Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5586-H5591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK BILL

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) is recognized for half the time until midnight, as the
designee of the majority leader.

General Leave

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to advise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in support
of legislation that I have introduced, called the national right to
work bill. This is a very short bill. In fact, I am very proud of the
fact that it is on one piece of paper. That is the entire bill, but it
is a very important bill regarding protecting the rights of all
American citizens.
This legislation deals with the right of every individual in the
country to decide for him or herself whether or not they want to join a
labor union when they get a job or pay dues to a labor union.
The issue is one that stems from changes in the law made more than 60
years ago. Prior to that time, every American had the right to decide
for themselves whether or not to join a labor union or pay dues to a
union. That right was taken away by the National Labor Relations Act in
1935.
So this is not an issue of States rights. There are States today that
have State right-to-work laws that are allowed under the Taft-Hartley
Act which was adopted in 1948. This is legislation that deals with
overturning specific provisions of Federal law to restore to
individuals all across this country the right that they had prior to
that time.

{time} 2310

Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has spent the better part of this session
discussing the need to reform misguided and counterproductive federal
laws. We have made great strides toward reforming the education and
welfare systems by taking the federal bureaucracy out and returning the
focus back to individuals. We have taken a great step towards scrapping
the counterproductive Tax Code and allowing the American people to keep
what they have earned and spend it as they see fit.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has remained almost silent on one of
the most abusive intrusions on individual liberties ever enacted by
Congress. The passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, some
63 years ago, granted union officials a unique package of coercive
powers and privileges at the expense of working Americans.
Foremost among these coercive powers granted to union officials are
monopoly bargaining, the power to force workers to accept
representation they disagree with, and compulsory unionism, the power
to force independent workers to join or pay fees to unions as a
condition of employment. Compulsory unionism and monopoly bargaining
are contrary to the American tradition of individual liberty and allow
a tiny elite of union officials to wield dictatorial power over
millions of working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Act created a massive
increase

[[Page H5587]]

