Gift Card Consumer Protection Act of 2012

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Alabama, as well as a number of my other colleagues who I think have disproved, at least for this afternoon, one of the remarks made by the Senator from Illinois, which is that the cable viewers who subscribe to C-SPAN may not be getting their money's worth. I think the very spirited remarks made by my colleague from Alabama, even as I disagree with them, are a very well-stated point of view that deserves to be considered.

I am honored also to follow the majority leader and the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Virginia in the remarks they made about the need to change the filibuster rules, and I wish to associate myself strongly with them. From the very first days I have been a Member of this body, I have strongly believed the filibuster needs to be ended or at least greatly modified so as to permit the business of this great Chamber to go forward. I believe the new Members who have come here have heard that message loud and clear from the American people and that they will vote--a majority of them--to change those rules. Because all of us know, having been home for a while, the American people believe strongly that we need to do better, we need to do more, we need to address the problems of this country through majority rule, not by 60-vote rule but majority rule, at least at the beginning of the process, as the majority leader has suggested, not by violating the rules but by following the rules to change and improve those rules. So I will vote to support the majority leader's proposals in that regard.

One of the measures that has been stymied, as the Senator from Illinois very eloquently said, is the DREAM Act. I have been a strong supporter and thank him for his leadership on the DREAM Act over many years. A number of times I have come to the floor to share stories, specific personal stories about those DREAMers whose lives would be changed and who would so greatly enhance the life of this Nation if the DREAM Act were passed. I am here again to share the story of another DREAMer from Connecticut and to urge my colleagues to act on this measure.

Of course, this measure should be part of comprehensive immigration reform. I have believed since I arrived 2 years ago that immigration reform ought to be a priority. I am gratified and grateful that the President seems now to be moving in that direction and that many in this body share that view. In fact, I asked to be assigned to the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration so I could be a part of this debate, and I hope I will join leaders in this effort, such as Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez, in proposals to repair a broken system. Clearly, our immigration system is in dire need of reform, comprehensive reform that will include the DREAM Act.

I have met and I have seen and experienced firsthand the stories of these DREAMers that make the case so compellingly for the DREAM Act to enable them to earn their citizenship and continue contributing to the greatest Nation in the history of the world, America.

As we return from Thanksgiving, having expressed our gratitude for our families, for our communities, for our country, what better time to address this measure for people who appreciate, maybe more than most of us, the importance and value of citizenship.

For more than a decade, Senator Durbin has championed this measure, and I am honored to work with him in this effort. As attorney general, I advocated it at the State level. But, obviously, only the Federal Government can change the laws relating to citizenship.

The DREAM Act would give young, undocumented immigrants, brought to this country as infants or young children, through no choice of their own, a chance to earn their citizenship through education or military service. The young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act identify as Americans. This Nation is the only one they have ever known. English is often the only language they know. Their friends here are the only friends they have. It would give them a clear path to immigration status, as well as citizenship.

The DREAM Act would give these young people a chance to earn citizenship but only if they meet several requirements. First, they must have come here as children. They have to demonstrate good moral character. They have to have graduated from high school. They must have completed 2 years of college or military service. Then, having met those requirements, they can apply for legal permanent residency and pursue a path to citizenship.

The DREAM Act would enable thousands of young people in Connecticut-- about 2 million across the country--to leave the shadows, to leave the shadows of fear, of deportation from their homes and their communities, a fear that haunts them and forces them to put their careers and their education on hold, to the detriment of them and our Nation because they have so much to contribute and to give back to their communities and our country.

They are well educated and ambitious, and they could enhance and expand our society, our economy, our democracy if they are given the chance to fulfill their potential. All they want, all they ask is the opportunity to stay in this country and to earn citizenship in the place they call home, proudly.

Two million immigrants nationwide would benefit from this act. Mr. President, 11,000 to 20,000 DREAMers are living in Connecticut, and one of them is Solanlly Canas.

