Date: 1986-04-16
Speaker: GOR RON (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the issue before the Senatoe today is whether we should make assault and battery on a union picket line a Federal offense allowing a criminal prosecution in the Federal courts. Although I abhor criminal violence. whether it is a part of a labor dispute or otherwise. I cannot support cloture on S. 1774. Certainly I am opposed to the use of criminal violence or coercion by anyone. inoduding union officials. The question before this body. however. is not wnether battery. a.ssault rid willful destruction of property during a labor dispute are crimes that should be punisned. They are already crimes punishable under State law. There is no dispute that these wrongs should be promptly investigated. prosecuted. and their perpetrators given a proper sentence. Instead. we are focusing on whether the Federal Government should be intruding upon the historical responsibility of States and local governments to keep the peace. The vast majority of labor disputes. over 98 percent. are settled without a strike. In the relatively few cases where a union member uses actual or threatened violence during a strike. the facts show that States and local officials make arrests and prosecute the perpetrators. S. 1774 amounts to Federal intrusion into the jurisdiction of our State and local governments. and I do not believe a convincing case has been made to justify such a major change in FederalState jurisdiction. I would remind mycolleagues that there are many areas of law enforcement that have been left to the States. The 50 States now prosecute murderers. rapists. and robbers. Criminals who use guns to force the owner of a local convenience store to hand over his or her hardearned money with rare exception are brought to justice by local law enforcement officials. In most cases. investigating and prosecuting these types of crimes is much more. complex than pursuing the wrongs arising from labor disputes. The Federal Government. however. has recognized the interest of the States in keeping the peace and refrained from enacting laws that would bring most of these crimes before the Federal courts. During my five terms in the Washington State house of representatives. I took part in many successful efforts to strengthen State laws limiting violent and criminal activity. In my 12 years as attorney general for the State of Washington. I had an opportunity to observe State law enforcement officers and local prosecutors enforcing statutes aimed at precluding incidents of violence. including laborrelated violence. I can report to this body that State officials professionally and diligently handled their responsibilities In this area. My experience as a State legislator and attorney general has shown me that our State and local prosecutors are fully equipped to handle labor violence and have done an admirable job in this area of law enforcement. Mr. President. let us be clear that union leaders are not now immune from Federal prosecution when the Federal Government does have an extraordinary interest in their activities. The United States Supreme Court has noted that the Hobbs Act presently reaches violence or threats of violence by union officials trying to obtain personal payoffs or to force an employer to put "ghost" workers on the payroll. Such acts would subject the union member to Federal prosecution. 20 years In prison. and a $10.000 fine. The Federal Government also can bring an action against those who engage in serious union violence under a panoply of other Federal statutes. If there is evidence of a union or management conspiracy to conduct affairs through a pattern of racketeering. a Federal indictment can be brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). If a union or management official uses explosives to injure people or destroy -property. the Federal Government can prosecute under Federal criminal laws. Similarly. travel in interstate commerce to destroy property by fire is covered by the Travel Act. These types of violence now aie covered by Fedred lass. and a Federal Imictmnt can be brought without regard s to whether the violene took place during the course of legitimate labor aiities. The activities addressed by the measure before us are the scuffles and Property daiuae arising out of then emotion surrouniing legitnte labor disputesdislutes over wave levels and benefits. These mre assaults. batteriems breaches of the e. amd property crimes that are.thnimugly addressed by State statutes. Tjeme have been suggestion. by somees such as the Peaemws o an organized Crime that (Du islated cum local prosecutors ey hesitate to file charges against gowerful union or business leadeas to their lead nities" I would remind my coengues. however. that most States have ealished prooedures that allow the State attorney general to supercede the district attorney in cases where the dimtrict attorney fails or refuses to act. If the attonmey general will not act. many States allow State courts to appoint "Private prAsecutors" to pursue these who use violence to obtain their ends. Mr. President. given the generally admirable job local and State oficis are doing enforcing State laws in this area. the Federal Government simply should not be in the business of policing the orderly conduct of labor disputes. The record is not sufficient for an extradinary sh"t in FIederal labor law or an unprecedented incursion by the Federal Government into the criminal jurisdiction of States and lcalities.