in the federal government's regulation of and interference in labor
relations. It is time for reform. The antidote to compulsory unionism
is right to work, the principle that Americans must have the right, but
not be compelled, to join or financially support a labor union.
That is why I have sponsored H.R. 59, the National Right to Work Act.
H.R. 59 does not add one word to federal law, it simply removes the
forced union dues provisions from the National Labor Relations Act and
the Railway Labor Act guaranteeing every American's right to work and
decreasing Federal intervention of labor policy.
Thomas Jefferson said it best: To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.
This legislation is designed to cure that limitation on the rights of
all Americans that Congress passed 63 years ago. Indeed, compulsory
unionism blots the American tradition of individual liberty by
stripping working Americans of their right to join, or not join, or
financially support a labor union. This legislation in no way
interferes with the right of individuals to form labor unions, to
engage in collective bargaining, indeed to strike under current law. It
simply gives the employees the right to decide for themselves whether
or not they want to join.
By forcing independent employees to join or pay fees to a union, big
labor officials have embraced collectivism based on coercion and have
discarded individual liberty. And how did the defenders of compulsory
unionism justify their beliefs? They do not. In fact, union officials
and their allies, who support forced union dues, offer no apologies at
all.
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton summed
up the sentiments of big labor when he said: In order to maintain
themselves, unions have to strap their members to the mast. The only
way unions can exercise countervailing power is to hold their members'
feet to the fire.
Mr. Speaker, that statement speaks for itself. It goes against the
very values of the founders of the modern labor union movement.
And I point to this quote from Samuel Gompers: Union officials long
ago abandoned the principles of Samuel Gompers, the grandfather of the
American trade union movement and the founder of the American
Federation of Labor who once said the workers of America adhere to
voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are
not only impractical, but a menace to their welfare and their liberty.
Mr. Speaker, compulsory systems are a menace to the workers' welfare
and to their liberty. That is what the grandfather of the American
trade union movement and founder of the American Federation of Labor
thought of today's system. What a contrast. While Samuel Gompers spoke
of the welfare and liberty of workers, today's union officials and
their supporters are concerned with maintaining their power and
strapping their members' to the mast.
Mr. Speaker, the American worker has the right to know where their
elected representative in Congress stands on the issue of compulsion
versus freedom. The American worker has the right to know whether their
elected representative in Congress supports the liberty of workers or
supports the government-endorsed policy of allowing union officials to
strap their members to the mast and hold their feet to the fire.
It is clear where the American people stand. A poll conducted by
Mason Dixon shows that 76 percent of all Americans support the
individual rights of workers to decide for themselves, 76.6 percent
support right to work, 17.1 percent support forced union dues, 6.3
percent had no opinion in that poll, and I might point out that the
vast majority of members of labor unions in the United States support
right to work. And why would they not? It increases their ability to
assure that their union is responsive to their needs because, if they
belong to a union and have the right to decide for themselves whether
they are going to leave the union or remain a member of the union, pay
dues to the union or not, that union leadership is going to be far more
responsive to their needs and their concerns because they know that if
they are not responsive to the needs of their members, those members
can walk out, and that is the right that every American should have.
Just yesterday 500,000 petitions were delivered to the United States
capital from right to work supporters across the country urging a vote
on H.R. 59 this session. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to
schedule a vote to free the independent-minded voters, and I urge a
vote on H.R. 59, the National Right to Work Act.
At this time I am delighted that we have been joined by the majority
whip of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) to speak on this important issue.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for bringing this special order. It is high
time we started talking about these issues, particularly the issue of
workers having the right to, the freedom, to pick whether they belong
to a union or not. Compulsory unionism is an archaic concept that no
longer belongs in the economy of the United States, and it is being
exemplified, quite frankly, in what is going on in the strikes in
Michigan where we have people in Texas who are being laid off because
two different plants in Michigan have decided to strike and the plants
in Texas have no right; a right-to-work State by the way, have no right
to decide their fate when their fate is being decided by the union.
I just want to take just a minute, if the gentleman will allow me, to
sort of relate what we are doing and what we have been doing for the
last couple of weeks in campaign finance reform and how compulsory
unionism affects people's right to participate in the political
process. I am a co-sponsor of this Right to Work Act and would like, I
personally would like, to see a floor vote on this legislation. Nobody,
nobody questions the right of labor unions to participate in our
democracy. We have all been targets of their advertising campaign, but
so-called campaign reform legislation that has been authored by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) while restricting the first amendment rights
of all Americans does not deal with the root issue. The root issue is
compulsory unionism that we are trying to get at.
The authors of Shays-Meehan legislation like to claim that they have
a provision in the bill, for instance, that codifies the Beck decision
to protect union workers from compulsory unionism, having their dues
taken from them and used in political activities that they may not
agree with. What the authors of this bill fail to tell anyone is that
the way they drafted this provision does not even apply to union
workers, it applies to nonunion workers.

{time} 2320

In other words, in a compulsory union State that does not have right-
to-work, one's dues is taken and used not only for collective
bargaining practices, but they are also used for political activities,
even if one does not agree with those political activities. How they
disguise things all the time around here and will try to disguise what
the gentleman is trying to do in bringing H.R. 59 to the floor is
disguising it in such a way that says that we are going to protect
workers' rights and freedoms to decide whether they are going to be
involved in political activities or not, because we are going to codify
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States; but at the same
time they say, one has to resign from the union in order to stop the
union from using one's dues for political activities.
My question, number one, is what if one is in a compulsory union
State and one loses their job if one resigns from the union? So what
the gentleman is bringing to the attention of the American people and
to this House is a bill that basically gives the right of workers back
to them.
So, Mr. Speaker, this provision in Shays-Meehan is a fig leaf that
comes woefully short of covering the problem. The root problem is
forced union dues authorized by Federal law. It is this coercive power
that allows union officials to funnel union dues into their political
machines without the consent of their memberships. Shays-Meehan, by

