ought to be to the American people, in doing the best possible job they can do for the American people.

Their loyalty ought not be directed primarily to their own Federal agency, not primarily to their own bureaucracy, and not certainly to any political party.

I am sure that we could both agree on that statement of principle. Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if I might, when I speak of loyalty to the Government, I think of government as being the people, the ultimate sovereignty residing in the people collectively, and it is in that sense I use the word loyalty to Government.

This is a Government of our own creation, and it should reflect the will of the people.

Senator SASSER. Senator Scott, I would like to direct just a few questions to you regarding your bill S. 980.

I understand this would allow participation by a Federal employee on the local level, as you stated, and a Federal employee would be permitted to run for office, or participate in political activity on a local level, including being chairman perhaps of a local political party organization, is that correct?

Senator SCOTT. That would be something that I feel should be determined by the Civil Service Commission, whether he could be chairman of the local political organization and not be affected with the Federal question, the decisions made with regard to Federal elections. I doubt that you can be chairman of the local unit, even precinct captain, without being a champion of a party at the national level.

What I really have in mind is nearby Virginia, and Maryland, and other areas throughout the country, where there is a substantial number of Federal employees, people are permitted to participate, Government employees, on a nonpartisan basis.

I would have them participate on a partisan basis, because I think the "nonpartisan" concept is a misnomer.

I think it is perhaps a third party that they form under the guise of nonpartisanship, because they are candidates running against the candidates of both the Democratic and Republican parties, sometimes they are a candidate and are endorsed by one or the other of the major political parties, and I feel that it leads to confusion to have them participate on a nonpartisan basis, because they are in a nonpartisan organization which is in effect a political party.

We have that in northern Virginia. I am sure it is true in other counties, or local governments around the country, and this is what primarily my measure would be addressed to, to permit participation as partisans at the local level, but I must add that I appreciate the thrust of the question of the distinguished chairman, and once again say that as a result of his activities in partisan politics, as State chairman, and I am sure in other capacities within his own State, he is well aware of what a local chairman, what his duties and responsibilities are.

I can see a conflict in being a local chairman, because you are responsible for all elections, not just local, but also State and Federal within your particular area.

Senator SASSER. I think we could agree then, Senator Scott, that there would be some difficulty in a Federal employee exercising to the fullest extent his political rights purely on a local level, if this involves

sort of moving up in the hierarchy of either one of the political parties?

Senator SCOTT. I believe a person could be a city councilman or a supervisor and not be a part of the Federal politics.

Just how far he could go, again, Mr. Chairman, I should think would be defined in detail by the regulations of the Civil Service Commission, but, yes, I would agree with the chairman's point of view with regard to activities within the party as distinguished from activities as a local officeholder.

Senator SASSER. Under your legislation, Senator Scott, is it possible for Federal employees in certain communities to run for nonpartisan positions in partisan elections?

Senator Scorr. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself says he can participate as a member of a political party.

In my judgment, the nonpartisan is really a partisan.

Now, that is just a matter of interpretation. I do not believe there is any such thing as a nonpartisan activity.

He would not be a member of one of the two major political parties. The bill reads, "engaging in political activity in which such employee actively participates in any campaign activity on behalf of, or in opposition to, any political party or any candidate for elective office ***" and to me, if he runs as a nonpartisan, he would be running against candidates of political parties, and he could do that under my bill.

He would run as a partisan, or a nonpartisan.

Senator SASSER. S. 980 would allow participation by Federal employees in both a partisan and nonpartisan basis, on purely local issues, or on a local level. Senator, you referred a moment ago, using examples of participation in the election of a school superintendent, participating in matters which deal with education, or which deal with taxes. My question is how do you make the distinction between these issues on a local level, and these issues on a State level?

State government has substantial responsibility for education, substantial responsibility for taxing individuals within the State, also on the local level.

What is the rationale or distinction that a Federal employee can participate on a local level, but should not be allowed to participate on a State level, just excluding the Federal level?

Senator SCOTT. Well, frankly, my concern is participation at a Federal, at the Federal level, at the level where he is employed, and I believe that if we permit him to participate at the Federal level, there will be considerable conflict of interest, and I believe if he participated at the Federal level, he might well have been on opposite sides of some of his superiors, where he works, in case of a change of administration, where would he be after actively having participated in the opposite party from that of a newly elected President, or newly appointed members of the Cabinet, and I think that this would lead to problems.

Now, I believe this is true to a lesser extent at the State level, and I would insulate him by not permitting him to participate at the State level.

Certainly, as the chairman suggests, there may be an opportunity at the local level.

The purpose of my bill is to get some relief to the desire of any Federal employee who wants to participate in politics in any fashion. I feel there is less opportunity for conflicts to arise, when it is at a local level.

Now, let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I am rather well satisfied with the law as it is, and my bill is intended as an alternative to the measures that have been suggested for participation at the Federal level.

I feel that there is something that would wreak havoc with our merit system here, and I feel we are going back into the times when we have had a turnover of the Federal employees when we have a change of administration, and again, I would urge that the members of the committee, and all of the Senators review just at their leisure some of the history of politics in the past as it relates to the Federal employee. Why it was desirable to set up the Civil Service Commission, in the first place, and I am sure that the chairman, and the members of the committee are aware of the assassination of one of our Presidents by a dissatisfied officeseeker.

I am sure that there were statements that have been made by other Presidents, and by other high officials in Government as to the almost impossibility of the transition between one administration and another, because of the spoils system, and we do not want to return to that, and I am sure the chairman shares this thought, but my suggestion is that it is inconsistent to say that we could have participation in party politics at the national level, and still have a worthy merit system.

