[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5191-S5193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 1766. A bill to amend the Utah School and Lands Improvement Act of
1993 to provide for lands for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the goshute indian reservation boundary adjustment act of 1996
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to amend the 1993
Utah School and Lands Improvement Act, Public Law 103-93. The purpose
of this legislation is to correct boundary problems on the Goshute
Indian Reservation in Utah.
The Goshute Tribe is a federally recognized tribe whose reservation
is located on the western border of Utah. Approximately one-half of the
Goshute Reservation is in Utah, the other half is in Nevada. This
legislation would transfer about 8,000 acres of state land to the Tribe
along with about 400 acres of public land administered by the BLM.
The public law to be amended by this bill was enacted without
opposition in 1993. This law transferred approximately 200,000 acres of
Utah state lands to the federal government with the understanding that
the federal government would compensate the state in an amount equal to
the appraised value of the transferred land. When the law was passed,
it was done so with the understanding that state lands located within
the reservation boundaries of both the Navajo and Goshute Tribes would
be transferred to the United States to be held in trust for the
respective tribes.
At that time, the Goshute tribe requested that the Utah delegation
address a boundary issue on the reservation. After some initial
negotiation, the Tribe agreed to withdraw their request to address the
boundary issue, contingent upon a commitment that we would resolve the
issue at a later date. Mr. President, I want to follow through on that
commitment now.
The ``southern boundary issue'' refers to a block of land which
consists of 8,000 acres in a very irregular shape. Because of the
remoteness and the configuration of the tract of land, it is almost
impossible to properly manage and as a result, there have been several
instances of poaching and trespassing. This legislation seeks to create
a much clearer and more definitive boundary. The lands would be held in
trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Goshute Tribe,
which with the help of the BIA will be able to regulate grazing and
other uses in the area. The Tribe has agreed to be responsible for the
cost of appraisal of the additional lands in the bill. This is quite a
commitment, given the limited resources of the Tribe. I appreciate
their willingness to assume such a commitment.
The legislation is supported by the State of Utah, Juab County, and
the Board of Trustees of the School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration. From what I understand, the Department of Interior does
not oppose the bill. Perhaps most surprisingly, the Utah Wilderness
Coalition does not oppose it either. The Goshute Tribe has met at
length with representatives from this very vocal group and have
obtained their support.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support me in this effort to
assist the Goshute Tribe in creating a more manageable border to their
reservation.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1767. A bill to harmonize the application of the antitrust laws to
professional sports, and for other purposes.
the professional sports protection act
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I like almost all Americans, am a fan of
professional sports. We all enjoy following the competition on the
field and on the hardwood and watching the performances of our favorite
players. Even as I make this statement today, my fingers are crossed
for the Utah Jazz in this evening's playoff game.
But professional sports is not just a game, it is a business, and it
is the future of professional sports as a business that my bill, the
Professional Sports Protection Act, seeks to address. I am afraid that
the current rash of franchise relocations is only the symptom of larger
economic trends in professional sports. If these trends are allowed to
continue, we will see the same fan disaffection that has occurred in
Major League baseball, with the result that professional sports--one of
our growing national industries--will suffer.
My bill will protect professional sports by permitting the leagues--
the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and
the National Hockey League--to review and, if necessary block,
franchise relocation decisions. Under some interpretations of the
antitrust laws, the professional sports leagues may be liable for
treble damages for blocking franchise relocations. This prevents
leagues from preventing moves that are not in the best long-term
economic interests of the sport because they have the threat of
billions of dollars in damages hanging over them.
[[Page S5192]]
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am concerned about sports
not just because I am a sports fan, but because I want to make sure
that the antitrust laws are properly applied to professional sports--
just as they should be to any other business--to ensure healthy
competition and economic growth. I am concerned that the current
ambiguous application of the antitrust laws to franchise relocation
decisions actually may suppress the healthy competition and economic
growth that has characterized professional sports in our nation. My
bill will permit leagues to make these franchise relocation decisions--
which seem to me to be, in this case, the decisions of a single joint
venture rather than of economic competitors--without fear of antitrust
liability.
