Following is a report of federal activities since June 1 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).

On June 22, the U.S. Department of Education officially announced that it would not collect EADA data that was due last fall (October 30, 1999). The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) required that beginning with the 1999 submission, Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data would be required to be submitted to the Department of Education no later than October 30, 1999. However, technical problems prevented the department from moving forward. Instead, letters will be sent this summer to alert all colleges and universities with coeducational athletics programs that the federal collection will begin with the 2000 EADA data. Department officials indicate that a mailing to institutional CEOs in August will provide details concerning the fall 2000 Web-based data collection. As in the past, the 2000 EADA reports are required to be made available to the public, upon request, by October 15, 2000. In addition, it is expected that the department will have the technical difficulties worked out, allowing it to accept the data that is due by October 30, 2000, as required by the statute.

General Accounting Office (GAO) continues to collect data on institutional athletics teams for March 2001 report to Congress.

On June 30, the GAO reported that NCAA and NAIA institutions had returned more than 60 percent of the forms the federal agency had sent to athletics directors in mid-May. The forms are intended to gather data from colleges and universities related to sports-team discontinuation over the past several years and will supply the data for a survey that will be submitted to Congress on the topic. The survey was mandated by the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 and will provide both factual and anecdotal information on reduction and addition of sports-team opportunities either through squad-size reduction or team elimination. The form asks athletics directors to provide information on the team that was most recently reduced in size or eliminated. In addition, it requests information such as what factors influenced the campus' decision to drop a team or reduce a squad size, how the decision was made, whether other alternatives were considered and how and when the team's student-athletes were notified of the decision. Information on teams that have recently been added also is requested.

The results of the survey are expected to be transmitted to Congress in early March 2001.

Higher education issues

Sweatshop issues -- Fair Labor Association agrees to disclose site locations, Workers Rights Consortium adds new members.

On June 20, 137 universities of the Fair Labor Association (FLA) agreed to demand that the locations of all factories where their licensed goods are manufactured be made public. This action was especially notable since the FLA -- one of two anti-sweatshop groups -- is more closely tied to manufacturing companies. The FLA has 11 apparel-manufacturing companies among its members; currently only two are voluntarily disclosing factory locations. The decision likely was influenced by student group protests over the past year at many universities related to work conditions at apparel manufacturing sites.

The Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), a student-supported anti-sweatshop group, now has more than 50 college and university members. Student groups have criticized the FLA for not taking a harder stand against apparel manufacturers. The WRC requires the public disclosure of factory locations and annual inspections of all manufacturing facilities by independent monitors

Department of Education grants waiver to NCAA for Student Right to Know data.

On June 23, the NCAA received a response from the U.S. Department of Education to a December 1999 letter seeking a waiver under the Student Right to Know Act. The Act allows "an athletics association" to seek and be granted permission to provide graduation-rates data on behalf of its member institutions. As has been the case for the past seven years, the Department of Education granted the NCAA's request to be allowed to provide every high school in America with a copy of the graduation-rates statistics for each of the NCAA's member institutions. Providing the statistics to the high schools satisfies a requirement of the Act that institutions provide their graduation-rates statistics to a prospective student-athlete's high-school coach and guidance counselor. The NCAA began providing the graduation data directly to the high schools in 1992, broken down by NCAA division. The purpose of the NCAA action was to reduce the burden of NCAA member institutions; otherwise, institutions would be required to provide the data to the high schools individually.

This year, the NCAA asked for permission to provide the data in the form of a computer disc instead of the printed books that had been provided in the past. The department approved the change. The data will be reported later this year and also will be made available to the public through the department's Web site.

On June 14, the House passed the fiscal-year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill, H.R. 4577. This legislation provides an increase in Pell Grants to $3,500 per student at the maximum level. This is a $200 increase over fiscal-year 2000. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2553, was passed by the Senate on June 30 and provides an even greater increase in Pell Grant maximum. The Senate bill brings the maximum Pell Grant per student to $3,650, an increase of $350. In July, the House and Senate are expected to meet in conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills. The new fiscal year begins on October 1, 2000. The Pell Grant increase will impact school year 2001-02.

