[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9494-S9498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CURT FLOOD ACT OF 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 231, S. 53.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 53) to require the general application of the 
     antitrust laws to major league baseball, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which has been reported 
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Curt Flood Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this legislation to clarify that major 
     league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws 
     (i.e., that major league players will have the same rights 
     under the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes, 
     e.g., football and basketball players), along with a 
     provision that makes it clear that the passage of this Act 
     does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any 
     other context or with respect to any other person or entity.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL 
                   MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.

       The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 27. (a) The conduct, acts, practices, or agreements 
     of persons in the business of organized professional major 
     league baseball relating to or affecting employment to play 
     baseball at the major league level are subject to the 
     antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct, acts, 
     practices, or agreements would be subject to the antitrust 
     laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional 
     sports business affecting interstate commerce: Provided, 
     however, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
     as providing the basis for any negative inference regarding 
     the caselaw concerning the applicability of the antitrust 
     laws to minor league baseball.
       ``(b) Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section 
     shall be deemed to change the application of the antitrust 
     laws to the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements by, 
     between, or among persons engaging in, conducting, or 
     participating in the business of organized professional 
     baseball, except the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements 
     to which subsection (a) of this section shall apply. More 
     specifically, but not by way of limitation, this section 
     shall not be deemed to change the application of the 
     antitrust laws to--
       ``(1) the organized professional baseball amateur draft, 
     the reserve clause as applied to minor league players, the 
     agreement between organized professional major league 
     baseball teams and the teams of the National Association of 
     Professional Baseball Leagues, commonly known as the 
     `Professional Baseball Agreement', the relationship between 
     organized professional major league baseball and organized 
     professional minor league baseball, or any other matter 
     relating to professional organized baseball's minor leagues;
       ``(2) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of 
     persons in the business of organized professional baseball 
     relating to franchise expansion, location or relocation, 
     franchise ownership issues, including ownership transfers, 
     and the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner 
     and franchise owners;
       ``(3) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements protected 
     by Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.) (commonly known 
     as the `Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961'); or
       ``(4) the relationship between persons in the business of 
     organized professional baseball and umpires or other 
     individuals who are employed in the business of organized 
     professional baseball by such persons.
       ``(c) As used in this section, `persons' means any 
     individual, partnership, corporation, or unincorporated 
     association or any combination or association thereof.''.


                           Amendment No. 3479

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk. I 
ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3479.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Curt Flood Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this legislation to state that major 
     league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws 
     (i.e., that major league baseball players will have the same 
     rights under the antitrust laws as do other professional 
     athletes, e.g., football and basketball players), along with 
     a provision that makes it clear that the passage of this Act 
     does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any 
     other context or with respect to any other person or entity.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL 
                   MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.

       The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 12 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page S9495]]

