[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 13 (Monday, January 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S976-S980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 303. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to enhance the 
ability of direct broadcast satellite and other multichannel video 
providers to compete effectively with cable television systems, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                  the satellite television act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the past several years some 
satellite TV companies routinely broke the law by selling customers 
distant network stations when they weren't authorized to.
  These customers bought the service in good faith. For many, 
especially those in rural areas, these distant network stations are the 
only source of decent network TV reception. For others, they provide a 
window on life in a distant city.
  Despite the fact that these satellite TV customers had no intention 
of breaking the law, and despite the fact that many welcome the added 
diversity these distant network stations provide, and despite the fact 
that the law prevents satellite TV companies from transmitting local 
network stations, many of these customers--perhaps as many as two 
million of them--are within weeks of losing their distant network 
stations, thanks to a court order secured by local TV stations, and TV 
network broadcasters. And the way the law is written, there's not much 
the FCC or anybody else can do to stop it--unless we change the law.
  Mr. President, that's what I propose to do. Today, with the 
cosponsorship of Senator Conrad Burns, I am introducing the Satellite 
Television Act of 1999. Together with legislation introduced earlier 
this week by myself and Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl,

[[Page S977]]

and Lott, this legislation will settle, in a fair and rational way, the 
ongoing dispute between broadcasters and satellite TV companies about 
how and when satellite TV customers can receive local and distant 
network TV stations.
  It should come as no surprise that telecommunications law, like the 
notoriously failed 1996 Telecommunications Act, often seems to work 
against the interests of the average consumer: the plain but sorry fact 
is that the interests of big telecommunications companies, not average 
Americans, are the ones that the laws are really drafted to serve. And 
why is that? because these companies often successfully argue that 
serving their interests is serving the consumer's interests.
  That just doesn't wash in this case, however. For example, how can 
anybody argue with a straight face that it's really serves the 
consumer's interests to keep satellite TV companies from carrying local 
stations? Or to allow broadcasters to force satellite TV companies to 
drop all their distant network stations--even if local broadcasters 
aren't suffering any meaningful loss of audience or revenue as a 
result, and if the local market doesn't even have a station that 
broadcasts the same network shows?
  This legislation will change the law and avoid these unfair results. 
It would allow satellite TV companies to carry local signals, and to 
continue carrying distant network stations in three situations: when a 
local network affiliate doesn't exist, when a local affiliate can't be 
received off-air, or when carriage of the distant signals will not 
cause local stations any significant loss of revenue. The FCC would be 
ordered to determine, on an expedited, bipartisan basis, those 
situations in which the lack of adverse impact would justify continued 
carriage of distant network stations, and whether any program blackout 
rules should be applied to their carriage. In the interim, satellite TV 
subscribers located at a greater distance from the local stations would 
be permitted to continue carrying the distant network stations they 
currently offer. Those located close to the core of the local station's 
market, however, would be subject to having their distant network 
stations withdrawn by the broadcasters' enforcement of their 
outstanding judgment. This will appropriately punish the satellite TV 
companies that most likely deliberately broke the law, and these 
consumers are highly likely to receive full network service from local 
network station affiliates.
  Mr. President, this bill attempts to strike a fair compromise between 
the warring corporate interests of the satellite TV and broadcast TV 
interests, so that we can, at least this time, avoid having consumers 
bear the consequences of bad law and corporate selfishness.
  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. 303

