[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S492-S496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Glenn):
  S. 1529 A bill to provide for the Federal treatment of certain 
relocation 

[[Page S493]]
National Football League franchises, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          the team relocation taxpayers protection act of 1996

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
distinguished colleague from Ohio, Senator John Glenn, legislation that 
will get U.S. taxpayers out of the business of subsidizing NFL 
franchise moves.
  It is clear by now that these franchise moves have a very substantial 
impact not only on communities, on the economy, but also, frankly, on 
the future of professional sports.
  Mr. President, I have already on this floor in days past addressed at 
length the question of the proposed move of the Cleveland Browns to 
Baltimore. I believe, as do many Ohioans--indeed, as do many 
Americans--that this move is simply wrong. I have discussed on this 
floor the great tradition of the Browns, the love the people of 
Cleveland and the people of Ohio have for the Browns.
  Candidly, whether you care about the Browns or do not, whether you 
are a sports fan or not a sports fan, you and every taxpayer are paying 
for this move--every taxpayer in the entire country. Whether you live 
in Cleveland, OH, or Los Angeles, CA, the Federal Government is 
reaching into your pocket to pay for this move. I believe the taxpayers 
will be shocked to know this, and they should be. The sports fan who 
have followed all the back and forth of this move, very few of them are 
aware today as I speak from the Senate floor that the Federal 
Government, is subsidizing this purported move by $36 million--$36 
million of taxpayers' money.
  That provides the occasion and the rational and the public policy 
reason for the legislation Senator Glenn and I are introducing today. 
Quite frankly, I can see no moral justification for taxpayers, for the 
people of Cleveland or anywhere else to reward a sports team with 
public money to assist that team in breaking its word and deserting the 
community. I believe that to do this is unconscionable and is simply 
wrong.
  Let me put it in real terms. To force a family in Parma, OH, or 
Euclid, or in Cleveland, or in Columbus, OH, to take there tax dollars, 
to send them to Washington and to have Washington turn around and 
subsidize Baltimore, MD, to steal the team from the Browns and to do it 
with $36 million in Federal taxpayers' money makes absolutely no sense. 
I believe that we must stop the insanity. We must act to get the 
Government out of this subsidy business.
  Mr. President, today, more and more public money is being used to 
support professional football franchises. Communities are making 
significant public investments to lure and keep NFL teams in there 
area. In each one of these cases, in return for the public investment, 
teams are agreeing to stay in the community for a specifically defined 
period of time. There is a deal made. The local community will offer 
financial incentives, will support the team, and in return the owner 
agrees to stay in that community during the term of the lease. It is 
fairly simple. Unfortunately, however, some franchises are breaking 
their part of the deal by seeking to relocate before the term of the 
deal has expired, before the lease is over.
  That is why I am introducing legislation that will get the Federal 
taxpayer out of the business of subsidizing this particular kind of 
relocation. The enactment of this bill will result, frankly, in less 
Government involvement in professional sports, not more. Under the 
current system, when a city or State wants to raise funds to build a 
stadium and thereby secure a professional team, it authorizes a 
governmental entity such as a stadium authority to issue bonds. In 
other words, to sell the debt to anyone who wants to buy the debt. The 
stadium authority can then use the proceeds to build the stadium and 
the people who have invested pay no tax on the interest they earn--tax-
free bonds. The tax exemption allows the stadium authority to pay lower 
interest rates and thus keep more money for itself. They can build the 
stadium at less of a cost--in this particular case in Baltimore it is 
$36 million less cost. That is the difference between issuing the 
bonds, building the stadium with taxable bonds versus building that 
stadium with nontaxable bonds.

