Senator SASSER. Mr. McCart! STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCCART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, as you suggested, our formal statement has been given to the committee. I would like to underscore just one, or two, or three points which appear in that statement. First, it is certainly appropriate for us to express our deep appreciation to Senators Burdick, Matsunaga, and Domenici for their introduction of S. 80, and while H.R. 10 is the principal vehicle before this committee, S. 80 was introduced earlier in the session to bring to the attention of the Senators the importance of this particular issue. Let me bring to your attention the fact that there are some nine pages of H.R. 10 that are devoted in clear and unambiguous language to the prohibitions against undue political activity by not only Federal and postal workers but their organizations, supervisors, managers, and so forth, so that the bill, contrary to the information that has been supplied from time to time, actually provides a more basic underpinning or preserving of the merit system in the Federal service as we have known it for almost 100 years. One of the important features of the legislation is the fact that there is an accelerated mechanism in the bill for the Civil Service Commission to accept cases of allegations of violations of the act, to process them in a timely manner so that all parties will know early on the extent to which the law is being observed and the extent to which it is being violated. Let me remind the members of this distinguished committee that in 1974 the Congress in the Campaign Reform Act permitted State and local government workers whose positions are funded federally to participate in political activities which were prohibited, prior to that time, under the Hatch Act. A fundamental issue facing this committee is a question of the basic rights of citizens in a democracy who happen to be employed in the service of that democracy. It is unnecessary for me to underscore the point-the 1939 Hatch Act was approved in an era that is totally different than today. Our electorate has become more sophisticated, more aware, and we think that the fundamental rights that are enjoyed by other citizens should apply to those who are employed by either the Postal Service or the Federal Government. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we suggest that the committee give consideration to an amendment to the House measure, making clear that the act applies to those employed in the Government Printing Office. We are not certain that the bill as written does that. These individuals, while employees of the legislative branch, are normally considered as part of the Federal service, and we believe it would be erroneous to omit them from the legislation. The other matters in the bill, such as the Ashbrook amendment, the exclusion of various kinds of inspectors and auditors at the journeyman level from the provisions of the measure, and the status of the Cabinet and presidentially appointed officials have been dealt with quite adequately by my associates. We urge, Mr. Chairman, that the committee realize the importance of this legislation, and that it act promptly to refer it favorably to the full Senate so that the bill can be enacted into law in this first session of the 95th Congress. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCart and additional material follows:] TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. MCCART BEFORE THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, 'U.S. SENATE, ON REVISION OF THE HATCH ACT Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am John A. McCart, Executive Director of the Public Employee Department of the AFL-CIO. Our Public Employee Department is a coalition of 29 national AFL-CIO unions which has affiliated with it over one-and-one-half million public employees. Hundreds of thousands of these men and women are federal or postal employees with a direct, personal interest in revision of the Hatch Act. All of our members, as citizens, trade unionists, and public employees have a vital concern in this legislation. For many years, the labor movement has called for a revision of the 1939 Hatch Act. This year, it is a legislative priority of the AFL-CIO. We endorse the testimony presented by its legislative representatives as well as the May 4, 1977, statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council, which we attach as part of this submission. Several events have focused the attention of Congress on this question. One is the Watergate scandal and incidents, such as the Malek Manual, which demonstrated that political activity statutes did not control the attitudes of administrations on political policy. Another event is the passage of substantially the same bill by the 94th Congress, 54-36 in the Senate and 241-164 in the House, only to have it vetoed by President Ford, thus thwarting the clear majority view of both Houses. A third pertinent factor is the recommendation of March 22, 1977, by President Jimmy Carter-in line with the Democratic party platform pledge of last year-that the Hatch Act be revised to permit most federal employees to participate in federal, state, and local elections and other political 66 functions." We believe these events, alone. justify the leadership of this distinguished committee in holding prompt hearings, after passage by the House of Representatives, June 7, of H.R. 10 by a vote of 244-164. We urge the Committee to favorably report this legislation as soon as possible, in light of the very heavy schedule of the Senate in September and early October and for the balance of the First Session of the 95th Congress. The basic reasons we support this legislation are in two categories. First, H.R. 10 retains and strengthens protections of the original Hatch Act against any improper partisan or other political pressures against federal or postal employees. If this were not true, there would not have been repeated calls for this legislation, over the years, by virtually the entire labor movement. Indeed, the text of the bill is almost entirely devoted to the strengthening of these protections. In addition, there are a variety of other reasons why the second class citizenship of federal and postal employees should be ended. There are "Ten Good Reasons" which we submit for advancing this legislation. (1) Current Hatch Act restrictions are ineffective. The Merit Staffing Team, created by the U.S. Civil Service Commission to investigate abuses prior to 1973, described "instances of staffing authorities and procedures that facilitated the granting of preferential treatment to individuals," found "errors of omission as well as commission," and reported "there can be no question that things happened that should not have happened." (2) After an examination of political abuses during the 1976 