She was born in Colombia and she is here with us in this photograph. She was brought to America when she was 12 years old, living now in East Haven where she has attended school. She is in her senior year of high school where she has thrived as a member of the Honor Society, the Executive Board of the Student Council, and president of the Interact Club, the National Honor Society.

She has dreams and goals for the future. She is proud of being a great student contributing to the life of her school, and she hopes to study psychology some day. She wants to go to college. But her life is in danger of being on hold because of her undocumented status. On June 15 of this year, Solanlly encountered the great hope that maybe all of her hard work would be worth it, because on that date, the Obama administration announced a new policy that deferred action for childhood arrivals that gave her a temporary reprieve for relief from deportation. It extended for 2 years that relief. She would qualify, because those who

have been in this country, continuously residing here for 5 years, brought here as children, not convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor, currently in school or graduating from high school or honorably discharged as a veteran, all would be eligible to apply.

But eligibility is all they receive. All they would gain if granted this status is a temporary reprieve, forcing them again to risk, at the end of that reprieve, the potential for deportation and aggravating the possible fear by their having to declare their undocumented status. Her fate, far from being unusual, I have shown to be common to a number of individuals whom I have specifically mentioned on the floor.

Miller Gomes, for example--I am going to have his picture be shown here--brought to this country from Brazil at 5 years old. He attended Bridgeport public schools and Fairfield University where he graduated summa cum laude, and then the University of California-Berkeley where he is now enrolled in a Ph.D. program, a Ph.D. program in chemistry. What does this country need if not more scientists? We say so every day on this floor. Here is a scientist who could contribute greatly, now in fear of deportation simply because he was brought here at 5 years old and he is undocumented to this day.

Zuly Molina, who came here from Mexico, brought here at 6 years old. By the way, she had to walk across desert-like, barren country for 15 days. She was then put in the trunk of a car--6 years old. Living in New Britain. She was so fearful of her status that she declined to go to college in Connecticut. Instead she went to Massachusetts at Bay Path College where right now she is pursuing a master's in occupational therapy, a health care worker. At a time when we on this floor talk about the need for health care skilled training, we have here someone who could provide exactly that kind of contribution.

Finally, I have talked about Yusmerith Caguao, brought here from Venezuela when she was 11 years old. She went to Norwalk schools, and graduated from Norwalk Community College. She worked her way through Norwalk Community College as a waitress, as a babysitter, as an employee at a pet store. Now she is at Western Connecticut State University pursuing a combined degree in finance and accounting.

For these DREAMers, a path to citizenship, beginning with legal status, is essential to their peace of mind but also to their continuing to accomplish academically and professionally what is their great potential, to give to their country the promise and fulfillment of that potential that this country so dearly needs. We have the opportunity to provide them with a pathway to citizenship. Hopefully it would be part of comprehensive reform. But even as a stand-alone measure it merits approval. And as the Senator from Illinois said so well, it was blocked by the requirement for a 60-vote threshold. A majority voted in favor of it during this Congress. I ask my colleagues to give it the 60-vote threshold that it needs to pass for the sake of these DREAMers and for the sake of our country.

(The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 3636 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I will be raising a budget point of order against this legislation. But I do want to thank my colleague, Senator Tester, for his hard work and the efforts of a lot of people to put this legislation together. I would hope my colleagues would listen to why I think it is important this bill--with a lot of good points in it, which I favor strongly--needs to be sent back and fixed.

The reason is this: The bill violates the Budget Control Act that we passed August a year ago. That has been certified by Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and his staff. It plainly, as often is the problem, spends more than the Budget Control Act allows to be spent. Chairman Conrad, as I said, has agreed with that assessment.

No. 2, now this is the fourth bill brought before this Senate by the majority leader in the last 15 months that violates the budget. It is the fourth time. This is a time in which our country has never faced a more serious systemic budget crisis. We are on an unsustainable course. We know that. One of the things we need to do is figure out a way to constrain ourselves, and the Budget Control Act was a step in that direction.

