BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 11 years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act, which is legislation that would allow a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute more fully to America.
The DREAM Act is not an amnesty bill. It would give students a chance to earn legal status in America, and there are standards they would have to live up to: No. 1, they came to the United States as children; No. 2, they have been long-term U.S. residents; No. 3, they have good moral character; No. 4, they have graduated from high school; No. 5, they either serve in America's military or complete 2 years of college.
The DREAM Act also includes important restrictions to prevent abuse. Under the DREAM Act, no one would be eligible for Pell grants or any other Federal grants when they go to school. Individuals who commit fraud under the DREAM Act, who lie, misrepresent their status, would be subject to tough fines and criminal penalties, including a prison sentence of up to 2 years. It is serious. No one would be eligible for the DREAM Act unless they arrived in the United States at least 5 years before the bill becomes a law. There is no exception and no waiver for this requirement.
My colleague from Florida, Senator Marco Rubio, on the Republican side of the aisle, said in a recent speech that the DREAM Act is not an immigration issue, it is a humanitarian issue. I might add that I think it is an issue of justice.
Thousands of immigrant students in the United States were brought here as children. They didn't make a decision at the age of 2 to come to America. It was not their decision to come here, but they grew up here, went to school here, and they stood in classrooms across America pledging allegiance to the only flag they ever knew. They sang ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' before baseball and football games, believing they were part of America.
The fundamental premise of the DREAM Act is that we should not punish children for their parents' actions. It is not the American way. Instead, the DREAM Act says to these students that we are going to give them a chance. These Dreamers, as I have come to know them, don't want a free pass. They just want a chance to earn their place in America. That is what the DREAM Act would give them.
The DREAM Act isn't just the right thing to do, it would make America a stronger country by giving these talented young people the chance to serve in our military and contribute to our future. Tens of thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people would enlist in the Armed Forces. That is why we end up with the support of people such as General Colin Powell, who has given his life to the military and the security of America. He says the DREAM Act is the right thing to do for the future of America.
Studies have found that DREAM Act participants would contribute literally trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy during their working lives.
One might wonder how an idea like that ends up becoming a bill and being debated not only on the floor of the Senate and the House but becoming a subject of debate in the Presidential contest now going on. It started with a phone call to my office about 11 years ago from a woman named Duffy Adelson. Duffy is the director of the Merit music program in Chicago. The Merit music program is an amazing program which offers to children in the public schools of Chicago an opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. That program goes to the poorest schools and asks children if they are interested, if they would like to have an instrument and a chance to learn. Children sign up and amazing things happen. These kids--100 percent of them--end up in college. That is what that one life experience of learning to play music can do.
She called me about a young girl. She was a Korean who had been brought to America at the age of 2. Her mother and father became citizens. Her two siblings, a brother and a sister, were born here and were automatically citizens, but she was not.
She joined the Merit music program and turned out to be an accomplished pianist, to the point where, when she was graduating high school, she was being offered scholarships to the best music academies in the United States.
When her mom sat down with her to fill out the application, there was a little box that said ``citizenship.'' She turned to her mom and said: So what do I put there? Her mom said: I brought you here at the age of 2 on a visitor's visa, and since you were a little baby, I didn't file any more papers. I don't know what you should put there. The girl said, What are we going to do? Her mom said: We are going to call DURBIN.
So they called me and my office checked the law and the law turned out to be pretty harsh. The law said this 18-year-old girl--who had never lived, to her knowledge, in any other place but America--had to leave America for 10 years and then apply to come back. That didn't seem right. She came here at the age of 2. She had done nothing wrong. So I introduced the DREAM Act.
Well, here is the rest of the story about this young lady, whose name is Teresa Lee. Teresa Lee did go to the Manhattan School of Music, and when she went there she turned out to be as good as the Merit music program thought she would be. She progressed to the point where she literally played in Carnegie Hall. She found a young man, fell in love, got married, and she became a citizen by virtue of that marriage. She is now working toward her PhD in music. She is a brilliant young woman.
