[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H981-H982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE IMPACT OF GOVERNMENTAL DEFAULT, AND URGING SUPPORT FOR THE FAN
FREEDOM AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, before my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio,
leaves the floor, I want to shock him, if I can get his attention. If I
can get the gentleman's attention, I want to shock him with the
disclosure that I, in fact, am in at least partial agreement with the
comments that he just made regarding the debt service, or, I am sorry,
the debt ceiling and the extension of the debt ceiling. I would
certainly not characterize the shutdown of the Government as, first of
all, having been the responsibility of this Congress, but was, in fact,
the responsibility of the President.
I also think that the impact of a shutdown of the Federal Government
is very, very different from the impact of a default on the full faith
and creditworthiness of the U.S. Government. But notwithstanding those
differences I, in fact, agree with you that the creditworthiness of our
country should not be tampered with and that, in fact, the impact that
such a thing might have would be far-reaching.
Mr. Speaker, I had not specifically thought about the impact it would
have on veterans, but you can be darned sure that it would have a
tremendous impact on every single person who holds any kind of
obligation bearing interest on any debt in this country, including
mortgages, including car loans, including student loans, et cetera, et
cetera. Nobody knows this better than somebody from northeastern Ohio,
where we were thrown into a default situation some two decades ago in
the city of Cleveland.
And not only is there an economic consequence from this, but there is
also a psychological stigma. It is a stigma that we have suffered under
for some time, and only recently dug ourselves out of in the past 5 or
so years.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Cleveland, Ohio. When he talks about the prospective default, never
before have I heard political leaders in this country that are
responsible leaders with titles like Speaker of the House and majority
leader of the House make threats about default similar to the threats
that were made about closing the Government down.
You can say it was the President's fault that the Government shut
down, but the fact is it was written on the sleeve of the Speaker and
lots of other leaders that ``If we do not get what we want, we are
going to shut the Government down. If we do not get what we want, we
are going to force a default.'' That kind of discussion, those kinds of
statements, send all kinds of uncertainties and tremors through the
financial markets, something that is not good for the country,
something that makes the United States look weak rather than strong,
something that, frankly, scares a lot of people in this country.
Mr. HOKE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, just to recap, and we will
agree to disagree, but I really reject your characterization of the
reason that we got to the situation we got to. It clearly was a result
of the President's absolute refusal to negotiate in good faith what he
had said he would, in fact, negotiate in good faith. I think it
probably suffices to say that we will just disagree on that.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, I think that there are real consequences
that have to be thought about in a very, and I only have a couple more
minutes, and I actually did not want to talk about this, I wanted to
talk about something completely different, so I am not going
[[Page H982]]
to yield any more time, but I do agree at least in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about this morning for the probably
3 minutes that I have remaining is football, good, old National
Football League football.
I think it is particularly appropriate, since the Superbowl was just
on Sunday, to remind my colleagues that it was in 1961 that Mr. Pete
Rozelle came to the U.S. Congress and he asked this Congress to give a
specific benefit not only to the NFL but also to the NBA, to the NHL,
and to major league baseball, with an exemption from antitrust laws
that would allow them to bundle all of their broadcasting rights and
take them from each city and put them in one package and sell them.
This resulted in a bill called the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.
It was passed in the House, it was passed in the Senate, it was signed
into law by the President. I can assure you this was not something
instigated by the House and Senate, I can assure you it was instigated
by the NFL and other pro leagues.
What did they ask for? What was it they were asking for? What would
they get in return? They said if they got this, it would allow them to
be financially stable. What they would do in return is they would
protect communities and they would protect fans.
I would ask the question, Mr. Speaker, do you think that fans and
communities have, in fact, been protected over the past 35 years by the
NFL, or in fact, have they taken this market power that came as the
result of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and have they used it as
a bludgeon to exploit, extort, and legally blackmail cities to compete
against each other in order to not lose their franchise?
The 1961 act, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was followed by the 1966 act,
and the 1966 act is the act of Congress that specifically, and Mr.
Speaker, I see I am out of time, but I want to take more time later to
explain the problem we have here to my colleagues, and then to ask for
their support for the Fan Freedom and Community Protection Act that now
has 40 cosponsors in the House, and to support that.
____________________