[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.
____________________