[[Page H5588]]

amending the Labor Relations Act, will actually act to cement
compulsory unionism in place while failing to eliminate the many
problems facing America's working men and women, and for these reasons
alone, Shays-Meehan deserves our opposition.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is more. The curious wording of those that
want to protect compulsory unionism through even the Shays-Meehan
campaign reform, so-called campaign reform, would even authorize union
officials to charge for political activities related to collective
bargaining, which union bosses contend is just about everything they
do.
Now, this provision not only is a perversion of the Beck decision,
but it ignores the Beck decision's holding that workers may object to
any dues payment for any union activities not directly related to
collective bargaining activities. So if this language was adopted,
union officials would be able to force, force workers to pay 100
percent of their dues to the unions.
So the language that the pro-union people are trying to put forward,
for all practical purposes, destroys existing legal procedures that
provide protection, albeit minimal protection, to workers who must pay
union dues to work, must pay union dues to work. In other words, under
this bill, these sponsors, whether intentional or not, would actually
enlarge the scope of expenses that union officials could charge
workers, and for independent-minded workers, passage of the Shays-
Meehan proposal is clearly a step backward and a major victory for big
labor.
Only this bill, H.R. 59, would return a basic right to millions of
Americans, a right that they should never have lost in the first place.
The American worker deserves more than just the right not to be forced
to pay for political policies that they disagree with, they deserve the
right not to be forced to pay dues or fees to a labor union just to
keep or just to get a job.
We are in America. If the unions of America are viable
representatives of the workers of America, then they ought to be able
to compete in the marketplace just like anybody else, and they should
not have to have laws on the books that forces someone that may
disagree with their practices to belong to that union to keep or get
their job. That is what H.R. 59 is all about. It is giving freedom back
to Americans when it has been taken away from them.
I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
participation.
The gentleman is exactly correct with regard to what this is all
about. Both political parties claim Thomas Jefferson and much of his
philosophy as a part of their historic tradition, and certainly I from
Virginia am very proud of Thomas Jefferson. He said it best: ``To
compel a man,'' and of course today we mean men and women, but ``to
compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical,'' and that is
what we are faced with in this country for the last 63 years because of
legislation passed a long time ago that is outdated, certainly not in
step with the vast majority of the American people who support right-
to-work, and we need to pass this legislation.
I am pleased that we have been joined now by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), and we welcome him to this discussion.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and
our distinguished majority whip for taking time on the floor tonight,
Mr. Speaker, to discuss this vital issue. I am proud to stand strongly
and foursquare in support of one of America's most fundamental rights:
The right to work.
Mr. Speaker, Arizona's favorite son recently passed, and Barry
Goldwater's memory has been extolled by members of both major political
parties and many others on the scene. Indeed, tonight I am reminded
that Barry Goldwater, Jr., the former Congressman from California, who
returned to his native State of Arizona, and now, I am pleased to say,
a very good personal friend of mine, that on this date, Barry
Goldwater, Jr., celebrates an important birthday. But I must say, in
all sincerity, the plain-spoken, commonsensical ways of Barry
Goldwater, Sr. were brought to bear in this fight, in this endeavor as
Arizona clearly and unequivocally is a right-to-work State.
Said Senator Goldwater, quoting now, ``I believe people have a right
to join a union, but I also believe people have a right not to join a
union.'' And that simple two-sentence statement sums it up.
In this Nation we have rights to freely associate. How then could
this government move to abridge those rights in the 1930s? It is sad,
but truly a part of our history, that there have been times when
certain factions have moved to consolidate political power in the
attempt to ensure a permanent majority and abridge the rights of
American citizens.
So tonight I remember the simple eloquence of Barry Goldwater, Sr.,
extolling the virtues of that basic fundamental American freedom, not
to the detriment of unions or the collective bargaining process, which
as my colleague from Virginia pointed out was summed up in the message
of one of the great leaders of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel
Gompers, to talk about voluntary institutions and how it was preferred
that voluntary institutions would work far better than compulsory
systems. Indeed, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out earlier in
this time, Gompers said those compulsory systems are not only
impractical, but a menace to their welfare and to their liberty.

