Senator MATHIAS. Thank you all very much. We have beat the clock. The subcommittee will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair, and I will go vote on cloture. [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] S. 613, A BILL TO AMEND THE HOBBS ACT THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1982 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Also present: Senators Grassley and Specter. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR. Senator MATHIAS. The subcommittee will come to order. The hearing will continue on Senate bill 613, a bill to amend the Hobbs Act. Today the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Law begins its second day of hearings on S. 613, a bill to amend the Federal extortion statute, commonly referred to as the Hobbs Act, to prohibit the use of violence to influence the outcome of a legitimate labor dispute. On December 10, the subcommittee heard from representatives of organized labor and from the business community. Laurence Gold, testifying for the AFL-CIO, argued that Federal law already prohibits this type of violence, and further, that State and local law enforcement officials are both willing and able to investigate and prosecute such violence when and if it does occur. Mr. Gold concluded, therefore, that there was no real need for this legislation. Even assuming that some sort of extension of Federal law was justified, Mr. Gold argues that S. 613 would extend the law in a discriminatory manner, and would authorize the imposition of fines and prison terms out of all proportion of the underlying prohibited acts. Representatives of the business community and of the National Right to Work Committee disagreed. A panel of witnesses, including Reed Larson of the National Right to Work Committee, Alan Ross of the Associated Builders & Contractors, and Jim Supica of the Associated General Contractors of America, told the subcommittee that violence in the labor-management arena is a widespread and growing problem. Moreover, the panel asserted that State and local officials are often unwilling to get involved in labormanagement disputes even when violence has occurred. The panel viewed the current law as providing a special exemption for violent acts committed by labor unions and their members, and argued (135) that eliminating that exemption would merely remove a current anomaly in the law rather than create a new one. The Department of Justice also testified at the December 10 hearing. The Department agreed that labor unions and their members currently enjoy a special exemption under the law, but expressed concern that S. 613 as introduced would expand Federal criminal jurisdiction well beyond what is necessary to remove this exemption. The Department felt that this degree of expansion would be an unjustified intrusion into State authority. As we continue our examination of this legislation today, we will again be hearing from members of both organized labor and the business community. We will also have the benefit of the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. Our first witness will be Robert Thompson, chairman of the Labor Relations Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who, I understand, will be accompanied by Mr. Arthur Rosenfeld. Let me say to all of the prospective witnesses, we are laboring under a severe time constraint today. The Senate will go into session shortly. There will be a live quorum call, and thereafter, the Senate leadership will expect all Senators to attend the session on the floor. So it will be necessary for us to move along as quickly as possible if we are going to make the record this morning. With that somewhat peremptory welcome, Mr. Thompson, we are glad to have your statement. Let me also say that I believe all witnesses have already submitted written statements. Those statements will appear in the record as if read, in full, so that you are at liberty to summarize as you see fit. STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, LABOR RE- Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Senator Mathias. I will attempt to summarize, where possible, so we can save time. My name is Robert T. Thompson. I am senior partner in the law firm of Thompson, Mann & Hutson, of Washington, D.C., and Greenville, S.C. I am also regional vice chairman of the board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and serve as chairman of its labor relations committee. Accompanying me is Arthur F. Rosenfeld, a labor law attorney on the staff of the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 225,000 members, including over 220,000 business firms, 2,700 State and local chambers of commerce, and 1,300 trade and professional associations. Our members are greatly concerned with the effects of the judicially created loophole in section 1951 of title 18 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, and we welcome this opportunity to express support for a Hobbs Act amendment. The chamber endorses legislation which prohibits extortionate acts of violence during a labor dispute. Violence, intimidation, and other coercive methods do not belong in labor disputes, are contrary to the public interest, and should be banned. The effect of the 1973 Enmons holding was to create a position outside the law and beyond the jurisdiction of Federal authorities for labor unions which engage in threats of violence, or actual violence, in order to secure objectives such as increased wages or benefits. The chamber believes that all parties to a labor dispute-employers, employees, and labor organizations-must be held equally accountable under the law for injuries to the person or property of others inflicted by wrongful acts. We are convinced that Congress intended, in passing the Hobbs Act, that extortionate acts which result in obstruction of interstate commerce constitute a Federal offense, even though the illegal act may have been committed in order to obtain property or concessions which are legitimate objectives of collective bargaining. Congress did not intend to deny to Federal courts the power to interdict violent criminal acts simply because those acts are committed by persons participating or interested in a labor dispute. THE HOBBS ACT: A. THE LOCAL 807 CASE The 1946 Hobbs Act, an amendment to the original Federal antiextortion statute known as the Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, was passed in response to a Supreme Court interpretation of the earlier statute. In United States v. Local 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Court overturned convictions of union members who, through use of violence or threats of violence as trucks entered New York City, obtained the equivalent of wages for driving and unloading the trucks from the owners, even though this work was not performed by the defendants. In effect, these illusory "wages" were paid by the owners, and received by the defendants, to guarantee safe passage into New York City. The issue in Local 807 centered on a provision in the AntiRacketeering Act which excluded from the act's coverage the payment of wages by a bonafide employer to a bonafide employee." In the final analysis, the Local 807 decision eliminated the effectiveness of the 1934 Anti-Racketeering Act in regard to labor union violence. In addition, the opinion of the Court in Local 807 gave rise to a legacy which continues to limit the use of Federal anti-extortion laws in situations involving labor unions. Specifically, the decision implies that legitimate ends justify violent means. The 1946 Hobbs Act was a direct response by Congress to Local 807. The act provides in pertinent part that: (a) 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. . . or imprisoned . . . or both. (b) As used in this section (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. The passage of the Hobbs Act was a clear repudiation of the Local 807 decision, and of the violent behavior practiced by the defendants in that case. However, in United States v. Enmons, the Court again misconstrued congressional intent, rendering enforcement of the Hobbs Act impotent. |