[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1748-H1754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2608) to protect individuals from having money involuntarily 
collected and used for political activities by a corporation or labor 
organization.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2608

       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 ``Paycheck Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITING INVOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYEE FUNDS 
                   FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activity in which the 
     national bank or corporation is engaged; and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activity in which 
     the labor organization is engaged.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time. Each entity collecting from or assessing amounts from 
     an individual with an authorization in effect under such 
     paragraph shall provide the individual with a statement that 
     the individual may at any time revoke the authorization.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activity' means any activity carried out for the purpose of 
     influencing (in whole or in part) any election for Federal 
     office, influencing the consideration or outcome of any 
     Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal 
     regulations, or educating individuals about candidates for 
     election for Federal office or any Federal legislation, law, 
     or regulations.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to amounts collected or assessed on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) and ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to manage the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said that to compel a man to 
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he 
disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.
  Mr. Speaker, this really is the quote that epitomizes House 
Resolution 2608 that is before us now, the Paycheck Protection Act, and 
I would commend it to the House's consideration and urge its adoption.
  The Paycheck Protection Act is a piece of legislation that came to 
many of us here in Congress at the urging of working men and women from 
throughout the country, working men and women who are fed up and tired 
of seeing portions of their wages, their paychecks, being siphoned off 
and directed toward political purposes of various causes without their 
consent, many times without their knowledge.
  The Paycheck Protection Act applies to all wage earners across the 
country, all paychecks. This is not an act that singles out any one 
group or organization. It is not a bill that proposes to place a 
greater burden on one organization or another. This is a bill that 
speaks directly to paychecks and wage earners.
  The fact of the matter is that many people who join various groups 
and organizations pay for their dues associated with those clubs and 
groups through wage deductions out of their paychecks. They may sign up 
for collective bargaining, for agency representation, for various sorts 
of worthwhile causes, and are frustrated to find that a portion of 
those funds are frequently and routinely siphoned off to pay for 
politics.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill puts an end to that. It protects paychecks for 
all wage earners in America. Let me say this, there are people who do 
not like this. There are many people throughout the country who are 
political operatives of various sorts who pay for huge campaigns of 
various kinds, ballot initiatives subsidizing candidates, various 
political messages. This bill does add one more step of inconvenience 
to their lives because it requires them to go seek the permission of 
those who are working hard to earn the cash to pay for these various 
political games.
  But I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time that we depoliticize 
people's paychecks. In fact, survey after survey that has been 
conducted throughout the country on this topic suggest that the 
American workers are squarely with us, the proponents of this bill. 
Eight percent of union households agree with us that they would like to 
see legislation passed by this Congress that would shut off the 
practice of siphoning off portions of wages for political purposes.
  Today I ask the Congress to stand with me, to stand with the 165 
cosponsors of H.R. 2608, to stand with the hard-working men and women 
throughout the country who work hard to put bread on the table, to put 
shoes on the feet of their children, to live the American dream, and 
who would like to be participants in a political process on a voluntary 
basis. Who believe that Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right years ago 
when he said, and once again I repeat, to compel a man to furnish 
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he 
disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), one of our great leaders on the 
Democratic side and someone who has been fighting for justice and 
campaign reform for as long as he has been in Congress.

[[Page H1749]]