{time} 2330

I am struck by the words of another who served at the other end of
Pennsylvania avenue, and who went to foreign soil a decade ago.
President Ronald Wilson Reagan stood clearly and boldly, square in the
jaws of tyranny, and challenged the leader of the then Soviet Union to
tear down a wall that came to symbolize oppression.
Mr. Gorbachev said, President Reagan, tear down this wall. And, Mr.
Speaker, tonight, to my colleagues, to those who found it so seductive
to strip Americans of a basic freedom of association, and thereby build
a wall of compulsory coercive unionism, to them we say, in the best
traditions of freedom, Mr. Speaker, tear down this wall, tear down this
wall of compulsory unionism, tear down the wall that Thomas Jefferson
would call sinful and tyrannical, because it moves to abridge the very
basic rights of freedom of association. It moves through coercion and
through compulsory status to extinguish the freedoms of association,
and it moves against the basic fabric of American society.
Hear clearly what I say. I heard it from constituents in the Sixth
District of Arizona, given the fact that we champion in this country
political discourse, and give and take, and a free, open debate.
Mr. Speaker, and those who join us electronically far beyond these
walls, I cannot tell Members the number of times union members in
Arizona would come to me and say, I support you, but to keep my seat at
the bargaining table, even though we live in a right-to-work State, to
avoid retribution I must support you silently.
What does that say about those in our society who would have moved to
abridge this most basic right? It certainly calls not upon the best
traditions American history has to offer, and yet, tonight, this is
that fundamental choice. That is why we are pleased to rise in favor of
the right to work.
That is why I am pleased that Arizona, not only in the alphabet,
beginning with A, leads the way, but Arizona shows the way, the
youngest of the 48 contiguous States, and yet at the forefront of
championing the rights of workers to freely associate with different
groups.
I am pleased that every one of my colleagues on the majority side
from Arizona joined me in sponsorship of the legislation offered by the
gentleman from Virginia.
Of course, there are other practical means beyond the most practical
and basic notion of freedom that commend this act. The simple notion of
prosperity is also commended. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) is well aware of the academic labors at George Mason
University and the scholar there, James T. Bennett, where, in his study
of a higher standard of living in right-to-work States, he illustrates
how families in States like Arizona

[[Page H5589]]