election, the House Civil Service Subcommittee declared, "We found that federal employees have no confidence in the Civil Service Commission or their own agencies as guardians of their political rights." (3) In addition to retaining penalties for violations, H.R. 10 would strengthen the Hatch Act by requiring that investigations of violations be completed within 90 days; provide a 30-day public comment period prior to adoption of Civil Service regulations interpreting the Hatch Act; create an ombudsman-like office within CSC to advise on permitted and prohibited activities. (4) The 1974 Campaign Reform Act guarantees state and local government workers, whose jobs involve federal funds, the rights to participate in partisan political activities. As a result, federal and postal workers are the only group subject to Hatch Act restrictions. (5) Enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act has become a maze of regulations which discourage the exercise of permitted citizenship rights by federal workers. The Civil Service Commission has issued some 3,000 regulations on permitted and prohibited activities which are virtually impossible to understand. (6) Under H.R. 10, federal service workers whose official position might be involved, or appear to the public to be involved, in any electoral work would be denied rights to participate in partisan politics. (7) Most Western democracies have enacted laws similar to H.R. 10. These nations include Great Britain, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. (8) Revisions in the Hatch Act would not affect the merit system in government. The 1883 Civil Service Act first established the principle of separating politics from public service. The Hatch Act is merely an extension of this law, presenting an obvious example of legislative "overkill." (9) Lifting Hatch Act restrictions would free some 2.8 million Americans to participate fully in this nation's political system. Such increased voter participation must be considered a healthy development in light of poor voter turnout in recent years. (10) H.R. 10 is a "voters' rights" issue, involving the freedom of federal service workers to express their political views and support candidates of their choice. Just as these rights should not be denied on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex, neither should these rights be denied on the basis of employer. We agree strongly with the rejection by the other body of the Fisher Amendment, which would encourage participation only at the state and local levels. We consider federal and postal employees are not only residents of their localities and their states but citizens of the United States of America. For that reason, S980 is wholly inadequate. While those who become public employees may well have to be bound by certain restrictions which would not apply to their fellow citizens in the private sector, there is no legitimate reason for barring them from participation in the federal electoral process, within the limits of the House bill. There are some particular aspects of the House bill on which we would add a comment. The provision that presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, not be granted the same rights as career and rank and file employees, may have justification. For our part, this is a matter we would leave to the wisdom of the Congress. The denial of the benefits of the Act, as the bill passed the House, to large numbers of employees who are inspectors, such as wage and hour investigators, meat inspectors and mine safety inspectors, if this would result, is unjustified. We could agree with this only if these people have policy level decision making authority which could reasonably give the impression that partisan considerations might affect the discharge of their duties. We believe this is an important section which should be clearly and narrowly drawn. In the definitions of the House-passed bill, it is not clear to us that employees of the Government Printing Office would have the newly established right to fully exercise their right of voluntary participation in the political process. We urge you to spell this out specifically. In sum, we urge that this Committee approve the bill, essentially as passed by the House, and proceed with a favorable markup to the Senate at the earliest possible date. Serious delay will gravely impair the possibility of the Senate having the opportunity to work its will on this priority legislation. On behalf of the millions of federal and postal employees who will benefit from this legislation, we agáin commend the leadership by this Committee. This bill, when enacted, will continue the long and historic process of broadening effective participation in the political process by all Americans. STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON HATCH ACT REFORM The latest target of right wing smear tactics and "Big Lie" advertising blitz is H.R. 10 to revise the Hatch Act. The propaganda campaign is simple: repeat the Big Lie loud enough and often enough and maybe some people will believe it. Their hope is to generate an emotional campaign which will make rational debate of the issue impossible. The labor movement has an important responsibility to make certain that the lies are answered with facts, the merits of the legislation explained with reason and the slanderous attacks on the labor movement rebutted. But, in the final analysis, it is the members of Congress who must decide whether legislation is to be considered on its merits or on propaganda-inspired emotionalism. The case for reforming the Hatch Act is a compelling one. Since 1939, the Hatch Act has denied federal and postal service employees one of the most basic human rights the right to participate fully in American political life. Federal and postal service employees cannot campaign for partisan political candidates of their choice, seek partisan elected office themselves or actively participate in a political party. More than 3,000 administrative rulings interpreting the Act have left the nearly three million men and women who work for the federal government with no clear understanding of what is permitted or prohibited under the law. H.R. 10, co-sponsored by 74 members of Congress, would guarantee most federal workers the same rights all other Americans have, to participate in political activity. It would also strengthen protections for federal workers against political pressures brought by their superiors. Most of all, the bill would clarify and simplify the Act and bring its administration into the light of public scrutiny. The intent of this legislation is supported by President Carter and the platform of the Democratic Party, and the bill is essentially the same measure that passed the 94th Congress with strong majorities, only to be vetoed by President Ford. Initial impetus for the legislation came from the 1966 report of the Hatch Act Commission, which was established by Congress and which recommended lifting many Hatch Act restrictions and reducing coverage to as few employees as possible. Portions of the Commission's recommendations were incorporated in the 1974 Campaign Reform Act which lifted restrictions on state and local government employees whose positions are funded by the federal government. Despite these facts, opponents of Hatch Act reform, which include many of the same individuals and organizations that opposed the Voting Rights Act and other legislation benefiting working Americans, have launched an expensive advertising program to kill with the Big Lie that which they cannot defeat with a reasoned argument. Big Lie No. 1.