Слике страница
PDF
ePub

— SENATE world and bring us on a collision course can emerge unscathed from another steel with another depression. strike.

I feel very much flattered that the Senator approves of what I have done, but, above and beyond that, I welcome a strong ally such as the Senator from Indiana in what must be a most considered course of action which would take, in my judgment, a great deal of support from outside of Britain to help in this very grave crisis in which our oldest, and in many ways, most productive ally, finds itself enmeshed.

By no means is it true that Britain cannot help itself a great deal. However, it will need help from others and from the United States.

It seems to me that the United States would help itself as well as the rest of the free world by a vivid cognizance of what is at stake. I hope that before very long, with the help of such distinguished Senators as my colleague the Senator from Indiana, there will be a consensus and a crystallization of what the United States needs to do in terms of helping the United Kingdom.

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for a penetrating analysis of the problem, an analysis which deserves the consideration not only of all Senators, but also of the administration. This suggestion comes from a member of the opposition, one who is not of the same political persuasion as the administration.

Our proposal demonstrates an awareness of the fact that we cannot put the problem aside merely because we happen to be riding a high plane of prosperity at home.

I point out one other factor that the Senator from New York has made very plain. I hope that everybody understands the position that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] and I are pursuing.

It is our purpose to make sure that the task of Britain will be no more difficult. They have a responsibility to look after their own affairs. We should do nothing to make their position more difficult. If possible, we should do everything we can to help them alleviate the serious economic problem which they are experiencing so that it does not come home to roost with us.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana.

STEEL LABOR CRISIS SHOWS NEED
FOR PROMPT REVISION OF TAFT-

HARTLEY EMERGENCY LABOR
DISPUTE MACHINERY

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I should like to say a word about the strike emergency in the steel industry. There is no question that the country is indebted to the President for his personal intercession and for a stay of 8 days and a new opportunity to seek to settle the strike.

Yet despite yesterday's 8-day reprieve, the country is still faced with a labor dispute of national emergency proportions, for neither our military efforts in Vietnam nor the health of our economy

These stands at the 1-foot line are dramatic but they are exceedingly dangerous. For the fact is that existing law For the fact is that existing law gives the President very few alternatives when faced with such a labor crisis.

Shall he invoke the Taft-Hartley Act and again postpone the crisis, hoping that in the next 80 days the parties will accomplish what they could not during the last 80? That is a possibility, but if the 80 days run out and the dispute is not settled, the Government of the United States will then be utterly powerless under existing law to avoid a resumption of the national emergency, and there will be no effective means of protecting the public interest once the strike is resumed.

Or shall we temporize, as we did in the 1963 rail crisis, by legislating an ad hoc solution closely akin to compulsory arbitration? That, of course, is the precedent with which we may be faced, but edent with which we may be faced, but it is surely most unsatisfactory. The rail solution itself has proved far from adequate, and if it becomes a precedent, compulsory arbitration may well supplant free collective bargaining-a result which both labor and management would strongly oppose.

Or shall we just wait and see how bad the situation will really become, hoping that we will be lucky again and the probthat we will be lucky again and the problem will somehow go away? Surely, we have been lucky so far, for in 18 years we have rarely had to face the expiration of a cooling off period knowing that, when the strike resumes, the President will be powerless to protect the public interest. In 1963, when all the cooling off periods under the Railway Labor Act had expired, we found ourselves in just that position, and the Congress, as a last resort, imposed a kind of compulsory arbitration. We took the problem away from the parties at the bargaining table and let a third party write the contract for them. We can do that again, but only if we are prepared to begin to give up free collective bargaining, at least in basic industries.

Fortunately, there is another answerand a good one-if we will only establish the proper procedures now so that we are not forced to temporize when a crisis becomes acute in a basic national industry.

Last June I introduced a bill, S. 2135, which would give the President new and critically necessary powers to protect the public interest in labor disputes of a national character, without in any way depriving the parties of the power to write their own collective-bargaining agreements. This proposed legislation would:

First. Authorize the President to appoint a board of inquiry to make public recommendations for a settlement based on factfinding. Under existing law, a board of inquiry appointed under the Taft-Hartley Act may make no recommendations.

Second. Authorize the President to order a 30-day freeze, during which both parties would be required to bargain upon the recommendations-even though nei

ther party would be required to accept the recommendations.