High-school football prayer ban impacts some colleges and universities.

On June 19, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not begin football games with organized prayer, even when recited by a student. In a 6-3 decision, the court stated in Santa Fe (Texas) Independent School District vs. Jane Doe that such prayers violate the constitutionally required separation of government and religion.

In response to the decision, University of Oklahoma President David Boren announced that the university's long tradition of praying before all home football games would end this fall. Boren explained:

"While I disagree with the rationale the Supreme Court used in coming to the decision to ban prayer before football games, the university will have no choice but to abide by the decision as it is the law of the land."

Also, in February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against University of Colorado, Boulder, men's basketball coach Ricardo Patton for praying with his team at the end of each practice.

It is not clear to what extent the Santa Fe case will impact public universities. According to some legal experts, the court views high-school students differently than college students. In the context of the prayer issue, courts have traditionally viewed high-school students as a captive audience, while college students are seen as having more autonomy.

Gambling issues

Internet gambling legislation update.

HR 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999, is moving closer toward a vote by the full House. The legislation is aimed at prohibiting Internet gambling in the U.S. On April 6, the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the legislation, clearing it for consideration by the full House. Shortly after the Judiciary Committee markup, the House Commerce Committee requested a sequential referral. The Commerce Committee based its claim on the legislation's provisions that relate to the commerce aspects of the Internet. On June 7, the Commerce Committee was granted a 16-day referral by the House Parliamentarian.

On June 15, the House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection held a hearing on HR 3125. Daniel Nestel, NCAA assistant director of federal relations, testified on behalf of the NCAA. The hearing focused on the provisions of the legislation that exclude a few industries (horse and dog racing and jai alai) from the prohibition section of the bill. Several members questioned why these industries were granted a "safe harbor." The NCAA testified that regardless of how this issue is resolved, Congress needs to adopt HR 3125 during the current session because of Internet gambling's rapid growth.

The Commerce Subcommittee does not plan to mark up the bill. It is believed that members of the Commerce Committee will work with the sponsors of H.R. 3125 to reach agreement on some changes to the bill before it goes to the House floor. The NCAA has strongly supported passage of an Internet gambling prohibition bill for more than three years. Supporters of H.R. 3125 are urging the House to quickly adopt the legislation so that a conference agreement between the House and Senate can be made before the 106th Congress concludes its work in October. Opponents are pressuring House leaders not to bring the bill before Congress adjourns. This result would kill the legislation and force the bill sponsors to start the process over again.

In November 1999, the Senate passed similar Internet gambling legislation.

On June 20, the House Banking Committee held a hearing on HR 4419, the Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. The bill would outlaw the use of bank instruments for paying entry fees, placing bets, collecting winnings from bets or conducting other gambling activities through the Internet. HR 4419 was introduced by Banking Committee Chair Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and ranking panel Democrat John J. LaFalce, D-New York. The bill responds to a recommendation contained in the National Gambling Impact Study Commission's final report urging Congress to restrict access to electronic payments for online gambling.

Daniel Nestel, NCAA assistant director of federal relations, testified on behalf of the NCAA. Nestel outlined the threat posed by Internet sports gambling and discussed the role of credit cards in fueling student participation in this activity. A credit card is all that is needed to place bets online.

HR 4419 is intended to complement HR 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. On June 28, the House Banking Committee approved HR 4419 by a voice vote. The Committee accepted an amendment to exempt currently legal forms of Internet gambling (horse and dog racing) from the bill's credit card ban. HR 4419 has also been referred to the House Judiciary Committee but it is not know if that committee will take any action.

After unanimous approval by the Senate Commerce Committee on April 13, S. 2340, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act, was cleared for Senate floor consideration.

The bill's sponsors, Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, continue to work with Senate leadership to schedule the bill for floor debate. Senators have received hundreds of letters from NCAA college presidents and coaches giving them permission to use their names on the floor of the Senate when the bill is considered. It is hoped that a full floor debate will occur before the August summer break of the Senate. Several attempts to bring the bill to the floor for a vote in the form of an amendment or free standing bill have been unsuccessful due to objections by the Nevada senators.

