[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3609-H3615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob 
Schaffer) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, tonight is one of those 
opportunities for the Members of the Republican freshman class to 
address the House, to use this special order as an opportunity to 
discuss many of the topics that come to our minds as new Members of the 
105th Congress.
  I want to use the occasion to discuss an issue that is very important 
to me and to members of the constituency that I represent out in the 
Fourth District of Colorado, and others perhaps may be here to join me 
tonight, as well. That issue is the Paycheck Protection Act.
  The Paycheck Protection Act is a measure this House has considered 
previously this year, and it will come up again within the next few 
weeks. In fact, as campaign finance reform legislation makes its way to 
the floor, the Paycheck Protection Act is expected to be an integral 
part of the overall discussions. I myself intend to see to it that that 
becomes the case, and to fight vigorously, certainly as vigorously as I 
possibly can, to bring up the issue.

  Let me describe the need for it, and what the Paycheck Protection Act 
is all about. The Paycheck Protection Act is a measure that was 
inspired by a certain level of abuse that takes place with respect to 
campaign fundraising.
  Let me step back one moment and say that this House has spent 
considerable time discussing how we spend money as candidates, and in 
political parties, and in the political arena. It has spent time 
discussing different strategies to get us toward full disclosure, and 
how we disclose the kinds of campaign finances that candidates and 
politicians need to raise in order to put together campaigns.
  This House has spent considerable time talking about how that 
information is accounted for through the Federal Elections Commission, 
and the rules that surround the Federal Election Commission's 
responsibilities, but rarely have we spent time talking about how the 
cash is actually raised, and who works to raise the money for political 
purposes.
  In America, elections are a very important time in our Republic in 
maintaining a democratic republican form of government. It is a 
critically important time because it is the one time when the people 
are actually in charge and assert their authority in deciding which 
representatives will speak for them on the floor of the House, on the 
floor of the Senate, and as President. Americans have every right to 
participate fully and openly and voluntarily in that electoral process.
  That last statement that I mentioned, that last word, 
``voluntarily'', is the operative word here. It really is the basis for 
the Paycheck Protection Act. Because in America today, it is possible, 
in fact, it is very likely, that if you belong to a labor union or if 
you belong to any other political association that raises funds for 
political causes, and if you allow your membership dues to be collected 
through automatic wage withholding, it is likely, I say again, that a 
certain portion of your wages are siphoned off for political causes 
that you may or may not support. In fact, you may not even know that 
that is occurring.
  So to those who find themselves members of these various 
organizations, the first thing I would do is ask you to doublecheck 
your paycheck, to look again and see if the money that you are sending 
to your union is really going toward collective bargaining, toward 
agency representation, or whether there are associated fees that 
necessitate spending a certain portion of your paycheck on various 
political causes.
  These political causes may be campaigns for candidates like myself or 
any other Member of the House that runs for office every 2 years. It 
may be a campaign for a local race in your State, for State 
legislature, Governor, State Treasurer, county commissioner, city 
council member, whatever the case may be. It may be a ballot initiative 
or a ballot issue, one that perhaps is sponsored by a labor 
organization or a group sympathetic to labor unions, or it might be 
some kind of political education initiative, where the goal and 
motivation is to persuade voters to one degree or another to behave at 
the polls in a certain way.
  All of these are legitimate functions of our government. They are 
essential portions of electing representatives at election time. But 
what should not occur in America is a condition where anyone is forced 
to contribute to a political cause either against their will or without 
their knowledge. Political participation in the United States of 
America must and should be voluntary, 100 percent voluntary.
  The Paycheck Protection Act is a bill that is designed to ensure that 
political participation throughout the country is voluntary, and it 
does so by addressing the issue of automatic wage withholding and 
skimming off a certain portion of one's wages for political causes 
without their consent.
  It is an issue that many, many Americans are concerned about. In 
fact, it is a topic that the Committee on Education and the Work Force 
has spent considerable time investigating, through various hearings at 
different subcommittee levels throughout the country. It is a topic 
that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has considered. 
It is one that the American people have considered as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would direct the attention of my colleagues to this 
chart here. When we went out in the field with a poll that we had 
commissioned, those who are working on trying to find a solution to 
this problem, back in October of 1997, we asked voters in general, and 
these are voters, I might add, from throughout the country, and in 
fact, this sample oversamples union households, we asked whether 
individuals approve or disapprove of a new Federal law that would 
protect workers' paychecks.
  As Members can see, the results are pretty overwhelming. In the 
universe of all voters, 80 percent of them tell us that they support a 
change in the Federal law that would protect workers' paychecks. Only 
16 percent of America's voters oppose such a law. The rest would have 
no opinion, of course.
  When we ask members of a union household where their preferences lie 
in this regard, we find again that the results of union households are 
no different than the results of voters in general. Eighty percent of 
union households tell us that they support a Federal law that would 
protect workers' paychecks.
  When we ask members of the teachers' union, the National Education 
Association being the largest teachers' union, and there is one other 
large one and some other smaller ones, but when we ask members of 
teachers' unions, 84 percent say they would support a Federal law that 
would protect workers' paychecks.
  When we ask non-union households in general, once again, the numbers 
are not surprising, there, given what we have already learned from the 
other responses, 80 percent of nonunion households approve of a Federal 
law that would protect workers' paychecks, and 16 percent would oppose 
such a measure.
  Let me talk about the 16, 16, 13, and 16 percent in these four 
different samples that, for one reason or another, support a law that 
allows the current state of affairs today, that allows a labor 
organization or any other political entity to siphon cash out of 
somebody's paycheck without their knowledge.
  It is hard to believe that there would be anybody in America who 
supports such a thing, but apparently, when asked, there are about 16 
percent of the American public that believes that this is somehow a 
good idea.
  There are a number of reasons for that. Labor unions play a very 
powerful role here in Washington, lobbying in the halls of Congress. We 
see them all the time, whatever the bill may be. Sometimes it is trade 
measures, sometimes it is tax issues. Other times it might be matters 
of environmental regulation. It might be efforts to try to improve 
public education throughout