-Hatch Act reform would mean a return to the spoils system. The truth.-H.R. 10 would have no effect on the merit system established by the Civil Service Act of 1883. Rather, it would strengthen the merit system by preventing a recurrence of the political abuses of the civil service system uncovered during the Nixon Administration. Under the provisions of H.R. 10, many federal workers would continue to be excluded from participation in partisan political activities. These would be persons with final decision authority in law enforcement, inspection, auditing, monitoring of federal grants and other procurement agencies. Also excluded are the CIA, IRS and the Justice Department. Big lie No. 2.-Hatch Act reform is a power grab by "big labor bosses." The truth.-H.R.10 provides extensive protections against a power grab by anyone, including the President, political appointees and supervisors. Unions representing federal and postal service employees would receive no added political rights and would still be covered under the restrictions on union political activities contained in the Campaign Reform Act. Big lie No. 3.-Hatch Act reform is not needed or desired by government workers. The truth. The only public opinion sampling not financed or directed by an organization seeking to raise contributions through its opposition to Hatch Act reform was conducted by American University. The AU survey showed that federal employees in the Washington area supported Hatch Act reform by more than a 2-to-1 margin. In addition, federal employees elected by their peers as delegates to union conventions have repeatedly endorsed Hatch Act reform by unanimous votes. The so-called "polls" conducted by the Public Service Research Council, which has close ties to the so-called National Right-to-Work Committee, are based on misleading questions, code words and deliberate misrepresentation of H.R. 10. Big lie No. 4.-Hatch Act reform is undemocratic. The truth.—H.R. 10 would enhance the democratic principles of encouraging voter participation in the democratic process. It mandates speedy investigation of suspected violations, provides for public participation in the adoption of Civil Service Commission regulations to administer the Act, and creates an ombudsman-like office in the CSC to advise on permitted and prohibited activities. Most of the remaining democracies in the world-such as Canada, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, and Great Britain-have laws similar to H.R. 10. The AFL-CIO Executive Council believes the revisions in the Hatch Act contained in H.R. 10 provide the necessary balance between protecting the integrity of both the federal service and the democratic rights of federal and postal service employees to participate freely in political activity. We believe that denying one group of American citizens the rights guaranteed all other citizens, endangers the rights of all. We urge all of our affiliated unions, state and local central bodies and all union members to join in supporting H.R. 10. Congress should examine the merits of H.R. 10 and enact this long-overdue bill securing the political rights of federal and postal service employees. Hon. JIM SASSER, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service and General Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am responding to your communication of July 27, 1977, including the questions by Senator Stevens in connection with this Department's recent testimony to the full Committee on amendments to the Hatch Act. Question 1. What effect, if any, do you think H.R. 10 would have on employeeto-employee relationships away from the work situation? Answer. Enactment of H.R. 10 should stimulate discussion among federal and postal employees about political issues and candidates, particularly with the education program the Civil Service Commission would be required to undertake on the rights and responsibilities of those employees under the new act. We do not envision any undue influence of one employee over another over these issues for two reasons: (1) Government employees, just as other citizens, are overwhelmingly law abiding, and would exercise care in using their recently-won rights; (2) Any attempt to exert coercion or pressure would be subject to complaint by the offended workers, with the Civil Service Commission using it adjudicatory power to determine guilt or innocence. Question 2. Do employees who run for political office currently get the benefit of health insurance and life insurance coverage when they are on annual leave without pay? If so, how are premium payments made? Answer. Under the current practice noted in the question, a miniscule number of federal and postal workers are affected. Only 68 communities are designated by the Civil Service Commission for postal-federal work political participation, because they are non-partisan. An individual who seeks and secures a leave of absence to campaign for one of the non-partisan posts is entitled to full health benefits and life insurance coverage while in leave without pay status, with the employee and his agency sharing the premium costs in the manner required by law. How, when and where payments will be made by the employee are determined between the worker and the agency. Question 3. How do you feel about limiting the use of employee lists (a) by parties? (b) by political candidates? (c) by fund raisers? (d) by employees recruiting fellow employees? Answer. Until recently Civil Service Commission regulations described the conditions under which agencies may release lists of employees (Chapter 294, Federal Personnel Manual). Among the reasons cited for not disclosing such information was a reasonable belief by the agency that the information was sought for political purposes. We concurred with this prohibition. However, on July 25, 1977, the Commission released FPM Letter 294-6 revising the earlier rules. The purport of the new regulation was to remove previous restrictions on the release of such information. The Commission found that the Freedom of Information Act required disclosure of the name, present and past position title, grades, salaries and duty |