       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 ``Satellite Television Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
     Competition Act of 1992, Congress stated its policy of 
     promoting competition in cable services and making available 
     to the public a diversity of views and information through 
     cable television and other video media.
       (2) In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress stated 
     its policy of securing lower prices and higher quality 
     service for American telecommunications consumers and 
     encouraging the rapid deployment of new telecommunications 
     technologies.
       (3) In most places throughout America, cable television 
     system operators still do not face effective competition from 
     other providers of multichannel video service.
       (4) Absent effective competition, the market power 
     exercised by cable television operators enables them to raise 
     the price of cable service to consumers, and to control the 
     price and availability of cable programming services to other 
     multichannel video service providers. Current Federal 
     Communications Commission rules have been inadequate in 
     constraining cable price increases.
       (5) Direct Broadcast Satellite service has over 8 million 
     subscribers and constitutes the most significant competitive 
     alternative to cable television service.
       (6) Direct Broadcast Satellite Service currently suffers 
     from a number of statutory, regulatory, and technical 
     barriers that keep it from being an effective competitor to 
     cable television in the provision of multichannel video 
     services.
       (7) The most prominent of these barriers is the inability 
     to provide subscribers with local television broadcast 
     signals by satellite.
       (8) Permitting providers of direct broadcast satellite 
     service to retransmit local television signals to their 
     subscribers would greatly enhance the ability of direct 
     broadcast satellite service to compete more effectively in 
     the provision of multichannel video services.
       (9) Due to capacity limitations and in the interest of 
     providing service in as many markets as possible, providers 
     of direct broadcast satellite service, unlike cable 
     television systems, cannot at this time carry all local 
     television broadcast signals in all the local television 
     markets they seek to serve.
       (10) It would be in the public interest for providers of 
     direct broadcast satellite service to fully comply with the 
     mandatory signal carriage rules at the earliest possible 
     date. In the interim, requiring full compliance with the 
     mandatory signal carriage rules would substantially limit the 
     ability of direct broadcast satellite service providers to 
     compete in the provision of multichannel video services and 
     would not serve the public interest.
       (11) Maintaining the viability of free, over-the-air local 
     television service is a matter of preeminent public interest.
       (12) All subscribers to multichannel video services should 
     be able to receive the signal of at least one station 
     affiliated with each of the major broadcast television 
     networks.
       (13) Millions of subscribers to direct broadcast satellite 
     service currently receive the signals of network-affiliated 
     stations not located in these subscribers' local television 
     markets. In those cases where cable service is not available 
     and where conventional rooftop antennas are not effective 
     distant network signals may be these subscribers' only source 
     of network television service.
       (14) There is a direct link between the widespread carriage 
     of distant network stations in local network affiliates' 
     markets and a local affiliate's loss of audience share and 
     revenues, which could in turn harm the station's ability to 
     serve its local community.
       (15) Abrupt termination of satellite carriers' provision of 
     distant network signals could have a negative impact on the 
     ability of direct broadcast satellite service to compete 
     effectively in the provision of multichannel video services.
       (16) The public interest would be served by permitting 
     direct broadcast satellite service providers to continue 
     existing carriage of a distant network affiliate station's 
     signal where--
       (A) there is no local network affiliate;
       (B) the local network affiliate cannot be adequately 
     received off-air; or
       (C) continued carriage would not be likely to materially 
     harm local television service.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to permit subscribers of Direct 
     Broadcast Satellite service who currently receive distant 
     network stations to continue to receive this service to the 
     extent that the Federal Communications Commission 
     affirmatively finds that no local station would be likely to 
     sustain audience and revenue loss that would materially 
     affect that station's ability to continue to serve its local 
     audience.

     SEC. 4. MUST-CARRY FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS RETRANSMITTING 
                   TELEVISION BROADCAST SIGNALS.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 337. CARRIAGE OF LOCAL TELEVISION SIGNALS BY SATELLITE 
                   CARRIERS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to promote 
     competition in the provision of multichannel video services 
     while protecting the availability of free, over-the-air 
     television, particularly for the 40 percent of American 
     television households that do not subscribe to any 
     multichannel video programming service, by--
       ``(1) enabling providers of direct broadcast service to 
     offer their subscribers the signals of local television 
     stations;
       ``(2) protecting the availability of free, over-the-air 
     television broadcasting by requiring satellite carriers who 
     rely on a compulsory copyright license to carry all local 
     stations; and
       ``(3) accommodating, for an interim period, the inability 
     of providers of direct broadcast service from carrying all 
     local signals in all local television markets they seek to 
     serve.
       ``(b) Application of Mandatory Carriage to Satellite 
     Carriers.--The mandatory carriage provisions of sections 614 
     and 615 of the Communications Act will apply in a local 
     market no later than January 1, 2002, to satellite carriers 
     retransmitting any television broadcast station in that local 
     market and pursuant to the compulsory license provided by 
     section 122 of title 17, United States Code.
       ``(c) Good Signal Required.--A local television broadcast 
     station eligible for carriage under subsection (b) may be 
     required to bear the costs associated with delivering a good 
     quality signal to the designated local receive facility of 
     the satellite carrier. The selection

