Senator SPECTER. I would be glad to answer your question. I do not think it should be covered because I think local law enforcement is more than adequate to handle that kind of a situation, and I say that with some experience as a prosecuting attorney.

This kind of situation does not have the vast investigative complexity that calls for the FBI, which may have to run down leads in half a dozen States. This is related to a relatively modestly expansive investigation, which even a district attorney can handle.

There is a tremendous amount of concern about this modification. I did not mean to suggest that you were a cheerleader for it or that the administration was initiating the matter or rallying the cause, but when you come to issues like throwing a punch on a picket line or deflating the tires of an employer's truck, no matter how carefully we may draft the legislation and how erudite your testimony may be and our legislative history may be or how exacting the colloquies here or on the congressional floor, there is a wide expanse of possibility as the statute is interpreted by many investigators, many prosecutors and many judges.

I for one would be very reluctant to see this kind of an extension unless there is a showing of real need, and that is why I will be very interested to see what you can produce by way of specifics. Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPECTER. Just one more question, Senator Grassley.

Mr. Rose. Senator, I guess I would just simply repeat two points that I made. One, with regard to the law of extortion, it does not seem to me simply because the element of the labor dispute is inserted into the matter that there should be an exception if one is going to have a Federal law of extortion.

The second matter is that we believe that we can undertake-we certainly share your concern that we do not want the perception to exist that we want an expansion of Federal jurisdiction over picket line violence, minor incidents of violence that occur during a strike, in the heated emotions that sometimes occur during labor disputes.

But we do believe that with careful drafting of the legislation itself, the addition of the kind of amendment we have proposed, plus the kind of guidelines that we do have over prosecutors and investigators, that this problem of not having an expansive role of Federal jurisdiction in this area but simply an available backup jurisdiction for a class of cases specifically now judicially carved out would work without injecting us into the business of policing labor disputes, which is a business we emphatically do not want to be in. Senator SPECTER. Mr. Rose, the other question I have arises because I am informed that the previous testimony, which had been submitted on behalf of the Department of Justice, has been modified. I would think it might be appropriate if you would tell us what differences there are between the two lines of testimony and the reasons for any such modifications.

Mr. Rose. Certainly. The major reason for the modifications is that we wished, as an administration, to address the concerns that the leaders of organized labor raised with the President, I believe the meeting was last week. This testimony does that in a way that the previous testimony did not, we believe.

The specific modifications were as follows. First, we make the suggestion of an amendment to the current bill which we would wish to work with the committee and organized labor and any other interested parties to draft, which would make clear that the purpose of the interpretation of the Hobbs Act as it was originally passed was not to provide an expansion of Federal jurisdiction to police labor disputes. We would be willing to work on the language there.

Second, in the original testimony, the subject of penalties contained in this bill was addressed. There, because of the concerns that were expressed, we would like to have an opportunity to look at that once again. It may be that some of the penalties contained in this bill are a bit more severe than they would be for example under the new criminal code that the committee and we are working on. We just simply would like an opportunity to revisit that issue of penalties before we take a final position.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MATHIAS. Senator Grassley, did you have a question?

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, taking off from a place where Senator Specter left off and then getting back to one of your original questions, I do not think there is any doubt about the ability of the local police to exercise necessary peace, but it gets back to a question of what Senator Mathias raised, and I am not sure you really answered the question: Is there a reluctance of local police? In other words, is one of the reasons that Federal legislation is needed because of a reluctance because of political pressure, and so forth, of local police to conduct the necessary investigation and prosecution of these instances of violence?

Mr. Rose. By and large, we simply have not found a reluctance on the part of-of course we are speaking nationally and always I suppose one can come up with specific episodes across the length and breadth of the country where that might be in some circumstance the case. As a general matter, we simply have not found it a matter, with regard to violence alone in labor disputes, that there ought to be a general Federal jurisdiction to deal with that issue. We simply have not found the reluctance, if it exists at all, to reach any such extent that the kind of expansion of jurisdiction in this bill that would be provided is necessary or justified.

