[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2327-S2331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kohl, Mr. DeWine, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnston, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs.
Kassebaum, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
[[Page S2328]]
Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1624. A bill to reauthorize the Hate Crime Statistics Act, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE HATE CRIMES STATISTICS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am pleased to join today with
Senator Hatch, Senator Simon, and others as an original cosponsor of
legislation to permanently authorize the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.
The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in
1990 and signed into law by President Bush, directs the Department of
Justice to compile and publish data on crimes that manifest prejudice
based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The 1994
Crime Law added the requirement that data also be collected about
crimes based on disability. The categories of crime for which data is
collected under the act includes homicide, rape, assault, arson,
vandalism, and intimidation. The law expired on December 31, 1995, and
not only should be reauthorized, but should be given a permanent
mandate.
Before enactment of this law, there existed no such national
collection of data on hate crimes. At the time it was originally
passed, this law was needed to fill the gap in information concerning
the deplorable, and increasing, incidence of violent crimes based on
bigotry and prejudice. Today, 6 years later, this statute remains
vitally necessary.
Madam President, far too often, we hear reports of violent hate-
related incidents which shock all decent people in this country. It
seems inconceivable that in 1996 such crimes can still be so pervasive,
but statistics collected under the law indicate that thousands of hate
crimes take place each year. Therefore, it is critically important that
we continue to monitor the occurrence of these crimes, in order that we
may more effectively respond to them. This law has enabled a systematic
collection of information about these crimes on a national basis
allowing us to develop a clear picture of the problem and fashion
appropriate governmental responses.
Some States, including my home State of Maryland, officially monitor
the incidence of hate violence and law enforcement officials in those
States have testified to the usefulness of this information. In
addition, a number of private groups have done an outstanding job
collecting information and pointing out the serious problem of bigotry-
related crimes. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of
the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence at the University
of Maryland, formed in 1984 through the efforts of former Governor of
Maryland Harry Hughes and others. This fine organization has been a
clearinghouse for information on hate crimes and has conducted original
research and provided assistance to communities wishing to deal with
the problems of hate crime violence.
However, these efforts are simply not enough. A national collection
of information is vital. The 1990 act accomplished the establishment
and implementation of a Federal data collection system which has proven
useful and should continue.
Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation is required under the
law to collect information on hate crimes, participation by State and
local law enforcement agencies under the law is strictly voluntary.
However, participation has increased over the time that the law has
been in effect. There has been a significant effort on the local level
to encourage participation in the effort and as participation
increases, the information will become increasingly more helpful for
purposes of identifying and examining national trends in bias-related
crime and effectively responding to such crime.
Madam President, experience over the past few years has shown the act
also is helpful to State and local law enforcement, both in the effort
to provide training with respect to hate crimes and in the effort to
identify how law enforcement agencies should direct their resources in
dealing with hate crimes. An essential aspect of the effort to address
the problem of hate crimes in this country is ensuring that the police
have a greater awareness of hate crimes and treat such incidents with
more sensitivity and understanding. The presence of more supportive and
helpful law enforcement makes it more likely that hate crime victims
will report these crimes, which in turn allows Federal, State, and
local law enforcement to better respond.
I want to congratulate Senators Simon and Hatch for their leadership
on this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support
prompt enactment of this bill.
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
introducing this bill that will extend the authority of the Attorney
General to collect data on crimes motivated by race, religion, or
ethnic hatred. The Act was the first action taken by Congress as a
direct response to hate-motivated crimes and has certainly merited its
continued existence.
When the original act was passed in 1990, the Attorney General was
directed to collect data on any crime that evidenced some type of
prejudice. It was the first action taken by Congress to address the
violence emanating from hate crimes. The reports that have since been
prepared by the Attorney General, based on the collected data, describe
trends and patterns associated with hate crimes. Having this
information is a great asset for Federal officials as well as State and
local governments in formulating responses to the vicious behavior of
perpetrators of bias crimes.
For New York, with its unique mix of people, the collection of hate
crime statistics is too important to fall by the wayside. Communities
in my State have begun to organize in order to respond to the incidents
of hate crimes in their neighborhood. For example, residents in the
town of Oyster Bay on Long Island recently met with their councilman to
discuss the escalating occurrences of hate crimes. The response by
citizens of my State is laudable and, I believe, must be supported by
information compiled in these reports. A permanent database will assist
in composing effective initiatives that will fight hate crimes.
State and local law enforcement in New York have struggled against
the rising tide of hate crimes. A uniform compilation of statistics can
be an asset in determining strategy, even if the participation in the
collection of data is voluntary. With a better understanding of the
implications and trends of hate crimes, our criminal justice system can
target scarce resources to those mechanisms that work the best to
combat bias crimes.