       ``Sec. 27(a) Subject to subsections (b) through (d) below, 
     the conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons in the 
     business of organized professional major league baseball 
     directly relating to or affecting employment of major league 
     baseball players to play baseball at the major league level 
     are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such 
     conduct, acts, practices or agreements would be subject to 
     the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other 
     professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.
       ``(b) No court shall rely on the enactment of this section 
     as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws 
     to any conduct, acts, practices or agreements other than 
     those set forth in subsection (a). This section does not 
     create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to 
     challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the 
     antitrust laws to, any conduct, acts, practices or agreements 
     that do not directly relate to or affect employment of major 
     league baseball players to play baseball at the major league 
     level, including but not limited to--
       ``(1) any conduct acts, practices or agreements of persons 
     engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of 
     organized professional baseball relating to or affecting 
     employment to play baseball at the minor league level, any 
     organized professional baseball amateur or first-year player 
     draft, or any reserve clause as applied to minor league 
     players.
       ``(2) the agreement between organized professional major 
     league baseball teams and the teams of the National 
     Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, commonly known 
     as the `Professional Baseball Agreement,' the relationship 
     between organized profession major league baseball and 
     organized professional minor league baseball, and organized 
     professional minor league baseball, or any other matter 
     relating to organized professional baseball's minor leagues;
       ``(3) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons 
     engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of 
     organized professional baseball relating to or affecting 
     franchise expansion, location or relocation, franchise 
     ownership issues, including ownership transfers, the 
     relationship between the Office of the Commissioner and 
     franchise owners, the marketing or sales of the entertainment 
     product of organized professional baseball and the licensing 
     of intellectual property rights owned or held by organized 
     professional baseball teams individually or collectively;
       ``(4) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements protected 
     by Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 et seq.) (commonly 
     known as `the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961');
       ``(5) the relationship between persons in the business of 
     organized professional baseball and umpires or other 
     individuals who are employed in the business of organized 
     professional baseball by such persons; or
       ``(6) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons 
     not in the business of organized professional major league 
     baseball.
       ``(c) Only a major league baseball player has standing to 
     sue under this section. For the purposes of this section, a 
     major league baseball player is--
       ``(1) a person who is a party to a major league player's 
     contract, or is playing baseball at the major league level; 
     or
       ``(2) a person who is a party to a major league player's 
     contract or playing baseball at the major league level at the 
     time of the injury that is the subject of the complaint; or
       ``(3) a person who has been a party to a major league 
     player's contract or who has played baseball at the major 
     league level, and who claims he has been injured in his 
     efforts to secure a subsequent major league player's contract 
     by an alleged violation of the antitrust laws, provided 
     however, that for the purposes of this paragraph, the alleged 
     antitrust violation shall not include any conduct, acts, 
     practices or agreements of persons in the business of 
     organized professional baseball relating to or affecting 
     employment to play baseball at the minor league level, 
     including any organized professional baseball amateur or 
     first-year player draft, or any reserve clause as applied to 
     minor league players; or
       ``(4) a person who was a party to a major league player's 
     contract or who was playing baseball at the major league 
     level at the conclusion of the last full championship season 
     immediately preceding the expiration of the last collective 
     bargaining agreement between persons in the business of 
     organized professional major league baseball and the 
     exclusive collective bargaining representative of major 
     league baseball players.
       ``(d)(1) As used in this section, `person' means any 
     entity, including an individual, partnership, corporation, 
     trust or unincorporated association or any combination or 
     association thereof. As used in this section, the National 
     Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, its member 
     leagues and the clubs of those leagues, are not `in the 
     business of organized professional major league baseball.'
       ``(2) In cases involving conduct, acts, practices or 
     agreements that directly relate or affect both employment of 
     major league baseball players to play baseball at the major 
     league level and also relate to or affect any other aspect of 
     organized professional baseball, including but not limited to 
     employment to play baseball at the minor league level and the 
     other areas set forth in subsection (b) above, only those 
     components, portions or aspects of such conduct, acts, 
     practices or agreements that directly relate to or affect 
     employment of major league baseball players to play baseball 
     at the major league level.
       ``(3) As used in subsection (a), interpretation of the term 
     `directly' shall not be governed by any interpretation of 29 
     U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq. (as amended).
       ``(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the application to organized professional baseball of the 
     nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws.
       ``(5) The scope of the conduct, acts, practices or 
     agreements covered by subsection (b) shall not be strictly or 
     narrowly construed.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I offer on behalf of myself and 
Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of 
1997. This bill, which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on 
July 31, 1998, by a vote of 12-6, clarifies that the antitrust laws 
apply to labor relations at the major league level, but does not have 
any affect on any other persons or circumstances. Given our limited 
time, I will only make a few brief comments, and would ask unanimous 
consent that my full statement be entered into the Record.
  In a baseball season that is likely to set records in a number of 
different categories, I am extremely pleased to be able to report that 
a truly historic milestone in the history of professional baseball has 
been reached. People said it would never happen, but today I can tell 
you that major league baseball players, along with both major and minor 
league club owners, have reached an agreement on a bill clarifying that 
the antitrust laws apply to major league professional baseball labor 
relations. This agreed upon language is reflected in the substitute we 
are offering today.
  With this historic agreement, I am confident that Congress will, once 
and for all, make clear that professional baseball players have the 
same rights as other professional athletes, and will help assure 
baseball fans across the United States that our national pastime will 
not again be interrupted by strikes. With the home run battles and 
exciting pennant races, baseball is enjoying a resurgence. And, as fans 
are returning to the ballparks, they deserve to know that players will 
be on the field, not mired in labor disputes. I am pleased that 
Congress will, it now appears, be able to help guarantee that this is 
the case.
  Due to an aberrant Supreme Court decision in 1922, labor relations in 
major league baseball have not been subject to antitrust laws, unlike 
any other industry in America. In every other professional sport, 
antitrust laws serve to stabilize relations between the team owners and 
players unions. That is one of the principal reasons why, in recent 
years, baseball has experienced more work stoppages, including the 
disastrous strike of 1994-95, than professional basketball, hockey and 
football combined.
  In the 103d Congress, the House Judiciary Committee took the first 
important step by approving legislation which would have ensured that 
the antitrust laws apply to major league baseball labor relations, 
without impacting the minor leagues or team relocation issues. During 
the 104th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and 
reported S. 627, The Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act, to 
apply federal antitrust laws to major league baseball labor relations. 
None of these bills were passed, however, as many Members of Congress 
were reluctant to take final action while there was an ongoing labor 
dispute.
  With the settling of the labor dispute and with the signing of a long 
term agreement between the major league baseball team owners and the 
players union, the time was right this Congress finally to address this 
matter. In fact, in the new collective bargaining agreement, the owners 
pledged to work with the players to pass legislation that makes clear 
that major league baseball is subject to the federal antitrust laws 
with regard to owner-player relations.
  At the beginning of this Congress, we introduced S. 53, a bill which 
was specifically supported by both the players and owners and which was 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee almost exactly one year ago. At 
the Committee markup, however, several Members indicated a concern that 
the bill might

