Following is a report of federal activities since March 30 affecting the NCAA membership. This report was prepared by the NCAA federal relations office. Copies of all documents, bills and correspondence in this report are available from the federal relations office, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 310, Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone 202/293-3050.

Gender-equity issues

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA).

The U.S. Department of Education is likely to forgo the collection of 1999 EADA data according to a department official. The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) required that Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data be supplied to the Department of Education no later than October 30, 1999. However, the NCAA has learned that technical problems will prevent the department from collecting the 1999 data. Instead, the department expects to send letters alerting all colleges and universities with co-educational athletics programs that the federal collection will begin with the 2000 EADA data. Department officials indicate that an early-June mailing will provide details concerning the fall 2000 Web-based data collection. The 2000 EADA reports are required to be made available to the public, upon request, by October 15, 2000, and to be sent to the Department of Education by October 30, 2000.

General Accounting Office (GAO) to collect data from NCAA and NAIA institutions on sports team discontinuation.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) is moving forward with a Title IX-related study mandated, in part, by the Higher Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) -- "Studies of Opportunities for Participation in Athletics Programs." The NCAA was asked to review the data-collection instrument, which already has been pre-tested by the GAO at a handful of institutions.

The study is intended to:

* determine how institutions make decisions to add and drop men's and women's athletics teams;

* what factors influence those decisions;

* other options considered by an institution before making a final decision;

* how the affected student-athletes are notified of the decision; and

* whether student-athletes are involved in the decision-making process.

The study asks athletics directors to answer a series of questions about teams that were added or dropped at their institution within the last five years. The survey will be mailed to all athletics directors of NCAA and NAIA schools in early May, with a two-week turnaround time to complete and return the survey. The GAO expects to have a report to release to Congress by December 2000.

OCR responds to Minnesota State High School League with definition of sport for Title IX purposes -- clearly states that cheerleading is not a sport for purposes of compliance with Title IX.

In an April 11 letter to the Minnesota State High School League, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) provided a definition of sport for Title IX purposes. The OCR's letter was in response to a request made by the Minnesota League.

In the letter, the OCR examines the criteria and process it to determine whether an athletics activity is a sport. The OCR concludes by clarifying that consistent with earlier policy statements, "there is a presumption by OCR that drill teams, cheerleading and other like activities are extracurricular activities and are not considered sports or part of an institution's athletics program within the meaning of Title IX regulation."

The OCR suggests in the letter that the information provided be shared with other interested groups.

Higher education issues

On April 7, the newly formed Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) held its first meeting to address issues related to the use of sweatshop labor to produce college apparel items. The organization was created primarily at the urging of students and labor groups after they became frustrated with the composition and policies of the Fair Labor Association (FLA), a group that evolved from meetings between apparel makers and the U.S. Department of Labor. Currently, the WRC has 44 institutions as members. Approximately 130 universities have joined the FLA.

At the meeting, representatives from 30 of the 44 member institutions asked questions regarding the composition of the consortium's governing board. Some questioned whether the composition of three college officials, three students and six members of the consortium's advisory board (members who mostly represent labor unions and labor rights organizations) might dilute university input. However, most representatives were impressed with the first meeting.

The WRC has criticized the FLA as being "too corporate" and for permitting the companies themselves to pick the monitors who are supposed to certify that labor practices at factories meet international standards. The WRC would implement an independent monitoring system. The next WRC meeting is scheduled for late April.

In a related issue, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the chairman of Nike Inc., Phil Knight, has decided not to contribute millions of dollars to renovate the University of Oregon's football stadium. His decision is allegedly linked to the university's decision to join the Worker Rights Consortium.

On April 5, a dozen students were arrested during a sit-in at the University of Kentucky's Administration Building. The students were pressuring institution officials to join the Workers Rights Consortium. The university is a member of the FLA. Other campuses recently have experienced similar student protests.

Congress has approved a fiscal year 2001 budget resolution that could freeze funding for higher education programs at last year's levels. Overall, the spending proposal would provide an additional $17 billion in new funding next year. The increases slated for education are mostly targeted for elementary and secondary education and special education programs. The final spending measure does not contain an amendment included in a Senate version of the resolution, which called for increasing the maximum Pell Grant award by $400, bringing the maximum to $3,700 for the neediest students. The removal of this provision from the final budget plan has resulted in action by the higher education community. The American Council on Education and other higher education associations have asked college and university CEOs to join the effort and contact their members of Congress to ask that they make student financial aid a priority as the funding process continues.

