[Pages S1752-S1757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page S1753]]

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 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.

[[Page S1754]]

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 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

[[Page S1755]]

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 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.

[[Page S1756]]

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.
(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

[[Page S1757]]

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 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.

____________________