[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]

 
                                 RECESS

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess for a period of 5 minutes to give Senators the 
opportunity to greet our colleagues from the Russian Parliament and 
that when the Senate reconvenes in 5 minutes, the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Exon] be recognized.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:32 p.m., recessed until 
12:37 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Presiding Officer (Mr. Kerrey).
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I see my friend from Nebraska standing looking for 
recognition. May I inquire of him, I know at one point he indicated he 
wanted to offer a motion to table. I gather he has no intention of 
doing that at this moment.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct, I have no intention of doing that 
at this point.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I appreciate that. I just think we ought to see if 
other Members want to come to the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will be very pleased to answer the 
question properly put to me by the Senator from Ohio. As he knows, we 
have worked together on so many issues over the years. We do not happen 
to agree on this one, but there was an agreement made yesterday that 
when an amendment was offered by the Senator from Ohio, that I would 
oppose it. The amendment has been offered. I stand now in opposition to 
that and will cite briefly my reasons once again for being in 
opposition.
  At an appropriate time, I do not think the Senator from Ohio wants to 
drag this out for any length of time, unless the amendment offered and 
presently pending before the Senate is withdrawn by the Senator from 
Ohio--and that is his right--I will offer a tabling motion, as I 
indicated and as we both understood on yesterday and the day before. I 
will simply ask, without losing my right to the floor, if the statement 
that I have just made completely agrees with the understanding that I 
had reached with my friend from Ohio?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. My friend from Nebraska is correct. We will proceed 
to see if there are other Members who wish to be heard and then 
certainly the Senator from Nebraska would be within his rights to offer 
a motion to table. I appreciate his courtesy in not doing so, which he 
could do at this moment, but recognizes somebody else's wishes to be 
heard and giving them the opportunity.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Ohio. Mr. President, again I am here 
today without charts and without baseball caps or other gimmicks 
attempting to bring some reasoned debate and, hopefully, a degree of 
logic as to why I believe that the Senate at this late date should 
refrain from any action whatsoever to involve itself in a labor dispute 
between baseball owners and baseball players.
  The facts are as follows: First, tomorrow is the first day of 
October; second, the 1994 baseball season, for whatever reason and 
regardless of who is to blame, is over. It is kaput. It is football, 
hockey, and basketball time. Three, the effort to inappropriately 
involve the Congress in this labor dispute is tied to the last 
legislative train to leave the station, the DC appropriations bill, 
which is before us. It clearly does not belong on this measure because 
it is clearly, in my view, legislation on an appropriations bill. It is 
clearly legislation, therefore, that supposedly is against the rule.
  Nonetheless, Mr. President, I thank my good friend--and I mean that 
more than just terminology. He is a good friend. He has been a great 
colleague over the years and I, for one, am going to miss him very, 
very much when we begin the new session of the Congress. The Senator 
from Ohio should be thanked, and I personally thank him for his usual 
excellence in the presentation of his position, as wrong as I think he 
is in this case.
  This is the last chance for him to obtain a vote, if he wants it, on 
something that I recognize that he feels very strongly about. He has 
employed no gimmicks and, as is his forte, has argued his position very 
forthrightly and honorably. I just think that his position is wrong. He 
failed, as did his colleague from Utah who spoke a few moments ago, in 
his attempt to address this matter previously this year in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, on which both of them have served very long and 
very admirably.
  The Senator from Ohio should not be successful, in my view, today, 
anymore than he was successful previously. In fact, I would like to 
point out and hope that the Senate will agree that this should be 
tabled. It should be withdrawn and this is not the time to address it.
  Mr. President, I emphasize again what I have said previously; that I 
am willing to consider in January, or sometime in that area, lifting 
the legislative exemption that baseball has from the antitrust laws. 
The Senator from Ohio has made many good points, however, as to why he 
thinks we should act now.
  I emphasize once again that nothing whatsoever can be gained, in my 
view, by taking action now. This is not going to change anything, as it 
presently exists. There is not going to be any National or American 
League baseball in October, November, December, January, or February.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that before next March, the owners and 
the players will come to their senses by slugging it out among 
themselves and, by then, hopefully have come to a resolution of this 
matter. If not, we might--and I suggest and emphasize we might--at that 
time as a Congress feel that it is time to step in. I suggest that that 
action is now.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about the reason 
that I am very much upset both with the ownership and with the players 
in this whole thing. I am very fearful that both of them are looking at 
their own individual selfish interests and have kissed off the very 
loyal baseball fans and are simply saying to them, ``You, Mr. and Mrs. 
Baseball Fan of America, will have to live by whatever we work out and 
whatever we choose to do.''
  Mr. President, I simply say and would remind all that of all the 
sporting events we have held in the United States over the years, 
traditionally baseball, because of the many games that are played and 
because it has permeated our society for a long, long time, is 
generally considered and thought to be a sport where mom and dad could 
take young Americans out to the game with them. I simply point out that 
in their seeking of profits, higher profits and higher salary, major 
league ownership and the major league baseball players seem unconcerned 
about that.
  At the present time, Mr. President, the average price for all 
baseball tickets--average; that is, the bleachers and behind home plate 
and in the press boxes--they average $10.45 per person. The National 
Basketball Assocation has an average price of $27.12. The National 
Football League has an average price of $28.68. The National Hockey 
League has an average of $28.
  I would simply add at this point, Mr. President, that those who have 
been following the sports pages recently recognize that probably 
tomorrow we are going to have a strike in the National Hockey League. 
Why is it that someone is not up in the Chamber saying, ``Well, that is 
bad, that is wrong. We ought to move in and do something about that.''
  Mr. President, I happen to feel that at this juncture, because of the 
timing, as I have outlined previously in these remarks, we have no 
business as a Congress getting involved in this labor dispute at this 
juncture.
  If we are going to go ahead, though, and allow forever major league 
ownership and major league players to have no consideration whatsoever 
for the fans, then we are going to see the downsizing, the lack of 
interest of what most of us have felt was our American pastime for a 
long, long time. How many moms and dads, Mr. President, in America 
today could afford to take their family of five to a National Football 
League game. It would be about $150.
  It seems to me that not only do we have an obligation here, but the 
players and the owners of baseball have an obligation to slug out 
whatever their problems are and possibly the fans, for whom I think 
this Senator is trying to speak, had better send a message: A curse on 
both of your houses if you are not going to have any consideration for 
us.
  The Senator from Minnesota earlier talked about the fact that he 
probably would be against lifting the antitrust laws because it would 
very likely be the end in the near future of the have-not baseball team 
moneywise, as is the case with the team in Minneapolis.
  Mr. President, in addition to that, we are going to turn these people 
loose to locate their franchises wherever they want to locate them for 
the highest buck. We are also recognizing that the fans will continue 
to pay through the nose not only for the cost of their baseball ticket 
but through their taxes. We are going to throw this wide open in 
America to let the greedy ownership and the greedy players go about 
raising the prices more and more and higher and higher.
  That is only part of the cost. You are also going to find that many 
cities, in the interest of economic development, are going to be 
bidding for all of these franchises that might become available. When 
they do that, the taxpayers, mom and dad that cannot hardly afford to 
take their family to a game today, are also going to be paying through 
the nose for increased taxes for brand new, magnificent, multimillion-
dollar stadiums. After that is created, of course, you are going to 
have to have another multimillion-dollar parking garage that is going 
to be paid for by the taxpayers.
  I think I simply would say, ``A curse on all of their houses,'' Mr. 
President. They are interested only in money, m-o-n-e-y. As a dedicated 
baseball fan all my life, I am not only discouraged, but I am 
disgusted.
  I will move at the appropriate time to table the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Ohio because I think we are involving ourselves in a 
labor dispute on the wrong piece of legislation at the wrong time. It 
would be much better for us to recognize that when we come back here 
after the first of the year, if the strike has not been settled, I 
would be at least acceptable to further consideration at that time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Metzenbaum. Three months ago, I supported S. 500, 
which would have eliminated the antitrust exemption that major league 
baseball enjoys as it relates to labor issues. Unfortunately, that bill 
was narrowly defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the 
argument that it might help to avoid the baseball strike which, of 
course, began a few weeks later.
  Senator Metzenbaum now offers an even narrower amendment, which does 
not repeal the full antitrust exemption for the major leagues. Instead, 
the amendment simply applies the antitrust laws to any unilateral terms 
imposed in baseball labor negotiations in the absence of a contract.
  I have had some skepticism about the ability of the antitrust laws to 
provide a magic bullet to resolve the current baseball labor dispute. 
However, I am encouraged by the willingness expressed by the players to 
end their strike if this amendment is adopted.
  Mr. President, this limited amendment is not intended to and will not 
resolve the deeper problem of major league baseball not showing 
sufficient attention to its fans. Nonetheless, I believe this narrowly 
tailored amendment may have a desirable impact on the baseball strike 
and urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I want to talk from a personal 
perspective on the amendment that is before us. One should not mistake 
the fact that I did not play professional baseball. But I did play 
professional basketball, and for a number of years I was a depreciable 
asset.
  I remember meeting with President Reagan at the time of the tax 
reform legislation when we cut tax rates and eliminated the loopholes. 
In fact, it changed the depreciation clause. At one point, I remarked 
to him, ``Well, you know, we both come at this from different angles.'' 
He was an actor when tax rates were 90 and 95 percent. I was a 
depreciable asset. So tax reform brought us together by lowering the 
rates which he wanted in loosening up some of the loopholes, including 
the depreciable asset nature of professional athletes.
  But I recall that one of my early substantive contacts with the U.S. 
Senate was in 1971 when the owners of the professional basketball 
teams, the owners of the NBA teams and then the ABA teams, sought an 
antitrust exemption from the Congress, an antitrust exemption that at 
that time was enjoyed by baseball. We testified in hearings as players 
opposed to the antitrust exemptions. We were opposed to the antitrust 
exemption because, in the world with the reserve clause, the existence 
of two leagues was--for the first time in the history of professional 
basketball, there was actually competition for player services.
  At that time, the average player salary was about $9,500 a year when 
I came into the league in 1967. With competition, that, of course, 
increased dramatically. In fact, my wife suggested maybe I was born too 
soon, and I reminded her, ``well, I might have been at a higher salary, 
but it might not have been here.''
  The point is that it is a situation where a player with an exemption 
to the antitrust laws at that time would have had no market in which to 
put his services. People used to come to me and say they thought it was 
outrageous that the players were making as much as they made, 
considerably more than I have made. My response was, ``Well, if 
somebody is foolish enough to pay them the salary, this is America and 
the market determines the value of that service.''
  So I come to this particular amendment offered by Senator Metzenbaum, 
which I would support with that background, and to make the point 
relevant to baseball. In professional basketball, when I was there for 
10 years, we never had a strike.
  There was a threatened strike in 1965-66, in order to get recognition 
of the union, where players such as Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, 
and Bill Russell sat in the locker room and would not go out to play 
the All-Star game until the union was recognized, so that the union 
could get things like second-class hotel rooms instead of third-class 
hotel rooms, a per diem of maybe $18 a day, and maybe travel in 
airplanes so that if you were in a three-seat transcontinental 
airplane, you would not be in the middle between some guy in 6A and 6C. 
Those are the things you fought for after it was recognized.
  But we had no exemption. Therefore, when there was the reserve 
clause, we were able to pursue our remedy through the courts, and we 
commenced a lawsuit, the essence of which the argument was that the 
reserve clause was a violation of the antitrust laws. And through 
creative union leadership and creative management leadership, we were 
able to come to a settlement of that lawsuit, which eliminated the 
reserve clause.
  In professional baseball, the players do not have that option. 
Because there is an exemption to the antitrust law for baseball, there 
is no judicial remedy for players. Therefore, they sit across the table 
from owners and they come to loggerheads and they come to a strike, and 
that is where we are today, where baseball fans across the country, 
including myself are saying, ``I wish we were playing baseball and I 
wish we were preparing for the World Series.''
  I suggest that by eliminating this exemption, we would be placing 
baseball in the same relative position as the other league sports, and 
we would be allowing players to pursue their objectives through the 
judicial system, in addition to the bargaining table. I believe that is 
a proper course to take.
  I have been against exemptions to antitrust laws for professional 
sports leagues since 1970, and so today I am against exemptions for 
professional sports to the antitrust laws. Some of my friends, who are 
owners, call and say, ``Well, how can you do this now? This is the 
wrong time.'' And maybe this is the wrong time. I appreciate that this 
might not be the right time to push this amendment to a vote or to try 
to do this in the middle of a labor dispute. But there can be no doubt 
about the fact that the exemption itself cannot be justified.
  Owners say, ``Oh, well, what about our minor league teams?'' Well, I 
think there is an answer to that question. But I suggest only that by 
passing this amendment, if it should come to a vote, we would be 
sending a signal that we want all sports leagues to be on the same 
footing, that we want players to have the same rights in baseball as 
they have in basketball or football, and that we believe that the 
exemption, which was really put into law in 1922, is really at this 
moment--the time has passed it by, and we need to recognize that 
professional sports is an element of commerce in this country just like 
virtually any other, and there is no overwhelming public justification 
for retaining this exemption.
  Again, I kind of wish I was playing now, where the average salary is 
a little more than the $10,000 or $12,000 average salary it was when I 
was a player. But that should not cloud my judgment about what is the 
proper course to take here when it comes to eliminating this exemption 
for professional baseball.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey certainly 
was a national hero as a professional basketball player. I did not 
realize the extent of it until the other night when I was flying home. 
I was reading a novel, which was actually about a district attorney, 
but a good part of it was about Bill Bradley and his prowess as a 
basketball player. I must say I enjoyed it very, very much.
  Mr. President, I rise today as the Senator from California, which is 
the proud home of the following major league professional baseball 
teams: The San Francisco Giants, the Oakland A's, the Los Angeles 
Dodgers, the San Diego Padres, and the California Angels. These five 
clubs are important to my State. Frankly, I want to keep them in 
California, Mr. President. That is the crux of my argument this 
afternoon.
  Accordingly, I rise to underscore a conviction that I have held for a 
very long time--namely, that major league baseball's antitrust 
exemption must not be repealed or weakened. Accordingly, I will 
oppose--and urge my colleagues to oppose--the pending amendment.
  There are two major ones to defeat this amendment, but before I 
detail them I want to elaborate on what the Senator from Nebraska was 
saying, and that is that the U.S. Congress has no business getting in 
the middle of a baseball strike. I would ask: Do the American people 
want us to get in the middle of a baseball strike? The answer would 
have to be an emphatic ``No.''
  Two recent polls solidly support that view and I ask that they be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                       Major League Baseball Poll