Third. Authorize the President to seek appointment by a Federal court of a special receiver to operate the struck facilities to the extent necessary to protect the national health and safety.

This bill leaves unchanged the 80-day injunction provisions of the act-it merely adds additional remedies if all else fails.

Under this proposal, the parties are left free to bargain as long as they deem it necessary in order to reach a freely bargained settlement. If receivership becomes necessary, both parties operate under a disability, for the union forfeits the right to strike, and the employer forfeits possession of his facilities. Both have an added incentive to settle. The Federal Government has suggested what a proper settlement would be, but the parties are still free either to take that suggestion or reject it and bargain for something else. In short, this proposal is designed to make our existing institutions function more adequately with a minimum of Government decisionmaking, but with a maximum of Government concern and protection for the public interest.

I cannot help bearing in mind and calling to the attention of the Senate that we are about to begin a debate on repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act to give more rights to trade unions. I am for the repeal of section 14 (b), but repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act should not stand alone there should be other amendments to it. And one of the leading ones, complex as it is, should be a procedure in the Taft-Hartley Act to enable the Nation to deal fairly and effectively with national emergency

strikes.

Yesterday I sent a telegram to the President urging him to send a special message to the Congress calling for revision of the emergency labor dispute provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines I have just discussed. I earnestly hope he will act upon my suggestion. But we need not wait, for the need for legislation is clear, and the time for action is short.

After all the legislation we have enacted this year to insure that our economy will continue to expand and to provide greater opportunities for all our people, surely we ought not to leave the Federal Government powerless to protect the very prosperity which we have all sought to build. I would hope, therefore, that the Labor Committees of both Houses of the Congress will schedule prompt hearings on this badly needed revision of our labor laws.

I close with the following personal affirmation.

I do not yield to anyone in being a friend of organized labor. I have shown that on a thousand battlefields. I believe that I am a better friend of organized labor by giving the Government the responsibility and the authority to keep the country operating rather than to give any group the power to immobilize the Nation in its essential responsibilities, as

in the war in Vietnam, and in its economic responsibilities respecting the balance of payments, trade, and domestic employment.

Accordingly, I beg of the trade unions and Members of Congress, and citizens generally, to think about this situation very carefully. It comes at an odd time, when we are considering repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

I believe that the responsibility for the public interest beckons Congress in the next 8 days. I hope that Members of Congress will not sit with their hands folded and again find themselves in the embarrassing position of not knowing what to do, and doing something wrong at the end of a trying crisis, as happened in the railroad strike.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAUSCHE in the chair). The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, last Sunday morning the Nation witnessed the end of a devastating and destructive maritime strike. I do not know how many hundreds of millions of dollars were lost during the duration of that strike. I do not know how much was lost by the shipping companies; but I do know that the damage was tremendous and very likely will not be made up by either side to the argument for many years to come-if ever.

At the present time, the President has two problems of major concern. One is the situation in Vietnam, which occupies practically every waking moment, and I am sure disturbs him in his sleep as well. The other is the possibility of a steel strike which would affect not only the steel industry and its affiliates, but also other segments of the economy as well.

The interests of the Nation, in this instance, as in all others, must come first. I am delighted that the President saw fit to dispatch to Pittsburgh last Saturday the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], one of the most able, if not the ablest mediator of mediators, conciliators, and arbitrators in this Nation.

It is my hope that on the basis of the report made by the Senator from Oregon and his colleague, Under Secretary of Commerce Leroy Collins, and on the basis of the President's call for representatives of management and labor in the steel industry to meet here in Washington, these representatives will stay in session in this city until the differences are settled equitably and with justice to both sides.

Yesterday, the President took action to forestall a shutdown in the steel industry. He was able to secure a postponement of an imminent closure for 8 days by prevailing upon Mr. Abel of the Steel Workers, and Mr. Cooper representing the industry, to continue negotiations.

In securing this reprieve, the President has performed an outstanding service for the Nation. Steel is the kingpin of the economy. A prolonged shutdown in its production would have the most serious consequences to the Nation both in its internal affairs and external relations.

In obtaining this reprieve and, unfortunately, at this point it is only a reprieve, the President has provided an essential breathing spell to the spokesmen of industry and labor. They will have, in these 8 days, an additional opportunity to fulfill their responsibilities not only to the segment of the American people for the segment of the American people for whom they speak but also to all Ameriwhom they speak but also to all Americans. The leadership of labor and management in the steel industry are to be agement in the steel industry are to be complimented for responding to the President's request which was made on behalf of the entire Nation.

