[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 50 (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2600-H2602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) is 
recognized for half the time between now and midnight, approximately 
12\1/2\ minutes, as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the 
occasion of this special order to speak about one of the most basic 
components of campaign finance reform that we have to deal with here in 
the present Congress and certainly throughout the country as well.
  There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, about various ways and 
strategies to reinstitute a sense of fairness and confidence in our 
election laws among the American people. But while the discussions 
about limited campaign funds, about reporting requirements, about 
various strategies to disclose the campaign contributions and 
expenditures of candidates seems to be occupying the center of 
political debate on campaign finance reform, I believe there is a much 
more fundamental issue that we need to deal with, and that is known as 
the Paycheck Protection Act.
  What happens today in a strategy to raise funds for various campaigns 
is that we have a number of organizations that have found creative ways 
to withdraw the wages of hard-working Americans and siphon those 
dollars off for political causes of various sorts. Now, this often 
occurs without the consent or even the knowledge of the wage earner, 
who is working hard to earn the cash to make all this possible.
  It occurs in many different settings, but most generally the biggest 
culprit seems to be labor unions. Labor unions persuade prospective 
employees to join their organizations for a variety of very attractive 
causes. One would be agency representation and collective bargaining, 
for example. And while those are legitimate functions of labor unions, 
functions that I think most people would support and agree with, few 
people would agree that it is also a good idea to siphon a portion of a 
worker's wages associated with union dues or agency fees and divert 
those dollars toward political campaigns of various sorts, often 
campaigns that the union worker themselves, the wage earner themselves, 
do not support.
  I want to offer a couple of examples that I think Members ought to 
consider. If we read today's headlines, for example, ``Ex-Teamsters 
Official Indicted''. This deals with just one labor union. There are 
several. And there are several that are very honorable and worthwhile 
organizations.
  I am focusing on the one in yesterday's headline, being the Teamsters 
Union. This is in the Washington Times. ``A Federal Grand Jury indicted 
the Teamsters former political director yesterday on charges of giving 
$1.1 million in union funds to the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and 
liberal advocacy groups so they would launder portions into the 
reelection campaign of Teamsters President Ron Carey.
  Now, the Committee on Education and the Workforce is investigating 
this particular scandal, particularly the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee therein under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). And what we are uncovering in that committee 
is just disclosure after disclosure after disclosure and additional 
revelations about money laundering schemes through the Teamsters Union.
  Now, here we have an example of union dues that are being used and 
misused and laundered to benefit certain political campaigns.
  There are some people, no doubt within these organizations, that 
support these particular political activities and political causes. And 
for them this money laundering scheme is certainly to their advantage 
and to their benefit. But the vast majority of union members and 
certainly Teamsters Union members do not approve of money laundering. 
They do not approve of having pension funds and other funds diverted 
toward political causes of various sorts without their knowledge and 
without their consent.
  Now, these are matters of a very different nature than the general 
campaigns that myself or other Members of this Congress engage in, or 
at the State legislative level or county commissioners level, at a 
local level back home, or on an issue advocacy basis.
  But those second kinds of campaigns that I mentioned are also the 
kinds of campaigns that receive political funds from union dues and 
from the wages of hard-working Americans without the consent or 
knowledge of the wage earner.
  It does not seem to be too difficult a question to ask nor to answer 
in America as follows: Should anyone be forced or compelled to 
contribute their hard-earned wages to a political campaign they do not 
support? I think the answer is clearly no. It is hard to believe that 
there is anyone in America who would answer in the affirmative when 
given such a question.
  The most recent national polls on the subject, and I am referring to 
this chart here on my right which shows where public opinion registers 
on this particular topic. A recent poll by John McLaughlin and 
Associates asked Americans across the country whether they approved or 
disapprove of a new Federal law that would protect workers paychecks. 
In other words, a law that would prevent any organization, corporations 
or labor organizations from siphoning off a portion of a wage earner's 
paycheck and directing it towards politics without the consent of the 
wage earner. Would Americans support a Federal law that would protect 
paychecks and protect them from such a travesty?
  Among all voters, 80 percent of the American people have told us that 
they support a law to that effect. Looking way over here on the chart, 
only 16 percent of the American voters believe that labor unions and 
other political groups ought to be able to siphon cash out of wage 
earners' paychecks without their consent.
  Interestingly enough, those numbers are identical to what we find in 
union households. In fact, this poll oversampled union households 
throughout