[[Page H3610]]

the country. Sometimes it is work force-related issues. It could be a 
variety of topics.
  There are labor union lobbyists all over this Capitol, and if you are 
a member of a labor union and oppose many of the initiatives that have 
taken place to clean the air, to improve schools, to improve workplace 
safety and to try to create more jobs and wealth and to improve foreign 
trade and so on, if you oppose those efforts, as labor unions typically 
do, as represented here in Washington, then you might want other people 
who are your co-workers to pay for the message that you agree with here 
in Washington. But again, it is a very small minority of people who 
believe that taking cash from an unsuspecting wage earner's paycheck is 
a good idea.
  Once again, let me restate that. There are a handful of people here 
in Washington who believe that they have some kind of right to take 
your cash, or an unsuspecting wage earner's cash, and use it to promote 
the political objectives of their minority opinions. So that is why we 
have 16 percent of the American public, when surveyed, who agree with 
that sort of thing.
  The vast majority of Americans, however, understand fairness when 
they are looking at fairness, they understand unfairness when they are 
looking at such a travesty as involuntary campaign contributions. I 
would use a different term, and that would be ``theft.''

                              {time}  2015

  Union members are fed up with the practice, frankly, of forced union 
dues and forced union dues being used for political purposes. Multiple 
national surveys of American workers have revealed widespread support 
for ending this practice.
  One of the other questions we asked, and it is very closely related 
to the previous one that I went through, but this question does not 
even reference any existing law. It just merely says, should we change 
or keep the current Federal election laws that allow unions to make 
political contributions with money deducted from a union member's 
paycheck. Well, 78 percent of the American people think that the 
current law needs to be changed; 72 percent of union households believe 
that the current law needs to be changed; 78 percent of teacher union 
households believe that the current law needs to be changed. And once 
again, reflected in the previous chart, 80 percent of all nonunion 
households in America believe that the current law needs to be changed, 
that something needs to be done to address this issue of political 
contributions with money deducted from a union member's paycheck.
  Despite the widespread support, even the Democrat Congressional 
Campaign Committee is in the effort, has joined in the effort of trying 
to prevent paycheck protection from going forward. At the request of 
AFL-CIO's John Sweeney, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee 
is considering cutting off campaign funds to any Democrat who supports 
the Paycheck Protection Act.
  I would refer the body, in fact I will go through in more detail in a 
minute or two, the news article from which I take that position. 
Federal and State paycheck protection efforts will force union bosses 
to play by the same rules that everyone else plays by. It is about time 
that labor bosses understand that the Constitution applies to them, 
too.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, what an opportunity to 
yield on something that is very important. I was speaking about the 
campaign finance reform efforts that are coming to the floor very 
shortly; the rule that was just read across the desk is certainly the 
vehicle that will allow that to occur.
  My intent is for the Paycheck Protection Act to play, to certainly be 
considered within the context of that overall debate. There are several 
reasons why the country needs the Paycheck Protection Act. According to 
the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 1995-96 election cycle, 
labor unions flexed their political muscles by spending $119 million on 
Federal political activity. That figure includes $35 million on issue 
ads that the AFL-CIO says it spent, nearly 66 million in campaign 
contributions and $18.5 million on Federal lobbying expenses.
  While unions are required to file financial reports under the Labor 
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, these reports are 
arranged by type of expenditure; for example, salaries or 
administrative costs and so on, rather than by the functional category 
that the American public would understand, such as contract 
negotiations and administration and political activities. So you have 
to be able to apply a certain level of political sophistication just to 
understand the reports that are filed, since they are filed through the 
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
  The reality is that labor bosses did not fund political activities 
through legitimate voluntary contributions. Instead they plundered the 
paychecks of hard working union members. Many of these members were not 
even aware that their money was being used for political activity. The 
hearings that the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations conducted 
revealed quite shocking testimony.
  A woman named Jane Gansmann of West Chicago, Illinois who works for 
TWA, a member of the IAM union, said, ``The union never mentioned that 
my dues could be used for things other than collective bargaining. In 
other words, I was given only half-truths. I now realize the union was 
and is operating by misinformation.'' She submitted that through 
written testimony. She went on, I quote, ``I wanted to see a breakdown 
of where my union dues were going.'' She grudgingly said she could not, 
the local union official, in her notation here, when she went to a 
local union official, she grudgingly said ``She could not help me and 
stated that I could try contacting the IAM President. I then approached 
the union shop steward who advised me that if I demanded an audit, it 
would be very expensive and would cause increases in our union dues. 
She stated that if that happened, she would let everyone in our office 
know that I was responsible.'' Again, that was submitted in her written 
testimony.
  She went on, ``I fear repercussions of harassment. The IAM recently 
listed the names of all current union dues objectors in the January 
1997 issue of their Airwaves publication.''
  This quote was given in written testimony to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Employer-Employee 
Relations. I want to go on as to what the Paycheck Protection Act would 
do and how it would help in the case of Ms. Gansmann.
  First, let me say that the use of compulsory union dues for political 
purposes violates a basic principle of voluntary political 
participation which is embodied in our Nation's Constitution. In 1994, 
40 percent of union members voted for Republicans, for example, yet in 
1996, less than 10 percent of labor PAC dollars went to Republican 
candidates. 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. 
Originally 48,000 members of the Washington Education Association, 
again this is the teachers union in the State of Washington, 48,000 of 
them were forced to fund political activities against their will. Once 
the Paycheck Protection Act passed in the State of Washington, only 
8,000 voluntarily succumbed to the union's political activities. That 
is a pretty remarkable statistic for the State of Washington. 48,000 
union members had contributed to political activities knowingly or 
unknowingly against their will, sometimes with full compliance, yet 
after the Paycheck Protection Act passed and the law required that 
there be a checkoff, that you actually approve on an annual basis your 
willingness to voluntarily participate in union political activities, 
the number dropped from 48,000 in the State of Washington down to 8,000 
contributors.
  Well, today, very, very soon here in Congress, we can send a message 
to the labor bosses reminiscent of the message sent by colonists to 
King George. No  taxation without representation.