I understand that some fear that the leagues might use their
antitrust immunity in franchise relocation as leverage in other,
unrelated areas. Some think that the leagues might block a franchise
move unless the franchise favors certain policies and decisions in,
say, revenue sharing. I have addressed this concern by providing for
specific standards that leagues are to consider when reviewing a
franchise move. If a league considers a factor that is unrelated to the
franchise move, then it will be in violation of the law, and it will
not receive antitrust protection. My bill also provides for judicial
review of these decisions, with proper deference given to the league's
business decisions, to ensure that the league has not used the
antitrust immunity to abuse its authority.
Let me be clear that this is a narrow bill. It does not contain
several provisions that were included in a House bill reported out of
the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. In particular, I am
opposed to any provisions that would force the sports league to create
new expansion franchises to replace teams that relocate. I do not
believe that the Federal Government should nationalize professional
sports, and I do not believe that it is in the national interest to
take such intrusive steps into the internal operations of an industry
such as professional sports. My bill intends only to codify what I
believe is the proper interpretation of existing antitrust law: that
franchise relocation decisions are not violations of the antitrust
laws, but instead are the decisions of team owners who are
collaborating in the joint venture of a sports league.
Some might question why Congress needs to turn to this subject.
Shouldn't we concern ourselves in Congress with more important matters?
Professional sports is important to our nation. According to some
estimates, the professional sports leagues, in the form of Major League
Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and
the National Basketball Association, generate more than $5 billion in
annual revenues in the United States. There are literally tens of
thousands of people whose jobs depend on professional sports.
Professional sports is one of America's fastest growing industries,
with numerous teams being established in new cities, both in the United
States and overseas. Professional sports also generates billions of
dollars in revenue for other industries, such as
advertising, telecommunications, construction, and sports equipment.
And let us not forget the fun and pleasure healthy professional sports
leagues bring to millions of fans both in America and abroad.
But the improper application of Federal antitrust law to franchise
relocation may end the rapid economic growth in professional sports. I
have held hearings on this issue, as has my good friend and colleague,
Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. According to the league officials,
sports agents and businessmen, economists and law professors who
testified, a potentially destructive economic dynamic is behind the
recent spate of team moves. In order to win games, teams must hire the
best players. Because of the salary cap structure in football, for
example, the only way to attract the top players is to offer large
bonuses and financial incentives. The only way some teams feel they can
pay these salaries is to move to new cities, in return for generous
stadium revenues and tax packages. This financial imperative is fed by
the desire of new, up and coming cities that want the prestige and the
financial benefits of having a major sports franchise located in their
area. This is ironic because some economic studies indicate that major
league teams do not bring a significant economic benefit to their new
cities.
Congress must address this dynamic because it will injure interests
of the industry and of the fans. I was convinced during my hearings
that short-sighted franchise relocations eventually will hurt
professional sports. Professional sports, after all, is a product that
is consumed by all of us, the sports fans. If teams move around too
often, the fans will lose their enthusiasm and support for their teams.
If the fans lose interest, eventually the overall economic pie created
by the sports will begin to decrease. Fewer fans will attend the games
or watch them on television; fewer fans will purchase merchandise;
fewer children will want to play the sport.
We have already seen a similar phenomenon occur in major league
baseball. After the strike, which canceled the World Series and
shortened the following season, fans began to lose interest in
baseball. Much of this was the result of the owners, whose actions
against the players during collective bargaining have shown an utter
disregard for the best interests of the game and of the fans. The
owners were able to engage in their practices in part because they
benefit from a judicially created immunity from the antitrust laws that
has no basis in the law. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation,
which has passed the Judiciary Committee, to remove baseball's
antitrust exemption, except in regard to franchise relocation.