To raise the debt limit in August 2011--we had borrowed all the money we could borrow, and to raise the debt ceiling, the debt limit, the Budget Control Act was passed. It limited spending, and that was all part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling.

These violations of the Budget Control Act lower respect for the Senate by the American people. It hurts our Nation because it impacts our debt situation and our spending, and it cannot be justified. It should not happen. We can avoid this.

I disagree with Senator Tester on this point. Of course, sustaining the budget point of order will not kill this bill unless in some manner of pique Senator Reid were to say: I am not going to bring it up if you do not pass it just like I said it ought to be passed and you will not waive the budget and just violate the budget and do it like I said. I do not think Senator Reid will do that. Surely, he will not do that.

So what would happen is it would go back to committee, and Senator Reid would review it and see what we could do to fix it, which will be easy compared to some of the difficult problems we have around here. The need would simply be to find $14 million a year. I have suggested a number of ways already, but those have not been used. If we would think about it this way, we are talking about finding savings somewhere in this monumental government of $14 million when we plan to spend $370,000 million this year. By Alabama standards that is a lot of money.

Another problem: The bill is subject to a House blue slip. Under the Congressional Budget Office analysis and the President's own Office of Management and Budget in the White House, the duck stamp is a tax. It simply is a tax. People can say it is not a tax. It is a tax. They have defined it as a tax. We do not have the ability to redefine the meaning of words around here, and a tax cannot originate in the Senate. So the House, as it is presently written, is likely to object and will object to this, I am certain.

Another easily fixed problem in the bill is this: The Environment and Public Works Committee brought up the legislation. The question of whether the duck stamp tax should be set by law, by Congress, or be given to a member of the President's staff to set at whatever level he wants was discussed. Senator Boxer agreed with those who shared the view that we should not be delegating to an unelected Cabinet person the power to set taxes in the United States of America. He can set the duck stamp under this bill at any level he wants to set it at. That is not good.

This is a constitutional issue. I feel strongly about it. Congress must never cede its power to tax to a single person not even accountable or any other entity, the U.N. or any other entity. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and only the Congress the power to tax. That can easily be fixed. There is not a problem here.

It has been argued that the point of order is only technical. Do not worry about this point of order. It is only technical because the new spending in it is paid for. How? By tax increases. So the Budget Control Act drafters, 15 months ago, and the budget rules of this Senate understand this argument. This is not a new argument. They knew this kind of gimmick would come up under the Budget Control Act, and they prohibited it. They understood it, and that is why they prohibited it.

Under the Budget Control Act, a spending limit is a spending limit. I know Senator Reid seems to think if he raises taxes he can spend more, and he does not have to pay attention to the Budget Control Act he supported and the President signed and negotiated 15 months ago. He does not have to do that because he has paid for it, he thinks, by raising taxes. But the truth is the Budget Control Act does not deal with taxes. It deals with spending, and it prohibits more spending than the amount above the EPW allocations.

I note my friend, Senator Tester, and my friend, Senator Warner, earlier--they are fine Senators--said there is no problem. OK. There is no problem, Sessions. It reduces the deficit by $5 million over 10 years. We should not worry. So you say: OK, Sessions, why are you complaining? You are worried about the deficit. It reduces the deficit by $5 million. CBO says that. That may be the case. I think it is the case. But what is the answer to that charge? The answer to it is simply this: This legislation, as it is now written--and can be changed-- raises taxes $145 million and spends $140 million, and they pat themselves on the back and say: We pay down the deficit $5 million. Give me a break.

Think about this, though: If the spending limit of the Budget Control Act were complied with, we would not have a $5 million reduction in the deficit. We would have a $145 million reduction in the deficit at least. We would have $145 million in deficit reduction instead of $5 million. So let's ask: Has anyone looked around to see if there is any spending that can be reduced to pay for this? The Interior Appropriations bill spends $29 billion a year. We cannot find $14 million?

Well, the answer is, nobody has looked to save any money to pay for this bill. Nobody, really.