  Mr. President, because the bondholder does not pay Federal tax on 
interest, the interest amounts to a Federal subsidy for stadium 
authority bondholders. For example, in the case of the Browns move, 
this subsidy is worth, as I have stated, $36 million to the Browns.
  The legislation that Senator Glenn and I are introducing today will 
prohibit the use of these Federal subsidies in bond deals associated 
with the relocation of an NFL team, when that team breaks an existing 
deal with the community that has supported the team. In short, new 
Federal subsidies under this bill cannot be used to help a team violate 
an existing commitment where that commitment includes public money.
  The bill's criteria are straightforward. There are five separate 
criteria and each one of these has to be met before our bill applies: 
First, if the franchise is currently in a public facility; second, if 
the proposed relocation will be to a new public facility; third, if fan 
support in the current location, the current team's local area--in this 
case, Cleveland--has been at least 75 percent of stadium capacity in 
the preceding season; fourth, if the current lease with the public 
entity has not expired--in other words, they are breaking the lease; 
and fifth, if asked, voters in the current jurisdiction have approved 
the use of further tax dollars to improve the current facility or to 
build a new one.
  If all five of these criteria apply, then our bill provides as 
follows: No expenditure of Federal funds including grants, awards, 
loans, guarantees, tax credits, exemptions, allowances or any use of 
Federal tax-exempt financing may be used to benefit the franchise 
seeking to relocate.
  In short, Mr. President, if you own a football team and you want to 
break your lease and the local community has done everything it can to 
support the team, you can do it; Congress will not stop you, not under 
this bill, but--but--the Federal taxpayers will not help you do it. 
They will not encourage you with a subsidy to do it. The Federal 
taxpayers will not subsidize your breach of faith. That is the message 
that the bill will send to NFL owners. If you want to go build your own 
stadium, you can do that, too, but the Federal taxpayers will not help 
you do it. If you want to rely only on State, local dollars, not 
Federal dollars, you can do that, too, but Federal taxpayers simply 
will not help you do it. If you want to break a deal in the community 
and the community you are leaving has done everything it can to keep 
its part of the bargain, then the Federal taxpayer will not get 
involved.
  Mr. President, it is important to discuss this issue in the context 
of everything else that is occurring today and this past year in 
Washington. In the Senate, we have been consumed with decisions on 
Federal spending. How can we slow the rate of growth of spending? What 
Federal budget should we pass? How can we balance the Federal budget? 
We are making very tough decisions on health care for poor people, 
welfare reform, Medicare, Medicaid, the education of our youth.
  I do not need to tell anyone in this Chamber that these are very 
difficult decisions, but here is an easy decision. As I stated earlier, 
in just this case, the case of the Browns purported move to Baltimore, 
it is estimated that the Federal tax subsidy is $36 million. That is 
over and above any local taxpayer subsidy--$36 million of Federal tax 
money, $36 million that will benefit one professional sports franchise.
  The American people want to know what we mean by corporate welfare. 
This, Mr. President, is corporate welfare. This is what we mean. Paying 
the Browns $36 million of Federal money is, simply, morally wrong.
  For me, the question is, under our serious budget constraints, what 
in the world justifies taking $36 million from taxpayers, including the 
ones in Cleveland whose trust with the Browns has been broken, to pay 
for this move? Absolutely nothing justifies it.
  Mr. President, I have spoken at length regarding the impact of sports 
franchise relocation on the communities that love their teams. I have 
mentioned the pride that the people of Cleveland, the people of all of 
Ohio have in the Browns. I have discussed the unbroken bonds of 
affection that stretch from the days after the Second 

