Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
66328773
label
Hobbs Act (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328773
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Hobbs Act (1)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
66328773
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c0af37abed5a4ddc
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
12/3
3
IC C
5:12
Bue Chapman of
General motors
called to thank
you for support
Gren them post
few days
775-5092 2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: 12/8
TO: Jim Cicconi
FROM: Bob Bonitati
For your info
X
Per our conversation
Other:
INSIDE LABOR
RELEASE ON RECEIPT/DISPATCHED 11/18/81
BY VICTOR RIESEL
Kennedy Pledges Labor Chiefs He Will
Fight New Bills on Picket Violence
NEW YORK When the greatest massing of virtually all the nation's top labor chiefs delegates to their
national centennial convention exploded into a frenzied, standing continuous roar of cheers for Sen. Ed
Kennedy, it wasn't because he told them "now that the '80s have come, you and I are the keepers of that dream"
of his late brother Jack. They gave him the only mid-speech convention ovation because he pledged to fight
alongside them against a congressional bill which would make picket-line violence a federal criminal offense.
He lit the fuse of the emotional bomb which has been on the delegates' tables and in national and local union
headquarters everywhere.
Pounding the podium he told the 900 delegates that the federal criminal code shouldn't be used against them.
They knew what he meant. He was referring to bills S-613 and H-450.
S-613 would amend the 47-year-old Hobbs anti-extortion law to make any picket-line disturbance or threat of
violence a federal crime under which strikers and their officials would be felons If convicted. This would put the
federal government into policing strikes.
Kennedy added he would fight any effort to put unions under anti-trust regulations and he "will continue to
speak and stand for the rights of trade unionists whatever the issue, whatever the cause, whatever the political
risks in the months and years ahead."
"Teddy" is a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus can slow the drive to put labor under
the Hobbs Act on which the subcommittee on criminal law will begin hearings Dec. 10. The AFL-CIO and the
Teamsters have launched a national campaign against the bill. Thousands of rank-and-filers are being organized
to flood the Congress. Though the battle with the bill's sponsors has gone practically unreported, it's (SET ITAL)
the (END ITAL) sizzling issue inside labor.
The bill isn't an amendment to the Criminal Code which has taken Congress 15 years to rewrite and is about to
be voted on. The picketing-violence bill would get lost among 120 proposed amendments, including the death
penalty. So the anti-picket-line-violence forces, which include the National Association of Manufacturers, the
National Right to Work Committee and Construction Contractors, are backing the separate S-613.
The Teamsters Brotherhood, fighting it intensely, puts their reasons most tersely:
"The penalty scheme of S-613 is severe: if death results (from picket-line violence - VR), an automatic fine of
$250,000 or up to life imprisonment. If bodily injury results or property damage exceeds $100,000, an automatic
fine of $250,000 or up to 20 years of imprisonment or both.
"In all other cases, a fine of $100,000 or up to 10 years imprisonment or both."
The AFL-CIO is fighting S-613 with a hard-hitting propaganda campaign. The drive against the proposed act
soon will reach the whirlwind strength of the unions' offensive for what they called "Labor Law Reform" several
years ago. They lost that one by one vote. Today the Senate is controlled by their political opponents and the
House is loaded with conservative Democrats.
Federalization of laws against picket-line violence, making even melees or blocking of plant gates extortionist
felonies, could have catastrophic impact on the nation's 60,000 locals and about 110 national unions.
National Labor Relations Board records are filled with "cease and desist" decisions ordering unions to end
blocking of plant entrances, carpeting them with nails, attacking non-striking employees, threatening
management executives and terrorizing homes of non-sympathizers.
These NLRB directives have been issued against unions running the political and philosophical spectrum from
the most prominent liberal unions to the toughest hardhats. Some violence has been gory. Some has destroyed
equipment worth millions of dollars.
Strikes are volatile. And S-613 would make national labor officials responsible for melees, arson or worse. It
could reach into the highest.national labor headquarters, which call the proposed bills, introduced by Sen. Strom
Thurmond and Rep. Kenneth Robinson, "union busting." These are the words Kennedy used to swing the
delegates into their cheering spree.