There was a talent that would have been lost to us and lost to the future if we had followed the strict standards of the law at that moment. But we didn't. We gave her a chance and she proved herself. She proved she is a quality individual.
When I introduced the DREAM Act, it was a bipartisan bill. There were Republican Senators who actually debated as to who was going to be the lead sponsor of the bill because they thought it was such a good idea. The DREAM Act has had a history of broad bipartisan support. When I introduced it with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and was the lead Republican sponsor. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, the DREAM Act was reported by the Judiciary Committee on a 16-to-3 bipartisan vote. And on May 25, 2006, 6 years ago this week, the DREAM Act passed the Republican-controlled Senate on a 62-to-36 vote as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
That bill, unfortunately, did not pass, and, unfortunately, the Republican support for the DREAM Act has diminished over the years. The last time the DREAM Act was considered on the floor of the Senate in 2010, the bill had already passed the House and received a strong majority vote there, but only eight Republicans supported it in the House and only three Republicans in the Senate. A bill which had been so bipartisan and so popular was now becoming, each time we called it up for a vote, more partisan. The bill hasn't changed, but politics had changed.
The vast majority of Democrats in the House and Senate continue to support the DREAM Act. But the reality is we cannot pass the bill without substantial support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is why I have always said I am open to working with anyone--Republican or Democrat--who is interested in working in good faith to solve this problem. I will never close the door on the possibility of providing assistance to these DREAM Act students.
I have come to the floor almost every week for the last several years to tell the story of another young person who would qualify under the DREAM Act. Today I want to tell you the story of Sahid Limon. Sahid was brought to the United States from Bangladesh in 1991 at the age of 9. He grew up in Durham, NC. His dream was to become a doctor. He attended Southern High School--a prestigious magnet school for young people interested in health care. He was a member of the National Honor Society and won his high school's Diamond in the Rough Scholarship award. One of Sahid's teachers said:
In the classroom, he was kind, very respectful, and responsible. He showed great interest in a career in medicine. In the medical community, through shadowing experiences, he was professional, highly motivated, and caring with patients.
Sahid didn't learn about his immigration status until his senior year in high school. He went on to graduate from East Carolina University with a bachelor's of science in biology, with a concentration in microbiology. And understand, he didn't qualify for any Federal loans or any Federal grants. It wasn't easy to get through college under those circumstances.
During college, Sahid volunteered at underserved rural areas in North Carolina and it made a big impression on him. In his application for medical school, he wrote:
I was surprised to see that so many people would line up during a cold winter morning, just to know if they were healthy or not. Seeing their dedication and patience influences me every day to work my hardest in order to meet my personal goal of becoming an exceptional physician.
That was 7 years ago--2005. Today, Sahid is 30 years old. He has been unable to attend medical school because of his immigration status. Since he graduated from college, he has volunteered with a health clinic in Raleigh that serves low-income patients, he has tutored elementary school students to help develop their interests in science, but his personal dream of becoming a doctor has not become a reality.
Some of my colleagues have criticized the DREAM Act because people under the age of 35 are eligible. They say only children should be eligible for the DREAM Act. But this ignores the obvious. Every year we wait, those children grow a year older. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, an individual must have come to the United States as a child, as Sahid did. Today he is 30. That doesn't change the fact he was brought here when he was 9 years old. It doesn't change the fact he has lived in the United States virtually all his life. And it doesn't change the fact he should not be punished for the choices his parents made. Sahid was 19 years old when the DREAM Act was first introduced. Why should he be penalized because I can't pass the bill? I keep trying, but Congress doesn't get it done. Does that mean his life should be wasted?
Last year, Sahid was arrested by immigration agents and placed in deportation proceedings, despite the fact he has lived in the United States for 21 years, since he was 9 years old. He was held in a county jail with violent criminals. Sahid has never committed a crime in his life. Sahid sent me a letter, and here is what he said about the experience of being in jail and facing deportation:
I lived my life by the law, did everything by the books, never committed any crime, and somehow ended up in jail for something I had no control over as a child. What would I do if I was sent back [to Bangladesh]? I barely speak the language, and I don't know how to read or write. How am I supposed to start my life from scratch in such a place without the knowledge of the language or the culture?