It is recognized that a steel strike at this time would deal a damaging blow to this time would deal a damaging blow to our prosperity and also to the defense of our prosperity and also to the defense of the dollar.

Close to 1 million men would immediately become idle.

Hundreds of thousands more would join in idleness as users of steel run out of inventories. While steel inventories While steel inventories are large overall, the lack of particular kinds of steel in particular places can bottleneck major segments of production. I recall that Dr. Arthur Burns, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Eisenhower, said that the steel strike of 1959 hower, said that the steel strike of 1959 was a major cause of the 1960 recession. was a major cause of the 1960 recession. We cannot have that again. What we want and need, as the President said at the leadership breakfast meeting this the leadership breakfast meeting this morning, is a fair and just and noninflationary settlement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement issued by the President pertaining to this situation.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE
STEEL NEGOTIATIONS

(In the White House Theater) My fellow Americans, I have been meeting with Mr. I. W. Abel, president of the United Steel Workers of America, and Mr. Conrad Cooper, the executive vice president of the United States Steel Corp., Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, and the Secretary of Commerce, the Honorable John Connor.

This morning I requested that there be no shutdown of operations and that production by the steel industry continue during the negotiations by the parties.

In response to my request, the union and company representatives have agreed to postpone the imminent shutdown for 8 days. pone the imminent shutdown for 8 days. During this period they will continue their ing will be held at 10 o'clock tonight. negotiations in Washington. The next meet

I am confident that all Americans appreciate this response by the union and by the company representatives. Their decision has certainly been made in the public interest. I am sure that as they return to their negotiations this evening, they will be aware of the importance of their efforts to every man

the health and the vitality of our economy and woman in this country of ours, and to and the security of America all around the

world.

Gentlemen, this postponement will serve your country's national interest, and I am very proud of each of you for the contribution that you and your organizations have made. Thank you very much.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I compliment the majority leader on inviting attention-as only one with the prestige of his high position in Government can-to this vital problem.

Everything I have said as to the need for Congress to prepare for this matter is entirely consistent with what the majority leader has stated, in which I fully join and with which I fully identify myself.

I also express the hope that the majority leader may give thought and consideration to the possibility of what Congress can do to arm itself better in order to meet these situations.

At the same time, I thoroughly concur with the majority leader in the praise to which the President is properly entitled, and in the expectation that those on both sides of this issue will see their patriotic duty and do it within the next 8 days, by coming to some agreementeven if they have to yield a point here and there.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York. I am sure that labor knows it has no better friend than the Senator from New York. Senator from New York. As he has said, and said truthfully, he has fought labor's battles on a thousand battlefields. His record speaks for itself. Any suggestion he makes is worthy of consideration, as is any suggestion made by any Senator.

I am delighted that he took the initiative this afternoon to give some of his energies and abilities to a serious discussion of this problem and its potentials, not only now but also in the years ahead.

As always, the Senator from New York has contributed in a way which makes sense and which is worthy of every consideration.

Mr. President, 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. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO ORGANIZED PROFESSIONAL TEAM SPORTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 950), to make the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act applicable to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey and to limit the applicability of such laws so as to exempt certain aspects of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and for other purposes.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment beginning on page 3, line

[blocks in formation]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the amendment is agreed to. The amendment, agreed to, is as follows:

And, on page 3, line 24, after "Sec. 6.", to strike out "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to amend or otherwise affect the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 732)." and insert "Section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 732), is amended to read as

follows:

"SEC. 3. Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any joint agreement described in section 1 of this Act which permits the telecasting of all or a substantial part of any professional football game on any Friday after 6 o'clock post meridian or on any Saturday during the period beginning on the second Friday in September and ending on the second Saturday in December in any year from any telecasting station located within seventy-five miles of the game site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest scheduled to be played on such

a date if

"(1) such intercollegiate football contest is between institutions of higher learning, both of which confer degrees upon students following completion of sufficient credit hours to equal a four-year course, or "(2) in the case of an interscholastic football contest, such contest is between secondary schools, both of which are accredited or certified under the laws of the State or States in which they are situated and offer courses continuing through the twelfth grade of the standard school curriculum, or the equivalent, and

"(3) such intercollegiate or interscho

lastic football contest and such game site were announced through publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation prior to March 1 of such year as being regularly scheduled for such day and place.';"

Mr. HART. Mr. President, a parlia

mentary inquiry.

