[Pages S6128-S6131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 2681. A bill to provide for safe equestrian helmets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Rhode
Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce legislation to provide greater
safety for children and adults who ride horses in the United States.
Each year in our country, nearly 15 million people go horseback riding.
Whether it be professionally or for pleasure, Americans of all ages and
from all walks of life enjoy equestrian sports. And, while everyone
acknowledges that horseback riding is a high-risk activity, there are
serious issues related to equestrian sports that can and should be
addressed.
I first became aware of the problem of equestrian helmets when Kemi
O'Donnell, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, called by office to
relate her family's tragic experience. The story she shared opened my
eyes to the danger posed by certain equestrian helmets. In 1998 Kemi's
daughter, Christen O'Donnell, was a young 12-year-old resident of
Darien, CT, and a 7th-grader at New Canaan Country School. Active and
sporty, Christen was a talented intermediate rider who had 5 years or
riding experience under her belt when she mounted her horse on the
morning of August 11. As always, Christen wore a helmet and was
accompanied by here trainer when she began a slow walk through the
ring. Suddenly, without warning, the horse she was riding shook its
head, and Christen was thrown off onto 4 inches of sand. Even though
her horse was only at a walk, and Christen was wearing a helmet, that
helmet offered her little protection, and she sustained severe head
injuries as a result of the fall. She was rushed to Stamford hospital
where, despite efforts to save here, she died the next day. The
magnitude of their loss has been compounded by the thought that, had
Christen been wearing a better constructed helmet, it is possible she
could have survived this accident.
My colleagues may be shocked to learn, as Christen's parents were,
that there are no government standards in existence for the
manufacturing of equestrian helmets. Some helmets are voluntarily
constructed to meet strict American Society of Testing and Materials,
ASTM, testing requirements, but the vast majority of helmets sold in
the United States offer little or no real protection and are merely
cosmetic hat, a form of apparel. Frequently, parents of young riders
like Christen, and even more mature riders, do not know that they are
buying an untested and unapproved item when they purchase a riding
helmet. Indeed, most riders believe that when they buy a helmet at the
store, they are purchasing a product that meets standards designed to
provide real and adequate head protection. Bike helmets are built to
minimum safety requirements, as are motorcycle helmets.
Apparel helmets, like the one worn by Christen, offer little or no
head protection, while ASTM-approved helmets are designed to
significantly reduce head injury. The difference in aesthetic design
between the two is minimal, but the underlying support structures of
these types of helmet are substantial. ASTM-approved helmets offer a
high degree of head protection, increase the survivability of
equestrian accidents and, in my view, should be the standard for all
equestrian helmets.
This lack of adequate safety standards in riding helmets is why USA
Equestrian, (USAEq), one of the largest

[[Page S6129]]

equestrian organizations in the country, recently mandated that ASTM-
approved helmets must be worn in all USAEq-sanctioned events. While
this decision effectively eliminates the danger posed by ``apparel
helmets'' at these events, each day many more students ride in lessons
and in private shows that are not USAEq-sanctioned. For their safety, I
believe that Congress should establish minimum safety standards for all
equestrian helmets sold in the United States, so that all riders can
obtain headgear that offers actual protection against head injury. This
not an unprecedented suggestion. As I stated before, Congress has
already acted to similarly ensure the safety of bike helmets. The
legislation that I and Senator Chafee introduce in Christen's memory
today is modeled on this successful bike helmet law and would go a long
way toward reducing the mortality of equestrian accidents.