Well, my office learned about Sahid's case. We contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement and asked them to consider his request that his deportation be placed on hold. The Obama administration placed a stay on his deportation proceedings. However, it is only temporary. It
doesn't give him permanent legal status, and he is still at risk of being deported sometime in the future. The only way for Sahid to be permitted to stay in the United States permanently is for us to do something to pass the DREAM Act--to change the law.
In his letter to me, Sahid explained what the DREAM Act meant to him:
The DREAM Act means being able to be home. Regardless of where we go ..... we all yearn to come back to our home. To me, North Carolina is that home ..... I watched live on C SPAN [in 2010] as the bill passed the House, but failed to pass the Senate. To most of the Senators, it's just another bill that was rejected. However, to someone like me, whose life not only depends on something so crucial, but my future literally hangs in line, it's absolutely devastating to witness such a rejection. I hope this is the year that politics is set aside, and all of the representatives can work together for a solution.
Sahid is right. Those of us who are fortunate enough to serve in Congress have an obligation to set politics and party aside and do the right thing. This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. We are going to be a stronger and better country if we give Sahid a chance to earn his way to American citizenship.
This is not just one example, one person. There are literally thousands like him waiting for their chance. The DREAM Act would give Sahid and other bright, accomplished, and ambitious young people like him the opportunity to become tomorrow's doctors and engineers, teachers and soldiers. Today I ask my colleagues again, as I have so many times before, to support the DREAM Act. Let's give Sahid and so many other young people like him the chance to contribute more fully to the country they call home. It is the right thing to do, and it will make America a stronger Nation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, we were given a cautionary lesson about the need to ensure that our Nation's banks are carefully regulated. We are still learning the details about the $2 billion bad bet made by banking giant JP Morgan Chase. But what we have learned is disturbing. Apparently, the London office of this Wall Street giant crafted a credit derivative trading strategy that spun out of control over the course of 6 weeks. At the center of the strategy was one single trader who was nicknamed ``the London whale.'' One trader, 6 weeks, $2 billion gone.
It is not clear how widely the repercussions of this trading loss will extend, but this incident clearly is an important reminder to all of us that we cannot afford to take a hands-off regulatory approach to the giant financial institutions on Wall Street. These institutions drove this Nation to the brink of economic disaster just a few years ago. If they are simply left to their own devices, it could easily happen again.
We need reasonable financial regulation that will ensure transparency, competition, and choice. We need to prevent Wall Street banks from fixing the rules and setting up rigged schemes that line their own pockets and hang Main Street America out to dry.
Two years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation took on the challenge of placing a reasonable regulatory framework on Wall Street. It is a tough challenge. Wall Street and the banking industry have enormous resources and enormous power, and they are not afraid to use it--not only on Wall Street but on Capitol Hill.
In the days to come, we are going to see important regulatory efforts proceed on issues such as the Volcker rule, which deals with the big banks' ability to make bets with their customers' money. It is important we pursue this regulatory effort diligently. We cannot let the big banks use their threats and scare tactics to water down reform and to preserve business as usual. There is too much at stake.
I want to talk today about another part of the Wall Street reform that passed 2 years ago, a provision that the big banks hate as much as any other. I am talking about the provision I wrote dealing with interchange fees, or swipe fees. The swipe fee is a fee that a bank receives from a merchant, like a restaurant or a retailer, when the merchant accepts a credit or debit card issued by the bank. That fee is taken out of the transaction amount. If your bill is $50 at the restaurant, that includes the fee the restaurant is paying to the bank and credit card company called the swipe fee--the interchange fee.