Several years ago, the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn saw a
senseless violent murder of a young Rabbinical student, a crime that
was seemingly motivated by religious hatred. The tension within the
community mounted, culminating in days of riots and years of healing.
Detecting patterns in the incidents of hate crimes may have forewarned
New York City of the horrendous turmoil that was to follow the brutal
murder of that young student, Yankel Rosenbaum.
If used in the right manner, statistics are a valuable tool. I hope
that my colleagues recognize the need to maintain this database and
urge the passage of this important legislation.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Hatch in the
introduction of a bill to reauthorize and provide a permanent mandate
for the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. I would also like to thank Chairman
Hatch for his leadership on this important issue, and for scheduling
today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill. This bill's 28
original cosponsors show the strong bipartisan support for this
measure. It also has the strong support of Attorney General Reno, as
well as the endorsement of major law enforcement and advocacy groups.
The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which passed the Senate in 1990 by a
vote of 92-4 and was signed into law by then President Bush, requires
the Justice Department to collect data on crimes that show evidence of
prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Until this act was passed, no Federal records of such crimes were
maintained. This lack of information made it difficult to determine
whether a particular crime was an isolated incident, or part of a
continuing series against a particular group.
The act has proven successful in its initial purpose--the creation of
data
[[Page S2329]]
collection--and has also served as a catalyst for an FBI effort to
train State and local law enforcement officials about hate crimes.
Hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
the Constitution in 1992 and 1994 showed that one of the prime benefits
of the act is that it has helped dramatically increase the awareness
and sensitivity of the police about hate crimes. Not only do victims of
hate crimes benefit from a more informed police force, but greater
police awareness encourages others to report hate crimes.
Since all data submission under the act is voluntary, we did not
anticipate 100 percent participation by State and local law enforcement
agencies from the start. Nonetheless, over the course of 4 years, there
has been great progress in participation levels. In 1991, 2,771 law
enforcement agencies participated in the voluntary reporting program.
In 1994, more than 7,200 agencies participated. Local police, advocacy
groups, mayors, and others have joined the effort to encourage every
law enforcement agency to comply, and as more and more local agencies
participate, the statistics will be more and more useful to identify
trends and formulate responses. In addition, the FBI is in the process
of working with States to upgrade their computer systems. When this
transition is complete, the data should be even more useful.
Unfortunately, there are still law enforcement agencies in some States
and many large cities which are not yet participating in the data
collection. We need active oversight of this act to ensure that these
agencies join in this important effort, making the statistics more
accurate and useful.
FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that he is committed to the
continued tracking of hate crimes statistics. However, we believe that
this effort has proven its usefulness and deserves a permanent mandate.
Collecting such data will not erase bigotry. It will, however, be a
valuable tool in the fight against prejudice. The information is
essential in identifying how law enforcement should best focus its
resources in dealing with hate crimes. The data will also be useful to
policymakers and local communities in their efforts to fight these
crimes.
Obviously, the FBI statistics do not yet accurately reflect the level
of violence motivated by prejudice in our society. More and more
agencies participate each year, however, we need only read the
headlines and reports by advocacy groups to see how widespread the
problem of hate crimes remains in our Nation.
The Justice Department recently launched a civil rights probe into a
rash of arson which has destroyed at least 23 black churches in the
South since 1993. The Justice Department is trying to determine whether
the crimes are racially motivated, and whether they are connected.
Several of the incidents have been solved, however, and clearly racism
motivated the offenders. The teenagers found guilty of burning a church
in Mississippi in 1993 shouted racial epithets during commission of
their crime. Racist graffiti was spray-painted on the walls of a
Knoxville, TN, Baptist church set afire on January 8, 1996. Sumter
County Circuit Court Judge Eddie Hardaway, a black judge who sent two
white men to jail for vandalizing black churches, was recently the
victim of a shotgun attack which shattered bedroom windows in his home.
During the 1960's civil rights movement, many black churches were set
ablaze, however in the late 1980's and early 1990's only one or two
such crimes were reported each year. This recent string of arson
reminds us that prejudice and hate crimes remain a problem in our
Nation.
Recent reports by private groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League,
the National Coalition on Anti-Violence Projects, and the National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, confirm that unfortunately the
problem of crimes based on prejudice continues. The ADL's 1995 Annual
Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents actually had some good news: the 1,843
anti-Semitic incidents reported to the Anti-Defamation League in 1995
represented a decrease of 223 incidents, or 11 percent, from the 1994
total of 2,066. This is the largest decline in 10 years. However, this
good news is tempered by the seriousness of many of the incidents
reported. For the fifth straight year in a row, acts of anti-Semitic
harassment against individuals outnumber incidents of vandalism against
institutions and other property.
