[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S5940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 1845. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
require written consent before using union dues and other mandatory 
employee fees for political activities; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                    The Union Member Protection Act

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Union Member 
Protection Act. As you may know, the unions are mounting an 
unprecedented campaign this year to defeat Republican Members of 
Congress. The main source of the money for this campaign comes from 
compulsory union dues levied upon rank-and-file union members, as well 
as nonunion members who work in union shops. This past March the AFL-
CIO, at a unique convention in Washington, DC, voted to levy a special 
assessment on every dues payer of 15 cents monthly per person to raise 
$25 million of the $35 million goal.
  In a recent survey of 1,000 rank-and-file union members, commissioned 
by Americans for a balanced budget and conducted by the Luntz Research 
Cos. 58 percent of the union members were not aware that the national 
labor unions were using mandatory monthly dues on a $35 million 
campaign to defeat Republican Members of Congress. When told of this, 
62 percent opposed the use of their union dues for this political 
effort. This is not surprising considering that nearly 40 percent of 
union members voted Republican in the 1994 elections.
  When discussing the pledge of $35 million from the unions for the 
purpose of unseating Republicans, Vice President Gore stated, ``One 
group with a conscience connected to working families can overpower 
hundreds of thousands of interests working against the interest of 
working families.'' Conscience? Washington union bosses are living 
extravagant lifestyles, financed from workers' paychecks and, yet, they 
would have people believe that Republicans are the ones out of touch 
with rank and file working families. Union bosses have spent $2.3 
million on the AFL-CIO's private airplane, $1.9 million to decorate the 
personal home and conference center of a union boss, $250,000 for a 
Washington, DC, condominium, and more than $100,000 for a union boss' 
funeral. These very same union bosses are responsible for President 
Clinton exempting the labor unions' health care plans from his proposed 
Government takeover of the Nation's health care system, revoking 
President Bush's executive order requiring unions to notify their rank-
and-file members of their right not to fund union political activities, 
and vetoing numerous bills opposed by the Washington union bosses, 
including a balanced budget, family tax cuts, and welfare reform. It's 
no wonder that 66 percent of union members prefer the leadership of 
their local chapters.
  My bill, the Union Member Protection Act, will allow no dues, fees, 
or other money required as a condition of employment to be collected 
from an individual for use in noncollective-bargaining activities 
unless the individual has given prior written consent. Noncollective-
bargaining activities would include: First, nonpartisan registration 
and get-out-the-vote campaigns and second; the establishment, 
administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate fund to 
be used for political purposes. The written consent could be revoked in 
writing at any time.
  Mr. President, when a meeting of union leaders in Washington, DC, can 
result in the bosses' effectively imposing a tax increase on the union 
workers across the country so that the union bosses can have millions 
of dollars at their disposal to pursue their personal political 
agendas, the collective-bargaining power that Congress granted the 
unions is being abused. When we know that nearly two-thirds of the 
union workers are not even aware they are being so taxed and disagree 
with the D.C. bosses' politicizing of their own dues in this manner, 
the abuse becomes so acute that it calls out for reform. My bill is a 
simple reform: It gives individual workers the direct right to say 
``yes'' or ``no'' whenever union bosses ask them to finance activities 
that fall outside the scope of collective bargaining. If the union 
bosses here in Washington are so confident their workers agree with 
their politics, they should have no problem with this bill. We'll soon 
see how confident they are.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1845

       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 ``Union Member Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIRED TO USE UNION DUES AND OTHER 
                   MANDATORY EMPLOYEE FEES FOR POLITICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8)(A) No dues, fees, or other moneys required as a 
     condition of membership in a labor organization or as a 
     condition of employment shall be collected from an individual 
     for use in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (C) of paragraph (2) unless the individual has given prior 
     written consent for such use.
       ``(B) Any consent granted by an individual under 
     subparagraph (A) shall remain in effect until revoked and may 
     be revoked in writing at any time.
       ``(C) This paragraph shall apply to activities described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) only if the communications involved 
     expressly advocate the election or defeat of any clearly 
     identified candidate for elective public office.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts collected more than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______