March
9, 2005
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to
present the views of the Department of Commerce on S. 148, the “Professional
Boxing Amendments Act of 2005”, as referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
The legislation would establish
nationwide standards for the sport of boxing and require State boxing
commissions to enforce those standards.
The bill would also establish the United States Boxing Commission
(Commission), a federal commission that would be housed within the Department
of Commerce, to safeguard boxers through oversight, administration of federal
laws, and issuance of new regulations in consultation with the State boxing
commissions. The President would appoint
the members of the Commission, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
As we have commented on previous
proposals, we do not believe the case has been made as to the need for the
Commission, as professional boxing has traditionally been a matter regulated by
the States. In addition, we believe that
the Department of Commerce is not well suited to carry out the responsibilities
and functions of the Commission. The
Department possesses no relevant experience or expertise that has a connection
to professional boxing, and it administers no programs that would be suitable
for regulating the sport. If the
Commission were to be established within the Department, however, we believe
that several revisions to the language in the bill would be necessary to allow
the Department to achieve the purposes of the legislation. These proposed revisions are enclosed.
In addition, the Department of
Justice has advised us that it has significant constitutional concerns
regarding the bill, which it will be presenting separately.
The Department appreciates the
opportunity to present these views on S. 148.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the transmittal of these views from the standpoint of the Administration’s
program.
Sincerely,
Jane T.
Dana
Acting
General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable
Daniel K. Inouye
Co-Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation
Additional Comments
Due to the unique character of
the Commission which the legislation proposes be established within the
Department, we suggest making explicit that the Commission's budget is subject
to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and that the Commission shall follow the Department’s administrative
policies and procedures. We
suggest adding a sentence to the end
of Section 202(c)(2) so that such section would read,
“(2) DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS.-Subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Commission the Executive Director shall carry out
the functions and duties of the Commission under this Act. In so doing, the Executive Director shall
comply with all administrative policies and procedures of the Department of Commerce,
and shall submit the Commission’s budget request as part of the budget
request of the Department of Commerce.” We also suggest including language at the end of Section 212(a) to read,
“Any request for appropriations shall be subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Commerce and shall be included as part of the budget request of
the Department of Commerce.”
In addition, we suggest adding a
provision addressing promulgation of implementing regulations by the Department.
We suggest including language to read, “The
Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations to implement this Act.”
We
also suggest the deletion of Section 202(d) which provides for the employment
of a General Counsel by the Commission.
We prefer that the legislation not address this position specifically
and that the Commission use its general staffing authority under Section 202(e)
to employ a General Counsel. Based on
the Department’s experience with General Counsels that are statutorily
established outside of the ordinary government scheme, we believe that such
establishment unnecessarily creates enormous ambiguity in how such persons
operate in the context of the Department’s personnel system. We would prefer to avoid that ambiguity in
the case of the Commission’s General Counsel.
Furthermore,
in order to clarify that the Commission is not an advisory committee, we
suggest revising Section 203(a) to read, “PRIMARY FUNCTIONS.-The primary
functions of the Commission are operational, not advisory, and include-”.
Finally, we suggest that a
provision be added to the end of Section 204(b)(3)
(relating to the collection of fees) establishing that the Commission may
retain collected fees and setting forth the purposes for which those fees may
be used.