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects and New York City
Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project report similar findings for 1995.
There were fewer incidents of violence against homosexuals in 1995, but
the incidents were more violent. There was an 8 percent drop in the
number of incidents, but a 10 percent increase in the number of
assaults and rapes.
We need to realize that the name-calling, the graffiti, the
discrimination, and the threats and violence are all signs of a
pervasive problem. The more informed we are about the scope and nature
of our communities' problems with hate crimes, the better able we will
be to develop effective prevention and prosecution strategies, as well
as support structures for victims of these crimes.
I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch today, with support from 28
of our colleagues, the Attorney General and law enforcement and
advocacy groups across the Nation, to introduce the reauthorization of
the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. I encourage all of my colleagues to
join us in working to pass this important legislation.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to
address this important issue. If one needs a reminder as to why we must
make the Hate Crime Statistics Act mandate permanent, one need look no
further than today's headlines. Throughout the South, Federal and State
authorities are investigating a rash of arson against African-American
churches reminiscent of the violence perpetrated three decades earlier.
In California, a native American was brutally stabbed by skinheads.
My home State of Colorado has not been immune from the scourge of
hate violence. In Morrison, CO, a swastika was burned on a woman's
lawn. While in Aurora, a man shot his neighbor with a BB gun because of
hatred for his Asian neighbor.
In 1995, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Klanwatch Project counted
267 active hate groups in the United States including 6 in Colorado.
And, in 1994, because of the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act,
law enforcement agencies in the United States were able to identify
5,852 hate crimes.
Hate crimes are a growing problem--one that cannot merely be measured
by numbers alone. If we are going to be successful in our battle
against the scourge of violent hate crime, one thing is certain--we
must have hard, reliable, information about the nature and the scope of
the problem.
Mr. President, this bill calls for a permanent mandate for the
collection of hate crime data by the Justice Department. This important
piece of legislation received broad bipartisan support and was signed
into law by President Bush in 1990.
Data collection is crucial to this effort for other reasons as well.
According to an article in Stanford Law & Policy Review entitled ``Bias
Crime; A Theoretical and Practical Overview,'' data collection has
proven to be a gateway for other important initiatives in the battle
against crime. These other responses include enhanced investigative
techniques, improved services for victims and the establishment of
inter-agency coordination.
There is another important purpose to this legislation as well. It
sends a strong, symbolic message that we, as a nation, will not
tolerate this kind of behavior. Mr. President, I proudly cosponsor this
legislation which will make the Hate Crimes Statistics Act a
significant and permanent addition to our framework of anti-crime laws.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1625. A bill to provide for the fair consideration of professional
sports franchise relocations, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
the professional sports franchise relocation act of 1996
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of my seeking recognition
is to introduce legislation that would
provide for an antitrust exemption
for the National Football League on the subject of franchise moves,
because that has become such a major
problem in the United States. Note
the recent move of the Cleveland
[[Page S2330]]
Browns to Baltimore, and previous moves of the Cardinals from St. Louis
to Phoenix, of the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis, of the Colts
from Baltimore to Indianapolis, and the tremendous dislocations that
these moves have caused not only to sports fans who have a very close
relationship with their team --really, America is in love with sports
and it carries from the high school to the college and professional
level--but to all Americans. We have recently seen the Pirates saved in
the city of Pittsburgh because of the ability of professional baseball
to control franchise moves, which is not possible for professional
football, because baseball has a generalized exemption to the antitrust
laws, whereas football does not.
This is a matter which has enormous financial implications for the
cities involved. There are thousands of jobs involved in hotels,
restaurants, commercial opportunities, and more than even the financial
matters and the status as a big-league city. As a Senator from
Pennsylvania, with major sports teams in my State, it is a matter of
very, very significant importance. It first came to my attention
personally in my early years in the Senate, back in 1982, when Dan
Rooney, the owner of the Steelers, approached me with then-Commissioner
Pete Rozelle seeking hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the then-
pending move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Senator
Thurmond, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, scheduled those
hearings. They were very important hearings, which, regrettably, did
not stop the move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Then we
have seen the Raiders move back from Los Angeles to Oakland, and it led
me to introduce a series of bills, as others have, on this very
important subject. These are delineated in a fuller statement, which I
will have made a part of the Record at the conclusion of this brief
presentation.