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, invoking the name of Thomas Jefferson in support of this 
bill is sacrilegious to say the least. This bill, this idea, is the 
concept and the efforts of special interests and multimillionaires who 
are running around the country trying to convince people that workers 
do not have a right to speak on their own behalf. The Grover Norquists, 
the Patrick Rooneys of the world pretending to speak for people who 
pack a lunch and punch a clock and work hard every day.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a Trojan horse. It is a sneak attack on 
working families. It is an ambush designed to silence their voices with 
a workers gag rule. This bill says if there is a debate over Social 
Security or minimum wage or Medicare, democratically elected unions 
cannot even talk about it with their own members. That is what this 
bill says.
  This gag rule would actually prohibit millions of Americans from 
communicating with each other about their elected representatives, 
about the political process, of which we have very little tonight, by 
the way, and about the policies that affect them.
  Mr. Speaker, shutting down free speech like this does not just border 
on tyranny, something Mr. Jefferson knew something about, it crosses 
the line. Today my colleagues on the other side are trying to silence 
people who believe in unions. Tomorrow, will they be trying to silence 
people who believe in a particular religion?
  And who is behind this attack on working families' freedom of speech? 
Well, the answers should not surprise us. It is those special 
interests, the very wealthy in this country who want to break the backs 
of workers and unions in this Nation. And they are aligned with Speaker 
Gingrich to do it. They want to silence the voices of people who speak 
out for decent wages, affordable health care, and a secure retirement. 
And at the very same time, they want to open up the floodgates of 
special interest money from corporations and the very wealthy in our 
society.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. It is a travesty. The majority of 
this House would vote today on a genuine bipartisan campaign reform 
bill, the McCain-Feingold bill, if we had a chance, if we had an 
opportunity, but the Speaker is denying us that opportunity. The only 
option we have is to march to this well and to sign the discharge 
petition to get true, open, effective campaign debate on this floor.
  And I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, they have 
eight courageous people, I believe, who have signed that petition 
today. In the next days, weeks, months, we will be watching. If Members 
believe in changing this system that denigrates all of us, a system in 
which we have to parade over and spend a good part of our day dialing 
for dollars, a system which has ruined the confidence of the American 
people in our government, and anybody who cannot see that cannot see 
the numbers declining every year participating, if Members want to 
change that, come down and sign the discharge petition and vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Protection 
Act and I do so because I believe as Americans we should have control 
over the money that we earn, especially when the money goes to support 
a political opinion or a political candidate.
  Now, there are some, as the previous speaker noted, who would say 
that this will go so workers do not have a right to speak. Well, that 
is not true. Workers do have a right to speak. All that this requires 
is they will have to say, ``Yes, I want you to take my money and I want 
you to spend it however I see fit.''
  And to say that Thomas Jefferson did not say what he said, it was not 
sacrilegious, it is very clear what he said. He said it was tyranny.
  It has been said that the unions will not be able to talk to their 
members because of this bill. Again, that is not true. In my district 
the unions communicate weekly with their members through newspapers. 
They talk to them and have union meetings. People freely come and go. 