The Christen O'Donnell Equestrian Helmet Safety Act would require
that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish minimum
requirements, based on the already proven ASTM standard, for all
equestrian helmets in the United States. Thus, there would be a uniform
standard for all equestrain helmets, and riders could be confident that
the helmet they buy offers real head protection. Let me be clear. This
modest legislation does not mandate that riders wear helmets. That is a
matter better left to individual States. But, it would take a
significant step toward improving the survivability of equestrian
accidents and would bring the United States in line with other
industrialized countries with sizable riding populations. Countries
like Australia and New Zealand have enacted similar helmet safety
legislation, and the European Union has set standards to make sure that
helmets for equestrian activities meet continental standards. It is
time for the United States to take similar steps.
This bill is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of equestrian,
child safety, and medical groups. This bill has received the
endorsement of USA Equestrian, one of the nation's largest equestrian
groups, the National SAFEKIDS coalition, an organization dedicated to
preventing accidental injury to children, and the Brain Trauma
Foundation, a leading medical group dedicated to preventing and
treating brain injury. Further, in the ``Chronicle of the Horse,'' the
trade publication for the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the U.S.
Equestrian Team, the U.S. Pony Clubs, the National Riding Commission,
the Foxhound Club of North America, the National Beagle Club, the U.S.
Dressage Foundation, the American Vaulting Association, the North
American Riding for the Handicapped Association, and the
Intercollegiate Horse Show Association, an article was published
endorsing the ASTM rule. Given the wide range of organizations that
endorse this bill, or have endorsed the ASTM rule, it is clear that
riders, coaches, and medical professionals alike recognize the need for
a standard, tested helmet design.
I would like to draw my colleague's attention to some alarming
statistics that further demonstrate the importance and expediency of
this bill. Emergency rooms all across America have to deal with an
influx of horse-related injuries each year. Nationwide in 1999, an
estimated 15,000 horse-related emergency department visits were made by
youths under 15 years old. Of these injuries, head injuries were by far
the most numerous and accounted for around 60 percent of equestrian-
related deaths. These injuries occurred, and continue to occur, at all
ages and at all levels of riding experience. That an inadequately
protected fall from a horse can kill is not surprising when you examine
the medical statistics. A human skull can be shattered by an impact of
less than 6.2 miles per hour, while horse can gallop at approximately
40 miles per hour. A fall from two feet can cause permanent brain
damage, and a horse elevates a rider to eight feet or more above the
ground. These statistics make it evident that horseback riding is a
high-risk sport. While all riders acknowledge this fact, reducing the
risk of serious injury while horseback riding is attainable through the
use of appropriate head protection. We should pass this bill, and pass
it soon, to ensure that head protection for equestrian events is safe
and effective.
American consumers deserve to be confident that their protective
gear, should they choose to wear it, offers real protection. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2681

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Christen O'Donnell
Equestrian Helmet Safety Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR EQUESTRIAN HELMETS.

(a) In General.--Equestrian helmets manufactured 9 months
or more after the date of the enactment of this Act shall
conform to--
(1) the interim standard specified in subsection (b),
pending the establishment of a final standard pursuant to
subsection (c); and
(2) the final standard, once it has been established
pursuant to subsection (c).
(b) Interim Standard.--The interim standard is the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard designated
as F 1163.
(c) Final Standard.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission shall begin a proceeding under section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, to--
(A) review the requirements of the interim standard
specified in subsection (b) and establish a final standard
based on such requirements;
(B) include in the final standard a provision to protect
against the risk of helmets coming off the heads of
equestrian riders;
(C) include in the final standard provisions that address
the risk of injury to children; and
(D) include any additional provisions that the commission
considers appropriate.
(2) Inapplicability of certain laws.--Sections 7, 9, and
30(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056,
2058, 2079(d)) shall not apply to the proceeding under this
subsection, and section 11 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2060) shall
not apply with respect to any standard issued under such
proceeding.
(3) Effective date.--The final standard shall take effect 1
year after the date it is issued.
(d) Failure To Meet Standards.--
(1) Failure to meet interim standard.--Until the final
standard takes effect, an equestrian helmet that does not
conform to the interim standard as required under subsection
(a)(1) shall be considered in violation of a consumer product
safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety
Act.
(2) Status of final standard.--The final standard developed
under subsection (c) shall be considered a consumer product
safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety
Act.
9c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to carry out activities under this section,
$700,000 for fiscal year 2003, with the amount to remain
available until expended.
(f) Equestrian Helmet Defined.--In this section, the term
``equestrian helmet'' means a heard-shell head covering
intended to be worn while participating in an equestrian
event or activity.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2685. A bill to amend the Black Lung Benefits Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, coalminers in this country have
risked their lives and limbs, making enormous sacrifices to fuel our
nation. We owe them the respect and benefits they have earned. Sadly,
these miners' families are being abandoned in their time of greatest
need: when they are coping with the devastating loss of a loved one
from black lung disease. Current policy arbitrarily forces some widows
of black lung victims to wade through bureaucracy to prove and reprove
their spouse's illness, and this simply is not right.
The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund was created to assist miners who
were terminated prior to 1970, or who worked in mines where no mine
operator can be assigned health care liabilities. The Black Lung
Benefits Act, BLBA, was amended in 1981 to strengthen the finances of
the Trust Fund, but it made it extremely difficult for those suffering
from black lung to qualify for benefits.
Currently, there are two very different standards governing
entitlement to benefits for the spouses of deceased black lung victims.
In the event that a Trust Fund beneficiary died prior to