The bills' backers say it's time to end all picket-line violence and only the federal government can do it. Both
sides say that the bills might be passed in this 97th Congress. The drive to put labor under the Hobbs Anti-
Extortion Act is the top legislative priority of the National Right to Work Committee, which has been battling the
union shop for years.
The showdown is due early next year. So both sides are fighting furiously. The Right to Work Committee has
documentation of bloody violence. Union campaigners deny such violence frequently is part of strike strategy.
For years labor did come under the anti-extortion act. But the Suprems Court in the 1973 Enmons Cash ruled
that violence during legitimate strikes for wages and benefits wasn't a federal oriense. in the Elimons case men
were accused of shooting high-powered rifles at utility transformers. But the Supreme Court freed them.
Now critics of unions want it all back in the Hobbs Act -- charging that violence never is legitimate.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FIELD NEWSPAPER SYNDICATE gikly
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 8, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH H. DOLE
VIA:
JACK BURGESS/RED CAVANEY
FROM:
BOB BONITATI
in
SUBJECT:
Hobbs Act
You should be aware that the AFL-CIO has received from the Senate
Judiciary Committee an advance copy of the Justice Department's
testimony on the proposed amendment to the Hobbs Act ( to be presented
at hearings on December 10). The AFL-CIO seems to feel that the
testimony, which argues strongly for the revision of the Emmons de-
cision, is inconsistent with the President's statement to the AFL-CIO
Executive Council on Wednesday (December 2).
I have brought this to the attention of Mike Uhlmann who promises
to investigate. You should also be aware that Tom Donahue, Secretary-
Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, has discussed their concern about the sub-
ject with the Vice President. Thad Garrett further informs me that
the Vice President has raised the subject with Ed Meese.
After reading over the draft testimony of the Justice Department, I
must confess to regretting for the first time in my life that I never
went to law school.
My only hope is that no one will perceive the President to be revers-
ing what appeared to be a clear signal on the Hobbs Act last Wednesday.
I have attached a copy of the draft Justice Department testimony
provided to me by OMB, as well as a memo to Mike Uhlmann detailing
the President's comments.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR MIKE UHLMANN
FROM:
BOB BONITATI
if
SUBJECT:
President's Comments on the Hobbs Act
to AFL-CIO Executive Council
During last Wednesday's meeting with the AFL-CIO Executive Council,
Lane Kirkland raised the issue of the proposed amendment to the
Hobbs Act.
According to the notes we have, Kirkland stated that the amendment
to the Hobbs Act now pending before Congress represented a "direct
action on trade unions" and would allow the federal government to
interfere in what is now a state and local police matter regarding
offenses committed on the picket line by strikers. Kirkland stated
that he viewed this amendment as a "desire to intimidate union ac-
tivities that brought workers the advantages of collective bargaining."
The President responded directly to Kirkland's discussion of the Hobbs
Act amendment, stating that while a formal position had not been taken,
per se, we have no evidence that these matters shouldn't be handled
at the state and local level. He then moved on to discussing other
subjects.
CC: E. Dole
F. Fielding
H. Ellingwood
T. Garrett
DRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
JOHN C. KEENEY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON
AMENDMENT OF THE HOBBS ACT
SECTION 1951 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
(S. 613)
DECEMBER 10, 1981
DRAFT
Summary
The Deparment of Justice recommends enactment of those
portions of S. 613 which would overturn the decision in
United States V. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973), and clarify
the position, in the context of both labor disputes and
disputes outside the field of labor relations, that the
Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. 1951) proscribes the actual or
threatened use of force or violence to obtain property
regardless of whether or not the extortionist has an
otherwise lawful claim to such property. The Department of
Justice supports the increase of maximum penalties which are
proposed by S. 613, but recommends against enactment of that
portion of the bill which would lower the maximum prison
sentence from twenty to ten years in cases where death,
bodily injury, or property damage in excess of $100,000 of
aggregate value do not result. The Department of Justice
recommends against enactment of those provisions of S. 613
which would create new crimes consisting of affecting
interstate or foreign commerce by "inflicting, or
threatening to inflict, death or serious bodily injury on
any person, or by "willfully damaging to the extent of
$2,500 or more any property, including real property, used
for business purposes.'