All this bill says is that if organizations are going to use money for 
political purposes, they just have to get permission.

                              {time}  2030

  You just have to ask people for it. Who is behind this? Eighty 
percent of union households and about 90 percent of Americans that are 
not in union households. They want to protect the paychecks that people 
work so hard for. I think everyone of us should be involved in the 
political process. But I think you should control how your political 
support goes.
  I think you should control who your political money goes to support. 
In America today that does not happen. Millions of dollars are deducted 
directly from hard-working Americans' paychecks and sent to 
organizations that never ask for permission. They never ask if they 
support issues. They never ask if they support candidates. They take 
the money and they spend it how they see fit.
  The gentleman from Colorado quoted Thomas Jefferson. He simply said 
that process is sinful and tyrannical. I believe Thomas Jefferson was 
right. The Paycheck Protection Act overcomes this tyranny that exists 
right here in America. I think we all ought to vote in support of this. 
I think we all ought to be in favor of protecting workers' paychecks. 
Let them control how their money is going to be spent in the political 
process.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler), who has been leading the effort 
on the petition drive to get the discharge petition. He has 181 brave 
souls on it.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Speaker, back in November, the Republican leadership 
promised a fair and bipartisan vote on campaign finance reform. This is 
not a fair, bipartisan vote. This is a cynical fraud being perpetuated 
on the Congress here tonight. But we have an opportunity to have a 
bipartisan vote on real campaign finance reform. I urge all my 
colleagues, if they really want reform but just do not want to talk 
about it, walk down and sign the discharge petition. It is the only way 
left to reverse this fraud that has been perpetuated on us tonight.
  The blue dog discharge petition would give us a fair and open debate 
on all the leading reform bills: McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan, the 
freshman bill, the Republican leadership bill, the Democrat bill. It 
would even give us a vote on the Doolittle bill, which abolishes all 
limits on contributions. We need only 31 more signatures.
  I urge my 25 Democratic colleagues who have not signed to do so and 
also see if we can get 7 or 8 more Republicans. The discharge petition 
means that campaign reform would not die today, it will not die this 
week, or over the recess.
  Mr. Speaker, the game is not over. After we get through with this 
cynical exercise tonight, sign the discharge petition.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is sacrilegious, it is a Trojan 
horse, we are working somehow to gag and to silence the opposition. We 
are shutting down the opposition, shutting down free speech, and we are 
trying to silence people and this is a cynical fraud. We hear all of 
these very pejorative phrases, and Members seem to be trying to do 
everything they possibly can not to focus on exactly what we are 
debating here.
  It is one thing to stand up and call everybody a bunch of names, but 
it is another thing to try to confront exactly what we are voting on. 
We are voting here, and what we are supposed to be discussing is 
whether or not people who are working should be permitted, should be 
required, before they can take something out of their paycheck and use 
it for political purposes, that they should have the right to have to 
have a signoff, that before you can take something from somebody, they 
should sign a document saying, it is okay for you to take it and use it 
for political purposes.
  I do not think calling it sacrilegious, a Trojan horse and talking 
about we are trying to silence somebody, we are trying to prevent 
people from being robbed. We are trying to prevent people from saying, 
you have a right to take

