[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994--MESSAGE FROM THE 
                                 HOUSE

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
a message from the House on H.R. 4649, the conference report 
accompanying the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate a message 
from the House.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 6 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided, That the District of Columbia shall provide to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate quarterly reports by the 15th 
     day of the month following the end of the quarter showing how 
     monies provided under this fund are expended with a final 
     report providing a full accounting of the fund due October 
     15, 1995 or not later than 15 days after the last amount 
     remaining in the fund is disbursed.
       And
       On page 13 line 9 of the House engrossed bill, H.R. 4649, 
     strike the period at the end of the line.
       Pending:
       (1) Gramm Amendment No. 2585 (to House amendment to Senate 
     amendment number 3), to strengthen the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 by reducing the number of 
     social programs and increasing the penalties for criminal 
     activity.
       (2) Cohen/Sasser Modified Amendment No. 2594 (to House 
     amendment to Senate amendment number 6), to provide for 
     enhanced penalties for health care fraud. (As modified, the 
     amendment incorporates the provisions of Wofford Amendment 
     No. 2595, listed below.)
       (3) Domenici (for Dole) Amendment No. 2599 (to Amendment 
     No. 2594), to provide for enhanced penalties for health care 
     fraud.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the message from the House.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio is ready.


    amendment in disagreement to the amendment of the senate no. 12

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio is ready to proceed with an amendment. I therefore 
ask that amendment No. 12 be laid before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 12 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert: ``forecast which shall be supported and 
     accompanied by cash forecasts for the general fund and each 
     of the District government's other funds than the capital 
     projects fund and trust and agency funds.''


                           amendment no. 2601

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Hatch 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], for himself and Mr. 
     Hatch, proposes an amendment (No. 2601) to the amendment of 
     the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 12 to H.R. 
     4649.
       At the end of the amount add:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Baseball Fans Protection Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to encourage serious negotiations between the major 
     league baseball players and the owners of major league 
     baseball;
       (2) to prevent continued economic loss to individuals not 
     involved in the negotiations whose livelihoods depend on 
     baseball's being played;
       (3) to prevent continued losses to communities that host 
     major league baseball; and
       (4) to preserve the remainder of the 1994 regular season, 
     the 1994 playoffs and World Series, and the 1995 spring 
     training season for the fans of baseball.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR LEAGUE 
                   BASEBALL IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY 
                   CIRCUMSTANCES.

