[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4151-4156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 596. A bill to establish a grant program to benefit victims of sex 
trafficking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my partner, 
Senator Cornyn, to reintroduce the Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking 
Deterrence and Victims Support Act. This bi-partisan legislation, which 
was approved unanimously by the Senate in the 111th Congress, just a 
few months ago, as S.2925, is the first comprehensive approach to 
combating the terrible and fast-growing criminal enterprise of 
trafficking of children for sex right here in the U.S.
  Many people don't have any idea how many children in the U.S. are 
forced into sexual slavery. It is truly a moral abomination that an 
estimated 100,000 minors are trafficked for sex in the U.S. each year. 
The reason that this crime has reached epidemic proportions is simple: 
the resources are not in place to help innocent victims escape from 
trafficking, nor to punish the violent, ruthless pimps who are 
trafficking them.
  In talking to law enforcement officials in Oregon, I learned that 
gang members, pimps, and traffickers have figured out that trafficking 
a person is a lot less risky, and just as profitable, as trafficking 
drugs. A pimp can make $200,000 a year on one trafficking victim. And 
they know they can exploit vulnerable minors and not get caught because 
law enforcement lacks the training and resources to stop this crime. 
The Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act 
aims to turn that around.
  This bill would, for the first time, provide a comprehensive solution 
for addressing this problem. The bill would establish a pilot project 
of six block grants in locations in different regions of the country 
with significant sex trafficking activity. The block grants would be 
awarded by the Department of Justice to state or local government 
applicants that have developed a workable, comprehensive plan to combat 
sex trafficking. The grants would require a multi-disciplinary approach 
to addressing trafficking problems. Applicants for the grants would 
have to demonstrate they can work together with local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and social service 
providers to achieve the goals of the bill.
  Government agencies that get the grants would be required to create 
shelters where trafficking victims would be safe from their pimps, and 
where they could start getting treatment for the trauma they have 
suffered. The shelters would provide counseling, legal services, and 
mental and physical health services, including treatment for substance 
abuse, sexual abuse, and trauma-informed care. The shelters would also 
provide food, clothing, and other necessities, as well as education and 
training to help victims get their lives on track.
  The bill would also provide training for law enforcement officers. I 
worked with some of the pioneering officers out there like Doug Justus 
in Portland and Byron Fassett in Dallas who really understand this 
issue. But, unfortunately, what Doug and Byron have told me is that 
most officers don't have the training to recognize a sex trafficking 
victim and don't know how to handle those victims in a way that will 
allow them to feel like they can turn away from their pimp. Without 
this training--and without shelters--there's no way to begin building 
criminal cases against the pimps, and no way to get these victims to 
come to court to testify in criminal trials.
  That is why it is going to take a comprehensive plan to finally turn 
the tables on pimps. Without trained officers and service providers, 
and available shelters, there is no support and safe place for children 
who are being trafficked. Right now there are only between 50 and 70 
shelter beds in the entire country for minor victims of sex 
trafficking. That is unacceptable. This bill will change that, and 
begin to provide hope for trafficking victims.
  Another serious aspect of this problem that this bill would address 
is the issue of repeat runaways. Evidence shows that the children at 
greatest risk of becoming involved in sex trafficking are kids who have 
run away from home over and over again. Many of them are children who 
have been in the foster care system. The problem is that there is often 
no report made when a child runs away, and thus no way to know when a 
child is a repeat runaway and at greatest risk.
  This bill would strengthen reporting requirements for runaway or 
missing

[[Page 4152]]