                         September 13-14, 1994

       Do you think that there is a role for Government to play in 
     bringing an end to the baseball strike?

                                                                Percent
Yes................................................................16.1
No.................................................................80.6
Don't know..........................................................3.3

       Do you think that Congress should get more involved in the 
     management of baseball?

                                                                Percent
Yes.................................................................9.1
No.................................................................88.6
Don't know..........................................................2.2

       Now that other sports have started, are you following the 
     strike as closely as you were before, less closely, or not at 
     all?

                                                                Percent
As closely as before...............................................28.3
Less closely.......................................................47.5
Not at all.........................................................23.6
Don't know..........................................................0.6

       Do you look for articles about the strike when you read 
     newspapers?

                                                                Percent
Yes................................................................34.5
No.................................................................61.1
Don't read a paper..................................................4.1
Don't know..........................................................0.4

       Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, 
     or strongly oppose a salary cap or placing a limit on the 
     amount of money baseball teams can spend on players' 
     salaries?

                                                                Percent
Stongly support....................................................53.2
Somewhat support...................................................18.9
Somewhat oppose....................................................10.0
Strongly oppose....................................................12.9
Don't know..........................................................5.1

       In the current Major League Baseball strike, which side do 
     you think is more in the right--the owners or the players?

Owners...............................................................39
Players..............................................................22
Neither/both.........................................................15
Don't care about baseball.............................................6

Source: New York Times, August 20, 1994.

       Do you favor or oppose a salary cap for Major League 
     Baseball?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................76
Oppose...............................................................17
Don't know............................................................2

Source: Gallup poll, June 30, 1994.

       Are Major League Baseball players paid too much?

                                                                Percent
Too much.............................................................73
Too little............................................................3
About right..........................................................18

Source: Time! CNN poll, August 22, 1994.


       How do you feel about the Clinton administration 
     intervening to settle a baseball strike?

                                                                Percent
Oppose...............................................................72
Favor................................................................24

Source: USA Today /CNN/ Gallup poll, August 11, 1994.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the first is a USA Today-CNN-Gallup 
Poll of August 11, in which the question was asked: ``How do you feel 
about the Clinton administration intervening to settle a baseball 
strike?'' Resoundingly, 72 percent of the people said they would oppose 
such intervention.
  I also note a poll taken on September 13 and 14, which asks the 
question: ``Do you think there is a role for Government to play in 
bringing an end to the baseball strike?'' To this question, 80.6 
percent of the American people said ``No.''
  A second question: ``Do you think that Congress should get more 
involved in the management of baseball?'' To this question, 88 percent 
of the people said ``No.''
  The intent of the pending amendment, namely to influence the ongoing 
baseball strike, is thus completely at odds with the overwhelming 
preference of the American public.
  There are two other principal reasons, in my view, to oppose the 
pending measure. One of them is the public interest in preserving 
franchise stability, and the second is the equally strong need to 
assure that minor league baseball continues to be enjoyed by millions 
of Americans who live in small- and medium-sized towns across this 
country.
  These are not just abstract policy or debating points, Mr. President. 
The spirit and cultural lives of 28 of the Nation's cities and the 
emotions and loyalties of tens of millions of fans are what this debate 
is about and why I have so strongly opposed efforts of the kind that 
are now being debated on the floor.
  When I was mayor of San Francisco, home to two great professional 
sports teams--the San Francisco Giants in baseball, and the San 
Francisco 49ers in football--I can tell you firsthand that these 
franchises are not just economic concerns. They are living, breathing 
parts of the city's body politic.
  Players and management alike are active parts of the community. They 
raise money for worthy causes, they serve as mentors and role models to 
countless young people, and they galvanize civic pride. I will never 
forget when the San Francisco 49ers won their first Super Bowl. Two 
million people lined the streets to cheer them as they came home. I 
will never forget that day. I have never seen a community come together 
with such enormous civic pride. San Francisco's teams give, and 
continue to give, to their city in ways that other purely economic 
concerns cannot.
  Moreover, the emotional ties and personal loyalties flow both ways. 
San Francisco's fans--and the same is true in hometowns all across this 
country--make their teams part of their lives on a daily basis. From 
organized tailgate parties on game day to impromptu water cooler 
conversations in offices days after the cheering is over, countless 
lives are enriched in countless ways by the symbiosis that defines a 
franchise and its fan.
  Destroy that synergy and you destroy part of the community and part 
of each and every member of that community in a very real way.
  That is what would have happened in San Francisco, in my view, in the 
mid-eighties had major league baseball's exemption from the antitrust 
laws not been upheld 72 years ago.
  The San Francisco Giants had a better offer from Tampa Bay, FL, and 
they would have gone had not major league baseball denied them the 
ability to move, a decision based primarily on the strength and 
stability of fan support that had been built up over the years. It was 
that support, coupled with the League's legal ability to take it into 
account, that kept the Giants in San Francisco where millions of people 
have since seen them play.
  Without the antitrust exemption, the league would have been powerless 
to veto the Giants' move to Tampa Bay, just as the National Football 
League--which has no such exemption--was powerless to stop the Oakland 
Raiders from being uprooted from one of the most loyal fan bases I know 
of in America.
  No fans anywhere felt more passionately about their team than the 
fans of the East Bay area of San Francisco Bay area felt about the 
Oakland Raiders. The Raiders were torn from them and moved to Los 
Angeles just as the Baltimore Colts were moved--literally in the middle 
of the night--to Indiana.
  Under the current antitrust exemption, baseball has not permitted a 
franchise to be relocated since the Washington Senators moved to Texas 
in 1972, 22 years ago. That compares over the same period to three 
football and three basketball franchise moves, and two hockey 
relocations.
  So baseball has been stable and yet football and basketball have had 
these moves. It is baseball's antitrust exemption, I am convinced, that 
prevents clubs from seeking greater riches in a new city every time new 
opportunities present themselves.
  That is why I joined 20 other mayors in 1985 in supporting a 
resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors opposing repeal of 
baseball's exemption.
  That is why I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
Antitrust Subcommittee barely a month after being elected to the 
Senate, opposing changes to baseball's exemption.
  That is why I voted with nine other Senators in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee this past June against an earlier version of the amendment 
before us.
  And that is why I will vote against this amendment and urge other 
Senators to do the same.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks before the 
Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks 
here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to turn, secondly, to the issue of preserving the minor 
leagues.
  The baseball antitrust exemption not only keeps major league 
franchises in the communities that care so deeply for them, but helps 
assure the survival of the more extensive minor league system as well. 
I do not know whether it is widely known, but currently 170 cities are 
home to minor league teams, 11 in California alone. In 1993, more than 
1.35 million tickets were sold nationally to see them play, often at 
just $2 a seat.
  Major league baseball is uniquely dependent on this so-called ``farm 
team'' system. Unlike major sports, whose new talent can be directly 
recruited out of college or even high school, young baseball players 
are just not ready for the major leagues. Indeed, only 4 out of 750 
active players came to the majors straight from college.
  Without an antitrust exemption, major league organizations could be 
forced to sever their unique agreements with minor league teams. Farm 
players would thus be able to change their team affiliation every year 
unless they were offered long-term contracts.
  Because so few players ultimately ascend to the big leagues, such 
contracts would impose tremendous costs on teams, costs that could be 
controlled only by signing fewer prospects. Fewer contract players 
would, in turn, mean fewer teams and thus far less access to minor 
league baseball for millions of residents of small and medium-sized 
towns across America.
  As a result, Stanley M. Brand, vice president of the National 
Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, confirmed yesterday that 
``the minor leagues remain unalterably opposed to this ill-conceived 
legislation.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Brand's statement be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, one final thought: As a matter of 
labor law policy, wholly independent of baseball or any other sport, 
Congress has no business, in my view, placing its heavy thumb on the 
scale in any pending labor dispute.
  Significant and disappointing as the current baseball strike is, it 
does not jeopardize the Nation in the way, for example, that the steel 
strike in the middle of World War II did, or that various 
transportation shutdowns over the years have ground national commerce 
to a halt. Absent a national emergency of that magnitude, I feel 
strongly that this Congress should not take steps to intervene, or 
signal its future willingness to intervene, in ongoing labor actions.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I, too, am disappointed that the only 
baseball we have at this point in time is the marvelous Ken Burns 
documentary currently airing across the Nation.
  ``Inning Eight'' of that series, shown locally in this area just the 
other night, brilliantly chronicled the effects of the loss of Dodgers 
on Brooklyn. Although Brooklyn's loss was Los Angeles' gain, I would 
not wish that pain, the real emotional pain, of that loss on the tens 
of millions of fans in any of the 28 cities now home to major league 
baseball.
  I urge my colleagues to preclude that possibility by joining me in 
opposing this amendment.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 1

   Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein Before the Senate Judiciary 
                               Committee

       Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I would like to 
     ask for unanimous consent to submit for the record the 
     testimony of my colleague, Senator-elect Barbara Boxer, who 
     has indicated that she wishes to associate herself with the 
     comments I am about to make.
       Now, I would like to introduce a number of leaders from 
     California: San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan, who has led the 
     effort to keep the Giants in San Francisco; Jim Gonzalez, 
     chair of the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors; 
     and City Attorney Louise Renne, whose office has taken a 
     forceful legal stand to see that San Francisco's legal rights 
     are protected.
       In testimony later this morning, Mayor Jordan will detail 
     the integral relationship between the Giants and San 
     Francisco and the steps that have been taken to keep this key 
     35-year resident of our city at home.
       As a former Mayor and a new Senator from California, my 
     objective here today is quite clear: without baseball's 
     exemption from the antitrust laws, San Francisco could have 
     lost the Giants. So, my choice is clear. I support the 
     exemption.
       Some will say the exemption should go and that baseball is 
     a private business that should be freely subject to the 
     marketplace. But in California we have seen what can happen 
     in the free marketplace. Oakland, California, lost the 
     Raiders in a devastating blow to thousands of diehard fans in 
     a major American city.
       Major League Baseball is more than just another business. 
     It is deeply linked to the psyche and fabric of the American 
     city.
       Baseball requires stability to build fan support. Fans 
     identify with their teams. This loyalty stretches over years, 
     through changes in roster and management, and over the ups 
     and downs of the win-loss column. Families have an 
     opportunity to enjoy wholesome, relatively inexpensive 
     entertainment. Young boys and girls play in little league 
     games every afternoon, using the professional players as 
     their role models.
       For 35 years, the Giants have been part of the rich mosaic 
     of San Francisco. The Giants have given us one of the 
     greatest rivalries in baseball with the Los Angeles Dodgers, 
     and this team has produced many of the greatest players of 
     all time--including Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Juan 
     Marichal, Will Clark, and now--hopefully--Barry Bonds.
       Fan clubs, communities, governments, and Chambers of 
     Commerce all become deeply involved in supporting a team.
       For example, in San Francisco, the Giants are exempted from 
     an admissions tax. While I was Mayor, the city remodeled 
     Candlestick Park building 110 luxury suites, improving 
     concessions and restrooms, and expanding Candlestick's 
     capacity by 10,000 seats. The city initially built the 
     stadium with bond funds, and the Candlestick Park Fund 
     contributed $30 million to its remodeling. The stadium is 
     under the jurisdiction of the City and County's Recreation 
     and Park Department. The field and stadium are maintained by 
     the city. The city has a real interest in retaining the team.
       Some are calling for the removal of baseball's anti-trust 
     exemption saying that the sport is a private business engaged 
     in interstate commerce and should be treated like any other 
     business. However, no other private business is really 
     comparable to a major sports franchise. In my view, major 
     league sport franchises are a good deal different than any 
     other corporate asset that can be sold willy nilly to any 
     highest bidder. A major league sports franchise is not a 
     product like a box of Tide that can be sold in a supermarket.
       It is absolutely proper for the League to consider a number 
     of factors when determining whether or not to approve the 
     sale of a franchise.
       Baseball should not be stripped of its ability to ensure 
     that the owners are of good reputation, will keep team in 
     America, and keep a good geographical spread to the 
     organization.
       The League has taken these steps to protect the city and 
     fans of San Francisco when it rejected the proposal to sell 
     the Giants to St. Petersburg after considering scheduling 
     difficulties, media markets, divisional realignment issues, 
     and fan support.
       It makes no sense to me for this Congress to be involved in 
     legislation that would permit the type of devastation that 
     occurred in Oakland when the Raiders moved to Los Angeles and 
     in Baltimore when the Colts were stolen in the darkness of 
     the night from their fans.
       In the end, Major League Baseball made a baseball decision 
     and not simply a business decision. In my opinion, baseball 
     cannot be faulted for making decisions in the best interests 
     of the sport and in the best interests of the fans in Major 
     League cities.
       In conclusion, stability is not a new issue. In 1985, I 
     joined more than 20 Mayors in supporting a resolution by the 
     United States Conference of Mayors which supported S. 259--a 
     measure that would have protected team stability. A copy of 
     that resolution is attached.
       I appear today to support baseball's anti-trust exemption.
       Again, Mr. Chairman and men of the committee, thank you for 
     this opportunity.