Well, why not? Because it asks the Members of the House and the Senate--the Congress--to choose, make priority settings, and that is hard. We do not want to do hard things. There are over $900 million spent in wetlands programs like that in the bill that advance duck causes and hunting and so forth, according to the Congressional Research Service. Has anybody ever looked to see if that multiplicity of programs might be consolidated and save, out of $900 million, maybe $14 million right there? Plus, any other spending in this government could be utilized to keep within the spending limits and not violate it.

But the fact is the Budget Control Act said we must choose. If we want to

have a new program in one of our areas of the government, fine and dandy, but we have to do it within the limit of spending we have agreed to. This bill does not do that. Under this rationale, we would have to assume, would we not, that the needs of this bill are so little that there is not a single other program in America, not a single one, that is less valuable. Therefore, the only way we can proceed with this bill is to raise taxes, raise revenue. That is just simply not correct. We know better than that.

There is no reason these problems cannot be fixed. Slowing down, complying with the Budget Control Act, not delegating to an unelected Cabinet Member the power to raise taxes, not violating with a blue slip by commencing a revenue bill in the Senate, is not hard to deal with.

So I say to Senator Tester: Thank you for your work. I am not sure the way this was done precisely was something you suggested. I believe we can work this out. I have made some suggestions. I am open to a lot of suggestions, but I will just say to my colleagues, I will continue to object to any bill brought before this Congress that violates the solemn agreement we made 15 months ago in the Budget Control Act. And this one does. Senator Conrad has verified that. If my colleagues will adhere to the limits of spending that we agreed to 15 months ago by supporting this budget point of order, this popular bill, with a lot of good values in it, will be quickly fixed and passed--there is just no other way to see it--and in the future, committees and Senator Reid, perhaps, will stop sending budget busters to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I was going to make the budget point of order at this point, but I see Senator Tester. I do not know if he wants to speak. Let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work Senator Tester has put into this. He is a friend. I know he has worked hard, and I hate to cause him heartburn at this point in time, but I really would say I have raised this budget point of order on other bills and it is not that I am complaining particularly about his. His, in fact, will be a lot easier to fix than some of them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as consumers shop for the holidays, more and more consumers are buying, giving, and receiving gift cards.

By one estimate, Americans spent over $100 billion on gift cards in the 2011 holiday shopping season, and that nearly $2 billion of that value went unused.

Today I am introducing legislation to help substantially remedy that problem and to ensure that consumers receive the full value that is stored on their gift cards.

Whether it is a bankrupt company that refuses to honor a gift certificate, a gift card with hidden fees that slowly withers down to nothing, or a ``promotional'' gift card that expires in the virtual blink of an eye, consumers in Connecticut and across the nation are in danger of seeing the value of their gift cards disappear.

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act will stop these abusive practices.

This bill uses as a model or blueprint the Connecticut law that I advocated and helped write while serving as Attorney General, but it adds to protections provided by that state law and others.

This new measure enhances and expands gift card safeguards, particularly when gift card sellers become legally insolvent and seek bankruptcy status.

It will add strong new protections for consumers when a company goes bankrupt. Under this bill, a company that files for bankruptcy must immediately

stop selling its gift cards and is required to honor existing gift cards until it goes out of business.

First, this bill will ban expiration dates and inactivity fees.

Connecticut gift card consumers have the benefit of clear and robust protections: their gift cards do not expire, and they do not carry any non-use or dormancy fees. These protections apply whether the gift card is purchased by a consumer or obtained as a rebate or bonus for the purchase of another product because in both situations, the consumer is relying on an expectation that the funds on the card will not expire and will not be depleted by fees.

As a U.S. Senator, I have often advocated for bringing Connecticut's strong consumer protection laws to the rest of the Nation, and that is what this bill does.

Under current Federal law, gift cards may expire after 5 years, and they be charged inactivity fees after 1 year. And loyalty, award, and promotional cards are not covered at all.