children, and encourage the FBI to enhance the National Crime 
Information Center, NCIC, database, which is where missing child 
reports are filed. Doing so would give law enforcement officers better 
information on the children at greatest risk by flagging repeat 
runaways.
  Before I conclude, I want to express that this is a very personal 
issue with very personal consequences. I had a chance to feel this 
personal heartbreak last year when I accompanied police officers along 
82nd Avenue in my hometown of Portland. I will never forget a 15-year-
old girl working out there with the tools of the trade. She had a cell 
phone to stay in constant contact with her pimp and report how much 
money she had made. She had a 15-inch butcher knife because she knew 
she needed to protect herself. She had a purse full of condoms, because 
she knew she couldn't stop until she'd had more customers during the 
course of the evening.
  The fact that there are thousands of young girls like her out on the 
streets, all across the country, every single day, is nothing short of 
a national emergency. This bill sends a clear and powerful message to 
the victims of this abuse, that somebody cares about her health and 
wellbeing. That is why I hope Congress will act quickly to provide help 
for young girls like the one I met by passing this bill.
  Last year, this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent 
and the House by voice vote. Unfortunately, the bill passed the House 
shortly before Congress adjourned, and there was no time to resolve the 
minor differences between the two chambers' bills. But I will do 
everything I can to see that this bill moves forward promptly so that 
sex trafficking victims can begin to receive the care they need and 
deserve.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the non-profit and 
faith-based organizations in working on this issue. There are a lot of 
deeply committed groups and individuals working to help victims of sex 
trafficking. Their good work has laid the foundation for our efforts 
here in the Congress.
  I want to acknowledge the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children, the FBI's Innocence Lost Project, Polaris Project, Shared 
Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, 
Soroptimists, and the YWCA; and there are many other fine groups that 
deserve thanks.
  I also want to recognize the work of champions--like Ambassador Luis 
CdeBaca, filmmaker Libby Spears, and local officials like Multnomah 
County Commissioner Diane McKeel, who have raised awareness and made it 
their priority to fight this horrific crime. The effort to save 
children from sex trafficking would not be possible without the 
involvement of all of these groups and individuals.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his dedication and 
cooperation in combating sex trafficking. I am also indebted also to 
the members of the Judiciary Committee who played a constructive role 
in shaping the bill; and I particularly thank Chairman Leahy, Senator 
Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Franken, and Senator Coburn for their 
input and work to move this legislation forward in the last Congress. 
Finally, I want to acknowledge our House partners, Representatives 
Carolyn Maloney and Chris Smith, who introduced companion legislation 
last Congress. I look forward to working with them again to quickly 
move this legislation forward to passage.
                                 ______
                                 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Akaka, 
  Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr. 
   Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
 Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
                                Wyden):

  S. 598. A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 
respect for State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today a 
bill to strike the law commonly known as DOMA, the Defense of Marriage 
Act.
  I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Kerry, 
Boxer, Coons, Wyden, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Merkley, Durbin, Franken, 
Schumer, Murray, Whitehouse, Shaheen, Udall of Colorado, Inouye, and 
Akaka for working with me on this important bill.
  Today, there are between tens of thousands of legally married same-
sex couples in the United States, and more than 18,000 in my State of 
California alone.
  These couples live their lives like all married people. They share 
financial expenses, they raise children together, and they care for 
each other in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, until 
death do they part.
  But here is the rub. Right now, because of DOMA, these couples cannot 
take advantage of federal protections available to every other married 
couple in this country.
  For example, because of DOMA, these couples cannot file joint Federal 
income taxes and claim certain deductions; receive spousal benefits 
under Social Security; take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical 
Leave Act when a loved one falls seriously ill; obtain the protections 
of the estate tax when one spouse passes and wants to leave his or her 
possessions to another.
  This has a very real impact. Let me tell you, for example, the 
stories of a married couple in California.
  Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper of Tiburon, CA, have been in a committed 
relationship for more than two decades. In 2008, they were married in 
California before their family and friends.
  They have lived in the same house, shared expenses, and raised their 
son, Christopher, together. The Defense of Marriage Act, however, means 
that they cannot enjoy the simple conveniences of filing joint tax 
returns as a married couple or obtaining continuing health coverage 
under COBRA.
  They have also told me the story of re-entering the United States at 
the end of their honeymoon in 2008. They approached a customs agent 
together but were told that they could not go through the line as a 
family. When they said that they were legally married, a customs agent 
reportedly responded with a curt phrase to the effect of: ``Not to the 
United States you're not.''
  Put simply, under DOMA, the Federal government does not treat people 
equally or fairly.
  Last year, a Federal District Court declared the law 
unconstitutional; the Obama Administration has concluded that the law 
violates fundamental constitutional guarantees of equal protection; and 
even former President Clinton, who signed the law in 1996, now supports 
its repeal.
  The Respect for Marriage Act would right DOMA's wrong.
  It would strike DOMA in its entirety. It would ensure that the 
Federal protections afforded to a married couple remain stable and 
predictable no matter where a couple lives, works, or travels.
  In my lifetime, I have seen the happiness, stability, and comfort 
that marriage brings. When two people love each other and decide to 
enter this solemn commitment, I believe that is a very positive thing.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Respect for Marriage Act to 
repeal DOMA and call on our Federal Government to honor the legal, 
valid marriages of all Americans.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join the senior Senator from 
California and others to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act of 
2011. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, 
so that same-sex marriages authorized under State law will be 
recognized by the Federal Government and protected under Federal law. 
Since the passage of DOMA, several States, including the State of 
Vermont, have provided the protections of marriage to same-sex couples. 
Unfortunately, under current Federal law, these families are not 
treated fairly. That is why today's action is needed.
  As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I often find myself 
confronted by those who think the issue of