The vast majority of bank fees are very transparent and competitive. Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the rest set their own fee rates and compete for business based on the fees they charge. But that is not the case with these swipe fees--the interchange fees--that affect credit and debit cards. The big banks know competition and transparency help keep fees at a reasonable level, and make it harder to make big money off of fees. That is why they set up the swipe system--the interchange system--to avoid competition and transparency.
The big banks decided, rather than each of them setting their own swipe fees, they would designate two giant card companies--Visa and MasterCard--to set the fees for all of them. That way, each bank could get the same high fee on a card transaction. No competition. Then the banks buried this swipe fee under layers of complexity within debit and credit transactions. Most consumers, and even most merchants, still have no idea how much they are being charged on a swipe fee.
This system helped the card-issuing banks do very well over the last 20 years. U.S. swipe fee rates became the highest in the world, and they kept going up even as the cost of processing transactions went down. Debit swipe fees alone--just debit cards--brought the banks over $16 billion in the year 2009. That is the interchange fee paid by the merchants--and ultimately by the consumer--to the banks and credit card companies when people use a debit card.
Of course, banks don't need all this debit swipe fee money to conduct debit transactions. The actual cost of a transaction is very low, a few cents. But the banks, looking for more revenue, exploited the swipe fee system to charge far more than they could ever justify. It doesn't have to be this way. Many other countries--Canada, European countries, and others--have vibrant debit card systems with swipe fees strictly regulated or prohibited altogether. In the United States, debit swipe fees used to be tiny, until Visa took over the debit card market in the mid 1990s using tactics that I think bordered on violations of antitrust.
By 2010, the U.S. swipe fee system was growing out of control, with no end in sight. There were no market forces serving to keep fees at a reasonable level. Merchants and their customers were being forced to subsidize billions in windfalls to the big banks. That is when I introduced an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill that, for the first time, placed reasonable regulation on swipe fees on debit cards.
The reason I picked debit cards is--some of us are old enough to remember something called a checking account. Those checking accounts are still around, but checks are becoming rare. Most people do their checking transactions with a piece of plastic called a debit card. The money comes directly out of their bank accounts just as the check removed money directly from their bank accounts. That is why the debit card is a different transaction than the credit card.
My amendment said if the Nation's biggest banks are going to let Visa and MasterCard fix swipe fees for them, then the rates must be reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing the transaction. There would be no more unreasonably high debit swipe fees for big banks.
My amendment also included a nonexclusivity provision which aimed to stop Visa from taking over the debit card market entirely. This provision says there needs to be a real choice of card networks--real competition.
The regulatory steps my amendment proposed were modest. Most other countries have gone a lot further in regulating their credit and debit systems. But if you have listened to the banking industry and card companies, you would have thought my amendment would be the end of the world as we know it. They made outrageous claims, that regulation and swipe fees could kill the debit card system, devastate small and community banks, and particularly be an end to credit unions and cause banks to raise their fees on customers.
My amendment passed the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law, and it has been 8 months since the swipe fee reform took effect. It turns out all the scary scenarios threatened by the banks have not come to pass.
First, the banks claimed it was impossible for Visa and MasterCard to establish a new tier of regulated swipe fee rates. As it turned out, creating this two-tier system was easy. There were already hundreds of rate tiers, so adding another one wasn't difficult.
The banks then claimed that small banks and credit unions would be hurt by reform--even though all institutions with assets of less than $10 billion were exempt. As it turned out, small banks, community banks, and credit unions have actually thrived since this reform took effect. Why? Because under my amendment, small banks and credit unions can continue to receive high interchange fees from Visa and MasterCard--higher than the big banks that control about 60 percent of the issuer market. And, those big banks have been so heavy-handed in their response to swipe reform that they have driven their customers--many of them--straight into the arms of the community banks and credit unions.
Credit unions in particular are flourishing after the passage of swipe fee reform--a reform which they actively opposed. Last year, 1.3 million Americans opened new credit union accounts. That was up from 600,000 the year before. More than twice as many people as before opened credit union accounts, and credit unions now have a record number of members across the Nation--almost 92 million overall. So much for the prophecy by the credit unions that this change in the law would be the end of them. It has turned out to be the best thing that has ever happened to them.
