[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1072 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1072

        To redefine ``extortion'' for purposes of the Hobbs Act.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 25 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

 Mr. Thurmond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
        To redefine ``extortion'' for purposes of the Hobbs Act.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom From Union Violence Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EXTORTION UNDER HOBBS ACT.

    Paragraph (2) of section 1951(b) of title 18, United States Code 
(commonly known as the ``Hobbs Act''), is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2)(A) The term `extortion' means the obtaining of 
        property of another--
                    ``(i) by threatening or placing another person in 
                fear that any person will be subjected to bodily injury 
                or kidnapping or that any property will be damaged; or
                    ``(ii) under color of official right.
            ``(B) In a prosecution under subparagraph (A)(i) in which 
        the threat or fear is based on conduct by an agent or member of 
        a labor organization consisting of an act of bodily injury to a 
        person or damage to property, the pendence, at the time of such 
        conduct, of a labor dispute (as defined in section 2(9) of the 
        National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9))) the outcome of 
        which could result in the obtaining of employment benefits by 
        the actor, does not constitute prima facie evidence that 
        property was obtained `by' such conduct.''.
                                 <all>