[[Page 4153]]

civil rights is merely one for the history books. This is not true. 
There is still work to be done. The march toward equality must continue 
until all individuals and all families are both protected and 
respected. Today, Congress will begin to help bring fairness to all our 
Nation's families.
  The issue of marriage is one that has long been left for the states 
to determine, and they have. Today, five States, including my home 
State of Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, have granted same-sex 
couples the right to get married. With DOMA as law, however, we are 
creating a tier of second-class families in States that have authorized 
same-sex marriage. As a Vermonter who has been married for 48 years, I 
believe it is important that we encourage and sanction committed 
relationships. That is the best way to provide for stable, supportive 
families. Vermont has led the Nation in this regard. In 2000, Vermont 
took a crucial step when it became the first State in the Nation to 
allow civil unions for same-sex couples. In 2009, Vermont took another 
important step to help sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives 
by becoming the first state to adopt same-sex marriage through the 
legislative process. I am proud of the progressive example set by my 
constituents, and I do not want any of them harmed by the continuing 
effect of DOMA.
  The time has now come for the Federal Government to recognize that 
these families deserve all of the legal protections afforded to 
opposite-sex married couples recognized under state law. The Government 
Accountability Office issued a report in 2004 that stated that same-sex 
couples are denied more than one thousand Federal benefits. Right now, 
couples in states that authorize same-sex marriage laws cannot file 
joint Federal tax returns and are not entitled to the same Social 
Security and medical leave benefits as opposite-sex married couples 
under Federal law. This goes against American values and it must end.
  This is a question of basic civil rights, and how the constitutional 
principles of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause protect all 
of us from discrimination. The President and the Attorney General 
recognized this when they announced that the Department of Justice will 
no longer defend two court cases that have challenged the 
constitutionality of the DOMA. I applaud President Obama and Attorney 
General Holder for making the right decision. However, the 
administration is still enforcing DOMA elsewhere, because it is the law 
of the land. It is now time for leaders in Congress to change that law. 
The Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 would allow same-sex couples who 
are married under state law to be eligible for Federal benefits. 
Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, 
state, or locality to celebrate or perform a marriage between two 
persons of the same sex. Those prerogatives would remain. What would 
change, however, and what must change, is the Federal Government's 
treatment of State-sanctioned marriage.
  I believe this legislation is overdue, and it is a step in the right 
direction toward fostering equal treatment under law. I urge my fellow 
Senators to come together to support this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Blumenthal):
  S. 601. A bill to encourage and ensure the use of safe football 
helmets and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, football fans today are 
wondering if there will be a National Football League season this fall. 
Many fans could find that their Sundays are not the same if team owners 
and players do not reach an agreement. Business owners who depend on 
those fans will also be affected. That is an issue that members of 
Congress have weighed in on already.
  But today I want to discuss a more important issue for the future of 
football. Football is facing a concussion crisis--a brain injury 
crisis--that affects up to 4.5 million football players who are still 
too young to play in the NFL but may aspire to make it to the pros some 
day.
  This fall, those kids and young adults will put on their uniforms and 
pads and take to the gridiron. It is a time-honored tradition that will 
continue regardless of what happens to the upcoming NFL season. For 
many rural communities in states like New Mexico, high school football 
means Friday night lights excitement and civic pride in the school 
team. This year, about 8,000 New Mexican high school players will 
continue this American tradition.
  But football is a contact sport, and thousands of student athletes 
are injured every year. Many of those injuries are concussions. In 
fact, one study estimates that as many as one in five football players 
suffers head injuries in any given football season. For young people 
between 15 and 24 years old, playing sports is the second-leading cause 
of traumatic brain injury, behind only motor vehicle crashes. Every 
year, there are up to 3.8 million sports-related concussions, many of 
which go undiagnosed and unreported.
  Those alarming statistics highlight the need for more awareness about 
sports concussion. That is why it is appropriate to discuss this 
important public health and children's safety issue today, which is 
``Brain Injury Awareness Day.''
  Retired NFL great Nick Lowery--the all time leading scorer for the 
Kansas City Chiefs and one of the greatest kickers to play the game--
explained to me:

       When I played football in high school, in college, and in 
     the National Football League, suffering a concussion was 
     often shrugged off as merely having your `bell rung.' My 
     teammates had no shortage of toughness and wanted to build 
     the mentality to `out tough' our opponents.  . . . We now 
     know that multiple concussions can lead to lasting brain 
     damage and should be treated as a serious matter. Today's NFL 
     players want to set a good example for the next generation.

  There have been alarming news stories about what has happened to 
several retired NFL players who were famous for that toughness Lowery 
described. Long after their careers ended, some of those NFL greats 
succumbed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, caused by repeated 
head trauma. Last month, retired NFL player Dave Duerson took his own 
life with a gunshot to the chest. According to news reports, he left 
instructions to his family that his brain be given to the NFL Brain 
Bank, presumably to be examined for evidence of CTE.
  Yet, what is even more alarming is that researchers have already 
found CTE in the brain of a deceased 18-year-old high school football 
player with a history of concussions. Researchers do not yet know how 
early an athlete might develop CTE.
  TBI can also be an ``invisible'' injury. Without the kind of brain 
injury awareness that families and health care providers are trying to 
raise today, an athlete who suffers a mild TBI may not link that injury 
to common symptoms later such as headaches, nausea, and cognitive 
changes.
  One of my constituents, Alexis Ball, is a bright college student and 
star soccer player at the University of New Mexico. She told my office 
how she struggled for months with post-concussive symptoms. Concussions 
forced her to sit out from play and miss classes. Thankfully, she's 
recovered today and now volunteers to raise concussion awareness among 
young athletes in Albuquerque.
  But there are other cases that are much more unfortunate. The parents 
of one high school student athlete from Oregon named Max Conradt wrote 
me to explain how Max, their 17-year-old son, returned to play 
quarterback too soon after suffering a concussion. Max was wearing a 
20-year-old helmet when he suffered another concussion that led to 
brain damage. Max's parents wrote me to ask, ``How is it possible that 
our son was issued a helmet three years older than he was?''
  Unfortunately, there are an estimated 100,000 helmets out there that 
are more than a decade old. These helmets will be worn by high school 
and younger football players this fall. Many coaches will not know that 
some

[[Page 4154]]