[[Page S9496]]

inadvertently have a negative impact on the Minor Leagues. Although 
both Senator Leahy and myself were firmly of the view that the bill as 
reported adequately protected the minor leagues against such a 
consequence, we pledged to work with the minor leagues' 
representatives, in conjunction with the major league owners and 
players, to make certain that their concerns were fully addressed.
  Although this process took much longer, and much more work, than I 
had anticipated, I am pleased to report that it has been completed. I 
have in my hand a letter from the minor leagues, and a letter co-signed 
by Don Fehr and Bud Selig, indicating that the major league players, 
and major and minor league owners, all support a new, slightly amended 
version of S. 53. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                          Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.
     Re baseball legislation.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Senate 
         Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the National Association of 
     Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. (``NAPBL'') objected to 
     S. 53 as it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last 
     year. Since that time, we have been consulted about proposals 
     to amend the bill to assure the continued survival of minor 
     league baseball. We understand that a draft of an amended 
     bill has been put forth by the major leagues and the Players' 
     Association (copy attached) that I believe addresses the 
     concerns of the NAPBL which we support in its final form.
           Respectfully yours,
     Stanley M. Brand.
                                  ____

                                                    July 21, 1998.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch, Chairman,
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy: As requested by the 
     Committee, the parties represented below have met and agreed 
     to the attached substitute language for S. 53. In particular, 
     we believe the substitute language adequately addresses the 
     concerns expressed by some members of the Judiciary Committee 
     that S. 53, as reported, did not sufficiently protect the 
     interests of the minor leagues. We understand that the minor 
     leagues will advise you that they agree with our assessment 
     by a separate letter.
       We thank you for your leadership and patience. Although, 
     obviously, you are under no obligation to use this language 
     in your legislative activities regarding S. 53, we hope that 
     you will look favorably upon it in light of the agreement of 
     the parties and our joint commitment to work together to 
     ensure its passage.
       If you have any questions or comments, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
     Donald M. Fehr,
       Executive Director, Major League Baseball Players 
     Association.
     Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig,
       Commissioner, Major League Baseball.
                                  ____