[[Page S494]]
World War, when the Browns started playing in Cleveland, to today's 
fans who, frankly, still cannot believe that the Browns are trying to 
leave town. I will not replow that field here except to say simply 
this: Loyalty counts. Loyalty is not transferable.
  The Cleveland story is very important precisely because the Browns 
are the heart and soul of Cleveland and because the people of Cleveland 
have done all they can to save the Browns. The Cleveland situation is, 
Mr. President, the worst-case scenario. If the Browns can leave 
Cleveland, any team can leave any town any time.
  This was an ad that was paid for by Browns fans that appeared in USA 
Today. I think it pretty much summarizes the situation. If this can 
happen in Cleveland, Mr. President, this can happen to any team, to any 
sports fans in the country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in the last several weeks we have seen 
much activity surrounding the Browns' move to Baltimore. The State of 
Maryland has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The city of 
Cleveland sued the Browns. The city of Cleveland also sued the city of 
Baltimore. Who knows, there may be more lawsuits coming.
  My bill does one very important thing: It gets the American taxpayer 
out of the middle of all this. Whatever the economic factors that cause 
teams to go and to come, whatever the circumstances that lead city to 
sue city, teams to sue teams, and the league to sue teams and 
individuals, the American taxpayer should be left out of it. The 
taxpayers' burden is high enough. It is wrong to make the taxpayers 
pay.
  My bill does not seek to manage the NFL team relocation process. It 
does not intend to have more regulation of the NFL. But it does say 
that the Federal Government will not help them leave and that the 
Federal taxpayers will not subsidize these moves.
  Mr. President, I considered naming my bill after our beloved 
``Dawgs'' and the hard-core Browns fans who are represented in this 
particular ad. You see in the ad the ``Big Dawg,'' who is certainly 
famous in Cleveland, around the country, a great fan looking at this 
empty stadium after the last home game. I considered naming my bill 
after the Dawgs, and the Dawgs, of course, is, in this case, spelled d-
a-w-g-s. In this case, the Dawgs would stand for ``don't allow welfare 
for greedy sports owners.''
  While that title would express very accurately the deepest feelings 
of the people of Ohio, I have decided on a title that would tell all 
Americans why they should support this particular bill. I have called 
the bill the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act. The bill is 
called the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act.
  If you are a taxpayer and you think we have better things to spend 
Federal money on than corporate greed, you should support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
bill, the Dawgs bill, the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act, be 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to the purpose for 
which I have sought recognition, I would like to express my support for 
the proposition outlined by the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I 
believe that Baltimore ought to have a football team, and that is the 
Colts. I think that Indianapolis is entitled to an expansion team.
  I believe that Senator DeWine has articulated the issue cogently and 
forcefully on a travesty which is being perpetrated on many American 
cities and on many American taxpayers. There is really a situation 
where sports teams are entrusted with a public interest.
  The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles was the 
start of pirating in America of sports franchises and should never have 
been allowed, accompanied by the movement of the Giants from New York 
to San Francisco.
  We have seen that matter proliferate. It is hard to understand why 
the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore have to be in a bidding 
contest, which, as I understand it, approximates some $200 billion to 
bring a football team to Baltimore. Certainly Baltimore ought to have a 
football team, and it ought to be the Colts, which moved out of 
Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis.
  American has a love affair with sports. I just came from a brief 
sporting event in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, where she 
and Senator Santorum and I articulated a bet on the Super Bowl game. If 
you cannot see this on C-SPAN 2, this is an unusual tie for me to wear. 
It is a Steelers tie.
  I am going to be going to the Super Bowl, weather permitting and 
Senate schedule permitting. Who knows, we may be in session Sunday the 
way things are going. But I have participated in America's love affair 
with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, KS, reading the box 
scores from the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and 
passion for baseball.
  I have been attending the Phillies games and the Eagles games, and 
when I can, in Pittsburgh, the Pirates games and the Steeler games 
because of my love of the sport. It is tremendously exciting.
  Just basically, it is unfair for the Browns--I was about to say the 
Indians--for the Browns to be taken out of Cleveland. I hope we can do 
something about it. I hope that with the complications of free agency 
and franchise removal, salary caps and revenue sharing, that we will be 
able to address this matter in a sane way in the Congress.
  Baseball enjoys an antitrust exemption. Football enjoys a limited 
antitrust exemption from revenue sharing for television. I believe 
those sports are under an obligation to work out the rules so that the 
teams do not get themselves pirated from one city to another.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1529

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Team Relocation Taxpayer 
     Protection Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RELOCATING NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE 
                   FRANCHISES.

       (a) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--
       (1) Findings.--The Congress finds that the conduct of a 
     National Football League franchise occurs in interstate 
     commerce and has a substantial effect on interstate commerce 
     and that when the facts and circumstances described in 
     subsection (c)(1) are combined, there arises substantial 
     potential for harmful effects on interstate commerce.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to deter such 
     harmful effects.
       (3) No preemption of state or local actions.--Such other 
     actions as may be taken by a State or local governmental unit 
     or entity referred to in subsection (c)(1)(A) to address the 
     facts and circumstances described in subsection (c)(1) are 
     not preempted by this section and do not burden interstate 
     commerce.
       (b) Federal Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law--
       (1) any entity or person described in paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of subsection (c)--
       (A) may not benefit, directly or indirectly, from any 
     expenditure of Federal funds, and
       (B) shall not be allowed any Federal tax exclusion, 
     deduction, credit, exemption, or allowance,