of their helmets might be older than their players. And one helmet 
safety expert has stated that even the best new football helmets would 
need to be four times better--in terms of attenuating direct, linear 
forces--to protect against concussion.
  These facts drive my serious concerns about the current voluntary 
safety standards for new and reconditioned football helmets, which have 
not been significantly revised in three decades.
  On this Brain Injury Awareness Day 2011, I am pleased to introduce 
bipartisan legislation, the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety 
Act, to require improvements to the voluntary football helmet 
standards, including clearly visible warning and date of manufacture 
labels, concussion resistance, if feasible, reconditioned helmets and 
youth helmets.
  I am pleased to be joined in this effort by colleagues Senator Frank 
Lautenberg and Senator Blumenthal. We are joined by Representatives 
Bill Pascrell and Todd Platts, who lead the Congressional TBI Task 
Force, and Representative Anthony Weiner--all of whom are original 
sponsors of the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
  The Children's Sports Equipment Safety Act takes a ``light touch'' 
approach to improving safety. This legislation gives industry groups 
time to put safety first and improve their voluntary helmet standards 
before any mandatory federal safety rules replace them. But if those 
improvements are not made, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
must issue product safety rules for football helmets to protect kids.
  I want to emphasize that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment 
Safety Act isn't just about football helmets. This legislation would 
also increase the potential penalties for making false injury 
prevention claims for other types of sports and athletic gear.
  Tackling false advertising with more severe penalties may be an 
increasingly important tool if companies continue to sell new 
headbands, helmets, and mouth guards with potentially deceptive and 
misleading safety claims. Young athletes could put themselves at great 
risk if they think a new ``anti-concussion'' football helmet, soccer 
headband, or mouth guard makes them invulnerable to brain injury. The 
costs of such injuries in financial terms alone are staggering. The 
direct medical costs and indirect costs of traumatic brain injuries 
totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in the year 2000. 
That figure of course does not account for the pain and suffering of 
victims and their families.
  I am pleased that the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act 
enjoys support from a broad range of organizations and individuals. 
DeMaurice Smith, the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, 
NFLPA, states in a letter that:

       Not only is the NFLPA committed to the safety of 
     professional football players, but to all who play the sport. 
     We recognize a significant portion of those players are youth 
     and high school athletes who are currently at risk for 
     traumatic brain injury due to the absence of helmet safety 
     standards. We support the Children's Sports Athletic 
     Equipment Safety Act as introduced and commend you for 
     addressing this issue.

  Other supporters include: Brain Injury Association of America; Brain 
Trauma Foundation; Cleveland Clinic; Consumer Federation of America; 
Consumers Union; National Consumers League; National Research Center 
for Women & Families; and Safe Kids USA.
  Nick Lowery, who played 18 years as a professional football player 
and is a member of the Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame, notes that:

       Improving sports safety for kids and discouraging sports 
     equipment companies from making false injury prevention 
     claims are two straightforward ways to reduce brain injuries. 
     You can count on my enthusiastic support for this important 
     children's safety and consumer protection legislation.

  Sports and exercise should be encouraged for everyone--especially 
children. We must do more to ensure that kids participate in sports and 
exercise for all the health benefits they bring. While there will 
always be some risk of injury, we must make sure that athletes, coaches 
and parents know about the dangers and signs of concussion. We must 
make sure that they are using safe equipment. And we must take false 
advertising of safety gear out of the game.
  I ask all my colleagues for their support of the Children's Sports 
Athletic Equipment Safety Act as part of this vital effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 601