  In August of 1997, Kerry Gipe, who is a union member, testified to 
the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. He said, ``I was 
told that joining the union was a mandatory part of working for the 
company and that absolutely no money was allowed to be used from our 
union dues for political purposes.'' Well, unfortunately for Mr. Gipe 
and millions of other

[[Page H3611]]

American workers, labor bosses continue to use compulsory dues for 
political purposes. According to some estimates, the unions spent as 
much as $200 million in 1996, that after you calculate many of the 
other expenditures that are reported far after and in different formats 
than are required at election time.
  What the Paycheck Protection Act does is empower the individual 
worker. Employees will decide whether and to whom they contribute their 
hard-earned wages and they can revoke their authorization at any time. 
The labor bosses are so opposed to giving union members control over 
their own money that they have raised dues $1 per member to fund 
efforts to oppose paycheck protection nationwide. That was reported in 
the Morning Times March 20, 1998.
  In the State of Oregon, labor unions are assessing their Members $60 
each to fight the Oregon initiative equivalent to the Paycheck 
Protection Act. Are they labor bosses looking out for workers or union 
bosses trying to protect their six-figure salaries and potential, their 
political income?
  We heard more riveting testimony in the subcommittee. John Masiello 
of Mooresville, North Carolina is an aircraft mechanic. He said.

       I had been a member of the IAM for 13 years. I do believe 
     that collective bargaining for a work force that performs a 
     common service is a proper and efficient way to be 
     represented for contractual matters. I also believe I am a 
     client paying an association for service. The IAM does not 
     see it that way. Instead, they assume the role of dictator 
     and I am their subject.

  Mr. Masiello went on, he said that,

       The local lodge president immediately started a campaign to 
     descredit him and all the other members who exercised their 
     rights.
  Let me stop there and digress for a moment about what those rights 
might be. In 1988, the Supreme Court, in a decision known as the Beck 
decision, ruled that any labor member, union member who pays dues can 
go back retroactively and get their cash back for those portions of 
their wages that have been withheld for political purposes. In other 
words, if you object, you go back to your union boss, under the Beck 
decision, and ask for your money back. Well, many people in the union 
will tell you that your rights are somehow protected because of the 
Beck decision. But Mr. Masiello's testimony explains how workplace 
harassment really prevents individuals in some occasions from 
exercising their workplace rights.

  He said, I will read that portion again, that
       The local lodge president of the IAM immediately started a 
     campaign to discredit me and all the other members who 
     exercised their rights. He did this with slanderous lies and 
     character assassination. Letters were hung all over the 
     workplace claiming we objected to paying any dues, we were 
     against unions and equated with scabs. They stripped me of my 
     membership. Told me that I was in bad standing with the union 
     and disallowed me of any and all voting rights, including 
     voting on contractual matters and strike votes. Months had 
     gone by and the harassment had not let up one bit. To make 
     matters worse, I was still paying what they had considered a 
     full due. Not one penny of the overpayment was refunded to 
     me. I was forced to take the local lodge president to small 
     claims court. The union has no concept of individual freedom. 
     They seem to operate in their own little world with no regard 
     for an individual's unalienable rights or the Constitution of 
     the United States.

  Again, this was submitted in written testimony by John Masiello, 
Mooresville, North Carolina. He submitted this testimony January 21 of 
this year. And the record from that hearing and other hearings like 
them are replete with example after example after example of union 
members who join unions for legitimate purposes yet do not want their 
hard-earned dollars to go to a separate political purpose which they do 
not consent to, which they do not support, many times supporting 
candidates that the individual may actually oppose.
  It is important at this point, I think, Mr. Speaker, for me to say 
that the Paycheck Protection Act, when introduced as House Resolution 
2608, enjoys the support of about, if I remember right, 163 Members of 
the House of Representatives. When that bill came up for a vote on the 
floor, it enjoyed bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Yes, 
that is right, Democrats joining Republicans in supporting the Paycheck 
Protection Act, in supporting the rank and file hard-working Americans 
who deserve the right to direct their own hard-earned dollars to the 
political causes that they choose to associate with, or to avoid 
participating in the political process altogether. Within that context, 
the Paycheck Protection Act can almost be viewed as a pay raise without 
a tax increase, an added benefit that allows cash to stay in the hands 
of the individual who earned it rather than the union boss who will 
squander it.
  All that the bill requires is that a corporation, any other 
corporation, national bank, any organization collect the written and 
voluntary consent from an employee or union member before using any 
portion of their dues or fees for the organization's political 
activity. This does not ban participation in political, in union 
political activities. In fact, it actually encourages it because it 
causes unions to ask their members to participate at least on an annual 
basis.