       The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et. seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 27. (a) In General.--In the event that a unilateral 
     term or condition is imposed by any party that has been 
     subject to an agreement between the owners of major league 
     baseball and the labor organization representing the players 
     of major league baseball, the antitrust laws shall apply to 
     that term or condition, and that term or condition may be 
     challenged by any party to such agreement in any United 
     States district court in a district in which 1 of the parties 
     is doing business.
       ``(b) Stay of Certain Terms and Conditions.--If, prior to 
     the mutual adoption of agreements between the owners of major 
     league baseball and the labor organization representing the 
     players of major league baseball that replaces the agreements 
     between the parties that expired on or after December 31, 
     1993, unilateral terms and conditions are imposed by any 
     party to the prior agreement, and those terms and conditions 
     are challenged in a court action in accordance with the 
     provisions of subsection (a), the application of such 
     unilaterally imposed terms and conditions shall be stayed 
     until any such action is final, including any appellate 
     review thereof, and the parties shall be bound by the terms 
     and conditions of the agreements between the parties in 
     effect on December 30, 1993 until such stay has expired.
       ``(c) Definition.--In this section, `term or condition' 
     does not include a strike or a lockout.''.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, once again I am forced to address the 
issue of major league baseball's antitrust exemption, an exemption that 
has no rhyme nor reason to it and only one of two exemptions in the 
antitrust laws of this country--one having to do with the insurance 
industry that came about by reason of some very effective lobbying some 
years ago, and this one which came about by reason of a decision of 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Supreme Court approximately 60 
years ago.
  As my colleagues know, I have fought against all exemptions to our 
Nation's competition laws, whether in the insurance industry, shipping 
industry, or professional baseball. As a matter of policy, I believe in 
the free enterprise system and that means that everyone--I do not mean 
just some, but I mean everyone--should abide by the same fair 
competition rules. This country's growth was based upon the free 
enterprise system and fair competition. What baseball has is not what 
other major sports have--basketball does not have it, hockey does not 
have it, football does not have it, soccer does not have it--but 
baseball has the exemption. The owners have taken advantage of that 
exemption in order to unilaterally attempt to impose working conditions 
on the players of baseball. Many would say players, they are not such 
great guys. They get very high salaries. I respect the fact that they 
get very high salaries. That is arguable, whether it is right or wrong, 
but it is not a decision for us to make. That is between the owners and 
the players.
  But I know that when you impose on one side in a labor-management 
dispute, terms and conditions and you do it by reason of getting 28 
owners together and agreeing that these are the terms that will be 
imposed upon them, there is something wrong and it is unfair. It is not 
right and it is something to which the Congress should be addressing 
itself.
  I tried to strike major league baseball's total antitrust exemption 
but my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee were not prepared to 
challenge the baseball barons. Then, last spring when I saw that the 
1994 season could end prematurely because of a major dispute, I 
modified my legislation to apply the antitrust laws only to matters 
affecting labor relations. I was very pleased and gratified that one of 
the members on the Judiciary Committee who had voted against the repeal 
of the total exemption, Senator Hatch, came on board. And he joined 
with me in offering the amendment that is before us today.
  I was afraid then if Congress did not act, the players would go on 
strike. Unfortunately, we were unable to move the bill through the 
Judiciary Committee and, as a consequence, there was a shutdown of the 
baseball season. Not only the shutdown of the baseball season but, I 
think, as we meet here, every American who has any interest in baseball 
has to be concerned as to whether or not there will be a new season in 
1995, whether there will be spring training.
  After this year's baseball season came to a crashing halt, I, 
frankly, modified my bill a second time. Senator Hatch and I have tried 
over and over again to bring this bill to a vote on the floor of the 
Senate in an effort to salvage the rest of the season and the World 
Series. We were thwarted in every instance. And then the owners 
announced that the season was over.
  Despite the demise of this season, we have been determined to try to 
salvage next year's spring training and season. The players said if 
Congress passes the Metzenbaum-Hatch bill, they will go to spring 
training next season. And to my delight, what a fantastic action it 
was, that yesterday the House Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly, by 
voice vote, passed a similar bill to the one that is in the amendment 
that is at the desk at this moment.
  I want to say to my good friends Congressman Jack Brooks, chairman of 
the committee, and Mike Synar, one of the leading members of that 
committee--they did yeomen work in getting that far in the House at 
this time.
  Unless the owners and the players come to their senses soon, the only 
hope we have of resurrecting baseball as the Nation's favorite pastime 
is to pass legislation giving the players a chance to take their issue 
to the courts rather than to the streets.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio. I, for 
one, will be sorry to see him go as he retires at the end of this year. 
We came to the Congress together and we have battled each other all 
these 18 years. I have tremendous respect for him.
  I have to say on this issue he has certainly fought long and hard.
  Over the last few weeks, there has been remarkable congressional 
prog- ress on the legislation that Senator Metzenbaum and I 
introduced last month and the companion bill in the House, which was 
introduced by Congressmen Synar and Bunning. It is clear that our 
colleagues are beginning to appreciate the importance of the 
legislation, and the devastating impact this labor dispute is having on 
baseball and on the millions of Americans who are fans or involved in 
the game.
  I hope both sides in this dispute--the players and the owners--
understand the significance of what is happening. The assumption that 
Congress will stay silent on baseball's antitrust exemption, that we 
will never question baseball's unique legal status, is no longer valid.
  The House Judiciary Committee has passed legislation which, for the 
first time, limits baseball's antitrust exemption if the owners 
unilaterally impose terms and conditions on the players. If the Senate 
Judiciary Committee could hold a vote, I expect there would be a 
similar result.
  It is also clear that there are too many procedural hurdles in these 
waning days of the session for legislation to pass this year. With only 
a handful of days left in the session, it is very easy for one Senator 
to block passage in this body, and there clearly are comparable 
problems in the House.
  The real message today should be a wake-up call to baseball. If you 
do not want Congress to become involved, settle this dispute among 
yourselves. I hope the owners would send an important signal to 
Congress and to the fans that they will forgo their right to 
unilaterally impose terms and conditions after declaring an impasse in 
bargaining and settle their problems at the bargaining table.
  That is what the distinguished Senator from Ohio and I have been 
trying to do. It would be the one way that they could indicate that 
they do intend to resolve this dispute through good faith bargaining.
  Months ago, Senator Metzenbaum warned that unless Congress acted, the 
baseball season would be in jeopardy, that we could lose the World 
Series for the first time in 70 years. Unfortunately for the fans, he 
was absolutely right.
  But this issue will not end with Senator Metzenbaum's retirement. If 
baseball does not end its destructive dispute before Congress 
reconvenes, we will be back on this issue next year, and I expect that 
Congress will be willing to take even more dramatic action than 
envisioned in our simple legislation here that would have given a level 
playing field to both sides.
  The onus is now on both sides--the players and the owners--to fix 
their problems or Congress may be forced to become directly involved. 
There was no excuse for canceling the World Series, and there will be 
no excuse for destroying the 1995 season as well.
  I think the American people deserve some consideration in this 
matter, and I urge both sides to get together.
  I suggest to my dear colleague and friend from Ohio that he has made 
the case. His predictions have come true. This bill that we have would 
be a reasonable solution, but in this context, I urge him to withdraw 
the amendment, and I assure him that we will fight to resolve this 
problem early next year, either on this legislation or on a more 
stringent basis than this.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleague and 
friend from Utah for his suggestion, for his support. He did not vote 
with us in committee, but he has been a staunch supporter of the more 
modified amendment on the floor of the Senate. We worked closely 
together. When he makes a promise and pledge to move forward in the 
next session of the Congress, which I will not be in, it is certainly 
very significant. No question he is the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. If some people on that side of the aisle have their way, he 
might even be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which I hope 
not, notwithstanding my friendship with him.
  It is very significant that he makes that recommendation. There are a 
number of other Members of our colleagues who have indicated they want 
to come to the floor to be heard. I would like to check to see whether 
or not they do, indeed, want to come, what their views are. But I take 
very seriously his recommendation and particularly his recommendation 
with his pledge to move forward in this area in the next session of 
Congress.

                          ____________________