     in connection with or in any way related to the relocation of 
     a National Football League franchise of an entity or person 
     described in subsection (c)(1); and
       (2) the interest paid or accrued on any bond, any portion 
     of the proceeds of which is used or is to be used to provide 
     facilities that are used or are to be used in whole or in 
     part by any entity or person described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (c), shall not be exempt from any Federal 
     tax.
       (c) Entity or Person Described.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) General description.--An entity or person is described 
     in this paragraph if--
       (A) the entity or person has conducted regular season home 
     football games through ownership of a franchise in the 
     National Football League in facilities--
       (i) which are owned, directly or indirectly, by a State or 
     local governmental unit or entity, or
       (ii) which are financed by a Federal, State, or local 
     governmental unit or entity;
       (B) the entity or person has publicly announced that such 
     entity or person has the intention to conduct such football 
     games outside the facilities described in subparagraph (A) 
     before the expiration of the period during which such 
     governmental unit or entity has authorized the entity or 
     person to use such facilities;
       (C) the entity or person has publicly announced that such 
     entity or person has the 

[[Page S495]]
     intention to conduct such football games in facilities--
       (i) to be owned, directly or indirectly, by a State or 
     local governmental unit or entity, or
       (ii) to be financed by a Federal, State, or local 
     governmental unit or entity;
       (D) in the National Football League season preceding the 
     announcement of the intention of the entity or person to 
     relocate, attendance at the regular season home football 
     games of such entity or person averaged at least 75 percent 
     of normal capacity as previously published by the National 
     Football League with respect to such season; and
       (E) within the period of 1 year before or after such 
     announcement by the entity or person, an election or 
     referendum has been held by the State or local governmental 
     unit in which the facilities described in subparagraph (A) 
     are located and the voters have approved a tax increase or 
     extension of a tax, or have failed to repeal any such tax 
     increase or extension, intended by such governmental unit to 
     be used as part of the financing for improved facilities or 
     new facilities for such football games of such entity or 
     person.
       (2) Related person.--
       (A) In general.--An entity or person is described in this 
     paragraph if such entity or person is a related person to an 
     entity or person described in paragraph (1).
       (B) Application of certain rules.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a person or entity shall be treated as a related 
     person to an entity or person described in paragraph (1) if--
       (i) under the terms of section 144(a)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, such person or entity would be treated 
     as a related person to an entity or person described in 
     paragraph (1), or
       (ii) such person or entity is a successor in interest to an 
     entity or person described in paragraph (1) or to any related 
     person.
       (C) Rules regarding certain relationships.--In determining 
     whether a person or entity is a related person to an entity 
     or person described in paragraph (1), the rules of sections 
     144(a)(3), 267, 707(b), and 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 shall be applied--
       (i) by substituting ``at least 25 percent'' for ``more than 
     50 percent'' each place it appears therein and by determining 
     such percentage on the basis of the highest percentage of the 
     stock or other indices of ownership that any person or entity 
     has owned directly or indirectly at any time after December 
     31, 1991,
       (ii) by treating a person's step-children or step-
     grandchildren as the person's natural children or 
     grandchildren, and
       (iii) by treating all children and step-children of such 
     person as if they have not attained the age of 21 years.
       (d) Bankruptcy Venue.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, including titles 11 and 28 of the United States Code, 
     any case under such title 11 with respect to an entity or 
     person described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) 
     may be commenced only in the district court for the judicial 
     district in which the principal place of business in the 
     United States of such entity or person has been located 
     during the greatest part of the 3-year period immediately 
     preceding the commencement of such case.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to--
       (1) any expenditure of Federal funds on or after the date 
     of the introduction of this Act,
       (2) any case commenced under title 11, United States Code, 
     after November 1, 1995, and
       (3) any Federal tax exclusion, deduction, credit, 
     exemption, or allowance for any taxable period ending after 
     December 31, 1994.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation being offered by my colleague from Ohio. We have worked 
together very closely on the whole issue of professional sports team 
relocation. It should come as no surprise this is an issue that hits 