[[Page H1750]]

something out of your paycheck and use it for something that you do not 
believe in. We are not the government. We are a private group and we 
have that right with your money. Well, that is what we are defining 
here.
  It is not sacrilegious. It is not trying to silence anybody. It is 
simply trying to set down, is it proper to give the power to the 
individual who is working out there in whatever company the right to 
control his own paycheck so people do not take it away from him without 
his permission and use it for political purposes that he or she may not 
agree with. That is very reasonable. This is a very reasonable bill. 
The hysterics that I am hearing from the other side would indicate that 
there are other things at work here.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this is about warning, 
as the lost in space movie comes out, if you do not vote for 
Republicans, they will get you. That is what this is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to 
rise today and acknowledge that finally we have brought to the floor of 
the House the campaign finance sham act of 1998. These collective bills 
double the amount of money wealthy special interests can give. They 
silence the most vulnerable working families in America, not allowing 
them to come before the body that makes laws for all of this Nation, 
the United States Congress. Then the bill attempts to intimidate our 
newest and most innovative and interesting and wonderful voters, our 
voters who will become new citizens, particularly targeting Hispanic 
voters.
  What more can one say than this is a sham? If this is not against 
what America stands for, 293 charitable groups, including the League of 
Women Voters, say do not vote for this bunch of sham. The gag rule is a 
gag on the Constitution of the United States of America. I am ashamed 
of this sham.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat all of these bills, bring real campaign 
finance reform to the floor of the House. Vote for the discharge. Vote 
for the bills that have been put on that really mean something and take 
the Constitution and make it work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong opposition to the Paycheck 
Protection Act, a bill that more appropriately should be titled the 
Worker Gag Rule. This legislation will prohibit unions from making 
political expenditures without prior written consent from their 
members. It requires labor unions to obtain written, prior 
authorization from each member before collecting money from him or her 
to be used for the union's political activity. At the same time, the 
bill allows corporations to spend corporate funds for political 
purposes--unless individual shareholders object.
  Proponents of this legislation have dishonestly argued that it is 
intended to protect the rights of union members. In reality, it is 
intended to effectively silence the ability of America's working 
families to have a voice in the political process by singling out 
American workers for burdensome restrictions on their right to have 
their voices heard here in Washington.
  This legislation is an attack on working families who freely choose 
to organize and to join together to fight for access to health care, 
better education, pensions, safer workplaces, and other important 
issues that some of my colleagues find to be uncomfortable. Although 
cleverly disguised as campaign finance reform, this legislation is 
clearly a coordinated effort to silence workers and their families and 
remove them from the political playing field.
  Make no mistake, this represents an effort to punish the American 
labor movement for supporting working families. Unfairly, but not 
surprisingly, this legislation only singles out union for these new 
restrictions. Corporations are not subject to the same burdensome 
requirements. In fact, corporations are required only to provide their 
shareholders with an annual statement detailing the proposed amount of 
money to be spent on political activities in the upcoming 12-month 
period, the percentage of that amount attributed to the individual 
shareholder, and a form allowing the shareholder to object to the 
expenditure of the funds for political purposes. This one-sided 
approach creates an unfair advantage in the political system for 
wealthy special interests, when business already out spends unions by 
an 11-to-1 margin.
  My colleagues, I urge you to oppose this transparent attempt to make 
working families more irrelevant to the American political system by 
increasing the power of the rich. I urge to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me this time.
  I think it is very instructive for Members of this House and those 
who join us coast to coast beyond these walls on C-SPAN to hear the 
familiar cacophony of complaints, criticism and carping from those who 
claim to champion the rights of workers, but yet would move to abridge 
the most fundamental right, the freedom of any citizen to say, I do not 
agree with the political endeavor. How dare you reach into my pocket 
and take any of my pay and use it for a political cause with which I 
fundamentally disagree. And that is the issue which this House debates 
tonight.
  And it is very, very instructive that amidst all the arguments, we 
have heard nothing substantive tonight from the other side. We have 
heard no one try to stand up and defend the rights of abridging 
workers. Instead, we hear these playground taunts and this type of 
class warfare, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on this one, the 
American people, regardless of their work status and affiliation, are 
speaking with a united voice. They know this is all about freedom of 
association, freedom of dissent, first amendment rights. And this is 
the real campaign reform that Members can vote for.
  So I would urge my colleagues to resist the temptation of class 
warfare and driving wedges amongst the so-called classes of the 
American people and in fact cast a vote for freedom.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I will not yield at this time. The gentleman has 
his own time on which he can speak. This time has been given to me by 
my colleague, and I am going to make this case for the American people 
because not only with poll numbers, but with principles the American 
people say, it is our money. Let us spend it as we see fit. Adopt this 
act.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) who has worked with us and toiled on 
this issue as well from his first day in the House.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, what the authors of these bills forget is 
that in America voting is not a dream. It is not just another 
government benefit or program to be means tested. It is a 
constitutional right. And Americans should not be subjected to a 
Federal Government background check when they register to vote. But 
that is what these bills do.
  It turns the ballot box into an interrogation zone where Americans 
are guilty until they are proven innocent. And to show they are 
citizens, Republicans want the Social Security Administration and the 
INS to run background checks and share private information on American 
voters.
  Not surprisingly, Republicans want this test to be taken out where? 
In California, in Texas, in Florida, in Illinois and New York, States 
with large minority populations, especially Americans of Hispanic 
descent. We know already what they tried to do in the discredited 
Dornan investigation. We will not permit you to do that under the name 
of campaign finance reform. The right to vote in this Nation should not 
be subject to government intrusion, and Hispanic-American voters will 
not forget their continuing persecution of their rights.
  Lastly, the founders of the union movement battled corporate-
sponsored, club-wielding thugs who tried to silence them with beating 
and violence. Today Republicans are trying to accomplish in a law what 
they could not accomplish with a billy club.
  Democrats stand with working people and their families who still 
believe that a person who puts in a full workweek deserves a fair wage 
to support their family and to have a voice here in the Congress. We 
will not let you stop unions from speaking on behalf of working 
families in this country.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much 
time remains between the two sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Colorado