[[Page H2601]]

America, and we found that the very members of the labor organizations 
who have abused their trust, 80 percent of union households also agree 
that there ought to be a law protecting the paychecks of wage earners.

  Once again, only 16 percent of union households, looking at the bar 
here, 16 percent of union households believe that the law ought to 
continue as it is today and allow unions and other political 
organizations to, in fact, steal cash out of the wages and paychecks of 
honest, hard-working Americans.
  When we survey the teachers' union, just to be more specific about 
unions, 84 percent of teachers' unions' members support the notion of 
paycheck protection, and 80 percent of all other nonunion families 
throughout the country support paycheck protection as well.
  This is a significant number and a significant illustration of where 
the American people are on such a basic issue of fairness. Again, it is 
hard to believe that there are those anywhere in the country who 
support the notion of confiscating the wealth of the people who earn it 
and directing it toward the political causes of some political 
insider's choice, but, as we can see on the chart, there are a handful 
of folks in America that agree.

                              {time}  2345

  The question is who is in charge. Well, when this question was posed 
to this Congress just 1 month ago in these very terms, we relied on the 
judgment of these individuals, those who are supporting laws to protect 
paychecks. The judgments of the individuals who constitute the majority 
of Americans believe paychecks ought to be protected, and we proposed a 
bill on that basis.
  Well, this Congress, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, sided not with 
the 80 percent of the American taxpayers who believe that paychecks 
ought to be protected, this Congress sided with the 16 percent of the 
individuals who believe that it is acceptable and just to have labor 
unions and political insiders take cash out of workers' paychecks 
without their consent.
  Now, there is a number of reasons for that. Obviously, there is 
something that is causing the Congress to listen to these people down 
here in the minority of instances and to ignore the voices of those who 
are in the majority category, speaking of 80 percent and 84 percent 
strengths. The only thing I can attribute that to is politics in 
general. Those dollars that make their way toward various political 
campaigns, it is quite possible that those dollars may have made their 
way to Congress on occasion.
  The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, promised to veto 
the legislation should it ever make his desk. That, again, is a promise 
that was made, I believe, with full consultation of the labor unions 
who raise political dollars by confiscating it from the paychecks of 
hard-working Americans. And that may also, I suspect, be the case with 
a number of Members of Congress, as well.
  The political pressure that month was pretty intense, I have to 
admit. We could see a number of folks who constitute the 16 percent 
minority that I mentioned lobbying around the Capitol here. They were 
wearing their buttons, asking Members to vote against paycheck 
protection. And while those organizations may have scored a temporary 
victory here in the Congress and in the House of Representatives, I 
believe that they will not prevail when it comes to winning this battle 
on the street. And that battle is one that is going to take place, I 
assure my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, not here in Washington, D.C., 
perhaps, but in the great State of California, in the great State of 
Colorado, in the great State of Nevada.
  This is a battle that has already been won, in the great State of 
Washington. It is a battle that has already been won at the legislative 
level in the great State of Michigan. It is a battle that is being 
pondered and considered in places like Ohio, and Maryland, and Florida, 
and South Dakota and several other States where workers are telling us 
with great consistency that they are fed up with a law that allows 
labor unions and other political organizations to actually reach into 
the pockets of hard-working Americans and siphon off a portion of their 
wages and divert it toward political campaigns without the consent of 
the wage-earner.