[[Page S978]]

     of a local receive facility by a satellite carrier shall not 
     be made in a manner that frustrates the purposes of this Act. 
     The Commission shall promulgate any regulations necessary to 
     assure that selection of local receive facilities is made in 
     compliance with the intent of this Act.
       ``(d) Rulemaking Required.--
       ``(1) Single rulemaking required.--The Commission shall 
     institute a single rulemaking, compliant with subchapter II 
     of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, to examine the 
     extent to which carriage of distant network stations already 
     provided to subscribers on March 1, 1998, may continue 
     without causing a projected loss of audience and revenue of 
     such magnitude as to cause material harm to the viability of 
     local stations.
       ``(2) Determination required.--As part of the rulemaking 
     required by this subsection, the Commission shall determine 
     whether the application of network exclusivity, syndicated 
     exclusivity, or sports exclusivity rules to carriage of 
     distant network stations would serve the public interest.
       ``(3) Timeframe.--The Commission shall complete all actions 
     necessary to prescribe regulations it may adopt as a result 
     of this rulemaking to be effective within 180 days after the 
     enactment of the Satellite Television Act of 1999. Direct 
     broadcast satellite service providers may continue existing 
     carriage of distant network stations within local stations' 
     Grade B contours until the effective date of such new 
     regulations.
       ``(4) Two-thirds vote required.--Any regulations adopted 
     under this subsection must be adopted by an affirmative vote 
     of at least two-thirds of the members of the Commission.
       ``(5) Certain dbs signals.--Direct broadcast satellite 
     service providers may continue to carry the signals of 
     distant network stations without regard to the provisions of 
     this subsection in any situation in which such carriage would 
     be consistent with rules adopted by the Commission in CS 
     Docket 98-201.
       ``(e) Cable Television System Digital Signal Carriage Not 
     Covered.--Nothing in this section applies to the carriage of 
     the digital signals of television broadcast stations by cable 
     television systems.
       ``(f) No Remission of Liability.--No action taken by the 
     Commission pursuant to subsection (d) shall relieve any 
     person from any liability for any violation of title 17, 
     United States Code, or from the imposition of any remedy 
     therefor.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Television broadcast station.--The term `television 
     broadcast station' means a full power local television 
     broadcast station, but does not include a low-power or 
     translator television broadcast station.
       ``(2) Broadcasting network.--The term `broadcasting 
     network' means a television network in the United States 
     which offers an interconnected program service on a regular 
     basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated 
     broadcast stations in 10 or more States.
       ``(3) Network station.--The term `network station' means a 
     television broadcast station that is owned or operated by, or 
     affiliated with, a broadcasting network.
       ``(4) Local market.--The term `local market' means the 
     designated market area in which a station is located. For a 
     noncommercial educational television broadcast station, the 
     local market includes any station that is licensed to a 
     community within the same designated market area as the 
     noncommercial educational television broadcast station.
       ``(5) Local receive facility.--The term `local receive 
     facility' means the reception point in the local market of a 
     television broadcast station or in a market contiguous to the 
     local market of a television broadcast station at which a 
     satellite carrier initially receives the signal of the 
     station for purposes of transmission of such signals to the 
     facility which uplinks the signals to the carrier's 
     satellites for secondary transmission to the satellite 
     carrier's subscribers.
       ``(6) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier' has 
     the meaning given it by section 119(d) of title 17, United 
     States Code.''.

     SEC. 5. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.