[[Page S6130]]

January 1, 1982, benefits rightly continue uninterrupted to the
surviving spouse. But if the beneficiary died or dies after January 1,
1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim to benefits and must
prove that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits.
This issue affects more than 11,000 West Virginia retirees and their
survivors, as well as another 51,000 black lung families across the
country. I have introduced legislation that would begin to rectify the
failures of the Black Lung Benefits Act. It is a companion to
legislation Representative Rahall introduced in the House. The Black
Lung Benefits Survivors Equity Act of 2002 would give benefits to
widows of black lung victims, benefits that these women rightfully
deserve.
Linda Chapman, one very strong and courageous woman from Spencer, WV,
tragically lost her husband, Carson, to black lung disease last
January. On top of this tragedy, she was denied survivor benefits
simply because of the BLBA's double standards. But rather than giving
up, Linda stood up.
On behalf of the surviving widows of black lung victims, she walked
several hundred miles from Charleston, WV, to Washington, DC, to
generate public interest and to get the attention of lawmakers as well.
I applaud Mrs. Chapman's efforts, and was pleased to meet her when she
arrived in Washington.
I hope this Senate will act quickly to remedy this problem for Mrs.
Chapman and other black lung widows like her. After all that they have
endured, these women should not have to fight against bureaucracy
simply to obtain the survivors' benefits due them.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2685

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Black Lung Benefits
Survivors Equity Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. EQUITY FOR CERTAIN ELIGIBLE SURVIVORS.

(a) Rebuttable Presumption.--Paragraph (4) of section
411(c) of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 921(c)(4))
is amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Continuation of Benefits.--Section 422(l) of the Black
Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 932(l)) is amended by striking
``, except with respect to a claim filed under this part on
or after the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits
Amendments of 1981''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Levin):
S. 2686. A bill to strengthen national security by providing
whistleblower protections to certain employees at airports, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Levin, am pleased
to introduce a bill, the Airport Employee Whistleblower Protection Act
of 2002, that will enhance airport and air travel safety. It will do
this by protecting all security screeners at all airports from reprisal
for blowing the whistle on security violations, not just the select few
who are currently protected. As my colleagues know, I have long
believed that a good government is an accountable government, and
whistleblower protection laws go a long way toward making government
accountable.
This is particularly true when it involves our nation's security.
Just recently we saw enlightening disclosures of massive systemic
problems at the FBI by a whistleblower, Special Agent Rowley, that will
no doubt lead to improvements and better security for Americans.
Although Director Mueller has promised Special Agent Rowley that she
will not be discriminated against because of her disclosures,
whistleblower protection laws do not currently apply to the FBI, a
problem that I'm trying to fix. Likewise, whistleblower protection laws
do not currently protect many baggage screeners and x-ray technicians
who witness security breaches.
In the Spring of 2000, Congress passed a law known as Air 21 that
provided whistleblower protection to employees and contract employers
to air carriers. At that time, when baggage screening was usually the
responsibility of the airlines, screeners with whistleblower protection
could alert their bosses or the Federal Aviation Administration about
security violations. But that legislation didn't go far enough. That's
because only employees of air carriers were protected from retribution
under the law.
Under Air 21, security screeners employed by state or municipal
governments, or regional airport authorities, had to rely on a
patchwork of state whistleblower protection laws, or just the good
sense of their employers, when they decided to blow the whistle on
security breaches.
Worse still, when Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act last Fall, it specifically denied whistleblower protection
to the new Federal baggage screeners. During the debates, I called for
whistleblower protection for airport screeners because the best way to
make an effective workforce is by creating an accountable government.
But when Congress federalized the baggage screeners, it took Federal
screeners out of the Air 21 air carrier whistleblower protections, and
created a class of Federal contractors that perform security screening
services, but are not covered by any whistleblower protections.
This legislation will fix these problems. First, the bill will ensure
that until airport security screener personnel are fully federalized,
all airport security screeners are given whistleblower protection,
regardless of whether they're employed by air carriers, state or local
governments, regional airport authorities, or contractors. Second, the
bill will close the loophole in the law so that Federal baggage
screeners receive protection under the same Whistleblower Protection
Act that protects many other Federal employees, and so that contractors
for the Federal government also will get whistleblower protection.
I note that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation has
taken a good step toward supplying whistleblower protection to Federal
screeners by signing a memorandum of understanding with the Office of
Special Counsel, the office that enforces the Whistleblower Protection
Act. The idea is that the OSC will agree to investigate cases of
alleged whistleblower retaliation by the Transportation Safety
Administration. But this agreement is not enough because it does not
afford a right of appeal, so the TSA is free to ignore any OSC
recommendation. Further, it does not provide whistleblower protection
for contract screeners. Finally, unlike legislation, the agreement can
be cancelled by either the TSA or the OSC on 90 day's notice. So the
administration's agreement to provide whistleblower protection, though
an admirable effort, is just not enough. We need statutory
whistleblower protection for airport screeners.
In all my years of doing oversight, I have found that it's pretty
rare for an agency to identify and fix its own problems, especially
security problems. Most of the time, it takes a whistleblower or an
Inspector General or a Congressional investigation to expose and fix
security problems.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Airport Employee
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2002 to improve security at our
nation's airports. Let's close the loophole and give all security
screeners whistleblower protection so that our nation's aviation system
is more safe and secure.
______

By. Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2687. A bill to facilitate the extension of the Alaska Railroad
for national defense purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to
facilitate the construction of national defense facilities in Alaska.
It is a given that the best way to move very large quantities of bulk
goods between points is by sea or by train. This bill will allow the
extension of the Alaska Railroad from Eielson Air Force Base, just
south of Fairbanks, AK, to a point near the location on Fort Greely, AK
that has been chosen for the national missile defense system. This will
significantly reduce the cost of shipping construction materials and
operational supplies to the site, and incidentally allow a considerable
savings in the cost of wear and tear on the highway system that would
otherwise be the only possible route for those goods.

[[Page S6131]]

The extension will allow materials to be shipped to Alaska by sea to
be transferred to the railroad and carried all the way to the vicinity
of the defense project by rail. This is preferential to being loaded,
unloaded, loaded on long-distance trucks, unloaded, and loaded again
when they move to the actual work site.
The bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior, working with
other agencies as appropriate and necessary, to identify and acquire
all of the lands necessary for this modest rail line extension of
approximately 80 miles. Where those lands are held by other entities,
there will be a fair exchange for lands held elsewhere. Once the entire
route has been acquired, the lands will be transferred to the Alaska
Railroad under the same circumstances that have been used previously
under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act.
This is a very important step toward ensuring the most economical
possible approach to this major project, and I urge my colleagues
support.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2687

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This act may be cited as the ``National Defense Rail
Connection Act of 2002."