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's 
     Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Football helmet safety standards.
Sec. 4. Application of third party testing and certification 
              requirements to youth football helmets.
Sec. 5. False or misleading claims with respect to athletic sporting 
              activity goods.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Participation in sports and athletic activities 
     provides many benefits to children and should be encouraged.
       (2) Participation in sports and athletic activities does 
     involve some inevitable risk of injury that no protective 
     gear or safety device can fully eliminate.
       (3) Sports-related concussion is a form of traumatic brain 
     injury that can lead to lasting negative health consequences.
       (4) Direct medical costs and indirect costs of traumatic 
     brain injuries totaled an estimated $60,000,000,000 in the 
     United States in the year 2000.
       (5) Sports are the second leading cause of traumatic brain 
     injury for Americans who are 15 to 24 years old, behind only 
     motor vehicle crashes.
       (6) Every year, American athletes suffer up to an estimated 
     3,800,000 sports-related concussions.
       (7) The potential for catastrophic injury resulting from 
     multiple concussions make sports-related concussion a 
     significant concern for young athletes, coaches, and parents.
       (8) Football has the highest incidence of concussions, 
     which also occur in many other sports such as baseball, 
     basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse, soccer, and softball.
       (9) An estimated 4,500,000 children play football in 
     organized youth and school sports leagues, including 
     approximately 1,500,000 high school players.
       (10) According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
     more than 920,000 athletes under the age of 18 were treated 
     in emergency rooms, doctors' offices, and clinics for 
     football-related injuries in the year 2007.
       (11) In any given football season, 20 percent of all high 
     school football players sustain brain injuries.
       (12) One study that included a post-season survey of 
     football players found that 47 percent experienced at least 
     one concussion and almost 35 percent experienced multiple 
     concussions.
       (13) Medical experts at Boston University School of 
     Medicine found that a deceased 18 year old athlete, who had 
     experienced multiple concussions playing high school 
     football, suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a 
     degenerative brain disease caused by head trauma.
       (14) A football helmet's ability to protect players from 
     injury by attenuating acceleration forces can decline over 
     time as the helmet experiences thousands of hits from use 
     during successive football seasons after its original date of 
     manufacture.
       (15) According to industry estimates, 100,000 football 
     helmets more than ten years old, and thousands almost twenty 
     years old, were worn by players in the 2009 season.
       (16) A high school football player who suffered brain 
     damage from being hit in the head soon after suffering a 
     previous concussion was wearing a twenty year old football 
     helmet when he was injured.
       (17) Children as young as 5 years old rely on football 
     helmets to protect against head injury.
       (18) The widespread adoption of a voluntary industry 
     standard for football helmet safety led to an 80 percent 
     reduction in life-threatening subdural hematoma injuries.
       (19) The voluntary industry safety standard for football 
     helmets does not specifically address concussion risk.
       (20) There is no voluntary industry safety standard 
     specifically for youth football helmets worn by children, who 
     have different physiological characteristics from adults in 
     terms of head size and neck strength, especially those who 
     are younger than 12-years old.

[[Page 4155]]

       (21) Some football helmet manufacturers and resellers have 
     used misleading concussion safety claims to sell children's 
     football helmets.
       (22) Some used helmet reconditioners have falsely certified 
     that reconditioned helmets provided to schools and youth 
     football teams met voluntary industry safety standards.
       (23) Used helmet reconditioners do not independently test 
     reconditioned helmets before certifying that they meet 
     voluntary industry safety standards.
       (24) The industry organization that sets voluntary football 
     helmet safety standards does not conduct independent testing 
     nor market surveillance to ensure compliance with such 
     voluntary safety standards by manufacturers and 
     reconditioners that certify new and used helmets to such 
     standards.
       (25) Football helmet manufacturers and reconditioners place 
     product warning labels underneath padding where the warning 
     labels are obscured from view and not clearly legible.
       (26) The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et 
     seq.) charges the Consumer Product Safety Commission with 
     protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious 
     injury or death from consumer products, including consumer 
     products used in recreation and in schools.
       (27) The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 
     seq.) empowers the Federal Trade Commission to prevent unfair 
     or deceptive acts or practices, and prohibits the 
     dissemination of misleading claims for devices or services.

     SEC. 3. FOOTBALL HELMET SAFETY STANDARDS.