                                       Office of the Commissioner,


                                        Major League Baseball,

                                                    July 21, 1998.
     Donald M. Fehr, Esquire,
     Executive Director and General Counsel, Major League Baseball 
         Players Association, New York, NY.
       Dear Don: As you know, in our efforts to address the 
     concerns of the minor leagues with S. 53, as reported by the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee, several changes in the bill were 
     agreed to by the parties, i.e., the Major League Clubs, the 
     Major League Baseball Players Association and the National 
     Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (minor leagues). 
     Among those changes was the addition of the word ``directly'' 
     immediately before ``relating to'' in new subsection (a) of 
     the bill.
       This letter is to confirm our mutual understanding that the 
     addition of that word was something sought by the Minor 
     leagues and is intended to indicate that this legislation is 
     not meant to allow claims by non major league players. By 
     using ``directly'' we are not limiting the application of new 
     subsection (a) to matters which would be considered mandatory 
     subjects of bargaining in the collective bargaining context. 
     Indeed, that is the reason we agreed to add paragraph (d)(3). 
     There is no question that, under this Act, major league 
     baseball players may pursue the same actions as could be 
     brought by athletes in professional football and basketball 
     with respect to their employment at the major league level.
       I trust you concur with this intent and interpretation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Allan H. Selig,
                                         Commissioner of Baseball.

  Mr. HATCH. This new bill specifically precludes courts from relying 
on the bill to change the application of the antitrust laws in areas 
other than player-owner relations; clarifies who has standing under the 
new law; and adds several provisions which ensure that the bill will 
not harm the minor leagues.
  Senator Leahy and I have incorporate these changes into our 
substitute, which, given its support across the board, we hope and 
expect to be passed today without objection. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt this substitute.
  This amendment, while providing major league players with the 
antitrust protections of their colleagues in the other professional 
sports, such as basketball and football, is absolutely neutral with 
respect to the state of the antitrust laws between all entities and in 
all circumstances other than in the area of employment as between major 
league owners and players. Whatever the law was the day before this 
bill passes in those other areas it will continue to be after the bill 
passes. Let me emphasize that the bill affects no pending or decided 
cases except to the extent a court would consider exempting major 
league clubs from the antitrust laws in their dealings with major 
league players.
  But because of the complex relationship between the major leagues and 
their affiliated minor leagues, it was necessary to write the bill in a 
way to direct a court's attention to only those practices, or aspects 
of practices, that affect major league players. It is for that reason, 
that a bill that ought to be rather simple to write goes to such 
lengths to emphasize its neutrality. And, although much of the Report 
filed by the Committee with respect to S. 53 is still applicable to 
this substitute, there have been some changes.
  Section 2 states the bill's purpose. As originally contained in S. 
53, the purpose section used the word ``clarify" instead of the word 
``state'' as used in this substitute. That language had been taken 
verbatim from the collective bargaining agreement signed in 1997 
between major league owners and major league players. When the minor 
leagues entered the discussions, they objected to the use of the word 
``clarify'' on the grounds that using this term created an inference 
regarding the current applicability of the antitrust laws to 
professional baseball. The parties therefore agreed to insert in lieu 
thereof the word ``state.'' Both the parties and the Committee agree 
that Congress is taking no position on the current state of the law one 
way or the other. It is also for that reason that subsection (b) was 
inserted, as will be discussed.
  Section 3 amends the Clayton Act to add a new section 27. As was the 
case with S.53, as reported, new subsection 27(a) states that the 
antitrust laws apply to actions relating to professional baseball 
players' employment to play baseball at the major league level and as 
in S.53 is intended to incorporate the entire jurisprudence of the 
antitrust laws, as it now exists and as it may develop.
  In order to accommodate the concerns of the minor leagues however, 
new subsection (a) has been changed by adding the word ``directly'' 
immediately before the phrase ``relating to or affecting employment'' 
and the phrase ``major league players'' has been added before the 
phrase ``to play baseball.'' These two changes were also made at the 
behest of the minor leagues in order to ensure that minor league 
players, particularly those who had spent some time in the major 
leagues, did not use new subsection (a) as a bootstrap by which to 
attack conduct, acts, practices or agreements designed to apply to 
minor league employment. This is in keeping with the neutrality sought 
by the Committee with respect to parties and circumstances not between 
major league owners and major league players.
  Additionally, the new draft adds a new paragraph (d)(3) that states 
that the term directly is not to be governed by interpretations of the 
labor laws. This paragraph was added to ensure that no court would use 
the word ``directly'' in too narrow a fashion and limit matters covered 
in subsection (a) to those that would otherwise be known as mandatory 
subjects of bargaining in the labor law context. The use of directly is 
related to the relationship between the major leagues and