Gambling issues

Internet gambling legislation -- House Judiciary Committee approves H.R. 3125 -- House floor vote awaits.

On April 6, the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of H.R. 3125 to prohibit gambling on the Internet in the U.S. The bill now awaits a full vote by the House. H.R. 3125 is very similar to the Senate version, S. 692, unanimously adopted by the Senate in November 1999.

The NCAA has worked aggressively to insure the passage of Internet gambling legislation for more than three years. The increasing growth and popularity of sports gambling on the Internet, particularly among college students, is of great concern. Offshore Internet gambling operations are offering ways for U.S. consumers to gamble on college and professional sports in direct violation of existing state and federal laws. However, most of the current laws were enacted before the advent of the Internet and do not adequately address the newly developed forms (wireless) of this activity.

Other supporters of the legislation include all the professional sports leagues, the National Association of Attorneys General and religious, consumer and family groups. Opponents of the legislation are seeking ways to derail the bill in hopes that they can slow the legislative process down and avoid final approval before Congress adjourns in September. In contrast, supporters of the legislation are working to ensure that the House quickly adopts H.R. 3125 and that a conference agreement between the House and Senate can be forged before the 106th Congress concludes its work.

NCAA receives response from Nevada Gaming Control Board regarding request to have institutional names removed from the sports books.

On February 11, the NCAA sent a letter to the Nevada Gaming Control Board asking that NCAA member institutions be allowed to petition to have their institution's names taken off the gambling boards in Nevada's sports books, on an institution-by-institutions basis. The NCAA claimed this would give non-Nevada institutions the same protections given to Nevada institutions. Nevada, the only state to allow gambling on college sports, prohibits betting on its own teams.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board's March 20 response to the NCAA denied the request, saying it was unnecessary to provide non-Nevada institutions the same protections as Nevada schools because other states already afforded their institutions the same protections as Nevada by not allowing gambling on those institutions' teams in their own states. However, the response did not address the problem of Nevada's allowing bets on teams from other states, the issue addressed in the letter.

Federal legislation to ban all legal gambling on amateur and college sports -- Senate action. College sports gambling bill reintroduced in Senate to provide a Commerce Committee jurisdiction -- S. 2021 becomes S. 2267, then S. 2340.

On January 31, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, introduced S. 2021, the High-School and College Sports Gambling Prohibition Act. As of March 29, there were 20 cosponsors.

On March 22, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Brownback introduced S. 2267, a bill that included identical language to that of S. 2021; the only difference was that it provided for a Commerce Committee jurisdiction to allow the Commerce Committee to mover forward with the bill. S. 2021, the Brownback/Leahy legislation, had a Judiciary Committee jurisdiction (Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman).

Upon returning to the Senate from the presidential campaign trail, McCain became impatient with the progress of the Judiciary Committee on the legislation. McCain decided to move the bill through the Commerce Committee to insure that it was considered in a timely manner. In a public show of jurisdictional tug-of-war, Hatch invoked Senate Rule 14 when S. 2267 was introduced, forcing the bill to be held at the Senate chamber desk instead of being referred to the Commerce Committee as was intended.

On April 3, McCain introduced S. 2340, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act, identical to S. 2267, in order to again seek to direct the legislation to his Commerce Committee. This time, it resulted in a referral of the new legislation (S. 2340) to the Commerce Committee.

The legislation is strongly opposed by the Nevada gambling industry.

On March 29, a hearing was conducted on college sports gambling by the Senate Commerce Committee (Chairman McCain; Ranking democrat Fritz Hollings, D-South Carolina).

On March 29, a hearing was conducted on college sports gambling by the Senate Commerce Committee. At the largely favorable hearing, McCain and Brownback asked questions that went to the heart of why gambling in Nevada on college sports had an impact on student-athletes, illegal gambling and the growing problem of youth gambling. The senators were satisfied that the pending legislation had significant merit and that the Nevada gambling industry's claims that their industry actually served to "police" college sports gambling scandals and thus was necessary, were without merit.

At the hearing, the NCAA was harshly and unfairly criticized by Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nevada, for not allocating more resources for gambling education and enforcement, seeking to use this issue to mask other more significant flaws within the organization, and making a connection between legal college sports gambling in Nevada with illegal college sports gambling.

