PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 1997
State Reciprocity in Professional Boxing Act of 1997 - Amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to define a "malicious foul or infraction": (1) as any violent act or series of violent acts in which a professional boxer intentionally causes, or attempts to cause, bodily injury to an opposing boxer during the course of a professional boxing match in a manner inconsistent with the generally accepted methods of competition in a boxing match, as determined by guidelines set forth by the Association of State Boxing Commissions; and (2) to include headbutting, kicking, striking an opponent after a round has ended, biting an opponent's body or extremities, and striking an opponent on an impermissible part of the opponent's body. Includes among the purposes of such Act to ensure that no boxer is permitted to fight in any State while under suspension by any State boxing commission. Requires each boxing commission to establish procedures to ensure that no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension for the commission of a malicious foul or infraction.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1613-1614)
Referred to House Education and the Workforce
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Commerce
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2354 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2354 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2354 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2354 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.