House conducts hearing on June 13.

On June 13, University of Kentucky men's basketball coach Tubby Smith, University of South Carolina, Columbia, football coach Lou Holtz, Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier and Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany joined several members of Congress on Capitol Hill calling for the adoption of legislation to close a loophole in federal law that allows legalized gambling on college sports to continue in Nevada. Following a Capitol Hill press conference, the group testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. Former University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, men's basketball coach Dean Smith, the American Council on Education and the American Federation of Teachers provided statements for the hearing record.

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, chaired by Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, conducted a hearing on pending legislation to prohibit all legal gambling on college sports. The Student-Athlete Protection Act, H.R. 3575, introduced in February by Representatives Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Tim Roemer, D-Indiana, acts on a recommendation of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that all legal gambling on college sports be discontinued because of harmful effects on students and the games. The legislation, strongly supported by the NCAA and its more than 1,000 colleges and universities, enjoys bipartisan cosponsorship by 72 other members of the House.

Coaches and educators testifying before the House Committee fully endorsed the legislation to remove the grandfather clause from the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). PASPA was adopted by Congress to ban gambling on amateur and professional sporting events in the U.S. However, the 1992 legislation included an exemption for those states that already conducted sports gambling or had enacted legislation to do so. Nevada was the only state at that time and continues to be the only state to allow gambling on college sporting events.

The coaches were united in their opposition to gambling on college sports, saying it is an unnecessary element of intercollegiate sports that has the potential to tarnish the integrity of the contests.

The Judiciary Committee plans a mid-July vote on the legislation.

National Youth Sports Program issues

Fiscal-year 2001 funding.

The House and Senate have approved fiscal-year 2001 funding bills that provide funding for the NYSP. The Senate Labor/HHS/Education Subcommittee considered its funding bill (S. 2553) on May 11, providing $15 million for the NYSP. It cleared the full Senate on June 30. The House Appropriations Subcommittee provided $16 million for the NYSP and that legislation was cleared by the full House on June 14. The House and Senate Committees are expected to meet in July to resolve differences between the two bills.

Broadcast issues

Copyrighted sports programming on the Internet.

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 on 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. David Boren, former Senator and current president of the University of Oklahoma, testified on behalf of the NCAA.

On June 15, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held a hearing to explore Internet broadcasting of copyrighted programming. Representatives from Major League Baseball and the Motion Picture Association testified on their efforts to provide consumers with new video programming options on the Internet while also calling for continued protection of copyright in cyberspace.

It is not expected that any legislation addressing copyright issues on the Internet will be introduced during the remaining days of the 106th Congress.

Tax issues

NCAA works with higher education community on IRS corporate sponsorship proposals.

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, 2000, the IRS issued proposed regulations related to the implementation of the 1997 legislation.

Among the most significant proposals in the proposed regulations is a change in the tax treatment of "exclusive-provider arrangements" between institutions and corporations. Under the proposed rules, a college that makes a company the exclusive provider of a product or service would likely be required to pay unrelated business income tax on a portion of the sponsorship payment. Exclusivity agreements, like the contracts entered into by colleges and universities with soft drink companies for "exclusive pouring rights," generally are structured so that no tax is owed by the institution on the payment provided by the soft drink company. However, under the proposed regulations, the exclusive-provider status along with the visibility and other promotional benefits of a soft drink deal is considered a "substantial return benefit" to the company. This interpretation would mean that a university must treat a portion or all of the soft drink company's payment as unrelated business income.

On May 30, 2000, the NCAA joined a coalition of NCAA institutions in submitting detailed comments on the proposed regulations. The NCAA also sent a separate letter to the IRS outlining its concerns.

On June 21, 2000 the IRS held a hearing on the proposed regulations. A representative from the NCAA coalition testified at the hearing, along with other representatives of the higher education community. The higher education community representatives who testified opposed the proposed change in the taxation of exclusivity agreements. The IRS will be reviewing the written testimony submitted and the oral testimony given at the hearing before making a final determination on the final regulations.