  Well, I mentioned those States and the battles that are about to 
ensue in those States because those States have seen fit to either 
propose or begin to propose ballot initiatives to put these questions 
on the ballot for their constituents to consider come election time, 
come November, or, in the case of California, even earlier.
  When given that choice, it seems to be pretty clear and the direction 
of these initiatives right now seems to suggest that the voice of the 
people, the voice of the families that I mentioned earlier, that 80 
percent in the majority who wants paycheck protection, will in the end 
speak louder than the minority of individuals who find comfort and 
value in using those resources for their own political gain and 
political advantage.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). If the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bob Schaffer) would yield for a moment, the Chair would inform the 
gentleman that he may claim the remainder of the time between now and 
midnight and may proceed.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the use of compulsory 
union dues for political purposes violates the basic principle of 
voluntary political participation embodied in our Nation's 
Constitution.
  In 1994, by way of example, 40 percent of union members voted for 
Republicans, for my party. Yet in 1996, less than 10 percent of labor 
PAC dollars went to Republican candidates. Now, think about that. Forty 
percent of union members are voting for one particular party, yet 10 
percent of those unions' political PAC contributions are going to the 
same party.
  That means about 30 percent of the members who are working hard, 
paying the bills, and making all this political gamesmanship possible 
are not represented. Their hard-earned cash is siphoned off away from 
their paychecks and spent on political campaigns that they do not, in 
fact, support.
  In Washington State, where 72 percent of the voters approved a 
paycheck protection initiative in 1992, over 40,000 union workers had 
the shackles of involuntary political participation broken. In other 
words, the people of Washington State enacted a paycheck protection 
mechanism that protected the paychecks of wage-earners that essentially 
said that union dues are off limits, that wages are off limits for 
political purposes unless you have the consent of the wage-earner.
  Well, here is what happened in the State of Washington. Originally 
there were 48,000 members of the Washington Education Association, and 
they were forced to fund political activities against their will until 
this initiative passed, and again with the backing of 72 percent of the 
voters in the State of Washington. Well, the interesting answer to a 
very obvious question is, what happened? The answer is that after 
passage, only 8,000 people voluntarily succumbed to the union's 
political activities.
  Let me go back and restate those numbers. Before the paycheck 
protection act in the State of Washington was enacted, 48,000 union 
members were forced, not just one union, this is the Washington 
Education Association, were forced to contribute to political 
activities against their will. After passage, only 8,000 voluntarily 
paid for unions' political activities.
  Well, Congress can send that same message to these labor bosses that 
are reminiscent to the messages sent by the colonists to King George, 
``No taxes without representation.''
  Now, I characterize this activity as taxes for the following reason, 
because labor unions have been given a tremendous amount of authority 
under Federal and State laws to organize on union sites and on work 
sites and to go forward on collective bargaining and agency 
representation. And that is fine. That is a good thing. Those of us who 
support paycheck protection are not opposed to unions organizing. We 
are not opposed to unions being engaged in collective bargaining. We 
are not opposed to unions providing agency representation to people who 
work on a particular work site. In fact, we are not even opposed to 
labor unions being involved in political activities.
  I think a union's political action committee, political expenditures 
are

[[Page H2602]]

fine. Under the first amendment and the whole concept of free speech 
and industrial democracy, union activity in politics is a good and 
healthy thing.