[blocks in formation]

(b) The exemption conferred by subsection (a) shall not apply to any agreement, plan, or arrangement under which any club administering a professional sport team may have an exclusive or preferred right to negotiate for the services of any college student if such agreement, plan, or arrangement would permit such club to enter into a professional athletic contract with any student who has matriculated, at a fouryear college granting degrees, before the earlier of the following dates: (1) the date of the conclusion of the fourth academic year following his matriculation, or (2) the date of the conclusion, during the fourth academic year following his matriculation, at the college at which he first matriculated, of the scheduled intercollegiate season of the professional sport to which he has been signed.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee

[blocks in formation]

The question is on agreeing to these committee amendments en bloc.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, may I
inquire what the committee amend-
ments numbered 1 and 2 are?

Mr. HART. They are the
the Ervin
amendment, which, technically, is cast
in number one and number two form,
and which, in effect, in the amendment
which the committee considered to be
the Ervin amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. HART. I yield.

Mr. PROXMIRE. As I understand, the
Senator from Michigan is asking unani-
mous consent to have the amendments
considered en bloc. Would that waive
the right of a Senator to offer an amend-
ment that might affect this particular
language?

Mr. HART. I understand that it would not.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. These amendments will be considered en bloc, but they are open to amendments offered from the floor.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Like original text?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I wish to
clarify the record. As I understand
the Senator from Michigan, there are
before us two amendments, numbered
one and two. The Senator refers to

the amendment which begins at line 18
on page 2, and ends on line 6 of page 3.
Is that correct?

Mr. HART. It is my understanding
that that would be amendment num-
bered two. The committee amendment
numbered one consists of the language
that can be found in italics on line 3
of page 1.

The PRESIDING
Senator is correct.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The amendment which I intended to offer affects lines 14 and 15 on page 2. Therefore, it would not be covered by this amendment. I am satisfied.

Mr. ERVIN. Amendment No. 1 is on page 1, line 3, following the word "That," to insert: "(a) except as otherwise provided by subsection (b),". Is that correct?

Mr. HART. Is the Senator inquiring whether that is amendment No. 1? Mr. ERVIN. Yes. Mr. HART. That is amendment No. 1. Mr. ERVIN. I have no objection to voting en bloc on amendments No. 1 and No. 2.

The

PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to committee amendments numbered 1 and 2.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator from Michigan would like to explain his position on committee amendments numbered 1 and 2 to the bill. Then I will wish to explain my position on committee committee amendments numbered 1 and 2.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, very briefly let me outline the objectives that the professional team sports bill seeks to achieve.

The situation is as follows: Profes

sional baseball, because of a Supreme Court decision in the early 1920's, is not subject to the antitrust laws as other professional team sports are by virtue of court decision. In later decisions, the Supreme Court acknowledged the apparent inequity and the clear inconsistency involved. However, the Court has declined to reverse the early 1920's case, OFFICER. The citing the fact that organized baseball, in reliance on that exemption, had structured itself and had pursued a course of conduct which that decision clearly protected and treated as exempt from antitrust reach.

Mr. ERVIN. In further clarification, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent that amendment No. 2, as designated by the Senator from Michigan, beginning at line 18 on page 2, and ending at line 6 on page 3, be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and

it is so ordered.

The amendment ordered to be printed in the RECORD is as follows:

But no such decision has been avail

able to professional football, which in recent years has greatly expanded. Nor did the Court apply the old Federal baseball case to give immunity to professional

basketball or hockey.

In the period of years that has intervened, the feeling has developed in the

On page 2, after line 17, to insert a new Congress that two objectives are desirsubparagraph, as follows:

"(b) The exemption conferred by subsec-
tion (a) shall not apply to any agreement,
plan, or arrangement under which any club
administering a professional sport team may

have an exclusive or preferred right to nego-
tiate for the services of any college student
if such agreement, plan, or arrangement
would permit such club to enter into a
professional athletic contract with any stu-
dent who has matriculated, at a four-year
college granting degrees, before the earlier
of the following dates: (1) the date of the
conclusion of the fourth academic year fol-
lowing his matriculation, or (2) the date of
the conclusion, during the fourth academic
year following his matriculation, at the col-
lege at which he first matriculated, of the
scheduled intercollegiate season of the pro-
fessional sport to which he has been signed."

able, both of which this bill would achieve.