I am pleased to be here today to present the views of
the Department of Justice on S 613, a bill to amend the
federal extortion and robbery statute, commonly referred to
as the Hobbs Act, which is found at Section 1951 of Title
18, United States Code. The proposed amendments have
considerable importance to the Administration's program to
deal with violent crime in our society, a program which the
Attorney General has designated as a matter of high priority
for the Department of Justice. Because the bill seeks both
to strengthen enforcement of the existing statute and to
significantly increase federal enforcement responsibilities
over conduct which is not currently covered by the Hobbs Act
or other federal criminal law, I shall separately discuss
each of the bill's proposals.
First, I shall address the Justice Department's reasons
for supporting those portions of the bill which would
overturn the decision in United States V. Enmons, 410 U.S.
396 (1973), and clarify the position, in the context of both
labor disputes and in areas outside the field of labor
relations, that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or
threatened use of force or violence to obtain property
regardless of whether or not the extortionist could have
obtained such property through the use of non-extortionate,
legitimate means. Second, I will set forth the reasons why
- 2 -
the Justice Department recommends against enactment of those
provisions of the bill which would create new violations for
affecting interstate or foreign commerce by "inflicting, or
threatening to inflict, death or serious bodily injury on
any person" or by "willfully damaging to the extent of
$2,500 or more, any property, including real property, used
for business purposes." Finally, I shall explain why the
Justice Department supports an increase of the maximum
penalties proposed by the bill, but recommends against
enactment of that portion of the bill which would lower the
maximum prison sentence in certain cases to ten years.
1. The Effect of the Proposed Legislation on the
Enmons decision.
Until the Enmons decision in 1973, the Department of
Justice held the view that any actual or threatened use of
force or violence to obtain property was a "wrongful" use of
force or violence and therefore constituted extortion as
that term is defined by the Hobbs Act. It was thought that
an extortion prosecution could typically arise in the
context of labor management relations, for example, out of
three basic situations: first, where the objective of the
extortionate scheme and the means used to reach the
objective are both "wrongful," as in the case of a union
official who uses actual or threatened violence to seek some
- 3 -
personal enrichment or tribute rather than some economic
benefit for the workers whom he represents; second, where
the objective is "wrongful," such as personal tribute for
the union official, but the means employed are apparently
legitimate, for example, a peaceful strike; and third, where
the objective is a legitimate labor goal, such as a wage
increase, but violence or the threat of violence is a
"wrongful" means of obtaining the goal.
The Enmons decision eliminated the applicability of the
Hobbs Act to the last situation which I have described.
Because the property which was demanded during the course of
a violent, but otherwise lawful strike consisted of only
higher wages and employment benefits and was a legitimate
objective of collective bargaining, the Supreme Court found
that the Hobbs Act's prohibitions on extortion did not apply
to the facts in Enmons, even though the acts of violence
charged included blowing up one of the employer's
transformer substations. The Court stated at one point in
its opinion that the word "wrongful" in the definition of
extortion "has meaning in the Act only if it limits the
statute's coverage to those instances where the obtaining of
the property would itself be 'wrongful' because the alleged
extortionist has no lawful claim to that property."
- 4 -
The effect of the decision was to leave the punishment
of such extortionate conduct, where violence is undertaken
in pursuit of a legitimate labor goal, to state and local
law enforcement authorities. However, according to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau's experience
has shown that these authorities often lack either the
resources or the will to vigorously investigate and
prosecute these crimes. The Justice Department has
undertaken to prosecute serious violent conduct in similar
cases where other federal criminal statutes have specific
application to the facts, as for example, in cases where
labor union funds are used to finance the violence or where
interstate travel or interstate facilities are used to
further the extortionate scheme. However, the Enmons
decision precludes the federal government from punishing the
underlying activity directly by means of O the Hobbs Act which
has the broadest jurisdictional application, namely, any
actual or potential effect in any way or degree on the
channels of interstate or foreign commerce. Furthermore,
although recent prosecutions under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as the RICO
statute, have demonstrated considerable infiltration of
- 5 -
certain labor unions by organized criminal elements, use of
the RICO statute requires proof of a pattern of racketeering
activity, whereas the Hobbs Act is aimed at singular
criminal acts.