[[Page S9497]]

the minor leagues, not the relationship between major league owners and 
players. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Commissioner of 
Baseball, Mr. Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig, to the Executive Director of the 
Major League Baseball Players Association, confirming this 
interpretation of the use of the word ``directly'' and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be inserted in the Record at this time.
  As in S. 53, as reported, new subsection (b) is the subsection which 
implements the portion of the purpose section stating that the 
``passage of the Act does not change the application of the antitrust 
laws in any other context or with respect to any other person or 
entity.'' In other words, with respect to areas set forth in subsection 
(b), whatever the law was before the enactment of this legislation, it 
is unchanged by the passage of the legislation. With the exception of 
the express statutory exemption in the area of television rights 
recognized in paragraph (d)(4), each of the areas set forth depend upon 
judicial interpretation of the law. But Congress at this time seeks 
only to address the specific question of the application of the 
antitrust laws in the context of the employment of major league players 
at the major league level.
  Thus, as to any matter set forth in subsection (b), a plaintiff will 
not be able to allege an antitrust violation by virtue of the enactment 
of this Act. Nor can the courts use the enactment of this Act to glean 
congressional intent as to the validity or lack thereof of such 
actions.
  New subsection ``c'' deals specifically with the issue of standing. 
Although normally standing under such an act would be governed by the 
standing provision of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, the minor 
leagues again expressed concern that without a more limited standing 
provision, minor league players or amateurs would be able to attack 
what are in reality minor league issues by bootstrapping under this Act 
through subsection (a). The subsection sets forth the zone of persons 
to be protected from alleged antitrust violations by major league 
owners under this Act.
  New paragraph (d)(1) defines ``person'' for the purposes of the Act, 
but includes a provision expressly recognizing that minor league clubs 
and leagues are not in the business of major league baseball. This 
addition was requested by the minor leagues to ensure that they would 
not be named as party defendants in every action brought against the 
major leagues pursuant to subsection (a).
  New paragraph (d)(2) was added to give the courts direction in cases 
involving matters that relate to both matters covered by subsection (a) 
and to those matters as to which the Act is neutral as set forth in 
subsection (b). In such a case, the acts, conducts or agreements may be 
challenged under this Act as they directly relates to the employment of 
major league players at the major league level, but to the extent the 
practice is challenged as to its effect on any issue set forth in 
subsection (b), it must be challenged under current law, which may or 
may not provide relief.
  New paragraph (d)(5) merely reflects the Committee's intention that a 
court's determination of which fact situations fall within subsection 
(b) should follow ordinary rules of statutory construction, and should 
not be subject to any exceptions or departures from these rules.
  As stated in the Committee Report, nothing in this bill is intended 
to affect the scope or applicability of the ``nonstatutory'' labor 
exemption from the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football, 
116 S.Ct. 2116 (1996).
  Before yielding to my good friend from Vermont, I would like to thank 
him for his hard work on this bill. His bipartisan efforts have been 
vital to the process. I would also like to thank our original 
cosponsors, Senators Thurmond and Moynihan. I urge the quick adoption 
of this bill, which will help restore stability to major league 
baseball labor relations.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this summer we are being treated to an 
exceptional season of baseball, from the record breaking pace of the 
New York Yankees and the resurgence of the Boston Red Sox, to a number 
of inspiring individual achievements, including the perfect game of 
David Wells and the home run displays of McGwire, Griffey and Sosa. 
Such are the exploits that childhood memories are made of--and which we 
all thought could be counted on, that is until the summer of 1994.
  Now finally, after years of turmoil, major league baseball is just 
beginning to emerge from the slump it inflicted upon itself, by 
returning to that which makes the game great--the game and the players 
on the field. And, last weekend, Larry Doby and others at long last 
were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. These are steps in the 
right direction.
  Today, the Senate will give baseball another nudge in the right 
direction by passing S. 53, the ``Curt Flood Act of 1998.'' Murray 
Chass, a gifted reporter writing for The New York Times noted that on 
this issue we have finally ``moved into scoring position with a bill 
that would alter the antitrust exemption Major League Baseball has 
enjoyed since 1922.''
  I am gratified that 76 years after an aberrant Supreme Court 
decision, we are finally making it clear that with respect to the 
antitrust laws, major league baseball teams are no different than teams 
in any other professional sport. For years, baseball was the only 
business or sport, of which I am aware, that claimed an exemption from 
antitrust laws, without any regulation in lieu of those laws. The 
Supreme Court refused to undue its mistake with respect to major league 
baseball made in the 1922 case of Federal Baseball. Finally, in the 
most well-known case on the issue, Flood v. Kuhn, the Court reaffirmed 
the Federal Baseball case on the basis of the legal principle of stare 
decisis while specifically finding that professional baseball is indeed 
an activity of interstate commerce, and thereby rejecting the legal 
basis for the Federal Baseball case.
  Mr. President, as a result of that and subsequent decisions, and with 
the end of the major league reserve clause as the result of an 
arbitrator's ruling in 1976, there has been a growing debate as to the 
continued vitality, if any, of any antitrust exemption for baseball. It 
is for precisely this reason that this bill is limited in its scope to 
employment relations between major league owners and major league 
players. That is what is at the heart of turmoil in baseball and what 
is at the heart of the breach of trust with the fans that marked the 
cancellation of the 1994 World Series. At least we can take this small 
step toward ensuring the continuity of the game and restoring public 
confidence in it.
  When David Cone testified at our hearing three years ago, he posed a 
most perceptive question. He asked: If baseball were coming to Congress 
to ask us to provide a statutory antitrust exemption, would such a bill 
be passed? The answer to that question is a resounding no. Nor should 
the owners, sitting at the negotiating table in a labor dispute, think 
that their anticompetitive behavior cannot be challenged. That is an 
advantage enjoyed by no other group of employers.
  The certainty provided by this bill will level the playing field, 
making labor disruptions less likely in the future. The real 
beneficiaries will be the fans. They deserve it.
  Mr. President, I just wanted to comment briefly on a couple of 
changes made in the substitute from the bill as reported by the 
Committee. First, the changes in the language in subsection (a) are not 
intended to limit in any way the rights of players at the major league 
level as they would be construed under the language of the bill as 
reported by the Judiciary Committee last July. The additional language 
was added to ensure that a minor league player, or someone who had 
played at the major league level and returned to the minor leagues, 
cannot use subsection (a), concerned with play at the major league 
level, to attack what is really a minor league employment issue only. 
Alternatively, neither can the major leagues use the wording of 
subsection (a) and that of subsection (d) to subvert the purpose of 
subsection (a) merely by linking a major league practice with a minor 
league practice. That linkage itself may be an antitrust violation and 
be actionable under this Act. It cannot be used as a subterfuge by 
which to subject players at the major league level to acts, practices 
or agreements that teams or owners in other sports could not subject 
athletes to.