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

(a) A comprehensive rail transportation network is a key
element of an integrated transportation system for the North
American continent, and federal leadership is required to
address the needs of a reliable, safe, and secure rail
network, and to connect all areas of the United States for
national defense and economic development, as previously done
for the interstate highway system, the Federal aviation
network, and the transcontinental railroad;
(b) The creation and use of joint use corridors for rail
transportation, fiber optics, pipelines, and utilities are an
efficient and appropriate approach to optimizing the nation's
interconnectivity and national security;
(c) Government assistance and encouragement in the
development of the transcontinental rail system successfully
led to the growth of economically strong and socially stable
communities throughout the western United States;
(d) Government assistance and encouragement in the
development of the Alaska Railroad between Seward, Alaska and
Fairbanks, Alaska successfully led to the growth of
economically strong and socially stable communities along the
route, which today provide homes for over 70% of Alaska's
total population;
(e) While Alaska and the remainder of the continental
United States has been connected by highway and air
transportation, no rail connection exists despite the fact
that Alaska is accessible by land routes and is a logical
destination for the North American rail system:
(f) Rail transportation in otherwise isolated areas is an
appropriate means of providing controlled access, reducing
overall impacts to environmentally sensitive areas over other
methods of land-based access;
(g) Because Congress originally authorized 1,000 miles of
rail line to be built in Alaska, and because the system today
covers only approximately half that distance, substantially
limiting its beneficial effect on the economy of Alaska and
the nation, it is appropriate to support the expansion of the
Alaska system to ensure the originally planned benefits are
achieved;
(h) Alaska has an abundance of natural resources, both
material and aesthetic, access to which would significantly
increase Alaska's contribution to the national economy;
(i) Alaska contains many key national defense
installations, including sites chosen for the construction of
the first phase of the National Missile Defense system, the
cost of which could be significantly reduced if rail
transportation were available for the movement of materials
necessary for construction and for the secure movement of
launch vehicles, fuel and other operational supplies;
(j) The 106th Congress recognized the potential benefits of
establishing a rail connection to Alaska by enacting
legislation to authorize a U.S. -Canada bilateral commission
to study the feasibility of linking the rail system in Alaska
to the nearest appropriate point in Canada of the North
American rail network; and
(k) In support of pending bilateral activities between the
United States and Canada, it is appropriate for the United
States to undertake activities relating to elements within
the United States.

SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE RAILROAD-UTILITY
CORRIDOR.

(a) Within one year from the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, the State of Alaska and the
Alaska Railroad Corporation, shall identify a proposed
national defense railroad-utility corridor linking the
existing corridor of the Alaska Railroad to the vicinity of
the proposed National Missile Defense facilities at Fort
Greely, Alaska. The corridor shall be at least 500 feet wide
and shall also identify land for such terminals, stations,
maintenance facilities, switching yards, and material sites
as are considered necessary.
(b) The identification of the corridor under paragraph (a)
shall include information providing a complete legal
description for and noting the current ownership of the
proposed corridor and associated land.
(c) In identifying the corridor under paragraph (a), the
Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following
factors:
(a) The proximity of national defense installations and
national defense considerations;
(2) The location of and access to natural resources that
could contribute to economic development of the region;
(3) Grade and alignment standards that are commensurate
with rail and utility construction standards and that
minimize the prospect of at-grade railroad and highway
crossings;
(4) Availability of construction materials;
(5) Safety;
(6) Effects on and service to adjacent communities and
potential intermodal transportation connections;
(7) Environmental concerns;
(8) Use of public land to the maximum degree possible;
(9) Minimization of probable construction costs;
(10) An estimate of probable construction costs and methods
of financing such costs through a combination of private,
state, and federal sources; and
(11) Appropriate utility elements for the corridor,
including but not limited to petroleum product pipelines,
fiber-optic telecommunication facilities, and electrical
power transmission lines, and
(12) Prior and established traditional uses.
(d) the Secretary may, as part of the corridor
identification, include issues related to the further
extension of such corridor to a connection with the nearest
appropriate terminus of the North American rail network in
Canada.

SEC. 4. NEGOTIATION AND LAND TRANSFER.

(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) upon completion of the corridor identification in Sec.
3, negotiate the acquisition of any lands in the corridor
which are not federally owned through an exchange for lands
of equal or greater value held by the federal government
elsewhere in Alaska; and
(2) upon completion of the acquisition of lands under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey to the Alaska
Railroad Corporation, subject to valid existing rights, title
to the lands identified under Section 3 as necessary to
complete the national defense railroad-utility corridor, on
condition that the Alaska Railroad Corporation construct in
the corridor an extension of the railroad system to the
vicinity of the proposed national missile defense
installation at Fort Greely, Alaska, together with such other
utilities, including but not limited to fiber-optic
transmission lines and electrical transmission lines, as it
considers necessary and appropriate. The Federal interest
in lands conveyed to the Alaska Railroad Corporation under
this Act shall be the same as in lands conveyed pursuant
to the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (45 USC 1201 et seq.).

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.

Actions authorized in this Act shall proceed immediately
and to conclusion not withstanding the land-use planning
provisions of Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-579.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

____________________