[[Page H1751]]

(Mr. Bob Schaffer) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Boyd). I apologize for being so stingy with the time, 
but the other side, the leadership in this House, has given us so 
little time.
  (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I came into this Congress over a year ago as a 
part of a class of 73 Members, Democrats and Republicans, who had two 
mandates from our electorate. One was to stop the partisanship. Two was 
to reform the campaign finance laws of this Nation.
  Mistakenly and naively, most of us believed that we could do that. 
Today we learn the truth.
  There are several real campaign finance reform proposals the House 
should be debating today. Unfortunately, all we are allowed to vote on 
are four campaign finance deform bills, designed to promote a partisan 
advantage for the majority party, not real campaign finance reform.
  What is missing from the debate today? The sad truth is we are not 
even allowed to consider legislation developed by Members from both 
sides of the aisle. Why is not the House debating Shays-Meehan or the 
bipartisan freshman bill? Because the House Republican leadership is 
afraid one of those solutions might actually pass.
  Last year, Speaker Gingrich promised the American people and this 
House a fair and open debate on campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, 
the American people will see today what that promise really means. 
Debate limited to 20 minutes per side, no amendments allowed and a two-
thirds majority for passage.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also like to talk about 
how they have opened up the process by allowing open rules. That is 
simply not true. The charade we are witnessing today on campaign 
finance deform cheats the American people of the open, honest debate 
they have demanded and more importantly deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2608, the worker gag act, 
and sign the discharge petition Number 3 so we can help the Speaker 
deliver on his promise.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  (Mr. Doolittle asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment is quite clear, 
``Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech.'' And yet, 
the whole business of campaign reform as has come out before the 
Members of the House largely centers on how do we bridge the freedom of 
speech. There is a whole litany of ways, many of which are displayed 
before us. However, the bill by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob 
Schaffer) is designed to protect the freedom of speech, the freedom of 
speech of those members of the unions who have the right to make sure 
that their money is not spent contrary to their own purposes.
  It is a good bill. It is one of the few bills out here I can say I 
support wholeheartedly today.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) cite the history of the Democrats' involvement with campaign 
finance reform. He quite correctly pointed out in 1974 they did pass 
the present law, the disastrous present law that skewed contributions 
to PACs over contributions to individuals. We never really heard of 
PACs before, until that became the law.
  By the way, 2 years ago, as recently as that, PACs was the great 
Satan; and today it is soft money. Soft money was given to us as well 
by this law, which places such severe restraints on direct 
contributions to candidates that money could flow then into the area of 
soft money, the unregulated area.
  Of course, this Congress seems to want to regulate many things; and, 
happily, we have been able to resist that because regulation oftentimes 
is not the answer. Regulation has compounded the problem in the area of 
free speech. Now, having limited the amount of hard dollars that go to 
candidates, we see efforts to limit and regulate soft money. And, yes, 
let us get those evil issue advocacy ads.
  I would say if we would go back and diagnose the problem correctly 
and recognize what it is, we could stop treating the symptoms of the 
problem and go right to the problem. The problem is too much 
regulation.
  I urge support for the Schaffer bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), a Member who has led this House on so 
many important fights and who has been so helpful in this particular 
area.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership on this very important issue.
  In fact, I do not think there is any issue more important than this 
one because it is about nothing less than our oath of office. Every 
single person who comes to this body to serve takes an oath of office 
to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. The greatest enemy to our democracy is foreign and domestic 
money poisoning our system.
  On top of it all, we have the cynical, cynical action on the part of 
the Speaker today which gags American workers. The deck is so stacked 
against the average American today, the way is greased for corporate 
America and wealthy Americans to have their voices heard; and today in 
this body the Republican majority wants to add an additional burden to 
average Americans having their voices heard here.
  Mr. Speaker, when Washington first became the capital of our country, 
it was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp putrid from the 
huge amounts of money that pours in here, special interest money 
stacking, as I said, the deck against the average American.
  Let us rid ourselves of this poison. Let us rid our system of this 
poison. Let us honor our oath of office. Let us ask the Speaker to have 
freedom of speech on this floor, allowing us to support the bipartisan 
McCain-Feingold bill and restore freedom in our country.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, when the other side says that they 
support the working man and woman, it is not true. Over 90 percent of 
the jobs in the United States are small and large business, nonunion 
affiliated. What they support are the big union bosses. That want 
bigger government because they want the power; and that causes higher 
taxes, higher spending, which goes right along with the Democratic 
leadership.
  Secondly, that over 30 percent of union workers are Republican, 10 
percent of the workers are third party, and they are coercing that 40 
percent to spend their money on campaigns against candidates that they 
support. And that is wrong. What this bill does is says that the union 
has got to ask those members, if they use their dollars, can they use 
them against the opponents. And that is wrong.
  Thirdly, let us say that a Republican, there are a great number of 
them that represent union districts, let us say that they vote along 
with the unions. The President will veto anything that is kicked out 
against the unions because he wants that power also.
  If the Republicans vote along with the unions, we lose that. If they 
vote against it, the President vetoes it; and the Senate probably will 
not pass it. But let us just say that the union stuff is kicked out. 
That leaves a disaster in campaigns, because it throws the majority of 
power to the Democrats.
  That is exactly what they want. That is why they want the campaign 
finance reform, because they know it is a lose-lose situation. They 
want their unions to be able to contribute hundreds of millions of 
dollars. They want the Lincoln bedroom. They want the Tries, the Riadys 
and the Jeffersons and the rest of them to contribute, but yet they do 
not want the other side of it. They caused the problem in 1974 with the

[[Page H1752]]