I know the Washington lobbyists for the small banks and credit unions still like to complain about this reform. These lobbyists have spent so much time fighting reform they are just not going to change their positions. But the facts are clear--if they will just be honest enough to admit it. Small institutions have thrived since this reform took effect.
How about consumers? The big banks tried last year to recoup their reduced swipe fees by charging $5 monthly debit fees on their cardholders. Do you remember that? Do you remember when Bank of America said it was going to go up to $5? Do you remember what they said all across the nation? Bye-bye, Bank of America. We will go somewhere else. Within a matter of a month or two Bank of America backed off of it.
Finally, consumers were coming alive. They were awakened to the reality that they could shop too. This is a free market--underline the word ``free.'' If you don't like the way your bank or any institution is treating you, go shopping. That is part of America. The banks had never run into that before. People just waited, unfortunately, for the latest fee increase. People don't wait around anymore. They pick up and move.
Unlike swipe fees, the big banks' $5 debit fees were transparent and customers had a range of competitors to choose from. So they moved. Transparency and competition worked.
Consumers are also benefitting from savings passed along by merchants. After swipe fee reform took effect in October, we saw a massive level of retailer discounting that extended beyond the usual holiday season discounts. According to USA Today--an article from May 11--a number of individual merchants are offering debit card discounts for items such as gas, furniture, and clothing.
USA Today also pointed out that despite the banks' threats, free checking accounts for consumers have not disappeared. USA Today reported that in the second half of 2011, 39 percent of banks offered checking accounts with no monthly maintenance fee, up from 35 percent for the first half of the year. Also, of those banks that charge checking maintenance fees, the average fee fell in the second half.
This is what is known as competition. What is wrong with that? That American families and consumers go shopping for the best bank deal. It is happening because swipe fee reform has created new competition. I think competition is a good thing.
It is important to note that the savings of swipe fee reform to merchants and consumers actually should be even greater than it is. When the Federal Reserve was writing its rule to implement my amendment, the banks lobbied them to set a swipe fee cap at a level significantly higher than the 12 cents that the Fed established in its draft rulemaking. Predictably, Visa, MasterCard, and the big banks took advantage of this watered-down regulation they had lobbied for. Visa and MasterCard promptly jacked up their swipe fees to the 24-cent ceiling set by the Fed.
Here is what has happened. Swipe fees have traditionally been charged as a percentage of the transaction amount plus a small flat fee. This meant the small dollar transactions used to incur fees of much less than 24 cents. Now, with Visa and MasterCard's rate increases, businesses that primarily deal with smaller transactions--coffee shops, fast-food restaurants--are paying far more in swipe fees than they did before.
This is not a flaw in the law we passed, which wisely required reasonable and proportional fees. Rather, it shows the danger of watering down the regulations to implement the law. The banks and card companies lobbied the Federal Reserve for a loophole which they immediately raced through. This is something we need to fix going forward. It can be fixed.
I am pleased the modest swipe fee reform we enacted in 2010 is off to a good solid start: more competition, customers and families moving across America for the best treatment they can receive from their bank or their credit union. But already the big banks and card companies are plotting to undo all these reforms and get that money back, the billions of dollars which they were taking in under the unregulated swipe fee regime. Visa, in particular, has crafted new fee schemes in its continuing effort to monopolize the debit card market. In fact, Visa recently disclosed that the U.S. Justice Department has opened a new antitrust investigation into anti-competitive aspects of Visa's newest fees.
I continue to be concerned that the giant card companies--particularly Visa--are becoming too big and too powerful. These companies have gained an enormous amount of control over the way Americans can use their money. They set up the fee systems, they dictate the security standards, and they make a fortune by taking a cut out of every transaction they handle, far beyond the cost of processing. There is no regulatory agency that directly supervises the actions of these card companies, and we can't afford to simply trust these companies to do what is in our Nation's best interest or to watch out for consumers.