This bill would eliminate expiration dates and inactivity fees for gift cards, and it would include those protections for loyalty, award, and promotional gift cards.

This bill will give peace of mind and security to consumers when they purchase gift cards. They can shop with confidence, knowing that the money on their gift cards will not expire, will not diminish over time, and will not be refused if a company goes out of business.

I am grateful that many in the industry already follow these practices. Best Buy, for instance, doesn't charge fees on their gift cards and they do not expire. When you get a bonus card for a purchase, that card doesn't expire or carry fees, either. The same is true for Barnes and Noble, and others.

These practices should prevail uniformly for every company.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Some large companies assess inactivity fees after a year, others issue promotional gift cards that expire very quickly, sometimes as soon as forty days from the card's issuance.

The result is confusion and a lack of consumer confidence. ``Does this company's gift card have hidden fees? Does the money on this $20 bonus card last until I use it, or will it expire next month? This ad says I get a promotional gift card when I buy a new TV: does that mean it won't expire for five years, or will it expire in 30 days?''

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act will address and dispel such doubt and confusion and make it clear that consumers who receive or buy gift cards whether by purchasing them directly or as part of a rebate or promotion need not worry about the cards expiring or being depleted by inactivity fees. It provides protections for gift card holders when a company files for bankruptcy protection.

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act assures that consumers get their money's worth, no matter when they use the gift card.

I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the Gift Card Consumer Protection Act and ensure that gift card consumers do not see the value of their gift cards disappear due to unfair fees or expiration dates or a company bankruptcy.

Mr. President, as consumers shop for the holidays, more and more consumers are buying, giving, and receiving gift cards.

By one estimate, Americans spent over $100 billion on gift cards in the 2011 holiday shopping season, and that nearly $2 billion of that value went unused.

Today I am introducing legislation to help substantially remedy that problem and to ensure that consumers receive the full value that is stored on their gift cards.

Whether it is a bankrupt company that refuses to honor a gift certificate, a gift card with hidden fees that slowly withers down to nothing, or a ``promotional'' gift card that expires in the virtual blink of an eye, consumers in Connecticut and across the nation are in danger of seeing the value of their gift cards disappear.

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act will stop these abusive practices.

This bill uses as a model or blueprint the Connecticut law that I advocated and helped write while serving as Attorney General, but it adds to protections provided by that state law and others.

This new measure enhances and expands gift card safeguards, particularly when gift card sellers become legally insolvent and seek bankruptcy status.

It will add strong new protections for consumers when a company goes bankrupt. Under this bill, a company that files for bankruptcy must immediately

stop selling its gift cards and is required to honor existing gift cards until it goes out of business.

First, this bill will ban expiration dates and inactivity fees.

Connecticut gift card consumers have the benefit of clear and robust protections: their gift cards do not expire, and they do not carry any non-use or dormancy fees. These protections apply whether the gift card is purchased by a consumer or obtained as a rebate or bonus for the purchase of another product because in both situations, the consumer is relying on an expectation that the funds on the card will not expire and will not be depleted by fees.

As a U.S. Senator, I have often advocated for bringing Connecticut's strong consumer protection laws to the rest of the Nation, and that is what this bill does.

Under current Federal law, gift cards may expire after 5 years, and they be charged inactivity fees after 1 year. And loyalty, award, and promotional cards are not covered at all.

This bill would eliminate expiration dates and inactivity fees for gift cards, and it would include those protections for loyalty, award, and promotional gift cards.

This bill will give peace of mind and security to consumers when they purchase gift cards. They can shop with confidence, knowing that the money on their gift cards will not expire, will not diminish over time, and will not be refused if a company goes out of business.

I am grateful that many in the industry already follow these practices. Best Buy, for instance, doesn't charge fees on their gift cards and they do not expire. When you get a bonus card for a purchase, that card doesn't expire or carry fees, either. The same is true for Barnes and Noble, and others.

These practices should prevail uniformly for every company.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Some large companies assess inactivity fees after a year, others issue promotional gift cards that expire very quickly, sometimes as soon as forty days from the card's issuance.