I intend that this bill will not move forward until the problems in
baseball are addressed. Since it appears that the same economic trends
are affecting all of the professional sports, then it makes sense to
provide the same antitrust standard to all of the leagues. It also
makes no sense for the other leagues to operate under the rules of the
antitrust laws, while baseball can operate in an anticompetitive
fashion free from the rule of law. The antitrust exemption for baseball
has been an embarrassing anomaly in antitrust law--one that has led to
profound distortions in the sport. In the near future, I will take
action to ensure that baseball and the other professional sports
leagues receive the same treatment. Either this bill must be merged
with my baseball legislation, or baseball legislation must be added to
this bill. Either way, the professional sports soon will operate under
a uniform antitrust standard.
I believe that the time for Congress to act is now. We have already
seen several teams move in recent years, and even more moves--the
Cleveland NFL franchise to Baltimore being the most noteworthy
example--are planned. Professional sports should not be a game of
musical chairs, and fans deserve better than to have their loyalties
treated with disrespect. As importantly, the sports industry deserves
the right to have a say in its destiny. Congress has the chance now to
address this problem in its early stages, before even greater
dislocation, fan unhappiness, and industry losses, occur. For this
reason, Congress should pass the Professional Sports Protection Act in
1996, not years from now when it may be too late.
______
By Mr. GLENN:
S. 1768. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain fatty acid
esters.
legislation to suspend the duty on imports of certain methyl esters
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
temporarily suspend the duty on imports of certain methyl esters. These
methyl esters are used by Procter & Gamble in the production of shampoo
and other personal care products. Formerly, these products were
eligible for the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] program.
However, as of January 1, 1997 Malaysia will no longer be eligible for
GSP.
My legislation is drafted very narrowly to cover only those very
specific methyl ester mixtures which P & G imports from Malaysia. P &
G's methyl ester imports are produced by a relatively recent joint
venture. The first full year of the joint venture's production was
1994. The fact that there was duty free treatment under GSP was an
important part of the decision to undertake the joint venture. The
joint
[[Page S5193]]
venture located production at the source of the raw material (palm
kernel oil) and results in a cost efficient production process.
While there are several companies in the U.S. that manufacture
relatively small amounts of similar methyl esters, this production is
almost entirely consumed in the manufacture of their own personal care
products. Hence no opposition to the proposed duty suspension is
anticipated.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Dole, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Helms and Mr. Thurmond):
S. 1770. A bill for the relief of Wayne T. Alderson; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
Private Relief Legislation
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill and
submitting a concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 59,
that are identical to legislation I introduced in the House of
Representatives in both the 102d and 103d Congresses. As this
particular issue remains unresolved, I again urge my colleagues'
consideration and support.
The legislation I introduce today is an effort to secure the
Congressional Medal of Honor for a Pennsylvania resident, Mr. Wayne T.
Alderson. The legislation itself speaks to the background and
experiences of Wayne Alderson and equally to the need and merit in
extending the Congressional Medal of Honor.
As you can see from a review of the bill, Mr. Alderson acted
meritoriously in the line of duty as a private in Germany during World
War II and was recommended by his commander for a Medal of Honor.
Unfortunately, his papers were destroyed in a fire. The Department of
Defense has said that since the statute of limitations expired in 1952,
and that without a statement from one of Mr. Alderson's commanders,
they cannot award him the medal. An affidavit by Pfc. Daniel Parisi,
which verifies that Mr. Alderson's commanders did indeed recommend him
for the medal, was not considered by the Department as sufficient for
them to act.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that Mr. Alderson
should receive a Medal of Honor. I am joined by several of my
colleagues in calling for the extension of congressional recognition to
Wayne for his service, valor, and commitment to defending our country
in time of war and acting meritoriously in the line of duty. I
appreciate Senators Specter, Dole, Craig, Helms, and Thurmond joining
with me as sponsors of this legislation.
I thank my colleagues for their attention and consideration of this
legislation.
____________________