                              {time}  2030

  They may ask more than that, if they would like. But it asks every 
individual to be confronted with the simple question of whether or not 
they want their cash to go to a political cause or not.
  Now, I tend to have faith in the hard-working members of the labor 
force throughout the country. I think, when confronted with such a 
question, they will probably participate in their political system. 
They love America. They work hard for everything our great country 
stands for.
  In fact, I would submit that they are at the very center of what it 
means to be real Americans, encompassing the age-old principle of 
honest hard work and strong families. And when given the choice, I 
think that they will participate. They will participate in the 
political process. They will vote. They may run for office themselves.
  But the reason labor union bosses, as opposed to labor union members, 
oppose the Paycheck Protection Act is because it takes power away from 
a privileged few, who have found a way to manipulate the rules here in 
Washington over the years to create a situation where hard-earned wages 
can be siphoned away from the wage earner and spent on the political 
causes that a few labor bosses select, and to direct somebody else's 
cash to achieve their own selfish objectives. The Paycheck Protection 
Act restores fairness. It empowers rank-and-file labor union members.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, the campaign finance bill will be coming to 
the floor very shortly. The Committee on Rules, as we just received the 
report just moments ago, has indicated that it is moving forward to 
bring a bill to this floor to deal with the issue of campaign finance.
  There will be several amendments that will be offered, several 
different aspects of campaign finance that will be considered, many of 
them good, many of them bad, many of them are certainly at the very 
least worthy of consideration by the House. But I will make the pledge 
tonight that I will do everything I can on behalf of hard-working union 
members throughout the country, the hard-working laborers who are 
currently having, in many cases, portions of their wages siphoned off 
for political causes they do not support. I will be working for them 
and bringing the Paycheck Protection Act for consideration over and 
over and over again.
  The political stakes are high, and I know it will be another 
emotional issue, but I urge all Americans, I urge every Member of this 
Congress to consider very carefully the importance, again within the 
context of campaign finance, of how the money is raised. Once we deal 
with that, then it is legitimate and right and just to consider all the 
other issues with reporting, with campaign amounts, with how money is 
spent, how it is reported and so on.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is here to join us this 
evening, who also plays an integral role in the campaign finance debate 
and has been a real leader among the freshman class, and I yield the 
floor to him.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I want to 
express my appreciation to the gentleman for his leadership to the 
freshman class, as president of our class,

[[Page H3612]]

