Date: 1998-06-17
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. it happened again just a few days ago. I was at a Republican event. a political event dealing with putting candidates on the ballot back in Colorado and one of the individuals in the audience came up and he said. "I am fed up and sick and tired of labor unions taking cash out of my wages and spending those dollars on political causes that I do not support." This was a Republican worker who lives up north in the Morgan area. in Morgan County in my district. in the Fourth District of Colorado. And he asked if there is anything I can do about that. Well. I asked more questions. tried to find out exactly what had occurred to him. It seems he works for a closedshop operation there in Colorado. which is in not a righttowork State. A closedshop State means essentially that one can be forced or compelled to join a labor organization against their will as a condition of employment. Their only option. of course. is to give up their job and move on and go somewhere else. So this individual does not approve of his unions activities. I suppose he probably supports some of the collective bargaining and maybe some of the agency representation and so on. But what he really resented was that a certain portion of his paycheck was automatically deducted and withheld and redirected toward political causes of the unions choosing without the consent of this particular wage earner. He thought it was a crime. In fact. he called it such. And I could not disagree with him at all. Well. this is a practice which occurs throughout the country. It is interesting. here on the House floor. with all the debate about campaign finance and campaign finance reform and what campaigns ought to look like. how they ought to be funded. whether there ought to be caps and limits. what kind of disclosure and reporting requirements that we ought to insist upon. that no one is really willing to spend the time talking about whether campaign funds are raised legitimately in the first place. The fact of the matter is. right here in the great old United States. it is quite possible. in fact it is quite likely. that a.wage earner can have a portion of his wages automatically deducted and withheld out of his paycheck and spent on some political cause simply because he happens to be associated with a labor union. It happens with other organizations as well. Well. we have tried in fact to take a crack at the issue here on the House floor. The last time campaign finance issues were raised we brought a topic to the floor called the Paycheck Protection Act. a proposal designed to end this practice of having wages automatically deducted and spent on political causes without the consent of the wage earner. It strikes me as being a pretty simple matter. yet it gets quite confused here in Congress. And I will explain that in a moment. why there seems to be a source of confusion. But it seems that anybody Would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation as to why stealing wages out of somebodys paycheck and directing it toward a political cause without the wage earners knowledge or the wage earners consent is a good idea. how it can possibly be justified. how we can in fact stand for it. how we can allow campaign cash to be raised in this sort of manner and not object on a daily basis. Well. I have heard from too many. constituents. rank and file union Americans. who do object. who do come up to me at political events. at town meetings. at the parade celebrating small towns throughout my rural district. who come up and tell me that they are fed up with it. that they are sick and tired of having their wages raided by people they do not support for political causes they do not condone. and spent in a way that is outside their control. I sort of look at this as a pay raise. If we can really protect the paychecks of hardworking Americans. make sure that no portion of their wages are automatically deducted and siphoned off for political causes. that really means. for many wage earners in America it means more dollars in their pocket. It is very consistent with our efforts towards tax cuts in America to try to encourage and empower individual wage earners by protecting what they work hard for. by protecting their earnings. to allow them to keep what they have toiled over and the fruits of their labor and let them spend it on things that they believe to be high priorities rather than some union boss sitting in another city perhaps or maybe right here in Washington. D.C.. or maybe a -committee of them that is forming today perhaps to decide which Members of Congress ought to stay and which ones ought to go. Well. it really does work that way. If my colleagues want to figure out what the motivation is why any labor organization would stand for siphoning off portions of their members wages to spend on political causes of the unions choosing. they just need to spend a little time here In Washington D.C. Whenever we have these campaign finance debates. these halls are lined out here in the committee hallways and Members offices are lined with union organizers and union lobbyists and union bosses who understand that when we talk about paycheck protection. we really are threatening the way of life for a handful of powerful union bosses who have made an art and a career out of siphoning wages away from wage earners paychecks for the political purposes of their choice. Campaigns can be fun if they are involved in them. if they are involved in raising money and trying to spend it in a way that helps affect the direction of Congress. It seems to be the American. way. That is what every citizen should be encouraged to do and to participate in and be involved in. to choose the candidate of their liking and decide which one best represents them. to put a yard sign in their yard maybe. to put a bumper sticker on their car. to take some literature through their neighborhood and give it to their friends and neighbors. maybe to go to precinct caucus meetings and maybe some State and county assemblies. maybe the national convention. to be involved in whatever way they can in help selecting the candidate that best represents them and that they think is the