                               Exhibit 2

                                           National Association of


                          Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc.,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1994.
       The language added to the Synar bill at the 11th hour in an 
     attempt to protect the minor leagues is, unfortunately, 
     fatally flawed and totally ineffective in saving the minors. 
     Significantly, the language does not protect the amateur 
     draft through which the minor league rosters are filled each 
     year.
       The rules governing the minor league players are 
     inextricably intertwined with those regulating Major League 
     players and therefore, it is impossible to predict how 
     application of the antitrust laws under the Synar bill will 
     negatively impact the minor leagues. Accordingly, the minor 
     leagues remain unequivocally opposed to this ill-conceived 
     legislation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the 
distinguished Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack].
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I, too, would reflect on the hours of Ken 
Burns' documentary on the history of baseball since the 1830's to 
1850's.
  Unfortunately, I did not have the time during last week to see most 
of those shows, but a number of my colleagues came up and told me about 
seeing my grandfather's picture and the story of his involvement in 
major league baseball, the founding of the American League in 1901, the 
forming of the Philadelphia Athletics in 1901, a team that he managed 
and eventually owned--managed for 50 years, the same town, the same 
team, for 50 years.
  It was ironic, I think, that we were watching the Ken Burns 
documentary at a time when major league baseball is not being played 
and people do not have the opportunity to participate in the game. I 
thought it was also ironic that, as people told me about what they saw 
during those television shows about my grandfather, one of the 
situations involved his team from 1910 to 1914, where he won the 
pennant and the World Series a couple of times. At the end of 1914, he 
ended up having to sell the team off. Contrary to the popular opinion 
that he was just trying to make money by selling the players and 
keeping the money, the reality was he was dealing with competition. He 
was dealing with competition of an attempt to start a third league, a 
Federal league.
  Now, I think there is a lesson here that even though he had to 
respond to this effort that was established to bring about a third 
league in which the industrialists of the period had tremendous 
resources, my grandfather's team survived. He sold that team off. They 
remained in Philadelphia. They were able to come back, and again in 
1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931 I would probably claim that that was the 
best team in major league baseball history as opposed to the 1927 
Athletics, but that is up for debate as well.
  But again my interest in this issue really has been focused more as a 
result of the incident that was referred to by the Senator from 
California a little bit earlier, and I will get to that as I go through 
my comments.
  Mr. President, throughout America, in a ritual renewed each spring, 
young boys and girls reach into closets, dust off well-worn baseball 
gloves, search frantically for that scuffed-up baseball from last 
summer, put on their favorite baseball cap, grip a bat, and dream.
  It is a special season of the year when baseball fans--of all ages--
shake away the doldrums of winter to relive great memories of America's 
pastime and create new ones.
  For over 100 years, the game's greatest players have made the annual 
trip to Florida to share this tradition and to begin the long trip to 
the World Series.
  Because there appears to be no end in sight for the baseball strike, 
spring training is in jeopardy. Spring in Florida without baseball will 
certainly have a sentimental impact but it will also result in a major 
economic blow.
  Twenty of twenty-eight major league teams have their spring training 
in Florida.
  According to the Orlando Sentinel, spring training games in Florida 
draw 1.6 million fans--with most coming from out-of-State.
  The Orlando Sentinel also reported that spring training pumps $305 
million a year into Florida, according to a study conducted by 
Florida's department of commerce. In that same article, it is stated 
that central Florida stands to lose $40 to $50 million if spring 
training is canceled. In Lakeland, FL, spring training home of the 
Detroit Tigers, the Lakeland Chamber of Commerce estimates the Tigers 
generate about $18 million for the area economy.
  What will February and March 1995 be like with no baseball? Will the 
fans make their annual sojourn to Florida if there is no spring 
training?
  My State fears the worst.
  The strike must be resolved so the millions of baseball fans in 
Florida and elsewhere can once again enjoy America's favorite pastime.
  For some time now, baseball has been operating under a dark cloud. 
News has been dominated by the disarray in the business of baseball--
the fight over salary negotiations and revenue sharing which has 
resulted in the current player strike; the firing of Commissioner Fay 
Vincent and the contrived inability to appoint a replacement; and, the 
underhanded blocking of a legitimate business deal to move a money-
losing team to a better market.
  My interest lies in the owners' 1992 decision to block a business 
agreement between the owner of the San Francisco Giants and a Tampa Bay 
ownership group to purchase the team and move it to St. Petersburg. 
Before the agreement, Giant's owner Robert Lurie's efforts to keep the 
team in San Francisco had received little local support.
  Let me focus a little bit on this timeframe.
  My interests really became focused in an incident a little earlier 
than this transaction in San Francisco. If you remember, not long 
before that, the Seattle ball club was in trouble and the Seattle team 
had made the decision that they were going to move that franchise 
because they could not find a local ownership group.
  For years, major league baseball has said that two of their major 
objectives is, one, to require that ownership of the team be held by 
local folks; and the second was, as has been indicated earlier, that 
they do not lose the teams. Well, here they were faced with a very 
difficult set of circumstances and a decision had to be made. Which 
were they going to give up?
  What they decided was, they gave up on the determination that the 
ownership group must be dominated locally and they decided that their 
No. 1 concern was that franchises had to remain where they were.
  Now what that did was it sent a signal to the rest of us who have an 
interest in trying to get major league baseball into our communities; 
that it is not going to happen until the owners decide that they are 
going to expand.
  And let me make a second point here. The owners act as if the cities 
around the United States that are large enough and desirous of having 
major league baseball are not the markets of the cities and the fans 
but, in fact, are the markets of the owners of major league baseball 
and they will be used when they decide, not when the fans and the 
community decides that they ought to participate in major league 
baseball.
  I just think that is fundamentally wrong. And, as Senator Feinstein 
said earlier with respect to the San Francisco deal, Bob Lurie entered 
into a legitimate contract to sell his team--his team--to an ownership 
group in St. Petersburg and major league baseball, because of the 
exemption, denied him the right to sell that team to who he wanted to 
and to move it to where the purchasing group wanted to move the team. 
And, in addition, that he had to sell that team for $15 million less 
than the St. Petersburg-Tampa ownership group was willing to pay for 
it. Now there is something fundamentally wrong when that takes place.
  That is why I commend my colleague, Senator Metzenbaum, for his 
vigorous effort here to bring this issue before the U.S. Senate. I 
would prefer--and he knows this--that the issue we were debating were 
the full lifting of the exemption for major league baseball. But I 
understand the circumstances and I want to work with him to try to make 
this happen.
  Yesterday, we received good news from the Judiciary Committee in the 
House that they at least were willing to move that out of the Judiciary 
Committee. It is a signal, I think, to all of us who are interested in 
this that clearly there is movement now on the issue of the antitrust 
exemption.
  So I thank my colleague, Senator Metzenbaum, for his efforts.
  I just have a point or two more that I want to make.
  Seventy-two years ago, the Court, in Federal Baseball Club of 
Baltimore, Inc. versus National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 
gave baseball immunity from antitrust laws because it considered the 
game a pastime and not the subject of interstate commerce. Since then, 
the Court has laid the responsibility of removing baseball's prized 
exemption squarely on Congress' shoulders.
  The point I am making here was raised by the Senator from California. 
Why is the Congress involved in this? Well, frankly, I wish the 
Congress was not involved in it. But the Court made a decision 72 years 
ago and they said since then they are not going to readdress the issue; 
that Congress has to readdress the issue. And that is why we are 
involved in this discussion.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, Senator Metzenbaum and I 
introduced legislation last year to repeal the antitrust exemption. The 
Metzenbaum-Hatch amendment represents a pared down version of the 
legislation we introduced and I intend to support this labor carve out.
  I believe allowing the free market to work in baseball--without the 
legal shield of an outdated antitrust exemption--could mean more 
baseball in more cities for more fans and more kids to enjoy.
  America was built on the principles of the free market system--given 
the owners clear capitalistic motives, I do not see why baseball should 
be any different.
  Mr. President, I have a long family tradition in the game of baseball 
and I am proud of that. I love the game. I want to see it grow and I 
want to see it prosper.
  Baseball must swiftly and earnestly address its problems before it is 
too late--before it completely loses the interest and faith of the 
American people.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, because it places the U.S. 
Senate squarely in the middle of a private labor dispute between major 
league baseball owners and players. And I would suggest, moreover, that 
this amendment is not a panacea for baseball's labor problems or for 
baseball fans.
  With the introduction of this amendment, we are hearing an 
interesting debate, beause we all care about baseball. It is a national 
pastime in America. And I think we all reflect back on memories that we 
have of baseball.
  For me, it was growing up in the summer and my father sitting on the 
front porch listening to Harry Caray broadcast the St. Louis 
Cardinals. That was before the Kansas City Royals.

  But I think we can all reflect in one way or another how baseball has 
touched us, and it certainly has come back for those who are watching 
the Ken Burns ``Baseball'' series.
  Mr. President, this amendment is an unprecedented attempt to affect 
the outcome of the labor relations dispute between major league 
baseball owners and the union representing the baseball players. The 
amendment prevents the owners from unilaterally implementing their 
final bargaining position--a salary cap--by subjecting the salary cap 
to U.S. antitrust laws.
  My colleagues should be aware that this amendment has nothing to do 
with the existing exclusive antitrust exemption that baseball now 
enjoys. Rather, the amendment would place one party in this dispute at 
a disadvantage that no other party--in any dispute--has ever been 
placed.
  Mr. President, I think we are all saddened by the major league 
baseball strike. America's national pastime has been sidelined by a 
labor dispute between the baseball owners and the baseball players' 
union.
  Most Americans have little patience for the situation. They want to 
see major league baseball, rather than a major league labor dispute. 
They want action.
  But I oppose any congressional intervention in the baseball strike. 
For almost 60 years, our Federal labor policy has been to promote the 
private system of collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes. In 
fact, the preamble to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 states:

       It is hereby declared to the policy of the United States to 
     eliminate * * * certain * * * obstructions to the free flow 
     of commerce * * * by encouraging the practice and procedure 
     of collective bargaining * * *.

  The collective bargaining system does not tip the scales for or 
against either side. It simply establishes a process for the parties 
peacefully to resolve their differences at the bargaining table. And if 
that fails, the system provides limited economic weapons--the strike, 
lockout, and unilateral imposition of the employer's final offer--for 
the parties to utilize at their discretion.
  The parties themselves must evaluate the relative strength of their 
positions. Congress has never established itself as the final arbiter 
of labor agreements, and for good reason.
  We cannot and should not determine the respective bargaining 
positions of labor or management. That decision is theirs and theirs 
alone. Not even the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], which has 
some expertise in labor law, has the capacity to do that.

