Date: 1998-05-20
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: 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 199596 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 AFLCIO 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 EmployerEmployee 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 halftruths. 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 EmployerEmployee 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 Nations 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 unions 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 EmployerEmployee 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 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 hardearned 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. 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 sixfigure 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 immeditely 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. Masiellos 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 individuals 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 hardearned 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 hardworking Americans who deserve the right to direct their own hardearned 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 organizations 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. 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 hardworking 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 ageold 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 hardearned 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 elses cash to achieve their own selfish objectives. The Paycheck Protection Act restores fairness. It empowers rankandfile 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 hardworking union members throughout the country. the hardworking 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 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.