[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S5017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. 
        Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 902. A bill to amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code 
(commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
close a long-standing loophole in our Nation's labor laws, and help 
stop union violence in America. The bill would make clear that violence 
conducted in the course of a strike is illegal under the Federal 
extortion law, the Hobbs Act. I am pleased to have Chairman Hatch and 
others join me in introducing this important measure.
  Violence has no place in our society. As I have said many times 
before, I would, if it were in my power to do so, put an absolute stop 
to the disruption of commerce in this country by intimidation and 
violence, whatever its source.
  Unfortunately, corrupt union officials have often been the source of 
such violence. Encouraged by their special Federal exemption from 
prosecution, corrupt union officials have routinely used intimidation 
and violence over the years to achieve their goals. Since 1975, the 
Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented over 9,000 
reported incidents of union violence in America. A major study entitled 
``Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, 
and the NLRB,'' which was updated and republished in 1999 by the John 
M. Olin Institute at George Mason University, discusses the problem and 
trends in union violence in detail. This updated study shows that while 
union membership and the total number of strikes has decreased in 
recent decades, the number of reported incidents of violence per strike 
has actually increased. It is clear that union violence remains a 
serious issue facing our Nation today.
  Let me make clear that I agree that the Federal Government should not 
get involved in minor, isolated physical altercations and vandalism 
that are bound to occur during a labor dispute when emotions are 
charged. Action such as this is not significant to commerce. However, 
when union violence moves beyond this and becomes a pattern of 
coordinated violent activity, the Federal Government should be 
empowered to act. State and local governments sometimes fail to provide 
an effective remedy, whether because of a lack of will, a lack of 
resources, or an inability to focus on the interstate nature of the 
conduct. It is during these times that Federal involvement is needed.

  Let me also note that this legislation has never been an effort to 
involve the Federal Government in a matter that traditionally has been 
reserved for the states. Labor relations are regulated on a national 
basis, and labor management policies are national policies. There is no 
reason to keep the Federal Government out of serious labor violence 
that is intended to achieve labor objectives.
  Indeed, the Congress intended for the Hobbs Act to apply to the 
conduct we are addressing in this legislation today. The decision to 
keep the Federal Government out was not made by the Congress. Rather, 
it was made by the Supreme Court in the United States versus Enmons 
decision in 1973, when the Supreme Court found that the Hobbs Act did 
not apply to a lawful strike, as long as the purpose of the strike was 
to achieve ``legitimate labor objectives,'' such as higher wages. Such 
an exception does not exist in the words of the statute. The Court 
could only create this loophole through a strained interpretation of 
the law. In his dissent, Justice Douglas aptly criticized the majority 
for, ``achieving by interpretation what those who were opposed to the 
Hobbs Act were unable to get Congress to do.''
  The Enmons decision is an unfortunate example of judicial activism, 
of a court interpreting a statute to reach the policy result the court 
favors rather than the one the legislature intended. This is a problem 
that has concerned many of us in the Senate for many years. We have 
held numerous hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee since 
the Enmons decision. We must continue to focus on this serious problem 
until it is solved.
  It is time we closed the loophole on union violence in America.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 902

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom From Union Violence 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE.

       Section 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or 
       violence

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 
     commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in 
     commerce, by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires 
     so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any 
     person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do 
     anything in violation of this section, shall be fined not 
     more than $100,000, imprisoned for a term of not more than 20 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `commerce' means any--
       ``(A) commerce within the District of Columbia, or any 
     territory or possession of the United States;
       ``(B) commerce between any point in a State, territory, 
     possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside 
     thereof;
       ``(C) commerce between points within the same State through 
     any place outside that State; and
       ``(D) other commerce over which the United States has 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(2) the term `extortion' means the obtaining of property 
     from any person, with the consent of that person, if that 
     consent is induced--
       ``(A) by actual or threatened use of force or violence, or 
     fear thereof;
       ``(B) by wrongful use of fear not involving force or 
     violence; or
       ``(C) under color of official right;
       ``(3) the term `labor dispute' has the same meaning as in 
     section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     152(9)); and
       ``(4) the term `robbery' means the unlawful taking or 
     obtaining of personal property from the person or in the 
     presence of another, against his or her will, by means of 
     actual or threatened force or violence, or fear of injury, 
     immediate or future--
       ``(A) to his or her person or property, or property in his 
     or her custody or possession; or
       ``(B) to the person or property of a relative or member of 
     his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the 
     time of the taking or obtaining.
       ``(c) Exempted Conduct.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     conduct that--
       ``(A) is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during 
     the course of a labor dispute;
       ``(B) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor 
     damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or 
     damage; and
       ``(C) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of 
     coordinated violent activity.
       ``(2) State and local jurisdiction.--Any violation of this 
     section that involves any conduct described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be subject to prosecution only by the appropriate State 
     and local authorities.
       ``(d) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(1) to repeal, amend, or otherwise affect--
       ``(A) section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 17);
       ``(B) section 20 of the Clayton Act (29 U.S.C. 52);
       ``(C) any provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.);
       ``(D) any provision of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or
       ``(E) any provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 
     et seq.); or
       ``(2) to preclude Federal jurisdiction over any violation 
     of this section, on the basis that the conduct at issue--
       ``(A) is also a violation of State or local law; or
       ``(B) occurred during the course of a labor dispute or in 
     pursuit of a legitimate business or labor objective.''.
                                 ______