[[Page S9498]]

  Finally, the practices set forth in subsection (b) are not intended 
to be affected by this Act. While this is true, it should be remembered 
that although the pure entrepreneurial decisions in this area are 
unaffected by the Act, if those decisions are made in such a way as to 
implicate employment of major league players at the major league level, 
once again, those actions may be actionable under subsection (a). More 
importantly, we are making no findings as to how, under labor laws, 
those issues are to be treated.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank all those involved 
in this undertaking: Chairman Hatch, of course, without whose unfailing 
efforts this result would not be possible; our fellow cosponsors, 
Senators Thurmond and Moynihan, and other members of our Committee; and 
John Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, 
for making this bill a priority. And I want to commend the interested 
parties for working to find a solution they can all support. Not only 
have they done a service to the fans, but they may find, on reflection, 
that they have done a service to themselves by working together for the 
good of the game.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the 
man for whom this legislation is named, Curt Flood. He was a superb 
athlete and a courageous man who sacrificed his career for perhaps a 
more lasting baseball legacy. When others refused, he stood up and said 
no to a system that he thought un-American as it bound one man to 
another for his professional career without choice and without a voice 
in his future.
  I am sad that he did not live long enough to see this day. In 
deference to his memory and in the interests of every fan of this great 
game, I hope that Congress will act quickly on this bill. I am 
delighted that we are moving forward today and that we are finally able 
to enjoy the game once again.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as 
read and agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that 
any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3479) was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 53), as amended, was considered read a third time and 
passed.

                          ____________________