enjoy a higher standard of living than families who hail from States
with compulsory unionism.
According to the study of Mr. Bennett, the cost of living in the 21
right-to-work States is nearly 25 percent less than in the 29
compulsory unionism States. Families in right-to-work States also have
lower State and local tax burdens than compulsory unionism State
families. It is what the scholar calls a right-to-work boom.
The average urban family living in a right-to-work State has an
after-tax cost-of-living adjusted household income of $36,540 dollars,
almost $3,000 more than a family in a forced unionism State, because of
the principle of the free market working, where people can freely
associate and have work and not artificially inflated prices, either in
the public sector, through public works, or in private works.
These are the fruits of honest labor, and this is what we come to the
floor to extoll, not in the fashion of a green eyeshade, but again,
evoking the best of American traditions; again, evoking the words and
the memories of those who have gone on before.
Lest anyone mistake this as a harangue against any one political
party or the current liberal minority, I will not only call on the
memory of Arizona's favorite son and the standard-bearer of my party in
1964, but I would call upon the memory of another great member of the
other body, the gentleman from North Carolina, Senator Sam Irvin.
In his book entitled ``Preserving the Constitution,'' Senator Irvin
wrote, quoting now, ``Right-to-work States remove the motive of the
union to subordinate the interests of the employees to its wishes, and
thus leaves it free to conduct negotiations for the sole purpose of
obtaining an employment contract advantageous to the employees.''
So we can see even from that observation that one from the other side
of the aisle, if you will, talked about the true nature of collective
bargaining, the essence of collective bargaining, not the intervention
in other areas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The time of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has expired. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) is not on the floor. Does the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) wish to claim the remaining time until
midnight?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we would claim the rest of the time until
midnight, because we do have some additional matters.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and I
thank the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Maryland, who manages
the proceedings of the House in a manner that behooves bipartisanship,
as I call it, in the bipartisan fashion of the writings of Senator Sam
Irvin and what he had to say about the true notion of negotiation; not
all the other trappings and all the compulsory addenda to what is the
central mission of the labor-management dynamic, but to concentrate on
what is really important.
It is a sad fact, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, will
attest, that even now there are those at the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue what would look to limit the choices even of this Federal
Government. When it comes to competitive bidding, there are those in
this administration who have said that competitive bidding should be
open only to union shops.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to stop and think about that for just a
second. In addition, again, to abridging, to segregating the choices
available in the work force, what would happen there to carry that
scenario to fruition would mean billions upon billions of dollars of
extra costs to the American taxpayer; indeed, the most conservative
estimate I have seen is some $5 billion in additional spending by the
taxpayers, simply to assuage the notion of those who would even move in
a greater way to force compulsory unionism past the membership, already
subverting the notion of free association, but to the point where this
government could not contract with nonunion shops.
Mr. Speaker, I will work and fight to maintain the rights of all
companies to freely bid, because in that way, in that way the best
interests of the taxpayers are preserved, and in that way the best
interests of this country is preserved.
Yet, my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, brings it to the most
simple and elemental fact here, because it deals with freedom of the
individual, because it deals with the clear, simple notion that we in
this Congress should undo the unfair power grab of those who succumbed
to temptation in the middle part of the 1930s; that we in fact should
stand, as we are poised for a new century, to reemphasize the most
basic of freedoms: freedom of association, freedom in the marketplace,
freedom for families, freedom from fear, and freedom to work; indeed,
the right to work for all Americans for all time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I think he is
particularly correct in pointing out that Arizona and Virginia have led
the way with right-to-work laws, as allowed under an exception to the
Federal law that was created some time after the right was taken away
from all Americans to have right-to-work.
It is important to note that this is not a States' rights issue. I
would point out to the gentleman, this entire bill, and we complain
about bills that are thousands of pages long, this bill is on one piece
of paper.

{time} 2340

All it does is repeal provisions of Federal law that took away the
most precious liberty that an individual can have, and that is the
right to decide for themselves what they are going to do with their
life, whether when they get a job, they are going to be required to pay
dues or belong to something that they may or may not believe in. And we
take nothing away from those who want to join labor unions, this does
not affect that in any way, to organize, to collectively bargain or
even strike as permitted under law.
I would like to point out that we have a number of press clippings
that under the unanimous consent order previously given we would like
to make a part of the Record. And before I do so, I would like to read
from one of those from the Chattanooga Free Press of Chattanooga,
Tennessee which wrote:
One of the most basic human rights that most assuredly should be
protected in America is the right of men and women to work and earn a
living for themselves and their families without being forced to join
or pay tribute to anyone or anything. If an American can be denied the
right to work, what liberty remains? Yet in all but 21 of our States
that have right to work laws, American citizens can be forced to join
and pay dues to a labor union against their will or be denied jobs or
be fired. That obviously is utterly wrong.
Part of American freedom includes the right of workers to join unions
voluntarily and to pay dues to them voluntarily. But tyranny prevails
if they are forced to join a union or any other organization and pay it
involuntarily or be denied the right to earn self-support.
We need a national right to work law. It is as simple as that. No one
would tolerate a situation in which any American would have to join a
certain church to work or join a certain lodge or fraternal group to
work. Why tolerate forced union membership to work? Until a national
right to work act is passed, the basic philosophy of our Declaration of
Independence and Constitution of the United States is being denied
American citizens. This should not be allowed to continue.
Does the gentleman have any additional remarks?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just was struck by the eloquence of my
colleague from Virginia, and I think, again, he has pointed out quite
correctly, but it bears some repeating, because we all realize sadly
that there are those who would attempt to deliberately misunderstand or
distort the message we offer tonight. Again, the message we offer is in
the finest tradition of freedom and individual self-determination.
As my colleague from Virginia points out, this is not an attempt to
eliminate unions. This is not an attempt to destroy collective
bargaining. This is not an attempt to end anyone's right to strike.
Those rights exist in a free society and will be maintained. But what
we are saying, Mr. Speaker, simply,

