Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006

NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - December 05, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill, I believe, is trying to protect sports organizations, but, unfortunately, it does leave children unprotected from child molesters.

We know that sexual predators volunteer to be involved with children's sports programs and pedophiles routinely use the bond between coach and athlete to prey on children.

A Seattle Times investigation uncovered 159 coaches who had been reprimanded or fired for sexual misconduct between 1993 and 2003, and of those coaches, 98 continued to coach or teach children. An investigation in Texas uncovered 60 incidents of high school coaches being fired or reprimanded as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. And last month a Maryland high school basketball coach was charged with abusing three minors.

This amendment, the amendment to the bill that has been mentioned, does not fix the problem of providing liability relief to these nonprofits. The bill exempts claims based on Federal, State, and local statutes concerning sexual assault, molestation, or harassment. But the bill grants complete immunity for claims of negligence in establishing rules related to adult supervision. I have here a letter from a scholar, Professor Andy Popper, a professor at the American University School of Law, and I would like to read just a small portion of his letter:

``Common-law tort claims for failure to exercise due care in hiring coaches, investigating backgrounds, or overseeing inappropriate activity would be actionable, but I think a plain reading of section 4(d) and section 5 suggests that those claims would be barred, and that is really quite horrendous from the perspective of children who might be victimized by adults treated in ways that are patently destructive from an emotional or psychological vantage point. What possible reason could there be to pass this bill?''

And he goes on to say: ``After reading the bill, I see no language that exempts State common-law tort claims. To the contrary, the specific areas exempted, labor law, antitrust law, statutory claims, et cetera, suggests that Congress intends to exempt very specific areas only. Given that list in 4(d), unless the bill were amended to include an exemption for all State common-law tort claims, the bill will be seen as a bar to cases involving negligent hiring, failing to assess background, negligent oversight of individuals who may well do great harm to children, to athletes, to those most in need of protection.''

I would like to note that the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence has asked us to vote against this bill, as amended.

And the reason why, and I quote from President Hostler's letter, as the leading national sexual assault victim advocacy organization, we believe the passage of this bill would create serious problems for victims and would not allow them to hold perpetrators and organizations responsible.

Now, the amended bill tells athletic organizations that they owe children no duty of care. The bill takes away any incentive to take reasonable steps to keep child molesters out and to keep children safe.

Do I suggest that the authors of this bill intend to protect child molesters? I can't imagine that they do. But intent doesn't matter. We are writing law here. And the impact of adopting this bill would, in fact, be to protect child molesters.

Now, I am someone who really believes in Little League. My dad was a Little League manager my entire young life. I have strong memories of sitting in the stands day after day, month after month, watching my brother catch the ball. I believe in Little League. But I also know that my dad, were he alive today, would say, I don't believe in protecting child molesters.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/