but also on the issue that the gentleman has been talking about, which 
is paycheck protection. The gentleman has devoted an enormous amount of 
energy and time to this issue and I congratulate him for that.
  As the gentleman indicated, there is going to be an opportunity to 
vote on paycheck protection as well as other campaign reform amendments 
and ideas on the floor, starting, hopefully, tomorrow. And as the 
gentleman indicated, the Committee on Rules is preparing for that 
event, and I am delighted that the base bill that will be considered, 
whenever we debate campaign finance reform, will be the bipartisan 
Campaign Integrity Act, which again is called ``the freshman bill''.
  This bill is fairly limited in scope as to all that it does, but it 
accomplishes very significant and substantial reform. And if the 
gentleman will continue to yield for a few moments, I would like to be 
able to talk about this particular bill that will be considered on the 
House floor.
  This bill started out with a working group, six Democrats and six 
Republicans meeting together, building a trust relationship and saying 
what can we agree upon; how can we address the most severe abuses in 
our campaign system. This was 15 months ago. For over 5 months we have 
worked together and crafted a bipartisan bill that avoided the 
extremes. It stayed away from public funding of our campaigns, where we 
have taxpayers' money paying for the campaigns; it stayed away from 
free TV; it stayed away from the extremes that both sides might think 
would be ideal; and it concentrated on the middle ground, the ground 
that we could agree upon. And, yes, the American public can probably 
zero in on that very quickly, and that is a ban on soft money.
  Now today in The Washington Post, David Broder, long time Washington 
journalist, wrote a column and talked about what is going to be 
happening on this House floor. He titled his article ``Campaign 
Reformers at War'', because there are going to be a number of 
significant reform bills. And I think it is important that we do not 
get in disagreement, recognizing there are going to be different bills 
and alternatives that we can vote upon.
  I just want to present that the bill that has been crafted in a 
bipartisan fashion is a good vehicle to send over to the Senate because 
it is bipartisan, because it is constitutional, and because it is 
substantial in nature and addresses the most significant abuse, which 
is soft money.
  David Broder, in his article, referred to soft money as, ``The huge 
donations to the political parties from corporations, unions and 
wealthy individuals that figured most in the 1996 campaign scandals.'' 
And that is important, because not just in 1996, but as we even come 
into the present with the latest revelations about the possibility of 
technology going to the People's Republic of China and the question 
arising in the public's mind, did that decision have anything to do 
with the huge soft money contributions that were made here in 
Washington.
  What the Supreme Court is concerned about is that we protect the 
first amendment and the rights of free speech, but they have recognized 
in the Buckley v. Valeo decision that there is an appropriate role that 
Congress can play in restricting the amount of contributions. They 
upheld the $1,000 individual contribution limit, and there is a ban on 
corporate contributions and labor union contributions directly to a 
candidate. Soft money is a way to get around all that, and that is what 
needs to be shut down, and that is simply what the freshman bill does.
  Michael Malbin of the State University of New York-Albany, an expert 
in the arena of campaign finance reform, said ``The freshman bill would 
do everything that a soft money ban should do, put a lid on the 
behavior of Federal officials and candidates.'' And that is what we are 
trying to do.
  But, in addition, it helps the individuals in our society because it 
empowers them by indexing their contributions to the rate of inflation. 
Where a $1,000 contribution limit back in 1970 has eroded to $300, this 
again indexes that to inflation so we do not lose that value, the 
contribution of an individual.
  And then we increase information to the public so the public will 
know who is trying to influence the campaigns; requiring candidates to 
provide more frequent disclosure as to who is sending them money so the 
public will have that information.
  But, also, we have all of the third-party groups that are out there 
that engage, many times, in issue advocacy, and we simply say that they 
should have to say who they are so there is not a cloak as to the 
public wondering who is trying to influence the campaign. They must say 
who they are and how much they are spending, and that is it. That is 
reasonable information the public is entitled to have.
  So it is a good bill. It is straightforward. It empowers individuals. 
It stops the greatest abuse. And that is what I hope that the public 
will see as strong reform that we can send over to the Senate, 
addressing the greatest abuses in our campaign system.
  And yes, it is going to be a long process. A lot of amendments have 
to go through there. There are some that might improve the bill, but 
there are some that might be harmful. So we need to move through this 
process in a democratic fashion, and I believe in the end we will do 
something good for the American public.
  I am delighted with the Republican leadership that has opened up this 
opportunity and for the bipartisan fashion in which we have addressed 
this.
  I want to thank again the gentleman from Colorado for his excellent 
leadership on paycheck protection, his devotion to that issue, as well 
as his willingness to yield me time tonight.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Before the gentleman goes, I know he 
has been back in his district over the breaks talking about campaign 
finance reform and various issues that we are dealing with here to try 
to improve the integrity of the political process, so perhaps the 
gentleman will tell us a little about what his constituents are telling 
him with respect to campaign finance reform.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is interesting because the constituents are 
talking more about it. I have learned that it is a subject that they do 
not automatically bring up themselves, but whenever I have been out 
front and taken a leadership position on it, I have them coming up to 
me time and time again and thanking me for what I am doing on campaign 
finance reform.
  I think what they are saying is, and someone articulated it this way, 
their $20 contribution, their $50 contribution is drowned out in the 
sea of big money in Washington, D.C., and that is the message that I 
consistently get.
  I talk to grass root organizations, whether it is the AARP, the 
Reserve Officers, or a political action committee group or a labor 
union, I talk to these grass roots organizations and they are 
struggling to have their small contributions sent to Washington, and 
their voice is being minimized because of the flood of big money in 
Washington, and they understand that.
  So I am hearing good things about it; support for it. They do not 
understand necessarily all the ins-and-outs and the difficulties of 
campaign finance reform and issue advocacy, express advocacy, 
independent expenditures, but they are saying there is a problem out 
there that is clear to everyone and Congress needs to address it.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. We are also joined here tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), who I know is 
one who has been very helpful and thoughtful with respect to political 
participation and campaign finance reform, and I will yield the floor 
to him.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado 
for yielding and for the great work he has done in spearheading this 
effort to liberate the paychecks of working men and women in this 
country from being robbed for a purpose with which they do not agree. 
And the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) as well has been a 
leader on campaign finance reform.
  I suspect when it is all said and done we are probably not going to 
all agree on every issue of this, because I think we all bring a 
different perspective on what constitutes campaign finance reform. We 
have been trying to balance the constitutional rights of free speech, 
freedom of expression and so forth, and at the same time bring some 
common sense to what has become a proliferation of big money, special 
interest

[[Page H3613]]

money actually running this political process. As a consequence of 
that, many of the voters in this country, the citizens who would like 
to participate, feel disenfranchised simply because they feel their 
voice is not heard.
  So I think our freshman class has been very much at the forefront of 
leading this debate, discussing these issues in a very meaningful way 
and coming up with what I think are solutions. Again, solutions in some 
cases that are going to have to go through this process that maybe we 
are not all going to agree with every aspect of, but when it is all 
said and done, at the end of the day, hopefully, something will emerge 
that will be an improvement over where we are today, that will help 
restore the trust and confidence people have in the political system in 
this country.
  So I want to thank my distinguished colleagues of the freshman class, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for the good work they are doing on this 
subject and continuing to keep the faith and keeping the process moving 
forward. We are going to have, I think, what will be a rather vigorous 
debate in the days ahead on this subject.
  I would simply say as well that, in discussing the whole issue of 
allowing the hard working men and women in this country to be an active 
part of the political process, that this majority in this Congress has 
taken our agenda forward in a way that I think is consistent with the 
priorities and the values that a lot of the people who work hard in 
this country really share, when it comes right down to it.
  And the gentleman talks about paycheck protection and seeing that we 
do not pick the pockets of hard-working men and women in this country 
and force them to participate in a way that they do not want to. 
Political participation as a basic premise ought to be voluntary. And 
that is essentially what the gentleman's legislation says, and I would 
hope that that will be incorporated in a final product that emerges 
from this Congress.
  At the same time, we want to say to those hard-working men and women 
in America that we want them to participate voluntarily, we want to 
give them more freedom, more liberation from the shackles of big 
government, not only as it pertains to political participation but also 
in the way that we approach the whole issue of taxes, the role of 
government in our culture and what that means for people in this 
country who are trying to pay the bills, trying to educate their kids, 
trying to make a living, trying to put a little aside for retirement, 
trying to take care of child care and health care and working in a very 
systematic way to roll back the burden of government in their lives so 
that they have the freedom, as families, to make the choices that 
affect their every day lives.
  I think, again, that is a philosophy and approach that is embodied in 
everything that we do; that these things ought to be voluntary; that it 
ought to be a matter of personal freedom. And I think the thing that 
gets lost in this debate a lot of times, people who are members of 
unions in this country use that representation to negotiate, to bargain 
on issues like health care, on pensions and wages. Those are very good 
things, but sometimes I think their leadership loses sight because 
their agenda, I believe, is more about consolidation of power in 
Washington.
  And that is very much at odds, I think, with what I think is in the 
best interest of the people they purport to represent, and that is the 
hard-working men and women who, day in and day out, are trying to make 
a living and trying to pay the bills. We are saying to them, in effect, 
in the agenda we have laid out, that we want to make government smaller 
and make the Federal budget smaller so that their budget, their family 
budget, can be bigger, and that we want to allow them to keep more of 
what they earn.