  Labor would be justifiably upset if we decided that their bargaining 
position was meritless. The union has a right to demand salary 
increases for players.
  Similarly, baseball clubs have a right to insist upon a salary cap if 
they believe that fans will not pay higher ticket prices and clubs in 
smaller media markets cannot afford to pay higher player salaries.
  Without doubt, the Metzenbaum amendment is designed to pressure major 
league baseball owners to capitulate to player demands. That is not the 
business of the Congress, any more than it is the business of Congress 
to order the players to cease their strike and to return to work.
  I submit that the U.S. Senate should not influence a private labor 
dispute. Congressional intervention in labor matters sets a very 
dangerous precedent. Next time, perhaps it will be another sport, such 
as basketball, hockey, or football where Congress will be called upon 
to intervene.
  And where will it end? Will other industries be coming to Congress 
asking for Federal intervention? I have no doubt that others will think 
it advantageous to lobby us to help resolve their labor disputes. And 
other industries, such as the construction industry, the trucking 
industry, or the meat packing industry, will find themselves on our 
doorstep. We should be careful not to put ourselves on this slippery 
slope.
  After the players and the owners settle their labor dispute at the 
bargaining table, then perhaps Congress should debate repeal of 
baseball's antitrust exemption--not before.
  My personal feeling is that if we carefully examined the antitrust 
exemption we would find that it serves an important national interest. 
As I am sure everyone in this Chamber knows, there is a significant 
relationship between major league baseball and the minor leagues system 
that benefits baseball fans everywhere. It is a relationship based on 
contractual and business agreements that depend upon the antitrust 
exemption.
  Currently, major league teams subsidize their minor league affiliates 
to the tune of approximately $200 million per year. Major league teams 
pay the salaries and the signing bonuses of all minor league players 
and coaches; they pay for minor league equipment; and they pay for 
scouting services. This financial assistance is critical to many minor 
league clubs.
  It is reasonable to assume that repeal of the antitrust exemption 
would jeopardize the structure and viability of minor league baseball--
and that would certainly be a great loss for our country. After all, 
the vast majority of professional baseball is played at the minor 
league level. These teams are a source of civic pride for their 
communities and provide many fans from over 170 communities with their 
only opportunity to see live professional baseball. I know I have spent 
many enjoyable evenings watching the minor league team in Wichita play.
  It has been argued by some of my colleagues that baseball should not 
retain an exemption that no other sport enjoys. But Mr. President, I 
think we would be wise to remember that no other sport has a minor 
league system similar to baseball's. It is a system that is important 
to rural and small communities across the United States, and I 
certainly hope we do not destroy it in our rush to try and settle the 
major league strike.
  Mr. President, I would also point out that other sports that lack the 
antitrust exemption still have significant labor relations problems. 
Football, basketball, and hockey all have experienced strikes in the 
past and likely will experience strikes in the future. Ending 
baseball's antitrust exemption will not end labor disruptions in 
baseball, and the fans will continue to be disappointed regardless of 
the antitrust exemption.
  If we were really interested in protecting the fans, then why not 
simply order the players back to work? The answer is that such 
congressional action would directly interfere with a private labor 
dispute on management's side by eliminating the players' right to 
strike, and that is equally unacceptable.
  Mr. President, baseball fans such as myself want to see players back 
on the field. As a U.S. Senator, I encourage the players and owners to 
resolve their differences at the bargaining table, and not in Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation and 
admiration to Senator Metzenbaum. We know that, to our regret and loss, 
this will be one of the last days that he will be with us on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate. Howard Metzenbaum is a unique human being, unique 
in his intellect, unique in his understanding of the range of people 
that he represents. I have been especially impressed with the passion 
of Senator Metzenbaum. When he engages in an issue he does so from a 
depth of genuine commitment. He does so with tenacity and, in most 
cases, with victory.
  It is fitting that at this moment in his career that he again has 
taken the lance and is leading the charge on an issue which has deep 
significance to the soul of America. I thank Senator Metzenbaum for his 
leadership on this, and so many other issues, and wish him well.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. GRAHAM. As Senator Metzenbaum has so articulately stated, 
baseball is an important part of the culture of America. Many of us 
have spent hours in the last few days, watching the Ken Burns series on 
baseball. And, while it has reminded us of individual events, games, 
World Series, it has also underscored the fact that baseball in the 
American culture is more than just an individual series of athletic 
events, teams, and players.
  It is an important part, in many ways a reflection of basic aspects 
of our national culture.
  From the time immediately after the Civil War when baseball, which 
had been disseminated in many ways by the campfire games of the 
combatants, helped to bring the country back together to the times 
within our lifetime when baseball served as the leader in opening up 
opportunity in this country.
  After almost a century of a gentlemen's agreement which had denied 
access to baseball to African-Americans, Jackie Robinson foreshadowed 
what was to come in the next few decades in terms of expanding 
opportunities.
  So many of our most fundamental and deepest experiences as a nation 
are related to what has happened through baseball. Each of us can 
personally identify with this. One of the important aspects of baseball 
at a personal level is its intergenerational appeal. How many Americans 
cannot remember experiences with their parents, with brothers and 
sisters, with others close to them that began watching a baseball game?
  I remember my father, who grew up in a small town in Michigan and was 
a long-time follower of the Detroit Tigers, sitting in Briggs Stadium 
watching Hal Newhouser and George Kell, and those great players of the 
immediate postwar period were an immediate part of my life, 
illustrative of millions of other Americans who have, through baseball, 
broadened and deepened their understanding of their parents and now are 
transferring that to their children and grandchildren.
  So as the question is asked, why here in the last days of this 
session of Congress with so many important issues before us are we 
spending time on this subject? I think it is because baseball plays a 
role in our Nation which is beyond what can be counted in terms of its 
economic contribution to our gross national product, beyond the numbers 
of persons involved, beyond the immediate personalities in this current 
dispute.
  Baseball is a fundamental part of and a reflection of fundamental 
aspects of the American character.
  The antitrust exemption, Mr. President, also carries with it an 
important part of that reflection of the American character. The 
antitrust laws were established in and around shortly after the turn of 
the century as a statement that Americans believed in fair play. We did 
not believe in people who happened to have acquired significant 
economic power using that power in a coercive way, in a way which would 
deny others economic opportunity.
  The history of antitrust and baseball is one which is linked to the 
saddest period of our national game. In 1919, the first and only time 
there was a throwing of a World Series, when the Chicago White Sox, 
eight players of that time succumbed to the temptation to take bribes 
in order to play less than at their full capability, and the result was 
that the Cincinnati Reds won the 1919 World Series.
  It was around that time that players were tempted to do so, to accept 
those bribes because they felt that they were being treated as chattel; 
that their salaries were being unnecessarily restrained; that their 
efforts to establish alternative leagues, where their worth could be 
bargained for in the marketplace of real competition, had been 
frustrated. It was in that same period that players went to the courts 
seeking relief from the restraints on their economic mobility.
  In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's opinion that 
baseball was not subject to the antitrust exemption, not because 
Congress had granted it an exemption, but rather because baseball was 
not determined to be commerce, as the Court interpreted that word to 
be, rather that it was a series of exhibitions, not the business to 
which the antitrust exemption was applied.
  It is significant that at the same time that the Supreme Court was 
upholding that lower opinion, that the man who had first ruled that the 
antitrust law did not apply to baseball was being designated as the 
first commissioner of baseball in order to bring some public confidence 
to a sport which had been savaged by the results of the 1919 World 
Series. That commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, brought a very 
strong principle of representing the public interest in baseball 
decisions; that baseball was the embodiment of the fact that it was 
more than just a business-economic relationship.
  Throughout baseball, there has been this continuing tumultuous period 
of labor-management relations. It is not insignificant that there had 
been more labor stoppages in baseball, with its antitrust exemption, 
than in any other professional sport in America which operates without 
an antitrust exemption.
  With that brief history, Mr. President, I would like to talk about a 
few of the questions that have been raised. One of the questions is, is 
it appropriate for Congress to be involved in this issue? Is this not 
an issue that should be left to the parties to resolve? The fact is the 
Congress was made a party to these disagreements by the action of the 
Supreme Court in 1922, when the Court said that we are going to place 
baseball in a protected status and not allow the forces of the free 
market, protected by the antitrust law, to operate as it relates to 
baseball.
  We have been placed in this situation, Mr. President, because 
organized baseball for the first time since 1922 is now without a 
commissioner and, quite obviously, a determination has been made that 
it will not have a commissioner until there has been a completion of 
its efforts to change its labor-management relations. So whereas in 
previous disputes between players and owners, there was that third 
party, that party who carried the stamp of legitimacy from Commissioner 
Landis forward to step in, there is no such person today.
  The purpose of this amendment is not to have Government get into 
dispute, but to get Government out of the dispute by treating baseball 
like other professional sports and like the vast majority of other 
commerce and business in the United States, and that is subject to the 
rules of fair play embodied in the antitrust exemption.
  A second question is, should this be considered on the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill? Is there not a more appropriate forum for 
this consideration? I have listened to the statement made by the 
Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from California, two good 
friends, and I was struck by the irony of their comments about how much 
it means to the Twin Cities to have the Minnesota Twins and to San 
Francisco to have the San Francisco Giants. If my history is correct, 
the Minnesota Twins used to be the Washington Senators, before they 
moved from Washington to Minnesota.
  The San Francisco Giants used to be the New York Giants, until they 
moved from New York to San Francisco. I remember one of those 
experiences of childhood. My high school graduation present from my 
father in 1955 was to take my first trip to New York City to see a 
series between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants at the Polo 
Grounds. It is one of the jewels of my life, having been able to share 
those days with my dad watching these two great franchises, two of the 
original teams in the National League in that great inner-city rivalry.
  Do we now dismiss the emotion of the people of New York and Brooklyn, 
people of Washington, DC, when they lost their franchises and elevate 
teams as they exist today to some pedestal of special purpose?
  It is further ironic that after a period in which major league 
baseball encouraged, or at least acquiesced in, substantial franchise 
relocation, that now for a period of almost a quarter of a century, we 
have had no franchise relocation.
  Major league's use of antitrust has restrained not only the movement 
of existing franchises but has restrained the development of additional 
franchises. My home State of Florida is proud to be the home to one of 
the two newest franchises in major league baseball, the Florida 
Marlins. It had been many years that we felt our State was prepared to 
be the home for one or more major league baseball teams, and yet we 
waited for decades in order to have that opportunity.
  There is a very clear linkage between the antitrust exemption as it 
applies generically, and specifically as it applies to franchise 
relocation and establishment, and the antitrust exemption which is now 
being used in order to impose a settlement on players.
  What is that linkage? The fact that franchises have not been 
established to serve markets that are prepared to support major league 
baseball. While franchises are retained through the use of the 
antitrust exemption in markets that are declining their ability to 
support major league baseball has resulted in a growing economic gap 
between the haves and have-nots of major league baseball. Major league 
baseball, particularly those smaller markets, is now calling upon the 
larger market partners for revenue sharing. That is not an unusual 
request. In the National Football League there is revenue sharing at 
the gate. There is revenue sharing among national television, and 
individual teams are not allowed to have their own local television 
arrangements. So there is a general parity in terms of the economic 
circumstances, whether it happens to be the Green Bay Packers or the 
New York Giants.
  Baseball has not had that kind of a revenue sharing and even today 