The result is confusion and a lack of consumer confidence. ``Does this company's gift card have hidden fees? Does the money on this $20 bonus card last until I use it, or will it expire next month? This ad says I get a promotional gift card when I buy a new TV: does that mean it won't expire for five years, or will it expire in 30 days?''

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act will address and dispel such doubt and confusion and make it clear that consumers who receive or buy gift cards whether by purchasing them directly or as part of a rebate or promotion need not worry about the cards expiring or being depleted by inactivity fees. It provides protections for gift card holders when a company files for bankruptcy protection.

The Gift Card Consumer Protection Act assures that consumers get their money's worth, no matter when they use the gift card.

I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the Gift Card Consumer Protection Act and ensure that gift card consumers do not see the value of their gift cards disappear due to unfair fees or expiration dates or a company bankruptcy.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Tester's leadership in putting together legislation, S. 3525, to address the priorities of sportsmen across the country.

This bill has many important provisions that I support, including reauthorization of highly successful conservation programs in the Environment and Public Works Committee's jurisdiction, which I chair. These programs restore critical wetlands, support partnerships to conserve wildlife habitat, and promote outdoor recreation.

While I appreciate Senator Tester's efforts to move this legislation forward, I remain deeply concerned about two provisions included in this package, which I will discuss today. S. 3525 broadens an exemption that prohibits the use of the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act to address public health and environmental threats from dangerous chemicals, including lead, in ammunition and fishing tackle.

Some ammunition and fishing tackle contain lead that can be harmful to people who consume meat contaminated with lead shot. In 2008, Minnesota examined packages of venison and found that 22 percent contained lead fragments. North Dakota has also found lead fragments in venison being distributed for food.

The latest science shows that there is no known safe level of lead in children's blood. Because lead can damage the nervous system, including the brain, children and pregnant women are especially at risk.

Animals can also be poisoned or die after eating ammunition that is shot into lakes, rivers and upland areas, or when they consume the carcass of another animal that contains spent ammunition. In 2008, an expert at the U.S. Geological Survey stated:

Science is replete with evidence that ingestion of spent

ammunition and fishing tackle can kill birds. The magnitude

of poisoning in some species such as waterfowl, eagles,

California condors, swans and loons, is daunting.

There are safe and effective alternatives, such as steel, to the use of lead in shot and fishing tackle. According to the State of Wisconsin:

Steel shot actually arrives on target in a tighter pattern

. . . (and) penetrates game better than lead . . . Extensive

research, testing steel and other non-toxic shot, shows it to

be both safe and effective.

The Federal Government must be able to use all of the tools at its disposal to protect American families from consuming contaminated food. Therefore, we should not create unneeded exemptions that apply to lead and an unknown number of other contaminants.

I also oppose the provision in S. 3525 that would allow sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported from Canada. This misguided provision could jeopardize recovery efforts for a species that is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, ESA, and protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA.

Before polar bears received their protected status under the ESA and MMPA, there were extensive warnings for over a year that this protection was imminent. Nevertheless, a small group of trophy hunters ignored these warnings and went forward scheduling new

hunts, and they are now seeking an exception to allow their polar bear trophies to be imported into the United States.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that approximately 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears remain in the wild. Their survival is severely jeopardized by many factors, and we should not provide a loophole that encourages hunting of this vulnerable species. Maintaining full, consistent protections for polar bears is critical to the health of the Arctic ecosystem, the Native communities who legally harvest these bears for subsistence purposes, and for the public at large that is working to save this iconic animal.

I believe this bill has many good provisions that will help preserve America's treasured natural resources, protect fish and wildlife, and provide recreational opportunities for our families. Unfortunately, the bill also includes two provisions that threaten public health and could set back wildlife conservation efforts. I filed amendments to S. 3525 that would address these concerns, but if the amendments are not adopted and the bill remains unchanged, I will oppose S. 3525 in its current form.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.