[[Page H5590]]

clearly and we believe ultimately persuasively to the American people
is the fact that we want people to have the right to decide for
themselves when it comes to economic association, when it comes to
making determinations about their economic future and freedom, and how
wrong it is to predicate the acceptance of a job on compulsory
membership in a union.
Again, the quarrel is not with those who would voluntarily join such
an union. That is the right of an American. But, again, we reaffirm
that right in its true essence by saying, if you want to belong to a
union, well and good. Join, be involved in that process. If you want to
be involved politically in that union and have a portion of your
earnings secured through some mechanism for union dues ultimately to go
to political expression, God bless you, you should have that right. But
just because you have that right does not mean you should abridge the
rights of others and in some way step in and subvert their abilities,
A, either to join the union or choose not to join the union or, B, once
a member of the union, coercively force them to surrender a portion of
their paycheck and union dues to go to political activities with which
they may disagree.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that those
union dues collected and used to influence policy that individuals who
are members of a union may not agree with or to influence political
campaigns for candidates that they may not support, that money is used
all over the country. Even if you are in a right-to-work State, you are
affected by forced compulsory unionism in other States. That is why we
need to have a national right to work law.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, as my colleague from Virginia accurately points
out, in having lived through the experience firsthand in 1996, as the
number one target of boss John Sweeney and the other union bosses of
the AFL-CIO, who took from their membership compulsory union dues used
for the committee on political education, I can tell you, one of the
real tragedies from my vantage point was not the give and take and the
rough and tumble of public discourse because, as Abraham Lincoln said,
the American people, once fully informed, will make the right decision.
And I trust the people. No, the tragedy was this, Mr. Speaker, that
that longshoreman in Maryland, or that lettuce picker in California or
that assembly line worker in Michigan who knew nothing of the political
dynamics of the sixth district of Arizona, who had no direct stake in
the political expression of the people of the sixth district of
Arizona, yet found their wages against their will imported to the State
of Arizona to the tune of $2.1 million for false television ads
distorting my record. And we will see that, I dare say, again as we
receive reports around the country that the same activity continues.
Again, let us stress, free and open debate is fine. If people
voluntarily give of their wages, that is a time-honored tradition in
the Constitution. That is something we freely welcome, freedom of
speech, freedom of association.
But when that crosses to compulsory, coercive, accumulations of
wealth by the labor bosses against the will of the very working people
they purport to help, how sad and how cynical. And again, Mr. Speaker,
amidst all the talk of campaign finance reform, there is this one fact
that comes from 1996. In a Rutgers University study, it is well
documented that despite the reports of some $35 million used in an
effort to influence congressional elections, the actual figures,
according to the Rutgers University study were these. Between 300
million and a half a billion dollars was taken coercively from members
of unions to go into political campaigns in an attempt to change
control in this Congress.
How much better for our constitutional Republic had all those
donations been freely given and freely accepted. How much better for
the rights of workers would it be if they had the opportunity to
express this most basic of freedoms, the right to associate and,
indeed, the right to work regardless of the encumbrances of those who
would compel them into associations with which they might disagree.
This is something that must change for freedom in its truest form to
flourish, so that the give and take can be genuine, not coercive and
for those who would stand for true reform to end the practice or the
threat of this constitutional Republic, as some would say, being sold
to the highest bidder. That is what is at stake every 2 years in our
renewal and celebration of freedom at the ballot box expressed in this
institution, the most basic, the most responsive designed by our
founders to be a constitutional office absolutely beholden to the
people. How much better it would be if the people were free to truly
express their opinions, their free associations without the specter of
intimidation or the specter of economic ruin for failing to belong to
an organization.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
participation. I would point out that just yesterday petitions signed
by more than half a million American citizens were delivered here at
the Capitol from right to work supporters all across the country,
urging a vote on this important legislation.
I urge my colleagues in the leadership to schedule a vote to free
independent-minded workers who wish to choose for themselves whether or
not to belong to a labor union or pay dues to a labor union. Let them
decide for themselves by passing into law the National Right to Work
Act. I hope we have the opportunity to vote on this legislation soon.