one that is really going to help turn the country around and to meet their expectations. And a big part of that is raising money too. as we all know in this case. We spend a lot of time trying to replenish the campaign coffers so that we can run for election. And our opponents who are out trying to replace us today are on the phone. perhaps trying to raise money for their campaign coffers so that they can convey their message. There is nothing wrong with that. That makes a lot of sense. But it ought to be voluntary. It seems. at the very least. we ought to insist upon a voluntary nature about politics. To insist upon the simple notion that no one. no one in America should ever be forced to contribute to a political cause which they do not support. Does that seem to be too much to ask? Well. when we asked that question here on the House floor a few months ago. the answer was no. it was too much to ask actually when it came right down to it. Because those union bosses and lobbyists that I mentioned who march around the Capitol building and who hang out around the offices of likely Members of Congress who -seem to be sympathetic to the cause of union bosses. well. they said no. they said no to the Paycheck Protection Act. We hope to give them another chance and another opportunity. in fact. several opportunities crafted in several different ways. There are a dozen. at least a handful of proposals and variations on the Paycheck Protection Act that we can consider here in Congress. I am going to offer my proposal again. The Paycheck Protection Act is a very similar bill. It is only a couple of pages. What it suggests is that no wage earners wages can be withheld for political contributions in any manner without the consent of the wage earner. And anyone who siphons money out of the paycheck of an unsuspecting wage earner would be subject to judicial proceedings and actions taken against him by the wage earner himself. You see. I am not reallyagainst and I do not think anybody who supports the Paycheck Protection Act is against labor unions being involved in the political process. Quite the contrary. I am for that. I think labor unions serve a very useful purpose. I am for collective bargaining. I am for agency rel5resentation. as long as people voluntarily agree to become associated with these groups and organizations and clubs. I am even for labor unions being involved in politics. and I think most supporters of the Paycheck Protection Act are. as long as the money that they raise is raised voluntarily. as long as the individuals who contribute to the political cause know what they are doing and agree to it and agree to open up their wages to give the special account number to the special interest groups so that some of the money that otherwise would go directly to the wage earners paycheck is instead diverted. a small portion of it. to an unions account. a political account. . That is fine if it is voluntary. The Paycheck Protection Act insists upon a voluntary nature associated with raising political dues. Well. what many of the opponents of paycheck protection understand is that the measure is pretty passionately opposed by union bosses. This is pretty easy money for these folks. that comes pretty easily. When they are stealing it. when they are taking it away from paychecks and wage earners unsuspecting. that is easy cashing for those who are here to raise money. Many of us insist upon doing it the hard way. and that is getting on the phone or having a meeting with individuals and asking them to contribute. to in fact invest in our political causeand to back the message that we propose so carry to Washington. D.C. But taking it through this mechanism of wage withholding and wage deduction is certainly easier. There is no confrontation involved. They do not have to do any explaining at all. They just take it and they spend it on these same Members of Congress and other candidates like then who seem to be sympathetic to the notion that these union bosses have good ideas and ought to perpetuate them in Washington. Here is something else. Mr. Speaker. that these individuals. these same opponents of paycheck protection know. They know that the rank and file union members support the Paycheck Protection Act. This is a graph that outlines a recent public opinion poll that was taken among the American citizens. And we asked. should we change or keep the current Federal election laws that allow unions to make political contributions with money deducted from a union members paycheck? Of all voters. when all voters were surveyed. way over there on my right. 78 percent of American voters throughout the country said that they in fact support changes in the law. those laws that currently allow political contributions to be made with money deducted from a union members paychecks. Seventytwo percent of union households. now these are union households. these are households where union members are answering the surveys. 72 percent of union households say we should change the law so that paychecks are protected and that no ones wages are withheld without the consent of the wage earner. Look over here. when we talk to members of teachers unions. these are again not all union members throughout the country. that is this column here. this is just union members who are part of a teachers union. this is a smaller subset. 78 percent of teacher union members tell us that they support changes in the current law which allows wages to be automatically withheld and spent on political causes without the consent of the wage earner. Seventyeight percent of members of teachers unions say that that law ought to be changed. When we exclude all the union members and talk to all union members. we get a 2 percent bump. 80 percent of nonunion voters throughout the country believe that we ought to change the law. The next graph is pretty similar and in many ways restates what I had said earlier. but the question was asked a little differently in this instance. We asked whether the respondent would approv e or disapprove of a new Federal law that would protect workers paychecks. whether they would support the paycheck protection in fact. Again. when we ask all voters. all voters throughout the country. 80 percent tell us they support the Paycheck . Protection Act. Eighty percent of union members. union households. tell us they support the Paycheck Protection Act. That is really remarkable for a lot of people. If we listened to the opponents of paycheck protection. we would think. in listening to their arguments. come to the conclusion that union members somehow want their wages to be withdrawn and withheld for political causes against their will. But when we asked the wage earners themselves. 80 percent of them told us that they believe that we ought to pass the Paycheck Protection Act and end this abuse. When we go to teachers union households in this case. 84 percent tell us that we ought to pass the protection. they approve of the law. And again. when we exclude all the union members and just look at nonunion households. 80 percent of nonunion households support a measure that would protect the paychecks of. well. anybodys paycheck. they do not even have to be a labor union member. but anybodys - paycheck that is subject to being raided by various political operatives of various sorts. It is interesting that we would think that with 80 percent of all voters who favor paycheck protection that we would have the balance. the 20 percent. that would oppose. Actually. the number is smaller than that. It is 16 percent. There is a handful of folks in every single instance who have not made up their minds on the matter. who have not come to a conclusion yet as to whether we ought to protect the paychecks of wage earners. Sixteen percent of all voters say that we ought to leave the law as it is. Sixteen percent of union members say we ought to leave the law as it is. Thirteen percent of teachers throughout the country say we ought to leave the law as it is. Sixteen percent of nonunion members say we ought to leave it as it is. Those are small numbers. 16 percent. 13 percent in the case of teachers. and the comparisons on the other graph are very similar. But it is odd how powerful this minority of voters seem to be here in the halls of the United States Congress. Because these are the people who won when we took the last vote here in Washington. These are the folks who were represented who earned more votes in Congress than the people in these tall columns. So we wonder why that might be. And the reason is because what happens with campaign laws as they are today. which allows wages to be raided and a portion of those wages to be redirected toward political causes without the consent of the wage earner. as we have this 80 percent column that is footing the bill for union political causes. and only 16 percent. this small minority here. actually approve of how those dollars are spent. So you take money from this big column here and you spend it to empower the small minority there. The small minority there turns around and gives that cash in many cases to Members of Congress. to candidates who are running for office. to governors. to city council members. to county commissioners. to anyone who is sympathetic to their special interest causes. Once again. I say. I am really not opposed at all to unions being involved in the political process. If they want to give their cash to candidates who are sympathetic to them. that is great. That is what democracy is all about. That is what industrial democracy is all about. That is what isbeing part of a union is all about. too. But the money ought to be raised legitimately. It ought to be raised credibly. It ought to be raised voluntarily. That is why the Paycheck Protection Act is such a central and essential part of any debate we propose to have here on the floor of the House with respect to campaign finance. Now. there are lots of issues we can discuss. Again. you will hear all kinds of particular topics of debate. about whether we ought to have spending limits. where candidates can only spend a certain amount of money. Some people here in Congress support the notion of having the Government finance campaigns. Some people think that all we need to do is maintain full and open disclosure and timely disclosure so that everyone knows and understands where a candidates cash comes from in a timely manner. Some think we ought to cap the amount of money that people can give to the political process. really to limit the extent to which an individual can participate in politics. in the democratic process here in America. But I think before we get to any of those discussions. before we get to any of those debates. we ought to be able to agree that the 80 percent of wage earners in America who think their paychecks ought to be protected should at least be considered here in Washington. should at least be considered in some minor way. by the Members of the House. I hope we can convert that to consideration in a major way where we will actually respond positively and affirmatively with a Paycheck Protection Act as part of this overall campaign finance debate that will reach out to hardworking wage earners. that will reach out to the mother and father who are working extra hours. perhaps right now. maybe two jobs. trying to make ends meet. to pay the high taxes that this government maintains. that will reach out to those individuals and tell them that we are just going to make sure that you do not end up contributing to a political cause without your knowledge. and that politics in America continues to be voluntary. There are a lot of people involved in this debate. A lot of people have a lot to say about it. A lot of people who are undecided. those hardworking rankandfile union members and wageearners who are hoping tonight. maybe watching and maybe paying *attention to what goes on here in Congress because they care. those individuals who are hoping that we will vote for them for a change. that we will reach out to them and that we will ignore those minority of union bosses. we will ignore that little 13 and 16 percent column that I showed you. and instead pay attention to the average hardworking person in America. That we will protect their wages. and we will construct a campaign system here in America that will earn their confidence. Mr. Speaker. with that I yield to the gentleman from Texas . the distinguished minority whip.