The hearing began with a Congressional panel including two senators (John R. Edwards, D-North Carolina, in favor and Harry Reid, D-Nevada, opposed) and four members of the House (Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Tim Roemer, D-Indiana, in favor, and Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, and James A. Gibbons, R-Nevada, opposed).

The NCAA supplied two witnesses at the committee's request: Charles Wethington, president of the University of Kentucky and chair of the NCAA Executive Committee, and Jim Calhoun, head men's basketball coach at the University of Connecticut.

Other witnesses included Tim Kelley, the staff director of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission; Don Yeager, writer for Sports Illustrated; the president of the gambling industry's Washington, D.C., lobbying office; the chair of the Nevada Gaming Control Board; and a researcher on youth gambling behavior.

Brownback and Roemer join NABC in a press conference to promote the legislation at the Men's Final Four.

On March 31, in conjunction with the Men's Final Four, Brownback and Roemer held a press conference with the National Association of Basketball Coaches in Indianapolis to publicize the bills and seek support from the coaches. Several coaches spoke in favor of the legislation, including Purdue University's Gene Keady, the University of Oklahoma's Kelvin Simpson and the University of Kansas' Roy Williams.

On April 13, The Senate Commerce Committee marked up S. 2340, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act, clearing the measure for Senate floor consideration.

At the mark-up, the opposition proffered 17 amendments, most of them clearly punitive in nature. The amendments ranged from one requiring amateur athletics associations (such as the NCAA and USOC) to withhold 10 percent of their gross revenues for gambling education purposes. Another would have required a report on the labor conditions of the manufacturing facilities in third-world countries that make apparel bearing college and university insignia. Another would have required that all amateur sports organizations provide year-round health insurance coverage, with life-time earnings benefits, for all athletes whether injured in relation to athletics practice and competition or in unrelated activities.

The committee considered nine amendments but only two were adopted. The two adopted would: (1) prohibit individuals, amateur sports organizations and their corporate sponsors from offering sweepstakes or contests that give prizes that are in any way connected to the games they sponsor; and (2) require colleges and universities to report instances where students violate existing gambling laws on campus (including Internet gambling) as part of their campus crime reporting that is already required by federal law and to require the establishment of campus policies related to illegal gambling.

A third amendment, to make it legal to conduct "office pools," was set aside pending an agreement between McCain and the amendment's sponsor, Sen. John B. Breaux, D-Louisiana. The NCAA has provided additional language to define "office pools" and limit the scope of the activity. McCain's staff is leaning against agreeing to the amendment on the grounds that it may open another loophole that could lead to potential unforeseen problems. The NCAA agrees that it is problematic but fully expects a similar amendment to surface on the Senate floor.

Floor action on S. 2340 anticipated in early May.

McCain and Brownback are preparing to offer S. 2340 as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act when the legislation is considered on the Senate floor during the early weeks of May. The Nevada senators are expected to offer numerous amendments to the college sports gambling ban, including those that were considered during the Commerce Committee mark-up. Ultimately, S. 2340 is expected to be adopted as an amendment to the underlying legislation by a sizable vote. However, the debate will most likely be aggressive, mean-spirited and potentially damaging from a public relations perspective to the NCAA. The Nevada senators are expected to attempt to divide the supporters of the legislation by offering controversial amendments and discrediting the NCAA by making false allegations to support their claims that the NCAA is seeking this legislation to deflect attention away from the Association, rather than for the merits of the bill.

Federal legislation to ban all legal gambling on amateur and college sports -- House action.

Since H.R. 3575 was introduced in the House on February 4 by Graham and Roemer, the bill's sponsors have sent numerous "Dear Colleague" letters to members of the House.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, has agreed to support the legislation and to move it aggressively through the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs. A June hearing date is being sought, with the NCAA helping to secure witnesses. Following the hearing, Hyde anticipates that the bill will move immediately to mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. Floor consideration may occur before the summer break in August.

Public Sector Gaming Study Commission issues final report -- cites concerns over illegal and legal sports gambling and recognizes growing problem on college campuses.

On March 31, the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission (PSGSC) issued a 700-page final report on gambling in the U.S. The report included an examination of the impact of gambling on state fiscal policies, state credit ratings, educational and environmental programs, on businesses ancillary to and directly involved in gambling, employment, law enforcement and personal health. The PSGSC was composed of 11 public officials from several states.