I think the two are now inconsistent with one another, and just as a safety valve, as a method of preventing participation by the Federal employee, I believe that the local level is the place where he can participate with a slightest opportunity to damage the merit system, as we know it today.

It would be quite satisfactory to me if this committee should decide not to report out any bill, not to make any changes, but if you are going to make a change, I would hope that proper consideration would be given to providing an outlet for those who want to participate in politics and who would like to do that at the local level and the local level only.

Senator SASSER. Senator Percy?

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be incorporated in the record at the appropriate point, to follow Senator Stevens' statement.

We are very pleased to have Senator Scott here this morning, and also to be joined now by Congressman Derwinski.

The Hatch Act, as we all know was established for a noble purpose, to insure the political neutrality and uncorruptibility of the Federal bureaucracy, and it has for the most part insured that.

Now, we are taking another look at it, to see whether or not, in light of the experience, we have overreacted, or whether there is a step that could be taken to allow that sacred privilege that citizens of this country have to participate in Government. I certainly commend you Senator Scott, for saying that the basic idea at the Federal level, involving participation in Federal elections and also in State participation, is that the act should be retained on review, but that local

97-222 O 78 - 2

participation might now be opened up. Certainly those of us who believe in building Government from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, would feel there is a tremendous amount of activity that employees of the Federal Government could engage in at the local level.

I think it is fortunate that we do have Congressman Derwinski here, because obviously in Cook County, we have had over the last 40 years probably a closer working relationship between local government and the Federal Government than we have through the State government, simply because of the nature of the political organization in Cook County. What we want to do is make absolutely certain that we do not have in lifting the restrictions, a politicizing of the Federal bureaucracy, or an erosion of the neutral administration of law. Certainly you orbit an idea that is extraordinarily helpful to us.

We are dealing with legislation now as a means of lifting Hatch Act restrictions. I would hope that through questioning, particularly of Congressman Derwinski, we will learn whether or not we would be opening the door too wide, and if corruption will be the result.

I have only one question because of our restrictions on time this morning. We have a hearing starting at 11:30 on the Teamsters pension plans. I would like to put an argument forward that the supporters of lifting the Hatch Act have used.

You are opposed to lifting Hatch Act restrictions with regard to national politics, because you believe this would disrupt the fair and impartial administration of Federal Government.

It is argued by some Federal employees, that those who are not involved in decisionmaking functions could really be allowed to participate more actively and openly, than those who are in decisionmaking capacities. The advocates of H.R. 10, and I have not been one of those, but those who do advocate it, sift out the more sensitive Federal positions, place them in a restricted class, and maintain Hatch Act prohibitions for them only.

In sorting these positions out that way, try to isolate the decisionmaking capacity of the functions.

How would you respond to those who say that this protection is adequate?

Senator SCOTT. Senator Percy, I mentioned in my initial statement that I had been a Federal employee before being elected to the Congress for more than 25 years.

Sometimes what is in the law, and what is followed in practice is not exactly the same, and I am sure the distinguished Senator is aware of this.

For 18 years, I was an attorney with the Department of Justice. There have been numerous times, in violation of law, when I was asked to make a contribution to a political party, to attend a fundraising dinner, and someone would call me, and it would be an official, a superior, as they did other attorneys within the Department of Justice, and I would say the statute of limitations had long run, because I left the Department of Justice in 1965, and I had been asked to buy a ticket to a hundred dollar lunch, that is when things were cheaper than they are now, and the person calling would say, "Bill, I hate to do this, but I have been requested to call the various attorneys in the section. .". and I do not ascribe this to either of our parties, it was done by both during the Democratic administrations and during the

Republican administrations, and a person under the present law could resist this type of thing.

It might be that he might not get a promotion as quickly, but he could resist it.

I wonder if he could resist as freely if the Hatch Act is removed, if either of these bills that would permit full participation were adopted.

I do not know that you can distinguish between some employees that are in policymaking positions and those who are not in policymaking positions. To me it is a very difficult thing to do, because I do believe you will be asked, or a Federal employee in the competitive service would be asked for contributions, and it would be difficult for him to refuse and still maintain his standing within his organization.

Senator PERCY. I think I would almost be tempted to answer my own question, by saying that the higher a person is, the more he is in policymaking, the greater his income, the greater level of independence he has, and the greater is his ability to resist pressure. On the other hand, a person in a non-decisionmaking capacity, generally has a lower income level, living closer to his full income, needing that income badly, and is more susceptible to pressure from a higher up who tells him to buy a ticket, or get out on the street. It is the low level employees in the city of Chicago that are ordered out like an army on election day, no matter who they are, to get out there and work the polls, all on the public payroll. I do not think the proponents of the bill who offer this as a protection are offering very much when you get down to realistic politics.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I did not have the city of Chicago specifically in mind, when I suggested that a Government employee might be permitted to participate at the local level in government. There are smaller communities within the country, where I feel that it might be done with a reasonable degree of safety.

Senator PERCY. We thank you very much for being with us, Senator Scott. I think you have made a fine contribution.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much.

Senator SASSER. Thank you for being with us this morning, Senator Scott.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you.

Senator SASSER. Our next witness is Congressman Edward J. Derwinski.

Congressman Derwinski, we would be delighted to hear from you

now.

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome my colleague from Illinois, who is a leader of the Congress, and certainly a leading member of our Illinois delegation, and whose knowledge of politics, as well as government is really profound.

He is not only an international expert, but also conversant with our domestic issues.

He has served on the Republican National Committee, and as head of the National Heritage Group. I do not know how long you have been in active politics, but it is a long enough period of time to give us some very, very valuable counsel and advice this morning, and I know we look forward very much to hearing from you.