Moreover, where the occurrence of serious violence
during the course of a labor dispute is not accompanied by
demands for outright tribute payments from an employer, the
Enmons decision requires that prosecutorial judgments as to
whether to proceed under the Hobbs Act consider fine
questions of whether or not the labor goals sought by those
persons making economic demands on the employer are
otherwise legitimate under federal labor law. Federal labor
law affords disparate treatment to different industries and
economic interests which may often have no relationship to
whether disputes in these industries may be accompanied by
violent injury to persons and property. For example, the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, generally outlaws
the making of economic demands on neutral employers who are
not parties to the primary labor dispute, but exempts the
garment and construction industries from those restrictions
in certain cases.
Finally, the Enmons decision's central analysis of what
constitutes a "wrongful" use of force, violence, or fear has
given rise to attempts by Hobbs Act defendants to apply the
- 6
reasoning of Enmons outside a labor management context. We
are aware of four United States Courts of Appeal that have
indicated to date, in cases which did not involve labor
disputes, that Enmons should be confined to its labor facts
and not applied to cases involving the use of force or fear
to settle contractual disputes among businessmen, to. effect
the collection of debts, and to solicit political
contributions. None of these cases has clearly laid the
so-called "claim of right" defense to rest inasmuch as the
courts also found alternative grounds for reaching their
decisions in these cases. In other words, the appellate
courts have sustained the convictions in three of these
cases by also finding sufficient evidence to conclude that
the defendants did not in fact have lawful claims to the
property which they sought to obtain. In one case which
involved a defendant who was a public official, the
appellate court concluded that the conviction could be
sustained under that portion of the extortion statute which
does not require the use of force, violence, or fear,
namely, the public official's obtaining of property "under
color of official right." Nevertheless, we believe that the
opinions in these cases do represent a definite trend in the
federal courts toward the isolation of the Enmons decision
- 7 =
to its labor context. As a result of this trend, labor
groups are afforded an exemption from the statute's broad
proscription against violence which is not available to any
other group in society. We believe that this bill will make
clear the position that the Hobbs Act punishes the use of
force and violence to obtain any property without regard to
whether or not the extortionist has a colorable claim to
such property and without regard to his status as a labor
representative, businessman, or private citizen.
For the foregoing reasons, the Department of Justice
supports the bill's proposed amendment of Subsection (b) (2)
of the Act which would carefully distinguish extortion by
the "use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear
thereof" and extortion by the "wrongful use of fear not
involving force or violence.' Fear under the Hobbs Act has
been interpreted in a long line of cases to reach
extortionate conduct which is predicated solely on fear of
economic loss or injury. Economic coercion by labor unions
in the form of strikes and work stoppages during the course
of otherwise peaceful labor disputes is recognized as an
appropriate means of achieving legitimate labor objectives.
Therefore, the proposed legislation makes clear that
property demands in the form of wages for necessary labor
- 8 -
and legitimate employment benefits could never become the
subject of a Hobbs Act prosecution when such demands are
backed only by peaceful strikes, work stoppages and
picketing. Purely economic pressures would continue to be a
basis for Hobbs Act extortion only where the alleged
extortionist's claim to property was clearly "wrongful," as
for example, in the case of demands for personal payoffs,
wages for unnecessary labor, and employer payments
prohibited by Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act (29 U.S.C.
186). On the other hand, in both labor-related and
non-labor-related situations, the added presence of the
actual or threatened use of force or violence by a person
making some property demand could give rise to Hobbs Act
extortion regardless of whether the claimant was entitled to
the property under contract or otherwise.
Similarly, the Justice Department supports the bill's
proposed amendment of Subsection (c) (2) of the Act to
include a statement of Congressional intent. The effect of
the statement would be that prosecution may be undertaken in
regard to conduct which takes place in the course of a
legitimate business or labor dispute if such conduct
involves "force, violence, or fear thereof." Extortionate
conduct involving only fear of economic loss in the context
- 9
of a legitimate business or labor dispute is not included in
the statement and therefore would continue to be exempt from
prosecution unless the alleged extortionist had a "wrongful"
claim to the property demanded. This distinction is fully
consistent with the separate treatment of violent and
non-violent conduct by the bill's proposed definition of
extortion.