The PSGSC was created largely in response to a report issued by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in June 1999. The NGISC was commissioned by Congress to conduct a two-year study on the impact of gambling on the nation. The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States was concerned about the composition of the NGISC, which included no current members from the public sector. Also, the council was also troubled by the NGISC recommendation for a moratorium on new gambling endeavors.

The PSGSC report largely downplayed the threats from legal gambling and emphasized states' abilities to regulate the industry. However, in the area of sports wagering, the report recommended federal action to strengthen prohibitions on Internet gambling and illegal sports betting. In addition, the report also recognized concerns of gambling on college campuses and acknowledged the problems associated with sports handicappers (also known as sports touts) and the potential threat posed by legal sports gambling.

A copy of the final report can be obtained by contacting the Florida Institute of Government at 850/487-1870. The cost is $25 per copy.

National Youth Sports Program

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations on fast track.

Fiscal year 2001 funding bills are moving quickly through the initial stages of the legislative process in the House and Senate. The Senate Labor/HHS/Education Subcommittee plans to mark up a funding bill in early May, with floor consideration to follow as early as May 11. In the House, the subcommittee is expected to mark up a bill on May 10 with floor consideration on June 8. Funding for the NYSP is expected to remain at the $15 million level, the amount provided by Congress for the last two years. However, efforts by some members of Congress to bump that figure up to $16 million may be successful.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development proposes a program to promote the use of technology among youth living in housing projects through chats with championship teams.

In early March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approached the NCAA about helping to facilitate an online chat between the NCAA Division I men's and women's basketball champions and young people living in HUD housing projects. If successful, HUD intends to build on this concept and coordinate chats between disadvantaged youth and other NCAA championship teams throughout the year. In the memorandum to the NCAA, HUD explains,

"The purpose of these Webcasts/chats is to provide exciting content to children who live in HUD housing and who participate in HUD-affiliated after-school programs that encourage computer and Internet use. This event would be part of HUD's ongoing efforts to close the digital divide. The topics for the chat would be focused on education, particularly how the student-athletes use the Internet to study, and school-related research -- and of course what it is like to have participated in and won the NCAA tournament."

On April 19, the NCAA contacted the University of Connecticut women's basketball team and the Michigan State University men's basketball team to request their involvement in the project.

Broadcast issues -- copyrighted sports programming

The NCAA continues to work with other copyright owners from the television, motion picture, music and sports industries to educate members of Congress on the need to preserve copyright of their products broadcast over the Internet. Recently, several sports leagues and motion picture studios took legal action against a Canadian Web site, iCraveTV, that was "streaming" (retransmitting without permission) live network TV broadcasts from Toronto and Buffalo over the Internet. Copyright owners were successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction against the company and later agreed to cease further legal action in return for iCrave's commitment to shut down its TV over-the-Internet venture. Copyright owners are eager to embrace the opportunities of the Internet but want to retain control over their works and not have unauthorized programming distributed globally by Internet companies that are unwilling to negotiate for distribution rights.

On February 16 a House commerce subcommittee held a hearing to explore issues related to the "streaming" of copyrighted programming over the Internet. A similar hearing is scheduled in a House Judiciary Subcommittee in May.

Tax Issues

NCAA works with higher education community on IRS corporate sponsorship proposed rules.

In 1997, Congress adopted legislation that provided favorable treatment to nonprofit organizations, including colleges and universities, regarding the treatment of unrelated business income as it applies to corporate sponsorship payments. On March 1, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations related to the implementation of the 1997 legislation.

Among the most significant proposals in the proposed regulations is the tax treatment of "exclusivity agreements" between institutions and corporations. Under the proposed rules, a college that makes a company the exclusive provider of a product or service would likely pay unrelated business income tax on a portion of the sponsorship payment. Exclusivity agreements, for example the ones entered into by colleges and universities with soft drink companies for "exclusive pouring rights," are generally structured so that no tax is owed by the institution on the payment received for that right. However, under the proposed regulations, the visibility and other promotional benefits of a soft drink deal would provide a "substantial return benefit" to the company, making a portion of this payment unrelated business income for the university.

Comments on the IRS proposed regulations must be received by May 30. The NCAA is joining with a number of institutions and the National Association of College and University Business Officers to submit comments.

Amateurism issues

Legislation introduced to require student-athletes investigated by the NCAA to be provided with individual counsel paid for by the institution and third-party arbitrators.