                              {time}  2045

  And in doing so, liberate them from the burden of government in a way 
that will enable them to meet the needs that they have for their 
families and the challenges and difficulties that are out there for all 
of us who are trying to raise kids in this day and age.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my 
colleague has made an important distinction that I think is important 
for this Congress to keep in mind; and that is that many people think 
that this debate is about whether we support labor unions or not, and 
it really is not that at all.
  There is a huge division among people associated with labor unions on 
paycheck protection. There are those who are the rank and file hard-
working union members who join labor unions because they desire 
collective bargaining, they want agency representation, they want the 
many benefits associated with labor unions, but they want to have some 
say in how their wages are used when it comes to politics. That is one 
subset of the overall union organization that has a position on this 
issue that agrees with my colleague and I.
  The other half of the equation, though, is the union bosses, those 
who work their way up the union hierarchy and become the managers, in 
fact the players, on a political level of distributing political cash 
for their advantages. There are many political bosses I am sure, and I 
have met some of them, who are genuine in their desire to represent 
their union to back political causes that are in the best interest of 
creating jobs and workplace security for their members.
  But when we start reading headlines about Teamster Union members 
indited, the president of the Teamsters Union being disqualified from 
carrying on his job. That was Teamster President Ron Carey and James 
Hoffa, Jr. And now I guess there is going to be another election and 
Hoffa is clear to run. This is just in the Teamsters Union.
  In this article, this was in the Washington Times not long ago, there 
is an individual who was an accountant or the comptroller of union 
funds was charged with embezzlement, conspiracy, wire fraud, mail 
fraud, perjury, making false statements to a Federal election officer. 
If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in 
fines.
  This is a different group of people that we are talking about who 
oppose the Paycheck Protection Act. And this is the reason why, they 
have a tremendous amount of cash at their disposal and it buys them 
certain favors with Members of Congress. It buys them easy access to 
meetings that go on here in Washington. It buys them friendship with 
those who are inclined to listen to these particular individuals.
  But again, these kinds of people who are at the union boss level, the 
ones who are in the business of being political insiders are very, very 
different from the people that my colleague will and I represent, the 
ones that we care about and the ones that we fight for and speak for 
here on the House floor, those individuals who are actually doing the 
hard work of driving the American economy, the ones who work 40 hours 
or more per week, who are very skilled and very dedicated to economic 
prosperity in our country, who have families, who go to church, who 
enjoy their constitutional rights, who enjoy full participation in our 
community as real leaders and friends and neighbors. But the last thing 
they want from this Congress or from anyone else is to allow a set of 
laws to continue on our books that allows union bosses to steal cash 
from the paychecks of hard-working Americans.
  I am really looking forward to this debate coming up here in the next 
few days so that the American people can see whether this Congress is 
really going to stand with the rank and file hard-working Americans or 
whether it is going to choose the few union bosses.
  I regret to say that the last time this question came up the 
political stakes were very, very high here. And those lobbyists running 
around the hallway representing the union bosses, they were very 
persuasive with a large number of Members of our Congress.
  So I am hopeful that the American people will put their collective 
foot down this week and just say enough is enough. Politics in America 
should be voluntary. It is the one time when everyday rank and file 
citizens are in charge of their government. It is when they elect 
somebody to go to Washington and when they put their dollars behind 
their candidacy. People want to know that their dollars matter, that 
their political participation really counts, that their candidates, 
their elected officials listen to them.

[[Page H3614]]

