Respect for Marriage Act of 2011

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.