has resisted that revenue sharing, particularly as it relates to local 
television revenue, which is the principal contribution to the wide 
economic gaps between the haves and have-nots.
  What major league baseball is saying is that they want to have a form 
of revenue sharing financed by the players being forced to accept a cap 
on their salaries and thus a condition which in large part grew out of 
the application of the antitrust exemption to keep communities that 
were financially able to support teams from having teams has now been 
used at the end of this process in order to try to extract from the 
players the cost of trying to maintain some parity between the have and 
the have-not franchises.
  A third and final question, Mr. President, is timing. Why are we 
doing this now? Well, we should have done it years ago. Clearly, the 
fundamental rationale of the antitrust exemption has been 
unsubstantiated for decades. In the 1950's, in the case of Curt Flood, 
a great center fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals who refused to 
accept a trade to the Philadelphia Phillies and went to court, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled in his case that the rationale of the 1922 opinion 
no longer existed but that the Supreme Court, in deference to the 
principle of precedent and unwilling to overrule that 1922 case on its 
own, deferred to the Congress to take the steps necessary in order to 
apply the antitrust law to baseball.
  We should have done it at that time. We should have done it this 
spring when Senator Metzenbaum brought before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee legislation that would have repealed the antitrust exemption. 
The fact is that we did it at neither of those two opportunities, nor 
many others that have existed in the recent past.
  Now we face a strike of major league baseball that is of 
unprecedented proportions. Only once since the World Series started has 
there not been a World Series, in 1904, when a disagreement between the 
leagues caused no series to be held. Now, 90 years later, we are going 
to have the second example of no World Series for the baseball fans of 
America.
  I anticipate that shortly after the leaves of fall have blown away, a 
fall devoid of this great classic, and the snows begin to fall, we are 
going to see the major league owners impose a cap on players' salaries 
arbitrarily, unilaterally. We are going to see the players' resolve to 
resist that heightened and thus we will see, in February of next year, 
instead of the pitchers and catchers coming to Florida and Arizona to 
start that ritual of spring as we prepare for another season, we will 
see the cold chill of winter continue. We will see no baseball in the 
spring. We will see no baseball in the summer of 1995.
  I believe this is the time, before all of those bleak prospects 
become inevitable, that we take what I consider to be appropriate and 
restrained action. The resolution, the amendment as offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio, simply states that in the event there 
is a unilateral term or condition imposed on any party that has been 
subject to an agreement between the owners of major league baseball and 
their labor organization, the antitrust laws shall apply to that term 
or condition and that that term or condition may be challenged by any 
party to such agreement in any United States district court.
  I believe that is an appropriate statement of the fair play that we 
ask as part of the American culture. Baseball is a game which is played 
by the same rules, whether it is from the largest to the smallest, with 
the exception, I might say, with sadness, of such intrusions as the 
aluminum bat and the designated hitter. But with those exceptions, to 
which we all express our distress and sadness, baseball is a game 
played by common and fair rules across the land. Those same common and 
fair rules are another extension of baseball's reflection of American 
culture where we believe in fair play. Fair play says that persons 
should not be allowed to use their excessive economic power, I say to 
Senator Rockefeller, to collude against the public interest, and that 
should be a principle that applies in all aspects of our American life. 
With the adoption of the amendment by Senator Metzenbaum, we will move 
towards the realization of that high standard in baseball and do it 
now.
  Mr. President, I close by just returning to the remarks I made as I 
began my statement, and that is my deep appreciation to Senator 
Metzenbaum for having brought this issue to us at this hour. I admire 
his commitment and his tenacity. The Senator, unfortunately, will not 
be with us in 1995, but his spirit will live here. Whatever the result 
of his efforts this afternoon, I can assure the Senator, Senator Hatch 
and others, the leadership that he has provided will continue to 
inspire us, and eventually we will win that seventh game.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank my friend and colleague from Florida for his 
kind comments.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas 
[Mr. Gramm].
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me say that we certainly have had an 
opportunity today to hear some great tributes to baseball. We all 
lament the fact that the season was not completed, especially me since 
I represent a State that has two teams that were doing well.
  I think we all are saddened by the fact there is no World Series, but 
I think the bottom line of this whole debate is there is something more 
important than baseball. What is more important than baseball is 
freedom. What we have here is a blatant attempt at the end of the 
session to inject the Senate into a labor dispute.
  We have a labor dispute underway in baseball. We have a decision that 
has been made by players and owners to end the season. We are all 
unhappy about it. We do not like it. But we live in a free country 
where labor has the right to decide to stop playing baseball and 
management has the right to end the season.
  I am not going to get into a lengthy argument here about the 
antitrust exemption. It has been on the books for 72 years, since the 
Supreme Court decision in 1922, and it is going to be the law of the 
land when this Senate adjourns.
  I can assure my colleagues that this amendment is not going to pass. 
I assume that the distinguished Senator from Ohio at some point, having 
had some fun today, having allowed us all to eulogize baseball, is 
going to withdraw this amendment. But if this amendment is not 
withdrawn, we are going to have other amendments offered to it, and we 
are going to have a prolonged debate because as strongly as I feel 
about baseball, I feel more strongly about freedom. I am not going to 
stand by and see our Government inject itself into this labor dispute, 
taking sides in a dispute where I do not believe--given that the 
dispute is underway, the strike is underway, the season has been 
canceled--that we ought to be injecting ourselves into that dispute.
  This antitrust exemption repeal was debated in the committee of 
jurisdiction, and the Senator's amendment was rejected 7 to 10.
  As I said earlier, I am not going to waste the time of my colleagues. 
I see we have several others here who want to speak. But I do not think 
today is the day to get into a debate about the antitrust exemption. 
Quite frankly, I think it is an open question.
  I would be happy on another occasion when we are shooting with real 
bullets, when we are actually debating something that could be 
considered more thoroughly to listen to whether or not there should be 
an antitrust exemption in baseball. But in the midst of a strike where 
the clear objective here is to inject the Federal Government into the 
baseball dispute, I am adamantly opposed to it. I want to do everything 
I can do to see that does not happen.
  It is not that baseball is not important. It is not that the people 
of my State did not have high hopes for our two teams. It is not that 
we do not want to see a World Series. But the point is there are some 
limits to the Federal Government's power. Having already messed up so 
much of American life, today we ought to leave baseball alone. It seems 
to me that baseball has enough problems of its own without the Federal 
Government jumping into the middle of a dispute.
  So on that basis, Mr. President, let me say I am opposed to this 
amendment. I am open to a future debate about the antitrust exemption. 
I think it is something on which we should follow normal procedure. If 
in the next Congress an amendment is offered, I would be happy to look 
at the arguments to try to weigh the pros and cons. But here, today, on 
a Friday afternoon, 1 week from adjournment, I am adamantly opposed to 
the Federal Government jumping into a baseball strike.
  I assume this amendment at some point is going to be taken down and 
we are going to get on with other discussion. If it is not withdrawn, I 
am prepared to offer a second-degree amendment. But I am opposed to 
this amendment, and I do not plan to see it become the law of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Would the Senator from Texas be good enough to 
indicate the nature of the second-degree amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. It would overturn the Clinton Social Security tax.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
I must say that I agree with the Senator from Texas that it is not 
advantageous or wise at this time during a labor dispute to take away 
an existing law that applies to baseball.
  Quite frankly, I have some real reservations about baseball's 
antitrust exemption. I have expressed my concerns to and talked and 
consulted with the Senator from Ohio. Let me say about the Senator from 
Ohio that, indeed, he is doing this because he really believes in a 
fair market. Antitrust has been his legacy here, among others, whether 
it is big business, international corporations, or in this case the big 
business of sports. I appreciate that. Actually, I have learned a lot 
about antitrust by serving on the Judiciary Committee with the Senator 
from Ohio. So I have some feelings and understanding about his 
arguments and the need to address this issue.
  I also feel that tipping the scale now by removing an antitrust 
exemption that is currently the law and that permits the owners to 
bargain in the manner they are bargaining, would not be appropriate.
  Repealing existing law at this time disturbs me a great deal. I think 
we should be cautious about interfering in such labor strikes. There 
are some exceptions. Maybe baseball, some will contend, falls into that 
exception. The national urgency is, if you cannot get gasoline or coal 
or water or some necessity that is provided by the private sector 
because of a labor dispute, there are provisions in the law for the 
President to get involved. But that is not the case here.
  I just do not see the justification to step in at this time. I do not 
know if it is the 11th hour or the 2nd hour of this dispute. There are 
problems on both sides. The owners have not, in my judgment, done what 
the owners in the other professional sports have done, such as pooling 
the resources from electronic media, mainly television. That is part of 
the argument about why almost half of their teams are losing money. To 
me that should be considered because that has worked in other 
professional sports. In baseball, you have teams that are literally 
losing money because they do not have the TV markets, they do not have 
the endorsements, they do not have the advertisers and they may go 
broke.
  But if the owners really wanted to help the game, they would spread 
that revenue as the National Football League has done, for instance, 
and the basketball league has done through pooling of TV revenues. But 
the owners have decided not to do that. In addition, the owners have 
been, in my judgment, very stingy on expansion. I am glad to see that 
they have gotten the message. I must say I think the Senator from Ohio 
has been a messenger to them about that. If they do not expand, they 
will lose the support I think they currently have in this body not to 
take away their antitrust exemption.
  But there is another side; that is, the players. Nobody can quantify 
the great baseball players that we have today, and missing watching 
those games, the playoffs, and then the World Series. It is a loss. We 
cannot put a money value, I do not think, on their talent. It is very 
difficult to do that. On the other hand, the players are not doing 
badly. As a matter of fact, the average salary of all professional 
baseball players in the major league is $1.2 million which is not too 
bad. That means some of them are making $20 million, $6 million, $12 
million, and upwards of those figures.
  (Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, it seems that there is a problem on 
both sides here. I am sorry to say this to the owners and to the 
players. But, as a fan, I look at it as greed. Nobody seems to really 
want to put it together so that the fans benefit. They want to keep 
lining their pockets. They want to make money, and they really seem to 
have given up the purpose of what baseball is all about. It is the 
fans. They are the ones that are left out. As a fan, I am mad about it. 
I am upset, and I feel that it is unfair to the public, to us, and I 
think that we do need to address the problem.
  I have introduced legislation. It does involve the Government deeply 
into this monopoly. It does provide for arbitration if there is an 
impasse in a labor dispute. It would require the owners and players to 
come together and settle their disputes. It would be binding 
arbitration because I think the best interests of the public would be 
served by such legislation. We are debating whether or not to lift the 
antitrust exemption that baseball has, the owners have, the league has.
  I oppose this. I hope that the vote will be against lifting 
baseball's antitrust exemption at this time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I want to say a few words on this 
amendment. First, my rich commendation to Senator Howard Metzenbaum for 
his tireless work on this issue. He has been very fair. He has 
certainly been attentive to my concerns. I think we all know of this 
man that when he sinks his teeth into an issue, he is dogged, 
passionate, determined, and he presses forward to the very end. But he 
is also fair and is a pleasure to work with. I shall miss the spirited 
camaraderie that I have shared with this man, and I mean that. I wish 
he and his wife, Shirley, well, as they go on to new pursuits. I know 
not what they will be, but they will be performed with passion and 
energy.
  This is a tough issue for me and to come to this part. I have been 
interested from the time baseball's ownership unceremoniously sacked a 
most able and gracious commissioner, Fay Vincent, who had taken over 
for a beloved man, Bart Giamatti, who was just a unique jewel of a 
human, and then they left the game without a guiding hand to act in the 
interest of the fans. It is almost like: Is anybody paying attention to 
the fans? I can tell you that the owners, I think, in many ways, are 
not, and the players, in many ways, are surely not. So that has been my 
primary interest and my motivation from the beginning, to restore the 
office of the commissioner of baseball back to its former power and 
influence. I am truly regretful that it has not come to pass.
  Unfortunately, from my perspective, there are so many who have 
interests in baseball's antitrust exemption for so many different 
reasons, though perfectly legitimate to me, and they are entirely 
different. Many stand to gain or to lose, depending on what we in the 
Congress do about the exemption. Some are interested in expansion; 
others in franchise relocation. Of course, both sides in the baseball 
negotiations have a stake in this. The players' union wants very much 
to see this antitrust exemption revoked so they can press their case in 
the courts instead of by striking. So, unavoidably, if we act on this 
legislation and we make explicit reference to ``actions taken'' or 
``conditions imposed'' in the course of baseball's labor and 
negotiations, we become participants in this great struggle. I am 
uncomfortable with that. I do not believe that this is what baseball's 
fans would like to see.
  So, for me, the issue is strictly one of whether or not baseball 
should have a commissioner, an independent commissioner, and whether 
baseball should be governed internally in a way that entitles it to a 
special legal status. I know fully where I stand. I am very happy to 
induce baseball to return to its traditional structures, but this is a 
different business. I am not certain that baseball's fans want us to 
say, ``If one side does this or the other side does that, then the 
antitrust exemption gets taken away,'' or any variant of that. I do not 
want to play around in that. I just want to see them get an independent 
commissioner. And I will push in any way I can, without trying to give 
one side an advantage over the other side.
  I regret to say that I could not support this amendment. Its 
implications are very clear, and the players' union chief, Donald Fehr, 
said he would call off the strike in a New York minute if we only 
passed some legislation like this. Certainly most Americans and I and 
the occupant of the chair and all of us in this Chamber would like to 
see the strike end, especially as we approach the first of October. 
There is something about the first of October and a yearning for 
baseball and the World Series. Maybe that is some of the discord and 
anxiety in the land. But I do not think we should try and bring the 
strike to an end by offering a change in the law that has the effect of 
benefiting one side or the other. The players' union has made it very 
clear that this legislation would be a valuable tool for them, very 
valuable tool. I am simply not willing to step forward and hand a new 
tool to either side in this unseemly struggle.
  It is ugly, it is greedy, and I am appalled at the owners, and I am 
appalled at the players. I would really like to smack them both around, 
but I do not know how to get that done. I almost feel that it is like 
in the great history of France where an arrogant observer in the 
royalty, who is uncaring of the citizens, says, ``Let them eat cake.'' 
That is the way I feel about both sides in this one. Let them eat cake. 
For this reason, I will have to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I, along with most people, am a 
baseball fan. I have been ever since I grew up in New York City and 
became a New York Giants baseball fan. When they moved to San Francisco 
things became tough for me, but I stayed with them until Willie McCovey 
retired, and then I was left without a baseball team. By that time, I 
had been living in West Virginia for a long time, and I became a 
``cable baby,'' so to speak, and have been an Atlanta Braves fan for 
the past 15 or 20 years.
  None of that means anything, but it does in the sense that there are 
millions and millions of people in this country who work very hard and 
whose wages are not increasing and, in fact, are decreasing, and when 
they come home, one of the things they look forward to is baseball. 
Baseball is unlike any other game that I know of in that it has a 
rhythm and a sense of peace, a sense of throwback to an America that 
was more predictable, more dependable. It brings to the life of 
Americans a sense of tranquility and stability, which is hard to find 
in a country which is ravished by self-doubt and anger in these recent 
years.
  So I think that the fact that there has been a baseball strike and 
the fact there have been a number of them in recent years is serious. I 
do not think it is just a matter of getting baseball going again. I 
think it has something to do with the American psyche. It has something 
to do with the American sense of well-being.
  I am one who believes that if this strike is not settled it will 
continue into the 1995 season. There are no professional baseball teams 
at the major league level in my home State of West Virginia. We do have 
farm teams. I care about that. I do not want to see America move into 
the next year, 1995, without a settlement already in hand.
  I have learned some lessons from the coal fields of West Virginia, as 
I am sure Senator Metzenbaum has, because they mine coal in the 
southern part of his State.
  A very interesting lesson took place a number of years ago. It was 
basically during the seventies. And, Madam President, it happened that 
every time there was a dispute in the coal mines, there was a temporary 
restraining order, and people immediately went to the courts, but there 
was always labor instability, and it hurt our State. It hurt our self-
image. It hurt our sense of moving forward.
  But suddenly labor and management grew tired of this because it was 
hurting both of them, and they sat down in no particular formal 
agreement, and decided to work things out at what they called the face 
of the mine. That is where coal is actually mined, way underground. And 
if there was a dispute there between a worker and a foreman they would 
simply work it out at the face.
  They found a period of tranquility in the coal mines of West Virginia 
wherein there was not a strike for years and years. One of the reasons 
that they were able to achieve this tranquility and achieve this type 
of stability was that they both had equal access and equal rights, they 
had equal powers, and they both knew that.
  I think, by and large, in our society with different groups that have 
different points of view, when they know they have equal access to 
separate recourse or to the courts, knowing that they have those rights 
often in and of itself prevents problems that might arise because the 
other side knows that the other side has the same strength, the same 
accessibility to the courts.
  Therefore, I am one who believes that the unique antitrust exemption 
which baseball has should be removed, and that, in fact, if it were 
removed baseball would come back, not this year, but it would certainly 
come back in 1995.
  There is a feeling that owners make too much money and players make 
too much money. That is nothing that this Congress can change, because 
that is a matter of what the free market is and how people negotiate.
  But the Supreme Court has said it will not decide whether lifting the 
antitrust exemption should be done or not and that Congress must decide 
the issue. So I think it is possible for me intellectually and 
logically to stand here and say that the fact that we are not doing 
anything as a Congress is in fact a part of the reason for the 
continuation of the strike.
  The Court first back in 1922 ruled that baseball was not interstate 
commerce. The Court then later said that baseball was interstate 
commerce but, on the other hand, they were not going to decide to lift 
the antitrust exemption, that this is something which should be decided 
by Congress. I am not a lawyer and do not have all the details as to 
that. Congress decided not to decide, except Senator Howard Metzenbaum 
decided that Congress should decide, and over the years he persisted on 
this matter on the floor and in private conferences with many of us in 
the corridors of Congress.
  I have been one who has stood back, saying that baseball problems 
would work their way through. I no longer share that point of view. I 
think we do have to intervene. I do think we have to create equality as 
between the two sides.
  There is now inequality. Management has more recourse, more power, 
more ability to cause and stop events than do the players. And we are a 
country which prides ourselves on justice, on an equal and good 
relationship between labor and management, labor, and capital, however 
you want to put it. And I think it is long time past now that we act on 
this.
  I happen to admire a fellow who writes for the Washington Post by the 
name of Tom Boswell. I have come to know him in recent months. I have 
talked to him a lot about this, and I think he has a very even point of 
view. He has helped me to understand and to believe what would happen 
if we were to repeal this exemption.
  Even more, I happened to talk on this matter with the President 
several weeks ago encouraging him to intervene. Unfortunately, the very 
next day the owners declared that the season was over. There was not 
much that he could do.
  But it was his view that if the President even said something so much 
as ``I give you my full faith and credit that I will do everything I 
can to remove the antitrust exemption'' the players would have gone 
back to playing baseball immediately, and this would have been several 
weeks ago and the season might not have been called off. The owners 
would have had to respond to that and, in fact, there might have been 
negotiations and perhaps things would have been settled.
  In any event, giving players equal right in the courts, I think, is a 
pretty basic American principle.
  I met with a couple of major league baseball players yesterday. I was 
very impressed by them. I asked one of them a question. I made 
reference, I say to the Senator from Ohio, that when we deregulated, 
wrongly in my judgment, the airlines in this country, all of a sudden 
American Airlines, United Airlines, Eastern Airlines, all of which 
would fly into Charleston, WV, on a regular basis on many flights a 
day, they were all gone within 3 months.
  I asked the players about how the amendment would affect fans in the 
State of West Virginia where we do not have major league baseball but 
we follow basically the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Cincinnati Reds, 
which are not big baseball markets in terms of megamarkets like New 
York and Los Angeles. Why would it not be if you were able to do 
whatever you wanted that you would simply go to Los Angeles or to the 
New York Yankees or to one of the rich teams and that there would be 
created more imbalance within our system?
  And two of the players answered I thought very honestly. One of them 
said: ``I cannot stand the east coast and the west coast, and I would 
not want to live there. I am from the heartland. I need to be with a 
team like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or Cleveland. I want to be 
in the heartland. That is where I am from. And my wife feels strongly 
about that. My kids feel strongly about that.''
  Another one said: ``You know when you are looking as a free agent at 
where you are going to go you also look at the lineups of the teams 
that you might be considering. And it works out that if you are 
thinking you want to go to the New York Yankees or the Los Angeles 
Dodgers or the San Francisco Giants you look at the outfield and find 
they are very strong outfields. You do not want to go there because you 
are not going to play there. What you naturally want to do is go to a 
place where you are going to play and inherent in that is the idea of 
strengthening of teams which are now weaker either because they are in 
small markets and cannot afford to pay as much or because they just 
happen to be weaker.''
  I was struck by the honesty both of their answers and the way in 
which they gave their answer, which was very credible. One of the 
players is a very fine pitcher who is in his waning years and does not 
have a lot to gain by this, but he just spoke of his feeling that 
baseball players ought to have the same rights as owners have. I share 
that view. And that is why I am here on the floor to say that.
  I think that the Metzenbaum-Hatch amendment is a limited, reasonable 
measure. I think it is something we ought to adopt.
  I do not think the amendment, in fact, particularly takes sides, 
because nobody can say what it is that the courts will do if both sides 
have recourse to the courts, which I think they ought to have. It 
simply grants baseball players the same rights enjoyed by the coal 
miners in my State, the steel workers in the Senator from Ohio's State, 
and workers everywhere in this country. It is only in baseball that we 
have this particular situation.
  Let us not be confronted by the idea of their salaries. I mean, we 
have that in show business, we have that on Wall Street in bonds and 
securities. People are often paid salaries that are out of proportion 
with what a reasonable person would say they ought to be paid. But the 
market decides that. The Congress cannot decide that.
  But equal access to the courts we can decide. I think it is time that 
we allow that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Metzenbaum-Hatch amendment.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, the debate here this afternoon has 
been very gratifying to the Senator from Ohio, because when I came over 
I did not know whether anybody else was going to come over or have any 
interest in it. I am pleased that so many have come forward and 
indicated their concern and their support.
  I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the Senator from 
Nebraska, who had come to the floor the other day when I brought up 
this same amendment and had indicated that at the appropriate time he 
would be prepared to move to table the amendment. He also indicated he 
opposed the amendment and would offer a tabling motion today if that 
were the case.
  Before my colleague from West Virginia leaves the floor, let me just 
tell him how much I appreciate his comments, his inquiry that he made 
into this subject, and his incisive thinking. As usual, he has 
indicated what a stalwart and great Member of this body he is and a 
great friend of mine. I appreciate it.
  The Senator from Nebraska was speaking and indicating his opposition 
to moving forward on this amendment at this point. But I thought that 
there were some particularly important words that he spoke. Let me 
repeat them. Said he:

       I am hopeful that before next March the owners and players 
     will come to their senses by ``slugging it out'' among 
     themselves. If not, we might then consider congressional 
     action, but not now.

  He went on to say:

       Mr. President, I emphasize again what I have said 
     previously, that I am willing to consider in January whether 
     we should lift the exemption baseball has from the antitrust 
     laws. The Senator from Ohio has made some good points.

  Now I thought that was important because this is a Member of this 
body who has been opposed to this amendment of Senator Hatch and 
myself, but has indicated that if the owners do not sit down with the 
players and work out something, then he is prepared to reevaluate and 
very possibly support the amendment.
  Let me assure my colleagues that unless Congress acts to eliminate 
baseball's antitrust immunity, the owners will continue to abuse the 
players, the cities and the fans.
  The owners do not give a damn. They are arrogant. They are rich. They 
think this is a great opportunity to show those players really what you 
can do if you have all the money in the world.
  The cities are losing $1.6 million for every game that is canceled. 
Arizona and Florida will lose hundreds of millions of dollars if spring 
training is canceled by this strike or there is an owners lockout.
  This problem will never be fixed until Congress revokes baseball's 
special antitrust privilege. If we do not do it today, we are putting 
the fans at risk of losing another season of baseball. Congress does 
not have to let that happen.
  To those who are so smug about the franchises which they presently 
have--and let me say that we have two in Ohio and I am very proud of 
them and very proud of the teams, Cleveland and Cincinnati--but those 
in baseball who are the owners, who are saying that maybe we will 
change from having major league baseball, maybe we will just go to 
professional baseball, well, let me say to those cities that now have 
franchises, maybe you will not be so happy when you get some little 
league-big league team instead of a big league-big league team.
  Now where are we at this moment? It is 2:30 on a Friday afternoon. A 
number of our colleagues have probably left for the weekend. My 
colleagues from the House have informed me that there is not enough 
time left in this session to move the baseball antitrust bill to a 
floor vote.
  They did yeoman work--yeoman work--by passing it out of committee 
yesterday, and I congratulate them.
  I must say that I am just totally delighted that so many of my 
colleagues in the Senate have joined me today and are committed to 
passing this legislation next year if the strike is not over.
  With the leadership of people like Senators Hatch, Simpson, Bradley, 
Thurmond, Graham, Mack, and Rockefeller, it is a pretty loud and clear 
message that there is not just one Member of this Senate that is 
determined to move forward, but there are many others who are 
determined to move forward, whether or not I am in this body.
  I am comfortable and feel good that my antitrust bill will be left in 
good hands. It will be left in the hands of those people who understand 
the implications of what management has done as far as the players are 
concerned.
  It is not a one-sided issue. The players are not all totally right, 
and I am not prepared to totally side with them with respect to all the 
issues.
  But I had a lifetime career of being involved in labor-management 
relations. I was a labor union lawyer, represented many unions. And I 
was a corporate executive in three companies, one on the New York Stock 
Exchange, one on the American, and one on the over-the-counter market. 
So I think I understand the forces that are involved with respect to 
management and labor.
  But I believe that it is unrealistic--no, I do not believe it is 
unrealistic, I know it is unrealistic to think that we can pass this 
amendment, particularly in view of the fact that the Senator from 
Texas, Senator Gramm, has indicated that he is prepared to offer a 
second-degree amendment to our amendment, the amendment of Senator 
Hatch and myself. And Senator Gramm's second-degree amendment, 
according to him, would overturn what he calls the Clinton Social 
Security tax.
  Now I have to tell you, I do not know what he is talking about. I 
asked a few other Members and they do not seem to know what he is 
talking about.
  But, suffice it to say that the Senator from Texas is in a position 
to do mischief and certainly tie up the Senate for a good many days 
ahead of us.
  The Senator from Utah, who has been my colleague in pushing this 
amendment on the floor, has indicated that he will take a leadership 
role with respect to the repeal of the antitrust exemption come next 
year. I have much confidence in him. He is an able Member of this body. 
He is a determined Member of this body, and he will fight for what he 
says he will.
  Under those circumstances, I would find it foolhardy on my part to go 
forward, in view of the fact that the Senator from Texas will be 
offering a second-degree amendment. I am also aware of the fact that 
the House is not prepared to complete action on this measure.
  I think the owners ought to get the message that Congress is prepared 
to act when we return in January if they are not prepared to sit down 
with the players and work out their differences.
  Under those circumstances, I withdraw the amendment and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I am pleased the Senator from Ohio has 
decided to withdraw this amendment. I think he has raised legitimate 
questions, questions that this Congress, perhaps, should at least 
examine. But I do not believe it is in the best interests of baseball 
or in the best interests of the U.S. Congress to move forward with a 
legislative solution to the impasse that currently exists between the 
owners and the players of major league baseball.
  We were all, of course, disappointed that the fundamental issues that 
divide the players and the owners were not resolved during the season 
so that the season could conclude. We were all disappointed that the 
World Series and the playoffs could not be conducted. And I think we 
all hope that this impasse can be resolved before the next season 
begins. But for Congress to rush to judgment in its waning days and 
hours of this 103d Congress and attempt to impose a legislative 
solution to what ought to be a collective-bargaining process, I think 
would be inappropriate and ill-advised. It perhaps could set precedents 
in terms of other labor disputes that we would come to regret.
  So the Senator from Ohio's decision to withdraw this particular 
amendment at this particular time I think is a prudent decision. I 
think it is with only the greatest of national interests at stake that 
the Congress should make an effort to settle what has otherwise been 
left to the parties involved. We should intervene only with great 
reluctance. We should intervene only when great national interests are 
at stake. And, while we all take pride in claiming baseball as a unique 
national interest, it is certainly not the kind of national interest 
that I believe justifies our intervention.
  Having said that, I hope the players, and particularly the owners 
involved in this dispute, would recognize that we are dealing with 
something almost unique; that is, the antitrust exemption granted to 
major league baseball. That, I believe, puts a special responsibility 
on the shoulders of the owners and the recipients of that antitrust 
exemption. And that requires they negotiate in good faith in attempting 
to settle this dispute.
  By the same token, I do not believe that under the emotion of the 
moment, in the waning hours of the Congress, that we should overturn 
something that has worked relatively well. Baseball, obviously, is in a 
season of major changes, as it has been over the past decade or decade 
and a half. But there are sound arguments on both sides of this 
question, and I, for one, want to hear those arguments and think them 
through carefully. I want to have a thorough process of examination if 
we are to move forward with a legislative remedy, or even consider a 
legislative remedy.
  Obviously, the best solution to all of this is for both sides to sit 
down in good faith and bargain together and resolve the issue before 
the next Congress convenes. The last thing I want to see and the last 
thing, I hope, that my colleagues would want to see, is the Congress 
plunged into the middle of a dispute that ought to be settled in a 
collective-bargaining way between the parties involved. I hope we do 
not come back in January faced with this issue and involve ourselves in 
this process. We have some months ahead now in order to settle this. It 
is clear we are not going to salvage this season. Let us hope the 
parties involved can, in their own interests but particularly in the 
interests of fans all across this country, resolve this matter in an 
equitable way. Frankly, there is enough money to go around to satisfy 
both sides.
  We do need to be cognizant of the fact that large markets and small 
markets create a major problem for major league baseball and that there 
has to be some equity between the clubs in order to promote, in the 
long run, not only a competitive situation within the leagues, but also 
to provide some protection for the smaller markets who, I believe, 
deserve a chance to have a baseball club represent their community and 
with some assurance that there will be stability in the process.
  So, having said that just very briefly, deliberately trying not to 
get involved in the issues themselves, let me thank the Senator from 
Ohio for his willingness to withdraw this amendment. Let us just hope 
we can urge, effectively, both sides of this issue to resolve their 
differences so that at the beginning of spring training in February 
1995, we will once again hear two of the most important and inspiring 
words in the American system: Play ball.
  I yield the floor, and, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________