PAC money. We are trying to clear it up.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of the Republican 
majority's strategy to silence anyone who dares to disagree with its 
extremist agenda. The worker gag rule muzzles the legitimate voice of 
working men and women who dare to tell the truth about the Republican 
leadership's anti-labor agenda.
  It is amazing that supporters of this proposal claim to be concerned 
about union workers. Where was that concern when they tried to bring 
back company unions, eliminate overtime pay, gut health and safety 
protections, repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, or oppose an increase in the 
minimum wage?
  Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. No worker may be forced 
to join a union. Union membership is always voluntary. And no worker 
may be forced to pay union dues. In right-to-work States, unions must 
fairly represent all workers in a bargaining unit, but individual 
workers may be free riders and pay nothing for their share of 
representation costs.
  In other States, unions and employers are permitted to agree on union 
security clauses that require all employees to pay an agency fee to 
cover their fair share of collective-bargaining-related costs. No 
worker may be required to pay any fee for a political activity. 
Further, unions must notify all workers that they are not required to 
join the union and that such workers are not required to pay full union 
dues.
  This bill imposes onerous burdens on the labor movement that do not 
apply to corporations or to nonprofit groups such as NRA and the 
Christian Coalition. This bill is nothing but a politically motivated 
attack on the workers of America.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``To compel a man 
to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which 
he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' His thoughtful observation 
appeared a few years ago to be validated by the United States Supreme 
Court in the Beck decision.
  Many of my colleagues have stated this evening that union workers do 
not need the protections given in this legislation. But let me give 
them a clear example of the effect this bill can have and what union 
leaders so fear.
  In 1992, the voters of Washington State approved Initiative Measure 
134, a state law prohibiting labor unions from withholding or diverting 
portions of an employee's wage for political purposes without the 
employee's written consent. The effect of the new law, which 
essentially implements the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, has been 
striking. Prior to Initiative 134, one union, the Washington Federation 
of State Employees and American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees, was among the Nation's leaders in terms of money 
raised and the number of workers contributing through payroll 
deductions.
  Since I-134, more than 90 percent of this union's members chose not 
to give the union access to their earnings to pay for the union 
leaders' political agenda. The number of contributing union members 
dropped from 2,500 workers to 82 workers, this as a result of giving 
union members choice. Clearly, there is need to give the Supreme Court 
ruling in Beck the visibility and force of the Federal law.
  How can this same kind of awareness in paycheck protection be 
extended to all American workers? Federal legislative action is needed. 
The Paycheck Protection Act addresses the core issue spotlighted by the 
Supreme Court preventing forced collection of union dues before the 
fact. The worker would not, as Beck allows, be required to request a 
refund of his dues after the dues have already been seized.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on paragraph 2 of the bill that is before 
us right now, paragraph 2, line 11, on page 3 of the bill, it says ``an 
authorization described in paragraph (1) * * *'' And we go back to 
paragraph (1), Mr. Speaker. It says, ``except with the separate, prior, 
written, voluntary authorization of each individual * * *''
  What do we mean in that paragraph number 2? What does that mean? That 
is a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot interpret the bill. That is 
for the House to determine in debate.
  Mr. PASCRELL. May I ask through the Speaker to the sponsor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has rhetorically posed his 
question and may pursue it in debate.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I was asking for a parliamentary inquiry. Point of 
order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may propound the question on 
time yielded by the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. We will have to do that later, we are so short on 
time. Unless the gentleman from California has some extra time he might 
yield at this point just to explain that to one of our Members. The 
language is so new.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, when I saw this bill came up 
today, I thought I read the calendar wrong; I thought it was April 
Fool's Day. Because this is an April Fool's joke. This bill should be 
up Wednesday, not today, because this bill is nothing more than a joke 
and a pretense to reform our campaign finance system.
  These bills do nothing more than deform the system. Because this is 
not an honest attempt to reform the system. The only honest attempt to 
reform the system is a bipartisan attempt. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrich) and his followers have refused to let this House 
consider any bipartisan legislation. It is an attempt to gag not only 
the workers in this country in this bill but the members of the 
minority party.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not going to be fooled by this. 
It may be April Fool's week, but it is not the time to try to pull one 
over on the American people. What we should be doing in this House is 
addressing real campaign reform. Let us do the McCain-Feingold bill. 
Let us do the freshmen bipartisan bill. But we have to do it on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Any attempt to jam this down our throats on a partisan basis is 
nothing more than a sham, and the American people know it. The people 
of this House know it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called campaign finance reform debate. I hope my Republican colleagues 
do not think that they are going to pass this debate off as genuine 
campaign finance reform. It is a sham, it does not have any integrity, 
and the American people know that.
  I just want to ask my colleagues, who do they think they are fooling 
in this process? We know that this is a hodgepodge of measures that the 
House has already rejected. We know that this ``reform'' would 
intimidate voters from registering to vote. This particular piece, the 
Paycheck Protection Act, is a dishonest proposal. It is meant to 
silence workers, prevent them from having a voice in the political 
process.
  As a matter of fact, it requires labor unions to get written prior 
authorization before assessing a fee to finance political activities; 
and, conversely, it allows corporations to make political contributions 
unless and until individual shareholders or members object. It is 
mindless what they are proposing here today.