Senator GRASSLEY. That lack of evidence, does that come after a determined effort to find such instances, or is that just because the evidence hasn't hit you in the face? What is the particular basis for that statement?

Mr. Rose. I suppose there is something in between evidence hitting you in the face and going out for a determined search in a specific area, which in this case would be labor disputes, but we have not seen this as a significant problem which needs to be addressed by the sweep of the first two provisions of this bill. That is why we are not supporting them.

Senator GRASSLEY. What about the 1980 report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that said that labor strife is the No. 1 cause of all bombing incidents within the United States?

Mr. ROSE. I suppose I could ask whether the committee signs up for most of the things that are sometimes said in every Govern

ment report. I am not familiar with that report and I do not know that the statement you quote from leads one inexorably to the conclusion that one needs the sweep of Federal jurisdiction that this bill provides, or the conclusion that State and local law enforcements are not dealing with these bombing episodes.

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will submit some more questions in writing and let this witness go at this point.

Senator MATHIAS. I had just one final question for Mr. Rose. On page 4 of your statement, today's statement, you say, "It is also our understanding, moreover, that by this amendment the committee intends to insure that the use of violence for coercive purposes by those representing management, as well as by those representing labor, are covered by the statute."

In other words, you say it is a two-way street.

Mr. Rose. That is right, sir. It is to be an evenhanded-simply the fact of this judicial anomaly, we are reversing it, and it would apply to both sides of a labor dispute to the extent the revision would apply at all.

Senator MATHIAS. So that when an employer uses violence to defeat his employees' legitimate collective bargaining demands, then would you say that he has obtained property from his employee and therefore committed extortion under the Hobbs Act?

Mr. Rose. I do not want to get into a prediction. With regard to whether management can be found to have committed Federal extortion, what we are saying in that sentence is that simply the fact that it occurs in the context of a labor dispute should be covered by a removal of the anomaly created by the Enmons decision. I do not want to again come up with a statement that we have specific facts where that has occurred, because I am not aware of any.

Senator MATHIAS. That is what I was going to ask you, whether you have any knowledge whether an employer has ever been prosecuted for extorting from employees under the Hobbs Act.

Mr. Rose. I am not aware of any such prosecutions, sir, no, but again I will check that.

Senator MATHIAS. Is it your opinion that S. 613 would bring certain acts of violence within Federal criminal jurisdiction only when those are committed by an employee?

Mr. Rose. No. We are in an area where, as I say, I think we are dealing with a judicially created anomaly extending to the area of labor-management disputes, and it is an anomaly created by, we believe, an erroneous reading of the legislative history of the Hobbs Act. We are not up here to justify it based upon some urgent set of circumstances of evidence based on either potential violations by labor or management.

Senator MATHIAS. Now finally, to what extent can employees or union officials be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act today, as the law now stands, despite the Enmons decision?

Mr. Rose. Our previous statement addressed that a bit more in detail, I believe, than mine did today. I believe where you can show an illegimate objective, for example even if someone calls a peaceful strike but it is for personal enrichment and not a legitimate labor bargaining objective, I believe that could be reached under current law as the Hobbs Act is interpreted, or where the violence is in fact used to achieve an illegitimate objective, such as personal

enrichment or a kickback or something of that kind, that conduct could still be reached even with the Enmons decision.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose, if Senator Grassley has no more questions. We will perhaps send you some additional questions for the record.

Mr. Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MATHIAS. Our next witness is Mr. Laurence Gold, special counsel for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, not a stranger to this committee.

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE GOLD, SPECIAL COUNSEL, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY RAY DENISON, DIRECTOR, AND HOWARD MARLOWE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AFL-CIO

Mr. GOLD. Thank you. It is always a pleasure to be here, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MATHIAS. We have your full statement, Mr. Gold. Weighing it in my hand, I want to assure you that we will admit it fully to the record as if read, so that you need not feel constrained to read it all.