Although the phrase "force, violence, or fear thereof"
is the same as that used in the bill's proposed definition
of extortion, we read the statement as being generally
applicable to any violent offense under the Act as amended.
For example, although we are unaware of any attempt to
impose the reasoning of the Enmons decision on the robbery
provision of the Act, we see no reason why any claim of
right should be a defense to the use of actual or threatened
violence to obtain a victim's personal property by robbery
as opposed to extortion.
The proposed statement of intent also contains language
Pres.
which in effect would permit federal prosecution under the
Hobbs Act despite any asserted defense that the alleged
Statement implicity centrary
conduct is also a violation of state or local law. This
language is in accord with existing case law which supports
- 10 -
the argument that Congress did intend to proscribe as a
federal crime under the Hobbs Act conduct which it knew was
already punishable under state robbery and extortion
statutes.
We do recommend that the statement of Congressional
:
intent in the bill be amended to include additional
language, however, for the sake of clarity. Because the
proposed definition of extortion in the bill and the
existing definition of robbery in subsection (b) of the Act
would continue to apply the Hobbs Act to both the actual and
the threatened use of violent conduct, we recommend that
subsection (c) (2) include language which clearly indicates
that the statement of intent shall apply to the "actual or
threatened use of force, violence, or fear thereof."
Before, I discuss other provisions of the bill, I want
to allay any apprehension that the Department of Justice is
interested in prosecuting isolated, low-level violence which
intent,
might occur during the course of an otherwise lawful and
but
peaceful strike or labor dispute. We believe that the
incidental injury which might arise from the single worker
who throws a punch on a picket line or from the act of a
single striker who deflates the tires on his employer's
truck is more appropriately handled by state and local law
enforcement authorities. The Department of Justice does not
- 11 -
have the investigative and prosecutorial resources to pursue
isolated instances of minor violence.
Moreover, because the focus of the phrase "actual or
threatened force, violence or fear threof" is directed at
the victim's state of mind and standard of proof is whether
a reasonable person under the circumstances would have
consented to the extortionist's obtaining of his property,
the injury to a single employee as the result of isolated,
low-level violence on the picket line is not likely to
present a prosecutable case of extortion where such
incidental act of violence is not undertaken at the
instruction of those persons who alone may be known as the
claimants of the employer's property. Those who applaud the
Enmons decision as a barrier against the federal
government's unwarranted policing of the orderly conduct of
every labor strike appear to assume that every spontaneous
act of violence that arises during the heat of the strike
will fully support a prosecutable case of extortion. But
without a demonstrated, purposeful linkage of those who
demand the employer's property and the deliberate commission
of acts of violence to enforce those demands, the government
cannot support its burden of proof for extortion. On the
other hand, where the pattern and scope of significant acts
- 12 -
of violence are shown to be deliberately linked to the
demands for property, the federal government ought to be
able to effectively deal with those who would violently
abuse their right to collectively bargain with their
employers, a right which they enjoy as the result of the
federal labor laws.
2. The New Predicate Offenses Proposed by S. 613.
The bill would also create new federal crimes,
predicated independently of extortion or robbery, where the
channels of interstate or foreign commerce are affected by
violence constituting actual or threatened infliction of
death or serious bodily injury, or actual damage to
commerical property to the extent of $2,500 or more. The
Department of Justice believes that these provisions would
result in an extremely broad expansion of federal criminal
enforcement responsibilities which is not justified and
which could severely tax the resources of the Department.
The jurisdictional element of a Hobbs Act violation
requires proof of either an actual, albeit de minimis,
impact on interstate or foreign commerce, or in the absence
of proof of an actual impact, a realistic probability of
- 13 -
some potential effect on such commerce. Accordingly, under
these new provisions, the mere assault on a cab driver, who
as part of his business occasionally makes interstate trips,
or the destruction of his cab would become a federal crime.
The federal government could be called on the prosecute such
crimes which are now more appropriately handled by the local
police.