       (a) Amendment of Section 325(b).--Section 325(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) is amended 
     striking the subsection designation and paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) No cable system or other multichannel video 
     programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a 
     broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except--
       ``(A) with the express authority of the station; or
       ``(B) pursuant to section 614 or section 615, in the case 
     of a station electing, in accordance with this subsection, to 
     assert the right to carriage under such section.
       ``(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply 
     to--
       ``(A) retransmission of the signal of a television 
     broadcast station outside the station's local market by a 
     satellite carrier directly to subscribers if--
       ``(i) such station was a superstation on May 1, 1991; and
       ``(ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was transmitted 
     under the compulsory license of section 119 of title 17, 
     United States Code, by satellite carriers directly to at 
     least 250,000 subscribers;
       ``(B) retransmission of the distant signal of a 
     broadcasting station that is owned or operated by, or 
     affiliated with, a broadcasting network directly to a home 
     satellite antenna, if the subscriber resides in an unserved 
     household; or
       ``(C) retransmission by a cable operator or other 
     multichannel video programming distributor (other than by a 
     satellite carrier direct to its subscribers) of the signal of 
     a television broadcast station outside the station's local 
     market, if such signal was obtained from a satellite carrier 
     and--
       ``(i) the originating station was a superstation on May 1, 
     1991; and
       ``(ii) the originating station was a network station on 
     December 31, 1997, and its signal was retransmitted by a 
     satellite carrier directly to subscribers.
       ``(3) Any term used in this subsection that is defined in 
     section 337(g) of this Act has the meaning given to it by 
     that section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 6. DESIGNATED MARKET AREAS.

       Nothing in this Act, or in the amendments made by this Act, 
     prevents the Federal Communications Commission from revising 
     the listing of designated market areas (as defined in this 
     Act) or reassigning such areas if the revision or 
     reassignment is done in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as the Commission's cable television mandatory 
     carriage rules provide.

     SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or section 325(b) or 337 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b), 337), or 
     the application of that provision to any person or 
     circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to 
     violate any provision of the Constitution of the United 
     States, then the other provisions of that section, and the 
     application of that provision to other persons and 
     circumstances, shall not be affected.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Terms defined in Communications Act of 1934.--Any term 
     used in this Act that is defined in section 337(g) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as added by section 4 of this 
     Act, has the meaning given to it by that section.
       (7) Designated market area.--The term ``designated market 
     area'' means a designated market area, as determined by 
     Nielsen Media Research and published in the DMA Market and 
     Demographic Report.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 304. A bill to improve air transportation service available to 
small communities; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


             the small communities air service act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 306. A bill to regulate commercial air tours overflying the Great 
Smokey Mountains National Park, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             the great smokey national park overflights act

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces 
of aviation legislation that I believe will improve the quality of life 
for Tennesseans. First, I would like to introduce ``The Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park Overflights Act.''
  Last year, I was an original sponsor of the ``National Parks 
Overflights Act'' along with my colleague and Chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator John McCain. I was proud to have my name associated 
with this legislation. But, in spite of overwhelming bipartisan support 
for this legislation in the Senate, an unrelated dispute in the 
conference committee with the House of Representatives led to its 
demise in the 105th Congress.
  Last year's legislation would have affected many National Parks from 
coast to coast and even Hawaii. The legislation I am introducing today 
will only affect the Smokies. I am advancing a more limited approach 
because I believe the preservation of the Smokies and the safety of 
park visitors are far too important to include with other more 
contentious legislative efforts.
  As the air tour industry in many parks continues to grow, safety 
concerns also increase. By addressing safety now, before tragic 
accidents occur, we can assure the public that we have taken every 
precaution to protect visitors in our parks. Under this legislation, 
the Federal Aviation Administrator will work in tandem with the 
Secretary of the Interior to ensure public health and safety goals are 
met while concurrently maintaining the natural beauty and serenity of 
our Smoky Mountains National Park. This bill makes park overflight 
passenger safety a paramount concern for the Federal Aviation 
Administrator, who, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, 
will set minimum altitudes for overflights and will prohibit