  But they do not want to hear, as we do today, and I will going 
through those graphs again perhaps, they do not want to hear that their 
message is getting confused and distorted by a handful of political 
insiders who use hard-earned cash as though it were monopoly money.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
guess I would simply say that my guess is that perhaps like the 
district that my colleague represents, Colorado, people that I 
represent, the State of South Dakota, the people that I serve, whether 
they are union members or not, are very much just hard-working people, 
who, as a basic premise of life, think that these matters can best be 
resolved at the local level, that the decision-making, the control, and 
the power ought to be there, and that they ought to have the freedom to 
determine how best to use the hard-earned dollars, those dollars that 
they work very, very hard for week in and week out, to the purpose for 
which they intend, rather than having someone say to them that this is 
not a prerogative that they ought to have.
  I think again what we are really talking about here very simply is 
saying that this ought to be a voluntary process and clearly the people 
who are forced to participate against their will and political process 
that that is wrong.
  I have heard the argument, as perhaps my colleague has, that other 
organizations out there that are active politically, gun organizations, 
whether they are pro-life organizations or whatever, that these 
organizations do essentially the same thing.
  There is a very fundamental difference here. People who participate 
in those organizations do it of their own volition, they do it of their 
own free will. It is a voluntary thing. Again, this is the only place 
that I am aware of where folks are forced as a matter of practice, if 
they want to participate in union activities, the other things, that 
the benefits that they get, legitimate activities from union 
participation and involvement, but beyond that have their dollars taken 
out of their hand and put into a political process into an agenda which 
in many cases they might agree with.
  Now, if they agree with that agenda, that is fine. It does not 
deprive them of the opportunity to contribute. Because very clearly, 
that is an option they still have. Under my colleague's legislation, if 
they choose to do that, it is, it is a voluntary thing.
  All we are simply saying is that when we look at these issues, we 
want to look at what is in the best interest of the working people, the 
people out there who are just doing their very, very best to get by and 
to survive and to do all the things, that the expectations, the 
responsibilities to live up to those responsibilities.
  Frankly, people who work hard for a living I think are very much of a 
notion that there ought to be a leveler degree of personal 
responsibility that goes along with freedoms that we enjoy in this 
country. And frankly, again, I think that is a value that we share in 
much of the legislation that has been passed since this majority has 
been in power here in Washington, from welfare reform, to balanced 
budget, to lower taxes. All those things I think again are consistent 
with the values that people who work hard in this country share.
  And so, as we look down the road in the future on the agenda we want 
to bring, the things that we want to see happen, the goals for the next 
generation, things like winning the war on drugs, things like coming up 
with a system of education and learning that is the very best in the 
world that utilizes information-age technology and allows the children, 
our children, to learn at the very fastest rate, issues like solving 
for the long-term the retirement issues of Social Security and Medicare 
and doing it in a way that protects and preserves the safety net for 
those who are currently dependent upon those programs, but at the same 
time says to those people who are paying in and again contributing to 
this process that we want them to have the very best retirement 
possible in a way that would dramatically increase their retirement 
earnings so that when that time comes they have got a nest egg there, 
and solutions that again say to the American people that we want them 
to have the security, the retirement security that Social Security 
provides and Medicare provides, but we also want them to have better 
than that. We want to improve upon that because we think that we can do 
better.
  And in this era where we are going to see we hope, knock on wood, 
some surpluses coming into the Treasury and some revenues that will 
give us an opportunity to give something back to the American people, I 
would hope that is the direction in which we will go. And finally, 
again to say that the other goal, objective, that we have is to reduce 
the tax burden in this country by about a third of what it is today 
collectively, state, local, Federal tax burden, about 38 percent, and 
get it down to 25 percent, so that no hard-working family in America is 
spending more than a quarter of their income to pay for the cost of 
government.
  And when we are living in a time where we are at peace and we have 
got an economy that is in an expansionary phase, the question, the 
debate that is going to rage in this city has to do with control, it 
has to do with whether or not we are going to continue to centralize, 
consolidate and move power and control into Washington or whether we 
are going to distribute it back home and put it back in the hands of 
individuals and families and states and localities and let people do in 
this country what they do best, and that is continue to move this 
economy forward, to contribute out of their productivity and their hard 
work and their effort and their just day-to-day diligence in getting up 
every day and again continuing to go build and make this country great.
  But the best way that we can do that is to continue to move power out 
of this city, out of Washington, back home to individuals and to take 
less of the dollars that they work hard for here and then figure out 
how we can give them back in some way that Washington comes up with by 
some form that they devise in accordance with what their priorities 
are, as opposed to allowing people who work hard to keep those dollars 
at home and to spend them in the very best way that they see fit and to 
meet the needs of their families and communities and to become more 
actively involved in their communities and churches and private 
organizations out there that are really getting the job done and in 
which I think can unleash a tremendous work in this country toward 
addressing those very real needs, the needs again to win the war on 
drugs, to lessen the crime that goes on across America and to restore 
values to our families to our workplace.
  If parents had more time to stay at home, to spend with their 
children, we would have a lot less of the problems that we are facing 
out there. Frankly, one of the reasons they cannot do that is because 
we ask them to work 2 and 3 jobs to pay for the cost of government so 
that we can decide for them what is in their best interest. And 
clearly, I think that is something that when it comes to again people 
who work hard in this country, it is just a matter of a statement of 
values. We want to work systematically toward the end of moving power 
back toward home and allowing them to have more input in the things 
that affect their lives.
  So, again, when it comes to the whole area of political 
participation, I think the value, the philosophy that my colleague's 
legislation brings is consistent with that overall philosophy which we 
all share.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has hit on 
two key themes that really separate us from our friends and opponents 
on a partisan level on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat Party; 
and those two themes are that, one, when it comes to the power and the 
importance of individuals, we consistently try to side on the 
Republican side with individuals. That is a clear distinction in how we 
organize ourselves as a society and how we believe political authority 
ought to be placed, the overall question of whether authority ought to 
reside in Washington, D.C., or in every single house, in every single 
city, in every single community and with individuals back home.
  And that value we see played out on this floor every single day, 
whether it is tax policy. And the debate frequently is leaders of the 
Democrat

[[Page H3615]]

Party have come to the floor and said that the fact of the matter is 
very simple that they do not support tax cuts, period, stated as 
emphatically as it possibly can be.
  And that is fine. That is a fine position to represent and to have if 
they happen to go in for that sort of thing and believe that. But we, 
on the other hand, happen to believe that taxes ought to be lower, that 
more authority, in this case wealth, should be in the hands of 
individuals that earn it.
  The second value that my colleague mentioned or touched on deals with 
families, that we acknowledge the power and importance of families and 
recognize families as the most central and essential social unit in 
America. And we see that being played out every single day, a huge 
difference of opinion that we have where we believe families ought to 
be strong and be empowered wherever we can and that responsibility 
ought to reside with families, rather than, as our friends on the other 
side of the aisle again, the Democrats, tend to have a record that 
would suggest that our government does a better job of organizing our 
communities and our schools and our neighborhoods and so on. A huge 
difference of opinion.
  And this issue of campaign finance is no different. It is just one 
other issue that comes up where the differences between our values on 
individuals is exposed. Those who will oppose paycheck protection 
clearly believe that it is fine for somebody else to take cash out our 
paycheck and spend it on the political cause of their choice.