We are aware that the enactment of these broadly worded
new crimes would result in some positive benefits to federal
law enforcement. However, these benefits are outweighed by
the breadth of the new crimes. First, the Department has
neither the investigative nor prosecutorial manpower to
pursue every alleged violation which could arise under the
statutory language. Second, although we do not question
Congress' Constitutional authority to enact such crimes
under its power to regulate commerce, there are delicate
considerations of federalism involved here, so that federal
investigation and prosecution of every alleged violation
would not be appropriate. Because of these considerations,
the Department of Justice has maintained a policy of
limiting Hobbs Act robbery prosecutions, for example, to
those situations in which organized criminal activity or
some wide-ranging scheme is present. These same factors,
lack of resources and consideration of federal-state
- 14 -
relations, would undoubtedly restrain the effective
enforcement of these broader new federal crimes. Third,
enactment of these new crimes is not necessary to remedy the
specific problems raised by the Enmons decision.
For the above reasons, the Department of Justice
recommends against enactment of the new crimes in
subsections (a) (1) and (a) (2) of the bill.
3. New Sentencing Provisions
The Department of Justice supports the sentencing
structure created by the bill insofar as it would raise the
maximum sentence from the current fine of $10,000 or
imprisonment for twenty years, or both, in accordance with
statutorily prescribed degrees of actual injury to persons
or property. Under the bill as it is presently worded,
conviction could result in fine of $250,000 or imprisonment
for any term of years or for life in cases where death
results. In cases where bodily injury results or where
property damage exceeds an aggregate value of $100,000,
conviction could result in a fine of $250,000 or
imprisonment up to twenty years, or both. We believe that
this gradation of punishments is especially appropriate in
view of the gradation of injuries which would be covered if
- 15 **
the bill is enacted in its entirety. However, the Justice
Department supports this gradation of punishments even if
the new crimes contained in the bill, which I have already
discussed, are not enacted into law.
In cases where neither death, nor bodily injury, nor
property damage exceeding an aggregate value of $100,000
results, the maximum penalty of imprisonment under the bill
would be reduced by half to ten years. The Department of
Justice recommends against lowering the maximum prison
sentence in such cases. We believe that the maximum
sentence of imprisonment should continue to be twenty years
under these circumstances as in the case of any Hobbs Act
violation under current law.
Sentencing schemes give signals to those who would
commit crimes. They tell them how seriously society views
those crimes. It is an unsound public policy to signal that
society views these crimes only half as seriously as it did
when the Hobbs Act was originally passed in 1946. Because
the sentencing gradations in the bill are addressed to the
actual infliction of property damage or bodily injury,
examples of the crimes for which the maximum sentence would
be reduced by the bill include all extortion by the wrongful
use of fear of economic loss, all extortion by the
- 16 -
threatened use of force, violence, or fear thereof, all
extortion "under color of official right" and all robberies
where no bodily injury or property damage over $100,000
results, and all kidnapings for ransom where no bodily
injury results and the jurisdictional elements of the
federal kidnaping statute, 18 U.S.C. 1201, are not present.
Moreover, in certain jurisdictions, the Hobbs Act is a
necessary supplement to the federal bank theft statute,
18 U.S.C. 2113, because it provides a means of prosecuting
certain types of attempted bank extortions which are not
prosecutable as bank robberies or bank larcenies. That is,
in certain jurisdictions it has been held by the courts that
the bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), which requires
proof of a trespassory taking from the person or presence of
another, does not apply to an extortionate plan which
requires that a bank employee should deliver money to a
specified "drop site" outside the bank and then return to
the bank. Because the bank larceny statute, 18 U.S.C.
2113 (b), has no provision covering attempts, the
extortionist who does not succeed in obtaining the money
under these circumstances must be prosecuted under the Hobbs
Act in these jurisdictions. Because most bank extortion
- 17
cases do not involve bodily injury or actual property damage
in excess of $100,000, there would be a wide disparity
between the maximum penalty for Hobbs Act-bank extortion
(ten years) which the bill contemplates in such cases and
the maximum penalty for unarmed bank robbery (twenty years)
which would be available in jurisdictions where the bank
robbery statute could be used.
For the above reasons, the Department of Justice
recommends that the reference to a maximum sentence of ten
years found in S. 613 should be changed to retain the
present maximum of twenty years, and especially with respect
to those offenses presently covered by the Hobbs Act.