[[Page S979]]

flights below those minimum altitudes where necessary to meet safety 
goals.
  This legislation also takes a crucial first step toward restoring and 
preserving a vital resource within the Smokies--natural quiet. The 
natural ambient sound condition found in a park, or natural quiet, as 
it is commonly called, is precisely what many Americans seek to 
experience when they visit some of our most treasured national parks. 
Natural quiet is as crucial an element of the natural beauty and 
splendor of certain parks as those resources that we visually observe 
and appreciate.
  I believe that this critical environmental legislation strikes a 
careful balance between the reasonable concerns of those in the air 
tour industry and the environmental necessity of preserving the natural 
quiet of the Smokies. I am a pilot and I know well the beauty and 
thrill of flying low. The Smokies beg for more restraint. They must be 
enjoyed from a responsible altitude where the noise of our aircraft 
does not disturb the life and majesty below our wings.
  The second piece of legislation that I would like to introduce today 
is the Air Service Improvement Act of 1999. As many of my colleagues 
know, I have spent considerable time working with airport managers, 
airlines and many others attempting to solve the problems of 
underserved small communities. It became clear to me early on that 
there is no silver bullet solution. Rather, a learning process has 
taken place where we have discovered what has worked best for the 
individual communities in question. Moreover, the problems of small 
communities are related to the competition issues at larger, well-
served airports. Tennessee is experiencing both problems.
  In Memphis, there is certainly adequate service, but limited 
competition results in high fares. In the Eastern part of our State, 
there are several communities that have little competition and limited 
service. We can do better.
  It is critical that we remember that deregulation has been remarkably 
successful in spite of the ``pockets of pain'' in some communities. 
Therefore any changes must be made with an emphasis on the free market 
and not be reregulatory in nature. Deregulation has served most 
Americans well and should not be dismantled.
  With that prologue, I would like to go through some of the provisions 
of the Small Communities Air Services Act. For most small and medium 
sized communities that are underserved, access is the key. These 
airports must have access to major hubs that provide network benefits. 
When travelers in the Tri-Cities have jet service to Chicago they can 
conveniently connect to nearly any city in the world. And indeed, much 
of the improvements the underserved markets of Chattanooga and the Tri-
Cities have seen over the past two years has been from the Department 
of Transportation adding slots that created additional access to 
Chicago.
  With access to the Nation's four slot-controlled airports as a 
primary goal, I am proposing that the Secretary of Transportation be 
required to approve all applications from underserved small and medium-
sized communities that partner with an air carrier that is willing to 
serve their market. The Secretary will retain the right to deny 
applications only if the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that 
the increase in operations is unsafe or if increase in operations 
violates the National Environmental Policy Act. In short, if an 
additional flight from an underserved area is safe and does not have 
adverse environmental effects the slot shall be awarded.
  Additionally, I am introducing provisions that I worked closely with 
Chairman McCain on last year. These include a grant program for small 
communities, an in-depth study on market-based incentives using 
regional jets, and numerous safety programs affecting small communities 
including an FAA tower program. It is my belief that collectively, this 
initiative will diminish many of the challenges that underserved 
communities now face.
  Again, it is my strong belief that both the Overflights legislation 
and the Air Service Act will improve significantly the quality of life 
for Tennesseans. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of these 
proposals, but I would especially like to thank the Majority Leader 
Trent Lott and Chairman John McCain for their considerable 
assistance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 305. A bill to reform unfair and anticompetitive practices in the 
professional boxing industry; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