                              {time}  2355

  I wish to encourage that, not discourage that. But the real 
fundamental question comes down to how those dollars are raised. When 
you have these organizations that raise funds without the consent of 
those who are paying, I believe that it constitutes the full definition 
of a criminal activity, an activity that ought to be ended.
  The debate really is not over here in Congress. As many of us know 
and have followed, the efforts to move campaign finance reform to the 
floor again for the second time are being met and warmly received by 
our Speaker and others in our leadership. There will be another attempt 
at trying to pass meaningful campaign finance reform in a few months. 
When that bill comes to the floor, we ought to insist and demand that 
paycheck protection be a part of those debates and those discussions. 
Fortunately for the 80 percent of the individuals who support paycheck 
protection, we are receiving very favorable indications from our 
leadership that that will be the case, that we will have an open floor 
scenario where amendments by Members will be able to be offered, 
including the Paycheck Protection Act, that the Paycheck Protection Act 
may in fact be folded into the base bill that comes to the floor for 
campaign finance reform. But more importantly, I think it is important 
for this Congress to utilize its opportunity for national leadership to 
speak out to the American people and to talk about the real travesty 
that exists and takes place every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, most people really do not believe or do not understand 
that it is possible in America to have a portion of an individual's 
wages being siphoned off and spent on political causes without their 
knowledge and without their consent. If we can say that over and over 
and over again and allow people to understand really how sick politics 
has become at this particular level, I think that will give us the 
added impetus and the added incentive here in Washington to put the 
voice of the people ahead of the voices of those small special 
interests who use these political funds to their political advantage.
  Oh, and it pays off. There is no question about that. Once again, I 
refer my colleagues to this chart. When you have 80 percent of the 
American people in every column, again, average voters in this column, 
union households in this column, 84 percent of teacher union 
households, 80 percent of nonunion households, when you have those 
kinds of numbers of individuals who tell us that they want paycheck 
protection and yet the 16 percent of voters, the 16 percent of union 
members, the 13 percent of teacher union members and the 16 percent of 
nonunion members who tell us that they do not want paycheck protection, 
and you realize that it is the small minority who wins the day here in 
Congress.
  We can see very clearly that the political dollars that are spent to 
advance the causes of labor unions is paying off for labor unions. It 
is paying off for the 16 percent. But I am confident that throughout 
the country as more and more States begin to evaluate the question of 
labor union dues and paycheck protection, that we will see State after 
State after State siding on behalf of rank and file families, rank and 
file workers and union members in the end who would rather have their 
union dollars going toward union activities that are legitimate and on 
the work site, perhaps toward supporting their pensions.
  If you are a member of the Teamsters Union, you realize that you are 
going to have to raise more money for your pension funds because of the 
theft that took place and the money laundering that took place to, in 
fact, drain the pension plan of the Teamsters Union at the national 
level, again which has resulted in the indictment of many high-ranking 
Teamsters officials and in the end resulted in past Teamsters President 
Ron Carey being invalidated and prohibited from seeking reelection to 
the post, essentially clearing the way for James Hoffa, Jr. to become 
President of the Teamsters Union.
  When you see these kinds of scandals, if you are a member of the 
Teamsters Union, you realize that maybe you would rather have a greater 
portion of your union dues going toward repaying many of the expenses 
and costs associated with these internal crimes rather than seeing them 
going toward subsidizing campaigns and political organizations that 
they may not support.
  Let me tell you about one of the individuals who testified before the 
Subcommittee on Employer and Employee Relations just last year, a man 
named Kerry Gipe, a union member who testified. He said, quote, I was 
told that joining the union was a mandatory part of working for the 
company and absolutely no money was allowed to be used from our union 
dues for political purposes.
  Unfortunately for Mr. Gipe and millions of other American workers, 
labor bosses continue to use compulsory dues for political purposes. 
According to some estimates, unions spent as much as $200 million in 
the 1996 election. All that the Paycheck Protection Act that was 
proposed here in Congress did was empower the individual worker. It 
was, in all candor, at the expense of the small number of union bosses 
who benefit from the funds of their members. Employees would decide 
under such a piece of legislation whether and to whom they contribute 
their hard-earned wages and that they could revoke that authorization 
at any time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a topic that we will discuss again and bring to 
the floor at other occasions over the course of the next several 
months. It is a topic that will be discussed across the country in 
various States that are considering paycheck protection. Once again I 
am convinced that once we just lay out the very basic facts of this 
particular political scandal and evidence of corruption that exists in 
the country, that eventually we are going to answer properly and 
correctly and those 80 percent of individuals will finally have their 
voices heard.

                          ____________________