[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.

                          ____________________