                              {time}  2100

  The fact of the matter is and the tragedy of this is that, in this 
House, we have the votes to pass real reform. They figured out that we 
could pass it, so they have come up with this charade

[[Page H1753]]

here tonight that says we have got to get two-thirds of this body in 
order to pass reform. It is nonsense. We can pass it. It is nothing but 
a way to deny the people in this country a voice in the democracy. It 
is wrong. Vote against these bills.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers 
on my side. I would reserve the right to close and reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight's process is such a sham. It brings 
shame on its perpetrators. They use the argument about free speech when 
it comes to campaign reform, but they thwart free speech right on this 
floor.
  Public cynicism is already too high. They are only going to increase 
it. There is already too much money in politics. They are going to 
bring in more. They talk about coercion, even though they know every 
union member who wants out in terms of use of his or her money has the 
right to exercise that.
  I want to say one thing to each and every one of them, those of us 
who live with the present system should be the ones who take the lead 
in reforming it. Instead, the Republicans have finally brought a set of 
proposals here precisely because they know they will fail. They will 
fail. And you, Mr. Speaker, and company, will have failed the American 
people.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I presently have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), who has done such an outstanding job; 
and we will all miss him as he is not seeking reelection. We thank him 
for all of his contributions.
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, if this was not such a serious subject, this 
would be laughable. It is unfortunate we would not all be under oath. 
If we were under oath, we would be issued subpoenas for perjury for 
calling this campaign reform.
  I ran for office the first time and spent $70,000, and that was a lot 
of money. Now it is not uncommon to spend $1 million to get elected to 
Congress.
  I remember we had a debate around here, and we were talking about 
unions, we were talking about special interests and PACs and GOPAC. We 
do not, to this day, know who the contributors to GOPAC are.
  At least when we get a contribution from the labor union, we know it 
is from the teamsters, the steelworkers or carpenters, whoever. We know 
who it is from. This is absolutely a charade.
  If it were not for a good people that I am leaving in this place, I 
would say, hallelujah, I am glad I am out of here. This is an absolute 
travesty that is being perpetrated on the American people.
  It is a mystery to me why Members put a bad bill under suspension. 
They have got to get two-thirds of the Members of the House to vote for 
a bad bill. It seems to me, if they are going to bring a bad bill out 
here, they should bring it out under regular order where they could at 
least get 51 percent.
  I know what the spin is going to be, the Democrats kill campaign 
financing. If Members are able to do that, they are masters of it. But 
I do not believe you are going to be able to put it off this time, 
boys. You are not that good.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this Paycheck Protection Act provision is one 
more step in the oppression of working families by the Republican 
majority. If they are interested in stopping people from involuntarily 
contributing to political campaigns, then they should single out the 
corporations that can outcontribute the Democrats, the unions, by 20 to 
1 in soft money.
  How many of the millions of shareholders in America were consulted or 
asked their opinion as to what position these corporations took when 
they contributed that soft money on which candidates they endorse? We 
are talking about many millions more than unions spend.
  Unions are under the control of the Beck decision. They have to do a 
lot of reporting. Each union member has certain rights in terms of the 
positions taken by the union, but what rights do shareholders have?
  Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted here several times. Certainly 
Thomas Jefferson will be in favor of equal oppression and equal 
repression if the government is going to oppress anybody. Why do we not 
do the same for corporations that we do for unions?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the great gentlewoman 
from Marin, California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for years the American people have told us 
loud and clear what they want with campaign finance reform. They want a 
system that encourages every American to participate, they want a 
system to close special interest loopholes, and they want to ban all 
soft money.
  But instead of what the American people want, we have the special 
interest groups and their friends giving us a bill that benefits big 
business and their lobbyists.
  The worker gag rule singles out workers, making it not easier but 
more difficult for them to participate in the electoral process. At the 
same time, large corporations are allowed to pour shareholder money 
into campaigns.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, in the last election cycle alone, 
corporations outspent unions by a margin of 11 to 1. This is like 
letting a CEO vote 11 times while giving the worker only 1 vote. That 
is the worker gag bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield three-quarters of a minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler); and I hope the Chair will be 
generous with his gavel.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let us go to basics here. The basics are 
that unions are voluntary democratic institutions. We do not tell 
library associations how they can spend their money. The members 
determine that by majority vote and by the leaders they elect.
  If a union member under current law does not want his money spent to 
explain legislation to members or for other political reasons, he can 
ask that his money not be spent, which is more than most organizations.
  This bill is hypocritical. This bill says a union cannot spend money 
for these purposes until they get every individual signed off, but a 
corporation can spend money unless the individual shareholder says no. 
Why do we not make them both the same? The union and the corporation 
can spend money unless the individual says no, or neither can spend 
money unless the individual said yes. Then the bill would not be 
hypocritical.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Bob Schaffer) has 4 and one-half minutes remaining.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of time that has been allotted.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill. It is one and a half pages long. 
It is not complicated. It applies to paychecks, period, paychecks 
across the board. Whether they are union paychecks, whether they are 
corporate paychecks, whether they are paychecks associated with banks 
or any other organization, this bill protects the wage earners who earn 
paychecks wherever they may be. It says this, no portion of their wages 
can be siphoned off and directed toward political causes unless we 
previously have the consent of the wage earner.
  The other side who have come up and opposed this campaign finance 
reform measure have time and time and time again mentioned every topic 
under the sun except for the issue at hand. They have talked about 
extremist agendas, worker gag rules, overtime pay, minimum wage, Davis-
Bacon Act, McCain-Feingold, and on and on and on.