home for the people of our States.
  Organized, professional sports have always played a prominent role in 
American life. Individuals, cities, States, and even the entire nation 
have come together and rallied around sports teams. And professional 
sports teams have helped local economies rally and revitalized our 
inner cities, creating whole new sectors of economic opportunity.
  This week, many Americans' eyes are on Tempe, AR, where the Dallas 
Cowboys will take on the Pittsburgh Steelers to determine who will win 
a fifth NFL championship. Think of some of the other major sports 
events that have riveted the nation's attention over the past months.
  How about those Cleveland Indians and their amazing season which 
culminated in a World Series appearance?
  Who hasn't heard all the talk this winter about the return of Michael 
Jordan and the Chicago Bulls' dominance of the NBA.
  And who can forget the elation we all felt watching Cal Ripken, Jr., 
take his historic lap around Camden Yards?
  What can be more American, or says more about our country, than 
stories such as these? Or how we bask in a team's victories, 
commiserate over the losses, and cheer exciting and dramatic exploits 
on the field or on the court?
  But there is a story that overshadows these and threatens this 
spirit, that is community pride. Of course, I am speaking of team 
relocation. And the relocation which has shocked the nation involves 
the Cleveland Browns. Let me tell you a little about Cleveland and the 
Browns.
  The Cleveland Browns have been a symbol of undying and unwavering fan 
support. Week after week, 70,000 people cram into Lakefront Memorial 
Stadium to root on the Browns. The ``Dawg Pound'' is a national symbol 
of fan support. Through 3-13 seasons, 13-3 season, exciting play-off 
victories, demoralizing play-off defeats, Browns fans have been through 
it all and still support their team.
  There's no talk of getting on or off a bandwagon in Cleveland--every 
fan is there, through thick and thin.
  That's what makes the announcement that the Browns intend to desert 
their home of 50 years the toughest to take. The Browns have enjoyed 
backing from generations of fans, only to be told that it doesn't 
matter.
  Well, it does matter. It matters to the season ticket holder who has 
been going to games for 30 years. It matters to the worker who sells 
hot dogs at the stadium. It matters to businesses selling Browns t-
shirts, hats, and other paraphernalia. It matters to restaurants and 
hotels that cater to fans and players. It matters to those raised as 
Browns fans looking forward to passing along that tradition.
  It should matter to every football, baseball, hockey, and basketball 
fan across the country, because if it can happen to Cleveland, it can 
happen to you.
  And it should matter to every single taxpayer in America who are 
going to end up footing part of the bill for the Browns' move and 
others as relocation fever sweeps the country. It's shocking, but 
Federal tax subsidies are going to help ease the cost of the Cleveland 
Browns' relocation. It absolutely makes no sense that we should allow 
taxpayer dollars to back up this kind of deal.
  Why should taxpayers in Cleveland, or any American city, help foot 
the tab for their local team to pull stakes and move to another city? 
Talk about adding insult to injury. That's why I am pleased to join my 
colleague from Ohio today in introducing this legislation.
  Let me stress that this legislation does not put an all-out ban on 
the use of public money in such situations. In fact, it is a very 
narrowly tailored bill which says: if a team already took advantage of 
tax dollars to build its existing stadium; and there has been 
tremendous fan loyalty and support; and voters in the current 
jurisdiction have approved of the means to improve the team's current 
facility or build a new one; and the team's current lease has not 
expired; then, we're not going to allow Federal tax dollars to 
subsidize the move.
  I think that's pretty reasonable. We shouldn't be in the business of 
giving Federal tax subsidies to a team that already received the 
benefit of public money to build their existing stadium, that intends 
to turn its back on loyal fans and a community commitment to build or 
improve their stadium, and a team that has broken its lease--that team 
should not receive a Federal tax subsidy.
  Right now, Washington is embroiled in a very nasty and partisan 
debate about how our Government can reach a balanced budget. One of the 
key issues in this debate centers on tax cuts--who should get them, who 
shouldn't benefit.
  Well, I put to my colleagues the question: should tax breaks go to 
professional sports teams when they turn their back on an ironclad 
commitment that is already backed by a Federal subsidy? I'm sure my 
colleagues and all Americans know the answer to that question.
  The Senate has a unique opportunity to start putting an end to the 
chaos in professional sports. The bill we are introducing today is the 
second step in that effort. I intend to continue pushing our Fans 
Rights Act through Congress. We still need to grant leagues a limited 
anti-trust exemption related to team transfers. I am pleased that many 
of the witnesses at a Judiciary Committee yesterday agreed with this 

[[Page S496]]
point. I hope there is Senate action on that bill, and the one we are 
introducing today, early this season.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from 
Ohio on this important legislation. It will provide a solution to a 
serious, yet limited, problem. I urge all Senators to support this 
bill.
                                 ______