Mr. GOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to begin by assuring you that we will cover orally only the central aspects of our statement and that we will then do our best to respond to your inquiries.

Senator MATHIAS. I am not trying to limit you, but I want to give you the option.

Mr. GOLD. In fairness to the subcommittee, inflicting the full statement on you once is more than sufficient, but we do want to cover the basic points and to state our position at least in brief.

For the record, my name is Laurence Gold. I am special counsel for the AFL-CIO. I am accompanied by Ray Denison, the director of the AFL-CIO's Department of Legislation, and by Howard Marlowe, the associate director of that department.

It is the AFL-CIO's position that the proposals embodied in S. 613 to expand the reach of the Hobbs Act are unnecessary and unwise and that the bill's basic provision, which is intended to rewrite the present definition of extortion to enable the Federal Government to intervene in labor disputes on the employer's side, is unfair to workers who engage in collective bargaining.

S. 613 represents a serious departure from the principle of national labor policy that the Federal Government should not side with either management or labor during legitimate labor disputes. In addition, it reverses the basic presumption accepted throughout our history that it is the State and local governments that are to keep the peace.

S. 613 would authorize a vast expansion of Federal power. In practical terms, it would require a national police force to supervise the orderly conduct of strikes. There is no basis for such a sweeping shift of power away from the States and localities and to the National Government.

There is no dispute that assault or the destruction of property during a labor dispute, or such wrongdoing at any other time, are the type of wrongs that should be promptly investigated, prosecut

ed, and where prosecution is successful, punished. We wish to take this occasion to emphasize that neither the AFL-CIO nor any of its affiliates condones picket line misconduct. Our unions do all in their power to prevent it, and with the rarest of exceptions, they are successful. Înstances of such wrongdoing are few in number, and again, almost without exception, are effectively dealt with by the State and local authorities.

To be sure, the organizations supporting S. 613 would have Congress and the public believe otherwise. In an effort to garner support for the bill, they have mounted a public relations campaign to malign the millions of American workers who are union members and the labor movement. Their tactic is to create the illusion that there is a need for S. 613, where none in fact exists. Their object is apparent-to undermine unions and collective bargaining and to raise money for their union-busting efforts. Their tactics are equally apparent simply ignore or distort the facts.

S. 613 raises fundamental questions on the proper role of the Federal Government in law enforcement. That being so, it is the burden of the proponents of S. 613 to show that the bill addresses a serious problem, that the States and localities have not been able to solve that problem, that the Federal Government is better able to solve that problem than State and local officials, and finally, that the added authority sought will not adversely affect the Federal Government's ability to meet its current high priority responsibilities.

As we show at some length in our statement, judged on these criteria, S. 613 should not become law. The bill seeks to amend the Hobbs Act: (1) by creating broad Federal crimes of aggravated assault, including manslaughter and property destruction, and (2) by broadening the Federal crime of extortion to include situations involving the use of physical force during a legitimate labor dispute. With regard to the first of these proposals, we would point out that at the present time, Federal jurisdiction over crimes against the person is limited to a group of situations in which there is a plain and paramount Federal interest; for example, assaults against elected Federal officials. In contrast, S. 613 would confer Federal jurisdiction over every case of aggravated assault or property destruction associated in any way, shape, or form with productive activity.

We do not regard this aspect of S. 613 as a matter of primary interest to the labor movement. It is part of a bill which is of interest to us and we comment on it, but the scope of this aspect of the bill goes far beyond labor disputes. The basic question is whether the massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction proposed makes good

sense.

To put that in perspective, I should note in Mr. Rose's example of an assault against a cabdriver if that cabdriver is engaged in an interstate trip the incident would become a matter to be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal authorities. Any such assault or any property destruction in any factory, mill, or mine in the United States would also be subject, by the wave of a pen writing S. 613 into law, to Federal jurisdiction.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report, in its latest issue September 10, 1981, showed that there is an aggravated assault in this country