Finally, I call the Committee's attention to what we
believe may have been a drafting oversight. You will note
that the bill provides for a fine or imprisonment, or both a
fine and imprisonment where bodily injury or property damage
results. Where death results, however, the bill as
presently worded provides for a fine or imprisonment in the
alternative, but does not expressly provide for both.
However, we see no reason why a conviction where death
occurs should not also result in the possible imposition of
both a fine and imprisonment. The Department of Justice
recommends that the bill be amended to permit the imposition
of both forms of punishment where death results.
- 18 -
In summary, for the reasons which I have discussed, the
Department of Justice recommends that S. 613 be enacted with
the changes and amendments which we have suggested. It is
the Department's view that the bill and the proposed
revisions which we have proposed will have the effect of
strengthening the federal government's ability to protect
the channels of commerce from significant acts of violence
while at the same time maintaining an appropriate balance
and division of law enforcement responsibilities between the
federal and state governments.
MEMORANDUM
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
TO:
THE PRESIDENT
December 2, 1981
FROM: THE VICE PRESIDENT
RE:
Telephone Call from Lane Kirkland
Lane Kirkland called me this afternoon following the meeting with you.
He felt the meeting was : "worthwhile", "in the bounds of civility".
They put out a statement saying that we differed on the answers to
unemployment, recession, etc., but that they welcomed further contacts.
He again mentioned the airline service -- the human issue. Kirkland:
"If we could only find some decent way to restore full
service. No-one expects them all to come back, but if
some could return it would make a tremendous difference
as far as Labor is concerned."
He was pleased with your comments on the Hobbs Act, and asked for clari-
fication as to what the Justice Department would testify to on that Act.
I called Ed Meese and then called Lane back, telling him our testimony
would be "there is no factual basis to amend the Hobbs Act to create
new federal offenses."
G.B.
GB/
cc: Ed Meese
Mike Deaver
Jim Baker
call Wallep
- seen letter
-- - had K in,
will
be in touch shorthy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
12/9/81
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CICCONI
FROM:
BOB BONITATI
by
I thought you might be interested in
the attached December 9 Employment
Relations Report concerning labor's
perception of the President's comments
on proposed amendment of the Hobbs Act.
December 9, 1981
Employment Relations Report
4
The rubber industry, sharing in the
issue, but one whose impact seemed rela-
decline in U.S. auto production and for-
tively limited. Should the President de-
eign tire competition, has won contract
cline to support the measure, its pros-
concessions since the 1979 pact. More
pects for passage were considered slim.
than 10,000 rubber workers have lost
their jobs, and 40,000 have been on tem-
the Hobbs Act legislation was one of
porary layoff. Job security is the
four subjects advanced by AFL-CIO Presi-
union's primary goal in bargaining.
dent Lane Kirkland in the meetings, which
included 26 union officials in all. Besides
Meat Products.
Reagan, White House participants included
Vice President Bush, Labor Secretary Ray-
Contracts covering 50,000 meat pack-
mond Donovan, and Edward Meese, James
ing workers expire Aug. 31. The 1979
Baker and Robert Bonitati of the White
negotiations led to a strike by the
House staff.
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
against Oscar Mayer. Advancing technolo-
The labor officials appeared to gain
gy and plant closings make job security
some ground on the controllers' issue,
a prime union concern in the 1982 bar-
with the President indicating some loosen-
gaining.
ing in his position barring them from fed-
eral employment for three years. But the
Autos.
extent of the reprieve remained undecided.
The President rejected a Kirkland appeal
The United Auto Workers (UAW) contracts
to withdraw the nomination of John Van de
with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
Water to be chairman of the National Labor
expire September 14. The 1979 contract
Relations Board.
was reached first with GM barely before
the deadline. Since then, UAW has grant-
The widest gap between the participants
ed contract concessions to Chrysler; and
was over economic policy, which was likely
GM and Ford are seeking concessions lead-
to set the atmosphere between the Reagan
ing up to the 1982 negotiations. Profit-
Administration and the AFL-CIO for its en-
sharing is likely to be a key issue.
suing years in the White House. Kirkland,
describing the union presentation on the
subject, said, "We noted our deep, prin-
MINIMUM THAW ANTICIPATED
cipled differences with the Administra-
IN AFL-CIO/REAGAN RELATIONS
tion's budget and tax policies and our
concern that they will serve only to aggra-
AFL-CIO leaders came away from their
vate the human problems of working people
meeting with President Reagan last week
in a time of severe recession."
