Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Lieutenant Russell Neary, a brave volunteer firefighter who was killed in the line of duty during Hurricane Sandy. He served the Town of Easton as President of the Easton Volunteer Fire Company and volunteer EMT and worked in Stamford as a vice president of General Reinsurance Company. He was deeply respected as a friendly and compassionate resident and beloved father and husband. I know his family well. When Sandy struck Connecticut the evening of October 29, Lieutenant Neary responded to a call without hesitation--one of the many evenings over the past 13 years when he put himself in harm's way to respond to a resident in need. Tragically, when clearing the road of a fallen branch, he was fatally injured. Lieutenant Neary was the first firefighter in Easton's history to die in the line of duty. His family has a history of public service, including his brother Fire Marshal Peter Neary. In the following days after this tragedy, members of neighboring fire departments and emergency responders volunteered their time to assist Easton Fire Company firefighters, allowing them to mourn the death of their colleague and friend--a demonstration of brotherhood and solidarity across Connecticut public safety personnel. Regarded as family by Chief James M. Girardi and fellow members of the Easton Volunteer Fire Company, Lieutenant Neary was tearfully mourned and remembered for days after his tragic death as ``a powerful force of good will and compassion to all who met him.'' He was recalled by many as a sincere member of the community who genuinely cared for and enjoyed helping others. I joined more than 1,000 people--gathered from around Connecticut, the Nation, and even Canada to pay tribute to this remarkable public servant. His legacy will live on through this spirit of giving that has touched and inspired so many. I am honored to salute Lieutenant Neary and invite my Senate colleagues to join me in commemorating the life of this gracious first responder, friend, and family member, who lost his life while keeping others safe from harm.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 762 and 829; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar Nos. 762 and 829 in that order; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 612 submitted earlier today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3637, the TAG extension legislation.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 612 as a further mark of respect to the late Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for the extraordinary work he and my predecessor, Senator Dodd, have done in filling our U.S. District Courts with some of the most eminent jurists in the United States. As he has remarked so eloquently, part of the living legacy of the Senate and of individual Senators is, in fact, the men and women whom we recommend to serve in this critically important decision. As someone who has been a trial lawyer, who has practiced for a few decades in the Federal district courts of our country, I know personally that these men and women for most Americans are the voice and face of justice in our Federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court may be the highest Court in the land, but most litigants go no higher than the U.S. District Court, and for them fairness and justice is the voice and face of the U.S. district judge. So I thank the Senator for the great work he has done. In decisions based on merit, without regard to personality or politics, he has participated in recommending some of the best of the best men and women to serve on our Federal bench. Michael Shea epitomizes that quality of fairness, intellect, and dedication to public service. He is a native of Connecticut, but his experience is national and international in scope. I am not going to repeat all of the extraordinary credentials that Senator Lieberman has described so well. I just want to say that on a level that is as important as any professional credentials in terms of temperament, he is the kind of person we want on our bench. He is unpresuming, unassuming, self-effacing, understated, but powerfully attentive to individual facts and personal circumstances. He has compassion and conviction, principle and impeccable honesty and integrity, and he has an empathy for people who are in distress, who are in need of somebody to listen. That may be a quality that is preeminently important on the bench, the ability to listen and the attention to detail. Mr. Shea has served as counsel for criminal defendants. He has argued 20 appeals, including 6 to the Second Circuit. He has tried 9 cases to verdict. He has served as counsel to the Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese in first amendment matters. I worked with him personally in a professional capacity when I was attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I know him as someone who will do justice and love mercy. He is a man whom we can be proud to support. I am proud to support him. I thank President Obama for nominating him and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, for his leadership on our committee in making sure he had a hearing and a vote, and now this vote is here. I thank also our ranking member, Senator Grassley, for his graciousness in stating that he would support him. My hope is that the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, which faces a backlog now, will have the good fortune to have remaining vacancies filled at the earliest possible date by lawyers as eminently qualified as soon-to-be judge Michael Shea. I thank this body in advance for approving him. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1947, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I recognize that the hour is late. I wish to take a very brief moment to thank my colleagues, beginning with Senator Kirk and Senator Brown--my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Massachusetts--who have done such great work on this measure over many months, as well as Senator Cantwell of Washington and other colleagues who have cosponsored this measure, including Senators Collins, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Kerry, Landrieu, Merkley, Mikulski, Murray, Vitter, and Wyden. They are all tireless advocates for animals. This bill is about ending animal fighting which, plainly and simply, is a blood sport. It is cruel and inhumane. It leaves animals scarred and disabled. And, it is associated with many other criminal activities. People who attend animal fights are often also engaged in drug dealing, extortion, assault, and a variety of other crimes, and the enabling activity is animal fighting. That is why this bill increases the penalties for knowingly attending an animal fight with a child and, indeed, makes it a crime to knowingly attend an animal fight. These stricter penalties are contingent upon a purposeful support for this cruel and inhumane sport. Very simply, this legislation provides new tools to law enforcement for eliminating not only animal fighting, but also the activities that may be attendant to them. Animal fighting is a Federal matter, and it requires a Federal response. This is particularly important because an animal fighting ring often involves players from many different States. Under current law, a county sheriff or a local prosecutor simply lacks the authority to root out, apprehend, and effectively prosecute such an operation. This bill has the support of many law enforcement organizations whom I thank, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and Fraternal Order of Police. County sheriffs from across the country have also signed on as supporters, along with the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States. I hope it will have support from this Chamber. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to join in thanking the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator McCain, for the extraordinary bipartisan work they have done on this measure, and also the accommodation and consideration they have given to all of us who have proposed amendments, as well as to their staff and the majority leader. On behalf of Connecticut, which produces many of the key products that are affected by this bill, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, our submarines, and the Sikorsky helicopter, we have a great deal of pride in the support that the U.S. Senate has given today to our national defense and the production of these products.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of Connecticut's most dedicated and admired public officials, former Stonington first selectman, James Spellman, Sr., who passed away at the age of 92. Mr. Spellman's legacy of public service is remarkable. Elected 12 times over a span of 24 years, he made history as Stonington's longest serving first selectman. And he retired as Connecticut's longest serving municipal executive. At age 80, he received a rare, lifetime public service award from the town of Stonington. His lasting impact will be measured by the local landmarks erected under his leadership that will endure for generations. As first selectman, Mr. Spellman was an expert manager during a time of tremendous growth, and he guided historic development in infrastructure. Most especially, he oversaw construction of the portion of Interstate 95 connecting Stonington with the rest of the State and east coast, and the development of several schools and shared recreational spaces. Mr. Spellman always stayed true to the core values of his hometown. Born and raised in the area, he considered the town his family. Mr. Spellman's loved ones are quick to point out he never asked for-- or expected--a local namesake. In fact, town officials quickly chose to dedicate Spellman Drive at a time when Mr. Spellman was physically unable to decline the honor while hospitalized. His work was his life and his job was his personal pride. In this way, one of his shining accomplishments--the preservation of the Stonington Town Dock and commercial fishing for Stonington--is both personal and public. He was a courageous and highly decorated veteran of the U.S. Navy during World War II, and he led deliberately, kindly, and with stellar intuition. In addition to his leadership of town hall, Mr. Spellman chaired the Water Pollution Control Authority and guided the creation of an intermunicipal sewage system. He also donated his time serving on the school board, and volunteering with the Pawcatuck Fire Department, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Connecticut Judicial Selection Commission. In 1955, he was one of the first Connecticut residents to be given a real-estate brokerage license, and from 1956 to 1961 was appointed by then-Governor Abraham Ribicoff as judge of the Stonington Town Court--the only appointee without a law degree. Even in retirement, Mr. Spellman demonstrated his truly heartfelt care and concern for Stonington. He was generous with sage advice for local leaders throughout Connecticut, checking in frequently at town hall, and writing to the local newspaper. Mr. Spellman was deservedly proud of all his family, including his son Steve, a friend and former colleague in the State senate. He will be missed for his caring courage, sense of humor, and good heart. A true statesman, he will never be forgotten.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most preeminent legal minds and dedicated public servants, who recently passed away. U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz was known throughout Connecticut and our Nation's highest courts as a respected judicial authority, experienced appellate litigator, legal scholar, and community leader. Judge Kravitz was deeply regarded and admired for his extraordinary analytical mind and trial expertise. He devoted his vast experience--27 years at New Haven firm Wiggin and Dana as a trial and appellate lawyer--to public service. Just out of law school, he emerged as a leader, clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who, in 2003, swore him in as a U.S. district judge. In 2001, and then again in 2007, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure and to chair the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. Over the years, he engaged in vital national discussions, writing for the National Law Journal and serving as an American Law Institute Fellow and a board member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. In addition, he taught at the University of Connecticut School of Law, Yale Law, and the University of Melbourne Graduate School of Law. I knew Judge Kravitz personally and professionally, on and off the bench. As attorney general, I appeared before him, arguing positions and causes that did not always prevail. Win or lose, I felt that the result was fair and well-reasoned. And that view of him was common to almost all litigants in his courtroom. Judge Kravitz presided and ruled on important national issues, including the constitutionality of No Child Left Behind, free speech and property cases, and recently first amendment rights cases raised by the movement to ``occupy Wall Street'' on the New Haven Green. Even when diagnosed with ALS, he continued relentlessly and tirelessly to work full time, demonstrating his passion for the law and dedication to his country. As a footnote, I spent many hours with Judge Kravitz, even before he became a judge. He headed a moot court team that prepared me for Supreme Court arguments. More importantly, I consistently witnessed Judge Kravitz's commitment to the philosophy of equality under the law, while remaining carefully attuned to the facets of each legal question before him. He was trustworthy, and loyal in his relationship with others, especially his beloved family--and my dear colleague and friend. Outside of the law, he gave back to Connecticut as founding director of both the Yale Children's Hospital and Connecticut Food Bank. In addition, he volunteered his time on the boards of several nonprofit organizations, including the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government, Guilford Library Association, and Board of Ethics for the Town of Guilford. Judge Kravitz cared deeply about morality and integrity--and lived according to the highest principles. I was inspired and moved by a recent unveiling of his portrait, commissioned by the Connecticut Bar Foundation, which will be hung in New Haven's Federal courthouse. I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in paying respect to Judge Mark Kravitz and sending condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues, who mourn his loss, and remember a man who made his life's work contributing to the world around him.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the ranking member, Senator McCain, for their leadership on this issue and ask unanimous consent that my amendment 3124 be made pending, as modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Very simply, this amendment involves commonsense reforms that will ensure the performance of overseas contracts, paid for by our taxpayers, involving money in this very Defense budget, consistent with the values that we hold dear as Americans. The Department of Defense has a special responsibility to lead in preventing human trafficking overseas, as this amendment would do. It is not only a matter of humane and moral values, it is a matter of getting value for the dollars we spend in protecting our national security. The United States has and ought to have a zero-tolerance policy against government employees and contractor personnel engaging in any form of human trafficking. These values are transcendent of party lines, of any other interests. I am very proud to offer this amendment, in fact, with strong support across the aisle, led by my colleague Senator Portman who has joined me in forming a human trafficking caucus to lead the way on these issues. This amendment is the result of efforts we have led and very simply represents the most comprehensive legislative effort ever undertaken in the Congress to stamp out human trafficking in overseas contracting. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote yesterday on the motion to proceed to executive session for the consideration of treaty 112-7, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I spent most of the day in Connecticut, touring the State with FEMA's Acting Administrator to assess damage from Hurricane Sandy and Federal aid for the State. I also joined Attorney General Holder, Governor Malloy, and others in New Haven to roll out a new statewide initiative to combat violence in our urban communities. Had I been present, I would have voted for the motion to proceed.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.'')

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very honored to stand with my distinguished colleague from Illinois on this vitally important issue. I thank him for his leadership, and I am very proud to work with him on a problem that really shows dramatically that neglect and disregard by government regulators and enforcers can have real-life consequences. The FDA has, very simply, failed to address this issue, and I believe it has failed even to respond to the alarms Senator Durbin and I have sounded on this issue. Yesterday the New York Times featured an article reporting that the Food and Drug Administration received 13 adverse-event reports of fatalities following the consumption of 5-Hour Energy, which is a highly caffeinated energy shot. But this report is really only the latest of a series of reports that two popular energy drinks--Monster Energy and 5-Hour Energy--have been cited in deaths and injury. These drinks have been cited in reports of dozens of serious adverse events such as heart attacks and convulsions. And these events are not the only concern that has been raised about energy drinks. I will cite a few. A report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that the number of emergency room visits due to energy drinks increased tenfold between 2005 and 2009, from 1,128 to 13,114 visits. More recently, a study of energy drinks by Consumer Reports found that some energy drinks contain high levels of caffeine--in some cases, twice as much as a cup of coffee. The Consumer Reports study found that labels of many energy drinks completely failed to disclose how much caffeine is contained, and, even worse, 5 of the 16 drinks Consumer Reports studied contained more than 20 percent more caffeine than what was stated on the label. These reports are profoundly and deeply troubling, and the FDA--the agency in charge of regulating the safety of these products--needs to determine whether energy drinks are safe and, if necessary, take action about their safety. Senator Durbin and I have written two letters--one on September 11, the other on October 26 of this year--calling on the agency to take action addressing the rising public health concerns around energy drinks and to protect consumers. Have we heard anything back? Nothing. No response. In today's letter, we reiterate our request for the FDA to investigate the interactions between caffeine and stimulants in energy drinks, to assess the health risks associated with caffeine consumption by children and adolescents, and to finalize and issue guidance that clearly distinguishes liquid dietary supplements from beverages. This issue is as profoundly and deeply important as the combination of caffeine and alcohol, which Attorneys General addressed during the time I held that job in the State of Connecticut. Alcohol makers, to their credit, did the right thing and addressed it on their own. Here, the industry has failed in that obligation. The FDA has not just an opportunity but an obligation to address this issue. I also believe the FDA has failed to consider the shifting trends in caffeine consumption more generally and broadly that is shown by the energy drink industry, particularly shifting trends in consumption among adolescents. The industry has marketed relentlessly and repeatedly, which accounts for that dramatic statistic Senator Durbin cited that 30 to 50 percent of adolescents are known and reported to be using these drinks. Marketing and that trend have a clear connection. It is no accident that caffeine consumption and the consumption of these energy drinks is increasing. But the FDA's determination of safe levels of caffeine seems to be based on what is safe for adult consumption, not adolescent. It does not consider consumption patterns among young people or take into account safe levels of caffeine consumption among children. And these energy drinks are marketed to young people, including children. As an example, although the FDA states that adults can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that adolescents consume no more than 100 milligrams per day--less than what is contained in one dose of an energy drink. And Consumer Reports recommends that children consume no more than 45 to 85 milligrams per day, depending on their weight. I wish to associate myself with the very persuasive and compelling remarks made by Senator Durbin today. Again, his leadership on this issue has been so valuable. I would close by making this point. There is a lot of rhetoric that is purportedly based on principle and conviction that somehow government rules and consumer protections are a frivolous nuisance or a burden without a benefit or an unwarranted intrusion in the free market. The experience that was dramatically portrayed in the hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today offers a tragic lesson on how compounding pharmacies and the failure of government regulators to act dispositively and promptly led to injuries and deaths across the country. My colleague Senator Alexander was present and very perceptively asked some of the most pointed questions this morning of the witnesses who came before us from the FDA and other government agencies, including the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy. That lesson this morning ought to sound an alarm for us here because the New England compounding pharmacy in that instance was a known risk to both Federal and State regulators--the FDA and the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy--and both failed to take effective action to protect the public. The FDA in this instance has an obligation to protect the public and take action that will safeguard the health of our children and adolescents--the health of everyone--in light of the potential dangers posed by these energy drinks. I close by again thanking my colleague from Illinois for being such a strong advocate of consumer interests and health in this area. I hope we will have a meeting soon, as we have requested, so that we can work together to make sure these products are labeled accurately and truthfully, marketed responsibly, and consumed safely. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement regarding my vote to support the motion to proceed to S. 3525, the Sportsmen's Act of 2012. There are many worthy provisions in this bill that deserve our support. However, I remain concerned about the provision that would allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before February 18, 1997. This provision would apply to trophies regardless of whether they were taken from an approved polar bear population. Prior to 1997, U.S. trophy hunters were only permitted to take bears and import trophies from approved populations; thus, only trophy hunters who killed polar bears from unapproved populations would benefit from this provision of the bill. I find this very disturbing. This provision of the Sportsmen's Act undermines current wildlife protections, and further imperils an already threatened species by encouraging future killings for sport. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment introduced by my two colleagues from Massachusetts to strike this provision. It would be my hope that the Senate would pass this important amendment.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my colleague and friend from South Carolina who has so eloquently and powerfully stated the case for this resolution. But even before discussing resolution 41, I thank him and our colleagues who spoke today on the floor about the Rand Paul resolution. I think this morning's debate--and I listened to it for all 3 hours, because I was presiding at the time--marked one of the finer moments of my brief time as a Member of the Senate. What I saw this morning was an articulate, thoughtful, and courageous statement against a resolution that would do grave harm to this Nation's national interests if it became law and if it bound the U.S. Government and cut off aid to these countries. I think the case stated was courageous because it very likely may prove unpopular with some elements of their own party--to put it very bluntly, the political reality here. But I think it was one of the finer moments of this body because it marked a point of clarity and a clear recognition for the need to come together as a nation when our national interests are threatened, when our national security is at stake, when the harm to this Nation requires acting together. I am hoping this spirit of bipartisanship will also come together, as it has so far with 82 cosponsors, on the resolution we have sponsored, S.J. Res. 41. As Senator Graham has rightly observed, it began with the leadership of a handful of Senators. He was one of the key leaders, as were Senator Lieberman, Senator Ayotte, Senator Hoeven, Senator Casey, and Senator Menendez. I was proud to be among them. The spirit of bipartisanship and the strength of that spirit was really extraordinary. Here is what we know. At a time of confusion and obfuscation, in many respects, where foreign policy is concerned, knowing with certainty some of the facts is very important. We all know from the International Atomic Energy Agency that as of November 2011, Iran had produced approximately 5,000 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 3.5 percent. We also know that this Iranian regime is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to our Department of State. We know this regime has repeatedly expressed its desire to ``wipe Israel off the map.'' We know this regime has provided weapons training to Hamas, Hezbollah, and militias in Iraq who murder civilians and spread terror. We know it has already actively and consistently provided aid to the Assad regime in Syria in its brutal and unconscionable repression of its own people. The torture and murders that have occurred have been directly linked to Iran. We know the Iranian Government is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. If it does, it will lead to an arms race in that part of the world that will be as threatening as any other potential harm to this Nation. We know Iran would create access for terrorists to these nuclear weapons, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox. We cannot trust this regime. We know that fact beyond any potential doubt. Iran's nuclear program is of extraordinarily grave concern not only to nations in that part of the world but to all nations everywhere that want peace. That is why an international coalition has come together, with the leadership of the United States of America. Iran cannot be permitted to continue its nuclear program to a point where it is capable of making a nuclear weapon. Despite repeated calls for it to suspend or stop this program, we know with certainty that Iranian leaders show no signs of waiting or wanting to halt their program to build nuclear weapons. In fact, recent intelligence shows they are continuing to enrich uranium and develop nuclear facilities. That is why we need S.J. Res. 41. There is no question that the administration, under President Obama, has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to such a policy. The President has made his position and the position of the United States absolutely clear. I am quoting President Obama: Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is the message of S.J. Res. 41. That is the message we must convey as a nation together from all parties, all parts of the United States, and all interests, that time is limited. Time is limited to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon capability. This resolution calls for increased pressure on Iran to come into compliance with the U.S. security resolution. This resolution builds on the efforts of myself and others to call for successful P5+1 talks that would lead Iran to halt its nuclear program. This resolution says to the world that the United States and governments of other responsible nations have a vital, mutual interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon capability. Let's underscore the words and recognize their importance: nuclear weapons capability. Many of us have written multiple times to President Obama outlaying a framework that would lead to successful negotiations. My hope is that the combination of strict international sanctions and international