I believe, Mr. President, that legislation is necessary in this area
to provide stability for professional football. It is my hope, as we
move through this legislative process, that we will receive from
football, as well as from baseball, for the preservation of their
antitrust exemption, some consideration that will result in the
avoidance of some cities putting up vast sums of money, like Baltimore
is putting up some $200 million to bring the Browns to Baltimore from
Cleveland, according to press reports. This antitrust exemption
applies, as well, to basketball and hockey. Again, it is very important
to have stability in those leagues so they can avoid dislocations and
having franchises moved because of the threat of judicial holdings that
the antitrust laws are violated when the league attempts to block a
team from relocating.
My legislation does contain a provision that where a team moves and
it leaves the city at a loss because of infrastructure changes the city
has made, or contractual obligations, the moving team has to reimburse
the city for its share of that public debt. This is an idea brought to
me by the distinguished mayor of Pittsburgh, Mayor Tom Murphy. It is
based on a resolution adopted by the Conference of Mayors. My bill also
has a provision that requires that when a team moves from a city, if
the league expands, that city will have the first opportunity--in
effect, the right of first refusal--to be considered for an expansion
team. The bill does not impose an obligation on the league, because
there are many complicating factors that the league has to consider in
deciding where a team should be located.
But we have seen tremendous instability in professional sports with
these franchise moves. My own concern arose a long time ago when the
Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. I thought Los Angeles ought
to have a team, but not the Dodgers. They ought to have had an
expansion team. At the same time there was the move of the Giants to
San Francisco from New York.
This legislation builds upon previous bills of mine, which I have
specified in my longer statement. It is a part of the process, and I
believe we need to have a dialog with the commissioners on the whole
variety of issues confronting sports, as I have with Commissioner
Tagliabue, talking about, for example, the need for multipurpose
stadiums--with objections now to using the Vet in Philadelphia or Three
Rivers in Pittsburgh for multiple sports--using, for example a kidney-
shaped design to accommodate both football and baseball. We must try to
see to it that we have stability and we do not impose enormous burdens
on the taxpayers for new stadiums, but that we retain the big-league-
city status of current markets that support their teams and expand the
leagues, where appropriate, and find some way to stabilize professional
sports with revenue sharing and salary caps to protect small-market
teams. These issues raise complex matters which are yet to be worked
out, but this bill is a start to addressing some of the issues facing
professional football, basketball, and hockey.
Mr. President, 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. 1625
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 ``Professional Sports
Franchise Relocation Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) professional sports teams foster a strong local
identity with the people of the cities and regions in which
they are located, providing a source of civic pride for their
supporters;
(2) professional sports teams provide employment
opportunities, revenues, and a valuable form of entertainment
for the cities and regions in which they are located;
(3) in many communities, there are significant public
investments associated with professional sports facilities;
(4) it is in the public interest to encourage professional
sports leagues to operate under policies that promote
stability among their member teams and to promote the
equitable resolution of disputes arising from the proposed
relocation of professional sports teams; and
(5) professional sports teams travel in interstate commerce
to compete, and utilize materials shipped in interstate
commerce, and professional sports games are broadcast
nationally.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``antitrust laws'' shall have the meaning
given to such term in the first section of the Clayton Act
(15 U.S.C. 12) and in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.);
(2) the term ``home territory'' means the geographic area
within which a member team operates and plays the majority of
its home games, as defined in the governing agreement or
agreements of the relevant league on July 1, 1995, or upon
the commencement of operations of any league after such date;
(3) the term ``interested party'' includes--
(A) any local government that has provided financial
assistance, including tax abatement, to the facilities in
which the team plays;
(B) a representative of the local government for the
locality in which a member team's stadium or arena is
located;
(C) a member team;
(D) the owner or operator of a stadium or arena of a member
team; and
(E) any other affected party, as designated by the relevant
league;
(4) the term ``local government'' means a city, county,
parish, town, township, village, or any other general
governmental unit established under State law;
(5) the terms ``member team'' and ``team'' mean any team of
professional athletes--
(A) organized to play major league football, basketball, or
hockey; and
(B) that is a member of a professional sports league;
(6) the term ``person'' means any individual, partnership,
corporation, or unincorporated association, any combination
or association thereof, or any political subdivision;
(7) the terms ``professional sports league'' and ``league''
mean an association that--
(A) is composed of 2 or more member teams;
(B) regulates the contests and exhibitions of its member
teams; and
(C) has been engaged in competition in a particular sport
for more than 7 years; and
(8) the terms ``stadium'' and ``arena'' mean the principal
facility within which a member team plays the majority of its
home games.