       (a) Voluntary Standard Determination.--Within 9 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission shall determine, with respect to a standard 
     or standards submitted by a voluntary standards-setting 
     organization regarding youth football helmets, reconditioned 
     football helmets, and new football helmet concussion 
     resistance (if feasible) whether--
       (1) compliance with the standard or standards is likely to 
     result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the risk 
     of injury in connection with the use of football helmets;
       (2) it is likely that there will be substantial compliance 
     with the standard or standards; and
       (3) the standard or standards are maintained by a 
     standards-setting organization that meets the requirements of 
     the document `ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process 
     Requirements for American National Standards' published in 
     January 2010 by the American National Standards Institute (or 
     any successor document).
       (b) Consumer Product Safety Standard.--Unless the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission makes an affirmative determination 
     with respect to a standard or standards under subsection (a) 
     that addresses the matters to which the following standards 
     would apply, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding for the development of a consumer product safety 
     rule with respect to the following:
       (1) Youth football helmets.--A standard for youth football 
     helmets which is informed by children's different 
     physiological characteristics from adults in terms of head 
     size and neck strength.
       (2) Reconditioned football helmets.--A standard for all 
     reconditioned football helmets.
       (3) New football helmet concussion resistance.--A standard 
     for all new football helmets that addresses concussion risk, 
     if the Commission determines that such a standard is feasible 
     given current understanding of concussion risk and how 
     helmets can prevent concussion.
       (4) Football helmet warning labels.--A standard for warning 
     labels on all football helmets that, at a minimum, requires 
     clearly legible and fully visible statements warning 
     consumers of the limits of protection afforded by the helmet. 
     This standard may include requirements for pictograms, 
     instructions, guidelines, or other cautions to consumers 
     about injury risk and the proper use of football helmets.
       (5) Date of manufacture label for new football helmets.--A 
     standard for a clearly legible and fully visible label on all 
     new football helmets stating the football helmet's original 
     date of manufacture and warning consumers that a football 
     helmet's ability to protect the wearer can decline over time.
       (6) Date of reconditioning label for reconditioned 
     helmets.--A standard for a clearly legible and fully visible 
     label on all reconditioned football helmets stating the 
     helmet's last date of reconditioning, its original date of 
     manufacture, and warning consumers that a football helmet's 
     ability to protect the wearer can decline over time, despite 
     being properly and regularly reconditioned.
       (c) Safety Standards.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (A) in consultation with representatives of coaches, 
     consumer groups, engineers, medical experts, school sports 
     directors, scientists, and sports equipment standard-setting 
     organizations, examine and assess the effectiveness of any 
     voluntary consumer product safety standards for youth 
     football helmets, reconditioned football helmets, and new 
     football helmet concussion resistance proposed by a voluntary 
     standards-setting organization; and
       (B) in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, promulgate consumer product safety standards 
     that--
       (i) are substantially the same as such voluntary standards; 
     or
       (ii) are more stringent than such voluntary standards, if 
     the Commission determines that more stringent standards would 
     further reduce the risk of injury associated with football 
     helmets.
       (2) Timetable for rulemaking.--If the Commission does not 
     make an affirmative determination under subsection (a) within 
     the 9-month period, the Commission shall commence the 
     rulemaking required by subsection (b) within 30 days after 
     the end of that 9-month period. The Commission shall 
     periodically review and revise the standards set forth in the 
     consumer product safety rule prescribed pursuant to that 
     proceeding to ensure that such standards provide the highest 
     level of safety for football helmets that is feasible.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF THIRD PARTY TESTING AND CERTIFICATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS TO YOUTH FOOTBALL HELMETS.

       (a) In General.--The third party testing and certification 
     requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)) shall apply to any youth 
     football helmet (including a reconditioned youth football 
     helmet) to which any consumer product safety rule prescribed 
     under section 3(b) of this Act applies as if the helmet were 
     a children's product that is subject to a children's product 
     safety rule without regard to the age of the individual for 
     whom it is primarily designed or intended.
       (b) Special Application of Definition of Children's Product 
     for Purposes of Testing and Certification of Football 
     Helmets.--For the exclusive purpose of applying the 
     definition of the term ``children's product'' in section 
     3(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2052(a)(2)) to the requirements of subsection (a) of this 
     section, ``18 years'' shall be substituted for ``12 years'' 
     each place it appears.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, third party testing 
     and certification shall be conducted by a testing laboratory 
     that has an accreditation--
       (1) that meets International Organization for 
     Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 
     standard 17025:2005 entitled General Requirements for the 
     Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories (or any 
     successor standard that is from an accreditation body that is 
     signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation 
     Cooperation for testing accreditation);
       (2) that meets International Organization for 
     Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 
     Guide 65:1996 entitled General Requirements for Bodies 
     Operating Product Certification Systems (or any successor 
     standard that is from an accreditation body that is signatory 
     to the International Accreditation Forum for product 
     certification accreditation); and
       (3) that includes all appropriate football helmet standards 
     and test methods within the scope of the accreditation.

     SEC. 5. FALSE OR MISLEADING CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO ATHLETIC 
                   SPORTING ACTIVITY GOODS.

       (a) In General.--It is unlawful for any person to sell, or 
     offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or import into the 
     United States for the purpose of selling or offering for 
     sale, any item of equipment intended, designed, or offered 
     for use by an individual engaged in any athletic sporting 
     activity, whether professional or amateur, for which the 
     seller or importer, or any person acting on behalf of the 
     seller or importer, makes any false or misleading claim with 
     respect to the safety benefits of such item.
       (b) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Violation of subsection (a), or any 
     regulation prescribed under this section, shall be treated as 
     a violation of a rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a) regarding unfair or deceptive 
     acts or practices. The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce 
     this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
     same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 
     applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into 
     and made a part of this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Commission may promulgate such regulations as it 
     finds necessary or appropriate under this Act under section 
     553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a) or 
     any regulation prescribed under that section, shall be 
     subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and 
     immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act as 
     though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act were incorporated in and made part of 
     this Act.
       (4) Authority preserved.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any 
     other provision of law.
       (c) Enforcement by State Attorneys General.--
       (1) Right of action.--Except as provided in paragraph (5), 
     the attorney general of a

[[Page 4156]]

     State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a 
     violation of subsection (a) or any regulation issued under 
     that section that affects or may affect such State or its 
     residents may bring an action on behalf of the residents of 
     the State in any United States district court for the 
     district in which the defendant is found, resides, or 
     transacts business, or wherever venue is proper under section 
     1391 of title 28, United States Code, to obtain appropriate 
     injunctive relief.
       (2) Initiation of civil action.--A State shall provide 
     prior written notice to the Federal Trade Commission of any 
     civil action under paragraph (1) together with a copy of its 
     complaint, except that if it is not feasible for the State to 
     provide such prior notice, the State shall provide such 
     notice immediately upon instituting such action.
       (3) Intervention by the commission.--The Commission may 
     intervene in such civil action and upon intervening--
       (A) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action; 
     and
       (B) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil 
     action.
       (4) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       (A) to prevent the attorney general of a State, or other 
     authorized State officer, from exercising the powers 
     conferred on the attorney general, or other authorized State 
     officer, by the laws of such State; or
       (B) to prohibit the attorney general of a State, or other 
     authorized State officer, from proceeding in State or Federal 
     court on the basis of an alleged violation of any civil or 
     criminal statute of that State.
       (5) Limitation.--No separate suit shall be brought under 
     this subsection if, at the time the suit is brought, the same 
     alleged violation is the subject of a pending action by the 
     Federal Trade Commission or the United States under this 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Barrasso):
  S. 602. A bill to require regulatory reform; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, yesterday I offered three amendments to 
the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Bill to make commonsense reforms to our 
regulatory system. Today, Senators Roberts and Barrasso join me in 
offering the ``CURB Act''--which stands for ``Clearing Unnecessary 
Regulatory Burdens.'' This legislation combines the provisions of those 
three amendments to force federal agencies to cut the red tape that 
impedes job growth.
  As I explained yesterday, all too often it seems Federal agencies do 
not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth 
before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing 
today obligates them to do so.
  The CURB Act does three things: first, it requires Federal agencies 
to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job 
creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.
  Presently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze 
the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher 
energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, 
Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates 
agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our 
bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's 
Executive Order.
  Second, the CURB Act obligates Federal agencies to comply with public 
notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing 
these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance 
documents.''
  After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal 
agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' 
rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely 
an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a 
particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical 
matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have 
been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public 
notice and comment requirements.
  In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which contained 
a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance 
Practices'' on Federal agencies, which requires them to provide public 
notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would 
essentially codify this provision of President Bush's Executive Order.
  Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate 
our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many 
small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small 
business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first 
time, that first penalty could sink the business and all the jobs it 
supports. Our bill would provide access to SBA assistance to small 
businesses in a situation where they face a first-time, non-harmful 
paperwork violation. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small 
businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork 
requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.
  Each of these provisions has been endorsed by the National Federation 
of Independent Business, NFIB, and the Small Business & 
Entrepreneurship Council. I urge my colleagues to support the CURB Act, 
which contains these important reforms to our regulatory system.

                          ____________________