[[Page H1754]]

  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why there is a reluctance to address 
the issue at hand. And 80 percent of the American public agrees with us 
when surveyed and polled. Union households, 80 percent of union 
households agree that the Paycheck Protection Act needs to be passed in 
order to protect their paychecks.
  For the other side here who says this is radical, they agree with 16 
percent of the union households in America. For the other side that 
says protecting paychecks is radical, they are agreeing with 16 percent 
of voters overall.
  When it comes to teacher union households, they agree with 13 percent 
of teacher union households, 16 percent of nonunion households.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it loudly enough: 80 percent of the 
American public believes that it is right and just to protect paychecks 
and prevent a portion of someone's wages from going toward a political 
cause unless the wage earner agrees and approves.
  Let me say this, the people of America tonight have a big question. 
They want to know who is in control of Congress and who is listening to 
whom here. They want to know whether this Congress is going to listen 
to the 80 percent of the American people, union households and nonunion 
households alike, who want their paychecks protected or whether this 
Congress is going to listen to the very small, extreme minority who 
believes that it is fair and just to steal cash out of someone's wages 
without their consent and without their approval.
  That is the question that needs to be resolved today; and I say, Mr. 
Speaker, this question needs to be resolved as forcefully and clearly 
as it possibly can.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson's name has come up a couple times; and 
the quote has come over three times tonight. Let me make it a fourth 
time, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is most compelling. Thomas 
Jefferson said, to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for 
the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and 
tyrannical.
  The question, also, tonight is whether Thomas Jefferson's legacy is 
correct or whether it will be ignored and trampled by those who believe 
that union bosses should have their voices heard over and above the 
voices of common, everyday, hard-working Americans.
  There is precedence for this, Mr. Speaker. The State of Washington 
passed similar legislation where 72 percent of the voters approved the 
Paycheck Protection Act. The teachers union, 48,000 members strong, 
dropped their political contributions down to 8,000 members when 
voluntary standards were applied to those laws. That is freedom, Mr. 
Speaker. That is liberty. That is real fairness.
  That is why the Paycheck Protection Act has more cosponsors in this 
House than any other campaign finance reform effort. It is the 
compelling reason that we put the voices, the concerns of every honest 
American hard-working taxpayer ahead of those of large, loud union 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2608.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________