First, baseball should be subject to the antitrust laws. There is no basis, either in theory or in fact, why baseball should hold a privileged position in relation to other organized professional team sports.

Second, there are specific and traditional essential sports aspects of these sports which should be exempt from the antitrust law to enable these professional team sports to operate in the best interests of the general public. Those traditional areas which we feel should be exempt, and which this bill would permit to be exempt, are the equalization of competitive playing strengths-the draft

system-the employment, selection, eligibility, and assignment of player contracts-particularly the reserve clausethe right to operate within specific geographic areas, and rules that insure the preservation of public confidence in the honesty of the sports contest. This last exemption would permit the continued operation of what is popularly known as the czar, the Commissioner.

These exemptions would insure the maintenance of a reasonably good balance in competitive structure of these sports, protect the interests of the public and their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the game, and increase the pleasure that is derived from a reasonably well-balance league operation. The bill also permits protection of the rights of the players.

Mr. President, this is by no means the first time that the Congress has sought to achieve these objectives; and there is a rather extensive chronological outline of these several efforts contained in the report from the Committee on the Judiciary on this bill. For those who are interested, it is to be found beginning at the bottom of page 6, and continuing through page 11.

Mr. President, it is our hope that this session of Congress will see the passage of this bill which reflects a great many days of hearings, and the efforts of several prior Congresses.

On balance, it is our feeling that the bill responds effectively to the need to protect the public, to insure the maintenance of a highly competitive system of team sports, and to insure protection of the interests of the several persons involved in the games.

The pending question is on agreeing to committee admendments Nos. 1 and 2, which were offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN]. Those amendments, in short, would permit the exemptions to be enjoyed by the league and the members thereof only if it was agreed that there would be no draft arrangements with respect to players who had matriculated at a college. To draft such an individual would be permitted only at the conclusion of the fourth academic year following his matriculation, or the date of the end of the sport for which he was drafted, if that should occur earlier.

Mr. President, I hope that the amendments will not be agreed to. On balance, the draft system has made good sense. Those engaged in professional football and professional basketball, by their own rules, have agreed that they will not seek to reach any man while in college. Baseball, in the last year, has undertaken a common draft which reaches the man in college, or who may be going to college.

To limit the draft as the Ervin amendment proposes, in the long run, would unbalance rather than contribute to the competitive balance of the leagues. Clearly, the rich would grow richer and the poor, poorer; and the quality of the game would suffer. His amendment might, indeed, encourage what I know the Senator from North Carolina and all the rest of us would hope to see avoided a broader raid, or greater persuasion to

the player to get out of school. the player to get out of school. Rather,

I think all of us should seek to insure that such men remain in college under terms consistent with the maintenance of stability and competitive team balance in the league.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I would like first to identify myself with Senators who are in opposition to the amendment. I point out that the amendment was adopted in committee based on our great respect for the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN]. It was also expressed that we would all have an opportunity to look into the question, and the Senator would understand if these issues were raised on the floor. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he would be the first to encourage full and free debate on the issue. That is what I would like, too. I state this by way of addition to the statement of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART].

It has been pointed out that organized baseball has an effective and worthwhile college scholarship program, in which some 400 major league prospects are guaranteed $1,000 a semester in all, for eight semesters, to pursue a college education.

It is felt by those in organized baseball, who have expressed their views that the organized baseball scholarship program would be inhibited as a result of the amendment.

That is an additional fact which I think should properly appear in the consideration of the amendment.

September 1 until June. There is nothing in my amendment to prohibit that.

Mr. JAVITS. Except that they could not be dealt with in terms of receiving scholarships as soon as they had matriculated.

Mr. ERVIN. I agree that the right to negotiate would not be impaired.

Mr. JAVITS. They would not be given scholarships unless there were commitments in return that they would enter professional sports.

Mr. HART. In addition, if the club is not permitted to draft them, it will not be in a position to provide funds for the scholarship and education. On that basis, I hope the Ervin amendment will be rejected.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, before the vote, I wish to ask the Senator from Michigan a question regarding the bill. I believe I know the answer, but the RECORD should show it as coming from members of the committee.