On March 29, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-New York, introduced the "Collegiate Athletics Due Process Act of 2000," H.R. 4117. The legislation is intended to provide student-athletes with legal due process in any NCAA or university investigation when the student-athlete is alleged to have violated the NCAA's amateurism rules. Meeks' press release announcing the legislation states:

"This past season, college basketball fans have witnessed student-athletes fall victim of the NCAA for alleged violations or infractions of sports-amateurism rules. These young people are subjected to having their lives dissected before the public on mere allegations and without any independent legal representation during the investigation. Furthermore, in most cases, the student-athlete is punished for actions that the student body is not subjected to.

"The current investigatory process violates the student-athlete's rights. These young people are not slaves. It is very disturbing that young student-athletes, with very limited or no resources at all, must defend themselves against a powerful organization like the NCAA."

The legislation has seven co-sponsors and, if adopted, would require:

* A university to provide a student-athlete with separate independent legal counsel at the institution's expense immediately upon knowledge of any investigation or alleged violation or infraction.

* An independent counsel to be retained throughout the entire investigation and until all matters and facts of the pending case (and other investigations that may arise out of the initial investigation) have been concluded to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

* That a student-athlete be heard before an arbitrator, neutral party or tribunal not associated with the NCAA or a member institution before any enforcement actions are administered.

* All infraction hearings to include the opportunity for a student-athlete to be heard through testimony or otherwise and provide the student-athlete with the right to disprove every material fact that has a bearing on the alleged violation of the individual or his or her private rights.

* That any enforcement action taken by the institution, in compliance with the rules or legislation of the NCAA for amateur sports violations, shall be clearly established on the basis of specific standards and guidelines for all possible infractions, including punishment or restitution.

* The forfeiture of federal funds under the Higher Education Act, for institutions that do not comply with the above listed requirements.

As a follow-up to the introduction of the Meeks due process legislative proposal, in the April 2 edition of the Indianapolis Star, it was reported that a group of college basketball coaches planned to visit Capitol Hill to lobby on behalf of the legislation. The following is an excerpt from the article:

"[St. John's University (New York) coach Mike] Jarvis said a group of coaches from the NABC board of directors is expected to go to Washington, D.C., in the coming months to meet with members of Congress about a bill that would provide student-athletes with expanded rights of due process when at the center of NCAA disciplinary action.

" 'We have to address the due process rights of players and coaches and establish a system consistent with the system that all of us live under in the United States.' "

The NCAA has offered to meet with Meeks to discuss his legislation and the application of the NCAA's current procedures and rules.

NCAA responds to letter from representative on NCAA amateurism rules.

On March 21, the NCAA received a letter from Rep. Edolphous Towns, D-New York, expressing concern about the NCAA's investigation of St. John's basketball player Erick Barkley and other athletes who were investigated this academic year for violations of the NCAA's amateurism rules. In the letter, Towns says he is troubled by the NCAA's interpretation of the amateurism bylaws and suggests that federal intervention soon may be required.

The NCAA's response provided background on the rules, including information on why they were adopted, an explanation of the due process procedures used in the investigation of violations of the rules and a discussion of proposed changes to the rules that are currently being considered related to certain exceptions to the amateurism rules.

The NCAA has offered to meet with Towns and other members of Congress who have express concerns over this matter.

Miscellaneous

Georgia state legislature adopts ticket-scalping bill --NCAA joins other sports groups urging the governor to veto the legislation.

The Georgia state legislature has approved H. 331 that would amend the state's existing ticket-scalping law. Current Georgia law prohibits any person from selling a ticket in excess of the printed price. H. 331 provides an exception for licensed ticket brokers. In addition, H. 331 contains a troubling provision that allows any person, who originally purchased tickets for his or her personal use to resell the ticket(s) at any price, including tickets to an athletics contest or entertainment event.

The NCAA and other sports organizations have written the governor and urged him to veto the legislation. The NCAA is concerned that the new provision will result in the legalizing of ticket scalping. The 2002 Men's Final Four is scheduled to held in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta.

Senate Commerce Committee adopts legislation to study athletics-related performance enhancing substances and to develop education and prevention programs.

On April 13, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation to authorize the funding of grant programs to study athletics-related performance enhancing drugs and their use by athletes. The legislation authorizes $4 million annually in funding for research on athletics-related performance enhancing substances banned by the IOC, USOC, NCAA, NFL, NBA and MLB. In addition, the legislation authorizes $3 million annually for the development of sports drug-education and prevention programs for athletes. The legislation is expected to be passed by the House and Senate before Congress adjourns in the fall.