That, again, is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank law is such a critically important agency. It is virtually the only agency at the highest levels of our government that is solely devoted to consumer protection when it comes to financial products.
In the weeks and months to come, I will continue to work to ensure that the debit and credit card systems have competition, transparency, and choice, and that there is a framework for reasonable regulation. I know the big banks and card companies are going to continue to fight it. They have a lot of money on the table. But I believe reasonable regulation is the right way to move forward, and I will continue to work for it. Our economy, our small banks, our credit unions, our merchants, and our consumers are benefitting from this important change in the law.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, dietary supplements have become a common health aid in medicine cabinets all across America. More than half of us in America use dietary supplements, including this Senator, who, for a variety of reasons, takes a multivitamin tablet every morning. In spite of their popularity, many people would be surprised to learn the Food and Drug Administration doesn't know how many dietary supplements are actually being sold in the United States. Most people don't know if a dietary supplement ingredient presented serious health concerns, the Food and Drug Administration doesn't have the information to track down products containing the harmful ingredient. We assume if it is for sale in America, some government agency has taken a close look to make sure that product is safe and that we know what is inside it and that it wouldn't harm an innocent customer. It turns out that may be true when it comes to prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs, but the dietary supplement world is a much different world, with minimal regulation.
I have an amendment which I will be offering to ensure the Food and Drug Administration has the information it needs to respond quickly and efficiently when safety concerns arise concerning dietary supplements. This amendment would require dietary supplement manufacturers to give the Food and Drug Administration the name of each supplement they produce, along with a description, a list of ingredients, and a copy of the label. It is not an onerous requirement, but for the first time the Food and Drug Administration would literally have a catalogue of all the dietary supplements being sold to Americans all across the Nation. With this information, the FDA would be better equipped to protect consumers' health and to work with manufacturers to address any problems should they arise.
A 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office found the Food and Drug Administration is limited in its ability to respond to safety concerns because dietary supplement manufacturers don't always provide basic information, such as product names or lists of ingredients. This commonsense amendment I am offering is supported by the Consumers Union, and it would provide the Food and Drug Administration the basic information it needs to protect the public.
Trust me. It will be opposed by certain interest groups. But I heard opposition almost 10 years ago when I introduced a bill to require dietary supplement manufacturers to report serious adverse events, such as hospitalizations or deaths, to the FDA. The need for mandatory reporting of adverse events was demonstrated by injuries and deaths across the country caused by the popular and dangerous dietary ingredient ephedra before it was banned in the United States in 2004. One of the victims was 16-year-old Sean Riggins from Lincoln, IL--30 miles from where I live in downstate Illinois. He died in September 2002. Sean was a high school student, and he died from a heart attack after he took something called Yellow Jackets. It was supposed to be an energy boost, and he was headed off to play football. It contained ephedra and it killed him.
Shortly before his death, Metabolife--the largest manufacturer of supplements containing ephedra--claimed to the public they had no ephedra-related adverse event reports, period. However, a lawsuit was filed, and they were required under that lawsuit to disclose their records.
In October of 2002, under pressure, Metabolife gave FDA over 13,000 ephedra-related adverse event reports. People had taken their substances with ephedra and had gotten sick or worse.
In 2006 I worked with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Harkin of Iowa to pass the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, which mandates reporting of adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration. It stands to reason if there is a drug for sale in the United States--a dietary supplement in this case--that causes a problem, we should know about it. If it is causing a problem in a lot of different places, the Food and Drug Administration, through these reports, will discover it.
Since the law took effect in 2007, dietary supplement adverse event reports submitted to the FDA have increased sevenfold, from 368 in 2007 to 2,473 in 2011. The FDA is using these reports as part of a surveillance system to signal potential safety issues and, in some cases, to take regulatory action. Mandatory reporting of adverse events was an important step to help protect consumer safety, but we need to do more to ensure the FDA and consumers have the information they need.