Is it correct to say that this proposed legislation deals with what the Senator from Michigan termed team sports? Mr. HART. That is correct.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The bill is quite important, and it is one in which the Senator from Michigan has a deep interest.

The real problem in sports in this country involves the entire field of professional boxing. As I recall, the Senator introduced a bill or bills on this subject. The House of Representatives finally passed a bill, which is somewhat different from some of the other versions, and it was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The question is: Would this particular Mr. HART. I thank the Senator from bill relating to team sports, which I am New York. highly in favor of, have any particular Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the bearing on the proposed legislation dealSenator yield for a question?

Mr. HART. I yield. Mr. ERVIN. How would this interfere with the college scholarships?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to allow me to answer that question?

Mr. HART. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. It is felt by those who award the scholarships, namely, organized baseball, that the standard which is spoken of as matriculation, involving one who has matriculated under a 4-year college degree, would operate in such a way as to inhibit the present practice with respect to awarding scholarships. It is felt that the amendment would have the effect of deferring young athletic prospects from matriculating in college.

Mr. ERVIN. Those who sign up to play baseball have this opportunity under the professional scholarship system, but the only chance they have to go to college under the contract is after the season closes in October until early spring.

Mr. JAVITS. That would be true if the man were playing or were committed to play during the time he was going to school. But as I understand the scholarship, that would not necessarily ensue.

Mr. ERVIN. There is nothing in the bill to prevent them from accepting scholarships and letting them go from

ing with the sports of professional boxing, if I may call it a sport?

Mr. HART. The direct and immediate answer to the concern voiced by the Senator from Washington is no. This bill does not reach professional boxing.

I am aware of the long-term interest of the Senator from Washington in the problems that confront Congress with respect to boxing. respect to boxing. I know, as we all do, of the many days he contributed in years past attempting to unravel the problems in amateur competition both in this country and abroad.

The pending bill would not solve the problem of boxing, and would not solve the problem the Senator from Washington is attempting to solve; namely, How can the United States field an Olympic team that will win all the time?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ERVIN. This is a most peculiar bill in that it undertakes, as the Senator from Michigan said, to bring organized baseball under the antitrust laws. Then, after having brought them under the antitrust laws, it would proceed to take them out from under the antitrust laws in most of the important aspects of their commercial affairs.

This country was supposed to be founded upon freedom. One of the aspects of freedom is the freedom of con

tract. Under the existing law, we have freedom of contract. The Supreme Court of the United States used to say that one of the liberties granted to Americans by the fifth amendment was the right to engage in freedom of contract, and that one of the freedoms protected against impairment by the States by the provisions of the 14th amendment-to the effect that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law was the right of freedom of contract.

The pending bill would not affect those freedoms as to lawyers. Lawyers would still have the right to make free contracts and to sell their legal services for what they were worth. The same thing would apply to doctors, businessmen, and wage earners.

But the bill proposes to rob every man in America who possesses skill in baseball, football, basketball, or hockey of the right to sell his skill to the highest bidder on a free market and negotiate a contract with anybody who desires to purchase his athletic skill.

The pending bill would authorize professional baseball, football, basketball, and hockey clubs to enter into an agreement under which persons possessing skill of an athletic nature in the field in which they were engaged for the purpose of making money could be allocated among themselves, by an agreement made by them, in the absence of the persons to be affected by the agreement and without their knowledge, and consent. Only one team could negotiate a contract with a particular person.

A college boy, possessing skill in baseball, would have his right to negotiate a free contract on a free market and sell

his skill to the highest bidder denied him

by an agreement made by the persons engaged in baseball for a profit.

Under this agreement, only one team could be permitted to negotiate with the boy. He would have to sign a contract with that team or be denied the right to engage in baseball as a profession for a livelihood.

My amendment, which was adopted by the committee-by a narrow margin, I confess would provide that those who are exempt from the antitrust laws in their moneymaking activities by this bill could not adopt an agreement that would be applicable to college students until the students had completed their 4 years or had played the last collegiate game in the sport in which their skill lay.

It was said by those who advocate the bill-and I am not referring necessarily to Senators, but to the lobbyists for the bill, that the bill would prevent a professional baseball team from signing a college player. There is no subtance to that claim.

All my amendment would do would be to provide that students would still have the same rights that they have under the existing law; and, while the bill would exempt professional sports from the antitrust laws, my amendment would exempt college players from a draft during the time they were pursuing their education. There is nothing contained in my amendment which would prevent any

professional baseball, football, basketball, or hockey team from signing up any college player it wished to sign.