                     muhammad ali boxing reform act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Muhammad Ali 
Boxing Reform Act in the 106th Congress. This legislation would 
establish a series of practical reforms to reduce interstate restraints 
of trade in the industry; protect boxers from exploitative business 
practices; reduce arbitrary practices by sanctioning organizations; and 
increase financial disclosure requirements to prevent misconduct by 
promoters and sanctioning bodies. The legislation I am introducing 
today is the same version of the Ali Act that was reported out of the 
Senate Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate last year.
  I am pleased to again have the cosponsorship and sound counsel of my 
colleague from Nevada, Senator Richard Bryan. He has a strong interest 
and long record of promoting responsible oversight of the professional 
boxing industry. Boxing is of course a major industry in Nevada, and 
Senator Bryan has worked closely with his State's athletic commission 
to assess and propose effective measure to make boxing a more respected 
and healthy industry.
  I have attached a summary of the Ali Act to concisely describe its 
major provisions. The bill is a modest and practical proposal which 
would simply curb some of the most egregious and anti-competitive 
practices which have exploited athletes and undermined the integrity of 
the boxing industry. Senator Bryan and I worked with state 
commissioners and credible boxing industry leaders from across the U.S. 
to develop the Ali Act. It requires no public funding and would create 
no new bureaucracy at any level of government. This legislation instead 
requires adherence to fair business practices and public disclosure 
requirements designed to significantly reduce abusive practices in the 
sport.
  It is worth noting that the public response to the Ali Act has been 
tremendous. We have received strong praise for this legislation from 
every sector of the industry and, most importantly, from boxers 
themselves. It is to be expected that certain vested interests in 
professional boxing industry will not welcome any reforms of anti-
competitive and confiscatory business practices in the sport. However, 
the Ali Act will clearly improve the sport in the public interest, and 
will not inhibit any legitimate business practices. If enacted, the 
professional boxing industry will not only be free of certain types of 
abusive and unethical business practices, but competition should surely 
increase. Competition is the heart of any sport, and fair, open 
competition is the key to a sport's success. I look forward to the day 
when boxing achieves the reputation of credible competition and fair 
business practices for its athletes.
  I will work with members of the Senate Commerce Committee to promptly 
bring the Ali Act before the full Senate this year. With the Ali Act 
also being introduced in the House of Representatives in the near 
future, I am hopeful that 1999 will be the year the professional boxing 
industry in America embarks on a new path of fair business practices, 
legitimate rankings, and enhanced integrity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act


                  Protecting Boxers From Exploitation

       (a) Declares that all contracts between boxers and 
     promoters must contain specific terms regarding the length of 
     time it covers, and the minimum number of bouts per year for 
     the boxer.
       (b) Limits certain ``option'' contracts between boxers and 
     promoters to one year. (Those where a boxer is forced to 
     provide options to a promoter, as a condition of getting a 
     particular bout. Prevents promoter from controlling a weight 
     division by coercing options from all boxers.)
       (c) Prohibits a promoter from forcing a boxer to hire an 
     associate, relative, or any

[[Page S980]]

     other individual, as the boxer's manager, or in any other 
     employment capacity. (This stops a promoter from grabbing 
     another 33% of a boxer's purse; mirrors the regulation of 
     most state commissions.)
       (d) Prohibits conflicts of interest between managers of a 
     boxer and the promoter. (Managers should be an independent 
     advocate for the boxer--not serve the financial interests of 
     promoter.)


               Sanctioning Organization Integrity Reforms

       (e) Sanctioning organizations (abbreviation: ``SO'') 
     conducting business in the U.S. must establish objective and 
     consistent criteria for the ratings of professional boxers.
       (f) Each year, SO's must provide the following information 
     either on a publicly accessible website, or to the FTC; their 
     bylaws, ratings criteria, and roster of officials who vote on 
     their ratings.
       (g) When an SO changes their rating of a U.S. boxer, it 
     must inform the boxer in writing of the reason for the 
     change. Each SO must establish an appeals process (i.e. 
     exchange of correspondence) for boxers in the U.S. to contest 
     their ranking in writing.
       (h) No SO can receive payments or compensation from a 
     promoter, boxer, or manager, except for the established 
     sanctioning fee and expenses they receive for sanctioning a 
     bout, which must be reported to the relevant State 
     commission.


        Public Interest Disclosures to State Boxing Commissions

       (i) SO's must disclose to a state boxing commission all 
     charges and fees they will impose on the boxer(s) competing 
     in the event, as well as all payments and revenues the SO 
     receives.
       (i) The promoter(s) affiliated with each event shall file a 
     complete and accurate copy of all contracts they have with 
     the boxer pertaining to the event, with the boxing commission 
     prior to the event, and disclose in writing all fees and 
     costs they will assess on the boxer(s). Club level boxing 
     events (those less than 10 rounds) are excluded. No burden on 
     small business.


                              Enforcement

       (k) Civil and Criminal penalties similar to the existing 
     federal boxing law, but fines are higher to deter major 
     promoters from violations. Also, allows enforcement by State 
     Attorney Generals.


                                 Notes

     1. The Ali Act requires no federal or state funds and creates 
     no new federal bureaucracy.

                          ____________________