Madam President, the sad reality of this amendment and this issue is that it takes a tragedy to catch our attention. Someone has to be seriously hurt or worse before Members of Congress and others will take notice and do something.
I recently learned about the tragic death of this beautiful young 14-year-old girl. Her name was Anais Fournier from Maryland. Anais was an honor student. She liked to read vampire novels. She watched chick flicks with her mom, and she had a passion for writing. Last December her life was cut short when she went into cardiac arrest. What caused it? Caffeine toxicity. She drank two 24-ounce Monster Energy Drinks in less than 24 hours, and it took her life.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that adolescents, such as 14-year-old Anais, consume no more than 100 milligrams of caffeine every day. But in less than 24 hours, Anais had consumed 480 milligrams of caffeine. That is the equivalent of 14 12-ounce sodas with ordinary caffeine content. Of course, she did it with two drinks--Monster Energy Drinks.
A recent report by SAMHSA shows energy drinks pose potentially serious health risks. I might just say that in the Senate today, as I am speaking, are members of Anais' family. We want to join them in mourning her loss and hope that her life will at least give us notice there are things we can do to spare other families the grief their family has gone through. Wendy Crossland is her mom, her sister Jade is here, her grandfather Dick and grandmother Faith. They have come here today because they are hoping the Senate will hear about this amendment and that we can take it up and pass it.
Anais' case is not the only one. Emergency room visits due to energy drinks have increased tenfold between 2005 and 2009 from 1,128 in 2005 to 13,114 ER visits in 2009. Energy drinks target kids with flashy ads and names like Monster and Rockstar and Five Hour Energy Drink, but there are serious concerns about the high level of caffeine in these beverages and the herbal ingredients that act as stimulants and contain additional caffeine.
But here is an interesting thing. If you walk in--as I have--to an ordinary gas station--whether it is in New Hampshire or in Illinois--and you see the cooler with the drinks in it, and then you see others on counters, you might assume, well, they are all subject to the same level of regulation. But that is not true. If we are talking about ordinary beverages--sodas--they are characterized as food, and they are subject to certain limits by the FDA. However, if you look at the fine print--and you better look closely, because it is very tiny--you may find this is being characterized and described as a dietary supplement.
By putting those two words on the label, the product escapes regulation. So we limit the caffeine in an ordinary soda pop, for example--a cola--but when it comes to the dietary supplement side of the story, there are no limitations. That is why this poor young girl was a victim because of the huge amount of caffeine that was consumed in the name of a dietary supplement.
The FDA has the authority to regulate caffeine levels in beverages and to require beverage manufacturers to prove the additives they put inside that can or bottle are safe. But most energy drinks avoid FDA oversight by calling their products dietary supplements.
I defy anyone to walk into a store and look at all the things they can buy and pick out the ones that are regulated by the FDA and those that are not. They are going to have to study long and hard and look closely at the labels to figure it out.
Is that fair to consumers? Is it fair to families and parents that we don't have even basic oversight and regulation of products that can literally harm or take the life of a beautiful young girl? The amendment I am offering would ensure the FDA knows about all of the energy drinks being sold in the United States and can provide information about ingredients that could help the agency address potential safety concerns.
Most dietary supplements available today for sale are safe, and they are used by millions of Americans as part of a healthy lifestyle. Some ingredients may be safe for the general population but may be risky for kids, pregnant women, or people with a heart condition or who are taking certain prescription drugs.
Furthermore, in spite of the many responsible dietary supplement companies, sadly, there is a murky market space out there where some bad actors are selling potentially dangerous products--some of them imported into the United States--which literally do not even disclose their ingredients in an accurate way. This amendment will take an important step in protecting public health by requiring dietary supplement manufacturers to submit basic information to the FDA that would help the agency identify safety issues and respond more quickly.
No one wants to hear of the death of another 16-year-old who loved to play football or a young girl such as this wonderful young 14-year-old girl who loved watching movies with her mom. We can help prevent these tragedies by requiring that better information is reported to the FDA when these dietary supplements go on the market.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT