[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S1025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE BASEBALL STRIKE

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition while there is 
a lull in the action on the pending legislation to talk for a few 
minutes about the pending issues before the Judiciary Committee on 
possible legislation regarding the antitrust exception which might have 
an impact on the current baseball strike.
  I believe that it is highly unlikely--virtually impossible--for the 
Congress of the United States to act on an antitrust exemption to have 
any meaningful impact on the pending strike and, therefore, urge in the 
strongest possible terms that both parties return to the negotiating 
table to work in a collective bargaining sense to end the strike and 
bring baseball to the playing field this spring.
  I have had long reservations about the antitrust exemption as it 
applies to baseball, as it applies to other major sports, like 
football, which has an antitrust exemption for revenue sharing, and 
participated more than a decade ago, in 1982, in extensive hearings 
when the Los Angeles Raiders, then the Oakland Raiders, were proposing 
a move. And those hearings were very important and raised some of the 
same considerations which are now pending on the baseball strike.
  As we have moved forward in the consideration of the complex issues 
on the antitrust exemption, my view has been to retain the exemption as 
it impacts on the Pirates, which are a major factor in Pittsburgh, and 
a major constituent interest of mine. If we eliminate the antitrust 
exemption, we will have bedlam with respect to franchise changes. I 
notice my colleague Senator Gorton nodding in agreement because of the 
impact on the Seattle baseball team.
  One thing is certain, Mr. President, and that is that it is highly 
unlikely, I am almost certain, that Congress is going to act with any 
speed, and I think that Congress should not act, should not get 
involved in the midst of a labor dispute, where there are very, very 
serious issues, to try to affect the outcome of that labor dispute. At 
the present time, the Judiciary Committee is totally involved in the 
consideration of the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. 
And on the Senate floor we are involved in very complex legislation on 
taking away mandates by the Federal Government which are not paid for. 
There is a very, very heavy agenda on economic issues, budget issues, 
trying to reduce the size of Government, trying to reduce spending, and 
the consideration of tax cuts, so that far behind on the back burner is 
this issue of changing the antitrust exemption.
  My comments this morning are prompted, in part, by this banner 
headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning: ``Phillies 
President Blasts Union, Hinting at Player Defections.''
  Bill Giles is president of the Philadelphia Phillies, and he is a 
very, very mild-mannered man. I cannot remember a headline on Bill 
Giles speaking out in such emphatic terms. What he is saying bears 
directly on my comments, where he makes the statement that ``The union 
has spent most of their energy in Washington trying to do away with our 
antitrust exemption instead of negotiating and trying to grow the 
game.''
  I have been in frequent contact with Mr. Don Fehr, head of the union, 
asking him what help I could be or what help the Senate could be in a 
constructive way in trying to bring the strike to a close. I first made 
that contact with Mr. Fehr last summer before the strike started on 
August 12. And at the same time period, I talked to the acting 
commissioner, Bud Selig, and the officials of both the Philadelphia 
Phillies and Pittsburgh Pirates, my two home State teams, to see what 
help we could be. The antitrust exemption came up briefly last fall on 
the Judiciary Committee calendar, and it was voted down, I think, 
largely because of a sense that the Congress and the Senate should not 
get involved in a pending labor dispute. The issue in Pittsburgh is 
especially touchy at the present time because the Pittsburgh Pirates 
are up for sale, and the Pirates have been kept in Pittsburgh by a 
consortium of hometown business people who have bought the Pirates, to 
keep it in Pittsburgh. That is a difficult matter because the Pirates 
are losing so much money, which is a source of the controversy today 
which has led to the strike. The Pirates have had a prospective buyer, 
John Rigas, of Coudersport, PA. I have been trying to be helpful in 
meeting with officials of the Pittsburgh Pirates to see if that sale 
could be effectuated. That sale is going to be held up because of the 
uncertainty of what is going to happen in the strike and to the 
antitrust exemption.
  Obviously, I speak as only one Senator, one member of the Judiciary 
Committee. I think that given the complexity of the Judiciary Committee 
calendar, and given the complexity of the Senate calendar, and the 
complexity of the House calendar, it is as close to a certainty as 
anything can be that there is not going to be legislation coming out of 
the Congress between now and April on the antitrust exemption. There 
are too many things ahead of it. If it did come to the floor, I think 
many would agree with my position that the Congress ought not to 
intervene to try to alter--ought not to change the level playing field. 
That is an expression we use very frequently about our debates on many 
subjects, but it is certainly applicable not to change the level 
playing field when we talk to the baseball effort.
  What the Phillies' president has had to say on one end of my State, 
and what is happening with the Pirates at the other end of my State, 
trying to sell the team to keep it in Pittsburgh, I hope that the 
parties will go back to the bargaining table and will settle the 
dispute so that we can have baseball this spring, and not to look to 
the Congress to try to intervene, which is not our place and is so 
highly unlikely on the current state of the record. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________