heartened by the prospect that he won't
support legislation that would subject
Future Meetings
union picketers to federal criminal pen-
alties for picket line violence. They
Bush and Donovan were assigned by the
interpreted the President's views on
President to meet with union officials "on
proposed Hobbs Act legislation to be in
a regular basis," and the AFL-CIO said it
line with theirs, in opposition to the
was "prepared to cooperate in any arrange-
measure being advanced by the National
ments established to carry out this new
Right-to-Work Committee
policy." But policy and political differ-
ences were sufficiently wide to make pros-
Members of the AFL-CIO executive coun-
pects of compromise on substantive issues
cil visiting the President came away with
highly unlikely.
the view that the White House "is not
likely to take a position" on the bill,
But the new communications link between
which has evolved into an emotional
the White House and organized labor, if it
December 9, 1981
Employment Relations Report
5
is sustained, provides unions with the
never moved to discharge a committee that
input into labor issues it has been seek-
failed to approve a nomination. The Com-
ing. For the Reagan Administration, it
mittee's 8-to-8 vote came when Sen. Lowell
means at least a slight thaw in relations
Weicker (R.-Conn.) joined the Committee's
with labor that could dampen the AFL-CIO
seven Democrats to oppose the nomination.
claim that it is shut out of considera-
tions on public policy whil representing
With the White House and the business
a 13 million worker constituency.
community joined in backing Van de Water
before the GOP-led Senate, an inability
to win approval for their position would
LABOR-BUSINESS GO TO MAT
be viewed as a set-back for chances on
OVER VAN DE WATER FOR NLRB
other labor legislation. The Chamber,
pointing to the AFL-CIO opposition to Van
A test of labor's clout with Congress
de Water, stated, "Organized labor is
is coming over the nomination of John Van
backing up the boast it can win union-
de Water to be chairman of the National
management battles in Washington even
Labor Relations Board (NLRB). President
when the GOP controls the Senate and a
Reagan, joined by business organizations,
Republican resides in the White House."
is pushing the Senate to draw the Van de
Water nomination from the Senate Labor
Pro and Con
and Human Resources Committee, where it
has been blocked by a tie vote.
The AFL-CIO opposed Van de Water on
grounds that he developed anti-union
The President, in meetings with AFL-
stragegies for employers as a management
CIO officials last week, rejected their
consultant in California. AFL-CIO legis-
appeal to select a replacement for Van de
lative director Ray Denison's letter to
Water, who is serving under a recess ap-
senators stated that Van de Water, "for
pointment. Reagan, describing his candi-
many years made his living planning and
date as an "excellent" choice, is backing
leading employer anti-union campaigns in
the Senate leadership's effort to win
response to employee efforts to organize,
support for a discharge resolution that
by his own admission, as a labor management
would bring the nomination to the Senate
consultant, he advised employers to use
floor.
tactics that went to the very edge of the
law and sometimes beyond Denison
The AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of
said the role of an NLRB chairman should
Commerce are lobbying extensively on op-
"be one of impartiality toward labor and
posite sides of the issue. In letters to
management."
all senators, the Chamber urged support
for the discharge resolution, while the
The Chamber letter, from Hilton Davis,
AFL-CIO asked its rejection, and not to
vice president of legislative and politi-
support cloture if the issue reaches the
cal affairs, countered that the AFL-CIO
Senate floor. Federation officials are
was the only opposition to Van de Water,
pushing for a filibuster if the issue
and said the candidate's "competence is
comes to a vote, with 60 votes required
unquestioned." It described the AFL-CIO
to cut off debate.
charge against Van de Water as an "advo-
cate as "ludicrous" because "every attor-
For organized labor, which has managed
ney acts as an advocate." The Chamber
to stave off unwanted legislation so far
also pointed to support from other union
in the Senate, blocking the nomination
representatives for the Van de Water ap-
would be a big plus for its lobbying ef-
pointment.
fectiveness. While the nomination could
be expected to win approval if the vote
The Chamber's Washington Report saw
reached the Senate floor, the Senate has
"another motivation for waging this battle"