                              {time}  2100

  Versus us who believe that every individual ought to voluntarily 
agree whether they want to participate in a political activity or not.
  When it comes to families as well, I fundamentally believe that the 
Paycheck Protection Act is essentially a pay raise without a tax 
increase. It gives folks more disposable income, more wealth in their 
own hands, the hands of the people who earn it.
  They can decide whether they want to spend it on politics, or maybe 
they want it put toward their pension fund, or maybe they want to buy 
new shoes for their kids, or maybe they want to put it aside and invest 
in some things at home to make their lives a little bit more 
comfortable and more convenient. A huge distinction in values, where we 
stand as a country. Again, we are going to see where this Congress 
stands later this week as we deal with the whole issue of the Paycheck 
Protection Act.
  Let me also state that the political stakes on this are very high. 
The two political parties have very divergent opinions on this.
  I am going to read from a report called Inside The New Congress. It 
is a report that is published every Friday by Inside Washington 
Publishers, is the name of their organization. The managing editor is 
John Brushnehand. He reported just a few months ago, the headline says 
``House Democrats may retaliate against Members who support the 
Paycheck Protection Act.''
  The article goes on, it says ``Some high-ranking Democrat law makers 
suggested retaliating against any party members who vote in favor of 
legislation placing new limits on union political activities, say Hill 
sources.'' It says ``The suggested retaliation would be to cut off 
Democrats from financial support from the Democrat Congressional 
Campaign Committee this election cycle.'' It says ``While few Democrats 
are thought to be in favor of the legislation known as the Paycheck 
Protection Act, some conservative Democrats could face trouble in 
November if their GOP opponents are able to attack them on the issue, 
say the sources.'' It says the issue was raised during a meeting of the 
House Democrat leadership held this week, and this issue was published 
at the end of February of this year, so this meeting was held, 
presumably, at the end of February ``with AFL/CIO president John 
Sweeney, say several sources who attended the gathering. A 
representative from Wisconsin, among others, recommended during the 
meeting that Democrats who vote in favor of the legislation should not 
be backed by the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. Democratic 
sources say they did not get much further than the talking stage on the 
issue during the meeting.'' The issue basically goes on.
  This is a live-or-die issue for Democrat operatives here in the 
Congress. They have formed a very close coalition with a small number 
of union bosses predicated on the notion that they are going to be able 
to continue taking cash out of wage earners' paychecks and diverting it 
toward their political activities without the concept of wage earners.
  The Paycheck Protection Act, while I agree it may threaten the flow 
of cash to Democrat coffers, is still a matter of fairness that, even 
when we voted on this floor, a handful of courageous Democrats were 
willing to join with the majority of us Republicans in voting for it. 
We just needed a few more of them in order to put it over the top and 
to score a real victory for hard-working Americans that day. We are 
going to get a chance to do that again.
  The debate is not limited to Congress. The State of California has 
this very question on their ballot which will come up in June. The 
State of Nevada has put this on their ballot which will come up in 
November.
  The State of Colorado, my home State, is leading an effort, and I am 
chairman of that effort to try to get this issue on the ballot. The 
State of Oregon is moving forward.
  Several State legislatures are referring a similar measure to the 
ballots within their States. Across this country, Americans will have 
an opportunity to participate in a fundamental question on campaign 
finance reform of whether individuals will be guaranteed the right to 
participate in the political process on voluntary terms and have their 
paychecks protected from those who believe they have some kind of 
right, some kind of clear path of access to the hard-earned wages of 
somebody who works hard to make ends meet.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, and really it 
does come down, when I listened to the debate when this debate was held 
on the floor previously, and I listened to the other side get up and 
talk, they did not address this issue because they cannot. There is no 
answer to this. This is a very, very simple issue. We cannot get any 
simpler.
  This is a question of whether or not political participation ought to 
be mandatory; in other words, we ought to be required to take something 
out of our paycheck and give it to a political cause even if we do not 
agree with it, versus whether it ought to be optional. It is that 
simple.
  This concept cannot get lost in the complexity, although it has been 
tried. They tried to disguise and delude and distract and divert and 
everything possible during the course of the last debate. But the fact 
of the matter is that on its surface this is a very simple issue.
  People who work hard, who join unions, can still contribute to 
political processes. There is nothing to deprive them or prevent them 
from doing that. All this simply says is it has got to be optional. All 
we have to do if we want to do it is we have that option every year. I 
think, again, that is consistent with the way the political process 
ought to operate.
  It states as a matter of value and I think a political, again, 
principle that has been held dearly by this country for so many years, 
and that is that anybody who participates in this process ought to be 
able to do it on a voluntary basis.
  To the extent, again, that we can bring that back in this country, 
the legislation takes us in that direction. I certainly hope as we have 
this debate that there will be those who will step forward and 
demonstrate the courage and the boldness to go against the tide, no 
matter what the forces and the special interests might be saying, and 
do the right thing; and that is, again, give people who work hard for a 
paycheck in this country the opportunity to participate voluntarily.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I see that our time is 
about to expire, and I appreciate the Speaker for recognizing the 
freshman class tonight. We will be back one week from tonight with 
another special order.




                          ____________________