108th CONGRESS
2d Session

S. 2159

To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the
Hobbs Act), and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 3, 2004

Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. ENZI, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr.
NICKLES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the
Hobbs Act), and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom From Union Violence Act of
2003'.

SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE.

Section 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

`Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence

`(a) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in subsection (c), 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 not more than $100,000, imprisoned for a
term of not more than 20 years, or both.

`(b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section--

`(1) the term `commerce' means any--

`(A) commerce within the District of Columbia, or any
territory or possession of the United States;

`(B) commerce between any point in a State, territory,
possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof;

`(C) commerce between points within the same State through
any place outside that State; and

`(D) other commerce over which the United States has
jurisdiction;

`(2) the term `extortion' means the obtaining of property from
any person, with the consent of that person, if that consent is induced--

`(A) by actual or threatened use of force or violence, or
fear thereof;

`(B) by wrongful use of fear not involving force or
violence; or

`(C) under color of official right;

`(3) the term `labor dispute' has the same meaning as in section
2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9)); and

`(4) the term `robbery' means the unlawful taking or obtaining
of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against
his or her will, by means of actual or threatened force or violence, or fear
of injury, immediate or future--

`(A) to his or her person or property, or property in his
or her custody or possession; or

`(B) to the person or property of a relative or member of
his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the time of the
taking or obtaining.

`(c) EXEMPTED CONDUCT-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) does not apply to any conduct
that--

`(A) is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during
the course of a labor dispute;

`(B) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor
damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or damage; and

`(C) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of
coordinated violent activity.

`(2) STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION- Any violation of this section
that involves any conduct described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to
prosecution only by the appropriate State and local authorities.

`(d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed--

`(1) to repeal, amend, or otherwise affect--

`(A) section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 17);

`(B) section 20 of the Clayton Act (29 U.S.C. 52);

`(C) any provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C.
101 et seq.);

`(D) any provision of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or

`(E) any provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151
et seq.); or

`(2) to preclude Federal jurisdiction over any violation of this
section, on the basis that the conduct at issue--

`(A) is also a violation of State or local law; or

`(B) occurred during the course of a labor dispute or in
pursuit of a legitimate business or labor objective.'.

END
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
In reply; Asking higher wages in an economy that is rising is not greed.
GREED is when CEO's go from 1 million a year to 5 or 6 million. Pennies
an hour doesn't even approach the greed of the ownership and top
management.

What in all that's Holy can any individual justify a 8 million dollar a
year salary. Greed is to be the only reason

When profits go down, Workers, both union and non-union loss money or
their job. Upper management take their operation and set up outside our
borders BUT not their retail outlets. They want to sell to the better
paid people in this country, without having to pay the wages within that
market place.

That is what your Republic Government has made possible.

You must correct your Myopic Vision and look at the total picture. Don't
hide behind a alias and take things out of context