My amendment would provide that a college player possessing athletic skill could sign with any team that would sign could sign with any team that would sign him, could negotiate with every team engaged in the sport in which his skill lay, and could sell his skill to the highest bidder.

The highest value of civilization is freedom. By this amendment I seek to preserve freedom of contract for the benefit of college students who possess athletic skill until these students have had an opportunity to obtain their education.

I am confident that a simple explanation of the purpose and effect of the amendment will suffice to silence any objection which may have arisen because of misinformation.

S. 950 would provide exemptions from the antitrust laws for professional sports-exemptions which no other business in the country enjoys. I am aware of the fact that it is claimed that such exemptions are necessary if a high level of competition in sports is to be main

tained.

One of these exemptions given to football, basketball, baseball and hockey, is the right for the clubs to meet and decide among themselves that only one team has the right to negotiate with an individual. As one sportswriter has said, this is like the newspaper profession deciding that a college journalism graduate could either work for the newspaper ate could either work for the newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, at the salary offered, or not work at all. This, of course, is done so that bonuses and other infor talent may be kept at a minimum. ducements which the professionals offer

able practice may be generally, it is my Whatever the merits of this questiongive up their education to play as prostrong opinion that boys in college who fessionals should have the opportunity fessionals should have the opportunity to negotiate with all teams in order to secure for themselves the most attractive offer. Therefore,

I introduced an amendment, adopted by the Judiciary Committee, which would withdraw the antitrust exemption allowing exclusive rights to negotiate with college players during their 4 years of school.

My amendment in no way would prohibit teams from signing college players; rather, it would prohibit the professionals from agreeing that only one team participating in a sport would have the right to negotiate with a player. Its sole purpose is to insure freedom of contract to those who give up their general education in order to enter the business of professional sports. This amendment has the support of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and many of the colleges of this country. In North Carolina alone, three universities and two colleges have endorsed the amendment. In addition, the National High School Federation has endorsed this proposal.

The question is often raised as to why the colleges are supporting this amendment since it would not prohibit the student from signing a freely negotiated contract. The answer, of course, is their concern for their students. They are

more aware than any of us of the injustice of third parties imposing upon collegians a denial of bargaining rights. Also, many are appalled at the pressures which a professional baseball team brings to bear when that team knows it must sign a boy within 6 months or lose the rights to negotiate with him forever.

Although the amendment would apply to professional baseball, football, hockey, and basketball, baseball is the only professional sport which has expressed to me any opposition to my amendment. This is because football and basketball, under their own league rules, forbid the drafting of boys prior to completion of their college eligibility. Baseball, on the other hand, drafts players after their sophomore year.

While the football draft is limited to each league, and there is competition among the teams in the National, American, and Canadian Football Leagues for the services of players, major league baseball and its common draft constitute a total monopoly to the boy who wishes to play professionally.

If the Los Angeles Angels draft a North Carolina boy, that athlete must either move 3,000 miles and play for the salary offered, or he must sit and wait 6 months, hoping that another club with a more attractive offer will draft him.

That is according to the present practice, which the bill would legalize, despite our boast that this country believes in freedom.

Baseball claims that this system is necessary to maintain competition and assist the second division teams. It is claimed that the money which baseball saves is purely secondary. This, of course, is nonsense.

For 50 years, I have followed professional baseball; and the lack of a draft system until 1965 never dampened my interest. Competition has always been draft. In the American League, there keen in the National League without the

has indeed been some evidence of New York Yankee domination; and I have grown used to Yankee domination in baseball as well as politics. However, the two teams who finished next to last and Washington and Kansas City, both voted last in the American League last year, need new talent so much, want to bid against the draft. Both these teams who for every promising star-not just the

1 in 20 that the draft allows them. Also, it is ironic that a draft would be instituted in the year that the Yankees finally crumbled-now mired in sixth place having lost as many games as they have won.

It is, therefore, clear that the true reason and only reason for the institution of a draft after many long years without it, is the pocketbooks of the owners.

A moment ago I asked the able and distinguished Senator from New York how my amendment would affect the socalled scholarship program instituted by some professional baseball teams. That charge has been made, and nobody has given me an answer as to how the amendment would affect it, and I challenge the assertion that this amendment would affect it in any degree.

« ПретходнаНастави »