condemnation of a nuclear-armed Iran will convince that government to desist and cease its program of nuclear weapons capability building. It is not in our interest, it is not in the world's interest, and ultimately it is not in that regime's interest. If sanctions fail, we must be prepared to act. This resolution expresses the resolution and the resoluteness of this body. I am hopeful that sanctions will work, but if the Government of Iran is unconvinced by this very compelling case, it must know that this issue is not a partisan one, it is not one on which we are divided. We stand together, we stand strong, and we are resolute and resilient. The United States and its allies will join together to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Again, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and all 82 of my colleagues who have joined as cosponsors. We began with a handful, but I think the compelling power and persuasiveness of the need for this resolution is carrying the day. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, my good friend and the leader of this effort.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize three of our Nation's inspiring Paralympians, with Connecticut roots, who competed, along with 227 American teammates and more than 4,000 athletes from over 160 countries, in this year's Paralympic games in London. During these games, which took place from August 29 to September 9, the United States brought home 98 medals, including 31 gold medals. The exceptional drive, discipline, and dreams of these athletes are as extraordinary as the medals. Their personal stories of sacrifice and hard work, effort and energy, and aspirations turned into realities, despite setbacks and adversity, are truly remarkable. In 1948 at Aylesbury, England's Stoke Mandeville Hospital, the idea of the Paralympics was formed, and so it is historically significant that England hosted this year's Paralympic games. Sir Ludwig Guttmann envisioned including disabled veterans in international sports competition, and in 1948 his dream was realized in the International Wheelchair Games. In 1960, Rome hosted the first official Paralympic games as we know them today. As we look back at this year's games--one of the largest Paralympics in historya--we celebrate this legacy. We are reminded of how important these games were for the rehabilitation of our disabled World War II veterans. For Tara Profitt of Newington, CT, and member of the 2012 U.S. Paralympic Table Tennis Team, England as host country is personally significant. Ms. Profitt competed in the women's singles competition at the 1984 Paralympics hosted in Stoke Mandeville, England, but always hoped to have the opportunity to play alongside her college friend and fellow table tennis champion, Pamela Fontaine, in the women's team class. This year, in addition to participating individually in the women's single class events, Ms. Profitt and Ms. Fontaine were selected to represent the United States together in the women's team event, reuniting again on familiar territory. Ms. Profitt has credited Ms. Fontaine with inspiring her to become the athlete she is today, encouraging her to engage in sports again after the diving injury that she suffered as a teenager. They have worked hard to qualify over the past few years, traveling around the world to compete, and this year achieved the goal that they have held dearly for decades: to play together, celebrating their country and friendship on an international stage. Representing the United States in track and field, three-time gold medalist Paul Nitz traveled from Bloomfield, CT, to participate in his third Paralympic games. This year, he was given the tremendous honor of serving as track captain for the U.S. Paralympic Track and Field team, inspiring both first-time and veteran athletes. Mr. Nitz has an accomplished athletic record: He won the Gold in the 100m event in 1992, 1996, and 2000 and broke the 100m world record during the 2012 Swiss Series. This year, I am proud to announce that he brought home the bronze in the 100m. Equally commendable, Mr. Nitz works in his community--as an employee of the Hartford Insurance Group--to positively change public perception regarding disability. In addition to his impressive athletic achievements, through his efforts at the Hartford, he has led great strides across the Nation in dispelling prejudice, misconception, and judgment. I also applaud the Hartford Insurance Group for their commitment to the Paralympic games: Since 2003, it has been a founding partner of the U.S. Paralympics, an official division of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Five-time Paralympian Scott Danberg calls Stamford his hometown, and Connecticut has been proud to follow him throughout his impressive athletic career. Recently, as a well-known and regarded member of the U.S. Paralympic track and field team, he competed in the men's discus event, throwing his personal best for this season in London. And this year he was nominated by his fellow track and field members and then chosen by a vote by the U.S. paralympic team as our Nation's flag bearer during opening ceremonies. He adds this tremendous honor to his past accomplishments, including the bronze at the 2011 IPC World Championships, the gold at the 2010 U.S. Paralympics Track & Field National Championships in both discus and shot put, and the silver in javelin at the 1998 Paralympic games. I hope that Connecticut's Paralympians can continue to promote international and national awareness and engagement and we can continue to come together as a nation, recognizing what unites us. Thank you for joining me in applauding our amazing American athletes and those around the world who have shown the athleticism, stamina, and national identity that transcends differences.