I thank the gentleman again for his participation and the majority
whip the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to
Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this
Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of
federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had
no constitutional authority to enact in the first place!
Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress,
only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some
modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on
federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian
Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this
bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my
colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations
Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union
dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when
Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest
that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states'
rights.
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this
bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary
join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing
in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike,
or support union political activity if those actions stem from a
worker's choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the
internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is
stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor
union against that worker's will. In a free society, the decision of
whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the
government.
No wonder the overwhelming majority of the American people support
the National Right to Work Act, as shown both by polling results and by
the many postcards and petitions my office has received asking for
Congressional action on this bill.
I once again thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on
this bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man
to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions in
which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.''
The House of Representatives has an opportunity to hold a historic
vote on legislation to repeal those provisions of Federal law which
require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of
employment. This vote is long overdue for the working men and women of
this country.
Nearly 80% of Americans share in the belief that compulsory unionism
violates a fundamental principle of individual liberty, the very
principle upon which this Nation was founded.
Compulsory unionism basically says that workers cannot and should not
decide for themselves what is in their best interest, that they need a
union boss to decide for them. I can think of nothing more offensive to
our core founding principles which we celebrated on the Fourth of July,
a few days ago, than that principle that the working people of this
country do not have the ability to decide for themselves.

[[Page H5591]]

With this bill, not a single word is added to Federal law. It simply
repeals those sections of the National Labor Relations Act and Railway
Labor Act that authorizes the imposition of forced-dues contracts upon
working Americans. It simply does away with the requirement that people
have to belong to a union to hold a job.
I believe that every worker must have the right to join and
financially support a labor union if that is what they want to do.
Every worker should have the right, of his own free will and accord,
but he should not be coerced to pay union dues just to keep his job.
This bill simply protects that right, and no worker would ever be
forced into union membership without his consent.
Union membership should be a choice that an individual makes based
upon merits and benefits offered by the union. If a union truly
benefits its members, they do not have to coerce them. If workers had
confidence in the union leadership, if the union leadership was honest,
upright, and forthright, then they would not need to coerce their
members to join. A union freely held together by common interests and
desires of those who voluntarily want to be members would be a better
union than one in which members were forced to join. If the National
Right to Work Act is passed, nothing in Federal law will stop workers
from joining a union, participating in union activity, and paying union
dues.
Union officials who operate their organizations in a truly
representative, honest, democratic manner would find their ranks
growing with volunteer members who are attracted by service, benefits,
and mutual interests, not because they are forced against their will
with no options to be a member of a union and pay union fees in order
to hold a job. In addition, voluntary union members would be more
enthusiastic about union membership simply because they had the freedom
to join and were not forced into it.
When Federal laws authorizing compulsory unionism are overturned,
only then will working men and women be free to exercise fully their
right to work. When that time comes, they will have the freedom to
choose whether they want to accept or reject union representation and
union dues without facing coercion, violence, and workplace harassment
by overbearing, and in many cases, disreputable union bosses.
A poll taken in 1995 indicates 8 out of 10 Americans oppose
compulsory unionism--8 out of 10 Americans do not think you should be
forced to belong to a union to hold a job.
Mr. Speaker, some members of this Chamber will say that this is a
states rights issue and since law allows states to pass Right to Work
Laws there is not need for this legislation.
Nothing could be further than the truth. First of all, Federal Law is
the source of compulsory union. But more than that Mr. Speaker, Right
to Work is about freedom.
No governmental authority should endorse the right of a private
organization to force working men and women to pay dues or fees as a
condition of employment.
Compulsory unionism is wrong on the federal level, compulsory
unionism is wrong on the state level and compulsory unionism is wrong
on the local level.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson ``The very
purpose of the Bill of Rights is to place certain subjects beyond the
reach of the majority . . . ones fundamental rights wait for no
election, they depend on no vote.''
It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in defending
the fundamental individual liberty of the right to work and will
support this bill.

____________________