couple of years, a number of State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission have opened investigations and found that a number of providers and distributors are engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. These practices include charging customers for calls where they receive busy signals, imposing weekly ``maintenance fees'' that may take away up to 20 percent of the card's overall value, and billing for calls in 3-minute increments.

As a result of these investigations, some companies have been fined or have entered into consent decrees forbidding them from engaging in some deceptive practices. In addition, some states--including Florida-- have imposed certain regulatory requirements on prepaid calling card providers and distributors. To date, however, neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Federal Trade Commission has taken any action to impose up-front nationwide consumer protection requirements on this industry. This lack of federal standards allows many of these unscrupulous operators to move from state to state, and create new ``shell companies'' to escape consumer protection regulations. This is

wrong, and I think we need to fix this situation.

That's why I rise today to introduce the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

The Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009 requires the Federal Trade Commission to draft comprehensive rules requiring all prepaid telephone calling card providers and distributors to disclose the rates and fees associated with their calling cards up-front, at the point of sale. It also requires providers who market their cards in languages other than English to disclose rates and fees in that language as well. Furthermore, the legislation requires providers to honor the cards for at least a year after the time the card is first used.

To enforce these disclosure requirements, the bill gives the Federal Trade Commission, State Attorneys General, and state consumer protection advocates the ability to sue the fraudsters who violate these requirements in federal court. In addition, the law preserves additional state consumer protection requirements--such as state utility commission certification or bonding requirements.

I invite my colleagues to join with Senators Snowe, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. We should waste no time in ensuring that military servicemembers, seniors, immigrants and other Americans using these prepaid telephone calling cards are protected from bad actors in the marketplace.

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

Mr. President, prepaid telephone calling cards are used by many Americans to stay in touch with loved ones around the country and throughout the world. Unfortunately, some providers and distributors of these cards are scamming consumers--by imposing undisclosed junk fees, charging exorbitant rates, and selling cards that expire shortly after consumers start using them.

Over the past couple of years, a number of State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission have opened investigations and found that a number of providers and distributors are engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. These practices include charging customers for calls where they receive busy signals, imposing weekly ``maintenance fees'' that may take away up to 20 percent of the card's overall value, and billing for calls in 3-minute increments.

As a result of these investigations, some companies have been fined or have entered into consent decrees forbidding them from engaging in some deceptive practices. In addition, some states--including Florida-- have imposed certain regulatory requirements on prepaid calling card providers and distributors. To date, however, neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Federal Trade Commission has taken any action to impose up-front nationwide consumer protection requirements on this industry. This lack of federal standards allows many of these unscrupulous operators to move from state to state, and create new ``shell companies'' to escape consumer protection regulations. This is

wrong, and I think we need to fix this situation.

That's why I rise today to introduce the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

The Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009 requires the Federal Trade Commission to draft comprehensive rules requiring all prepaid telephone calling card providers and distributors to disclose the rates and fees associated with their calling cards up-front, at the point of sale. It also requires providers who market their cards in languages other than English to disclose rates and fees in that language as well. Furthermore, the legislation requires providers to honor the cards for at least a year after the time the card is first used.

To enforce these disclosure requirements, the bill gives the Federal Trade Commission, State Attorneys General, and state consumer protection advocates the ability to sue the fraudsters who violate these requirements in federal court. In addition, the law preserves additional state consumer protection requirements--such as state utility commission certification or bonding requirements.

I invite my colleagues to join with Senators Snowe, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. We should waste no time in ensuring that military servicemembers, seniors, immigrants and other Americans using these prepaid telephone calling cards are protected from bad actors in the marketplace.

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