SEC. 4. ACTIONS AUTHORIZED.
The antitrust laws shall not apply to a professional sports
league's enforcement or application of a rule authorizing the
membership of the league to decide whether or not a member
team of such league may be relocated.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Notice.--
(1) In general.--Any person seeking to change the home
territory of a member team shall furnish notice of such
proposed change not later than 210 days before the
commencement of the season in which the member team is to
play in such other location.
[[Page S2331]]
(2) Requirements.--The notice shall--
(A) be in writing and delivered in person or by certified
mail to all interested parties;
(B) be made available to the news media;
(C) be published in one or more newspapers of general
circulation within the member team's home territory; and
(D) contain--
(i) an identification of the proposed new location of such
member team;
(ii) a summary of the reasons for the change in home
territory based on the criteria listed in subsection (b)(2);
and
(iii) the date on which the proposed change would become
effective.
(b) Procedures.--
(1) Establishment.--Prior to making a decision to approve
or disapprove the relocation of a member team, a professional
sports league shall establish applicable rules and
procedures, including criteria and factors to be considered
by the league in making decisions, which shall be available
upon request to any interested party.
(2) Criteria to be considered.--The criteria and factors to
be considered shall include--
(A) the extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the
team has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the
community;
(B) the degree to which the team has engaged in good faith
negotiations with appropriate persons concerning terms and
conditions under which the team would continue to play its
games in the community or elsewhere within its home
territory;
(C) the degree to which the ownership or management of the
team has contributed to any circumstance that might
demonstrate the need for the relocation;
(D) the extent to which the team, directly or indirectly,
received public financial support by means of any publicly
financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any
other form of public financial support;
(E) the adequacy of the stadium or arena in which the team
played its home games in the previous season, and the
willingness of the stadium, arena authority, or local
government to remedy any deficiencies in the facility;
(F) whether the team has incurred net operating losses,
exclusive of depreciation or amortization, sufficient to
threaten the continued financial viability of the team;
(G) whether any other team in the league is located in the
community in which the team is located;
(H) whether the team proposes to relocate to a community in
which no other team in the league is located;
(I) whether the stadium authority, if public, is opposed to
the relocation; and
(J) any other criteria considered appropriate by the
professional sports league.
(c) Hearings.--In making a determination with respect to
the location of such member team's home territory, the
professional sports league shall conduct a hearing at which
interested parties shall be afforded an opportunity to submit
written testimony and exhibits. The league shall keep a
record of all such proceedings.
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--A decision by a professional sports league
to approve or disapprove the relocation of a member team may
be reviewed in a civil action brought by an interested party
subject to the limitations set forth in this section.
(b) Venue.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an action under
this section may be brought only in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
(2) Exception.--If the home territory of the member club or
the proposed new home territory of the member club is within
50 miles of the District of Columbia, an action under this
section may be brought only in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
(c) Time.--An action under this section shall be brought
not later than 14 days after the formal vote of the league
approving or disapproving the proposed relocation.
(d) Standard of Review.--Judicial review of a decision by a
professional sports league to permit or not to permit the
relocation of a member team shall be conducted on an
expedited basis, and shall be limited to--
(1) determining whether the league complied with the
procedural requirements of section 5; and
(2) determining whether, in light of the criteria and
factors to be considered, the league's decision was arbitrary
or capricious.
(e) Remand.--If the reviewing court determines that the
league failed to comply with the procedural requirements of
section 5 or reached an arbitrary and capricious decision, it
shall remand the matter for further consideration by the
league. The reviewing court may grant no relief other than
enjoining or approving enforcement of the league decision.
SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Payment of Debts.--
(1) In general.--Any team permitted by a professional
sports league to relocate its franchise to a different home
territory from a publicly owned facility that remains subject
to debt for construction or improvements shall pay to the
facility owner, on a current basis until the retirement of
that debt, its proportionate share, based upon dates of
facility usage during the 12 months prior to the notice of
the team's intent to relocate, of the existing debt service
on such obligations.
(2) Effect on existing rights.--This subsection shall not
affect a stadium authority's rights, if any, to seek specific
enforcement of its lease or a club's rights, if any, to seek
a judicial determination that its lease has been breached.
(b) Competition.--Any community from which a professional
sports league franchise relocates under this Act shall
receive 180 days' prior notice of any league decision to
expand and an opportunity to compete for such an expansion
franchise on grounds no less favorable than those afforded to
other communities.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall apply to any league action addressing
relocation of the home territory of a member team that occurs
on or after June 1, 1995, and to any lawsuit addressing such
league action filed after June 1, 1995.
____________________