The 89th Congress, on March 3, 1966, created a commission to study Federal laws limiting the political activity of Federal employees. The overwhelming conclusion of that commission was that the existing collection of laws and regulations, otherwise known as the Hatch Act, establishes a general policy proscribing political activity, and that the way it is done unduly confuses and restricts the political activities of more than 2.8 million Federal employees.

I have always favored increased political rights for Federal employees. I do not really believe that the average Federal employee is less capable of handling expanded political rights than the average private citizen, merely because he or she works for the Federal Government. Nor, in that connection, do I believe that the job sensitivity of 2.8 million Federal employees is such that all of them ought to have limited political rights. And yet, there is every reason to believe that the existing law, because of its ambiguity, does have a "chilling effect" on the political activities of Federal employees.

Rather than having a confusing array of do's and don'ts, it is high time the Congress, and this body in particular, clearly defines, statutorily, the prohibited political activities of Federal employees. The prohibitions should be only those which we find absolutely necessary to protect the affected employees from actions that threaten the integrity, efficiency, and impartiality of the public service.

It is, of course, necessary to assure political integrity in the administration of governmental affairs as well as the continuing development of an impartial civil service free from the negative effects of partisan politics. This will require strong sanctions against coercion. The political participation of Federal employees ought to be allowed, but a guarantee of voluntary participation is also necessary. I want to stress, here, that I am talking about truly voluntary participation and not merely the appearance of voluntarism.

Some conflict is inevitable between these two goals, since neither can be fully achieved without making some inroads on the other. With this in mind, there are two key points that I would like to make.

The first is that there is no question in my mind that the existing law is deficient and unduly restrictive where the political freedom of Federal employees is concerned. Second, the Congress ought to be willing to make a rational, reasonable determination of exactly how far we need to go in proscribing political activities. Beyond those limits, political participation for Federal employees should be encouraged, just as fully as for all other citizens. It would be my hope that these hearings will be a step in the direction of achieving these goals.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your prompt scheduling of these hearings, and I also want to express my appreciation to you for your fairness.

I do have a hearing on the no-fault bill in another committee, but I will come back as soon as I can.

Senator SASSER. Thank you for your scholarly and perceptive statement on this particular problem, Senator.

Senator Percy, do you have a statement?
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PERCY

Mr. Chairman, today the Governmental Affairs Committee begins hearings on proposals to modify the 38-year-old Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act today restricts the rights of political participation of some 2.7 million Federal employees. Similar statutes enacted by the 50 States extend these prohibitions to an additional 12-million State and local government workers.

The Hatch Act was originally enacted with an eye toward ensuring the political neutrality and uncorruptibility of the Federal bureaucracy. Today, we are questioning whether the means chosen to achieve that aim, the prohibition against Federal employees taking an active part in the political processes of our country, was a proper one, or whether it was an over-reaction to a legitimate problem.

In considering this question, we must start with the premise that the rights of American citizens to participate in the political process are of utmost significance, and that only under a strong showing of substantial harm should those rights be abridged.

It is claimed that a lifting of Hatch Act restrictions could result in a politicization of our Federal bureaucracy, an erosion of the neutral administration of law, and the exposure of Government employees to political pressure and coercion. I for one do not consider these objections to be frivolous. The constitutional framework of our Government demands a civil service that is at once responsive to the legitimate authorities of Congress and the Executive administration, and to the people from whom all governmental power arises. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress does have the power to place political restrictions on Federal employees to insure these ends.

If we are going to lift the restrictions on political activity of Federal employees embodied in the Hatch Act, we must do it in such a way as to guarantee to the American people that the quality of their Government service will not be compromised, and that the right of individual Government employees to be free from undue influence will be preserved.

At the same time, because of the effect the Hatch Act has on Federal employees, we owe them the time and effort to consider fully proposals which so directly affect their welfare and their rights.

For this reason, I hope the witnesses we will hear from today and tomorrow will explore fully with us many of the questions that have been raised about the Hatch Act and the legislative proposals to modify it, and help us in reviewing these proposals objectively and on their merits.

Senator SASSER. Thank you, Senator Percy.

We would like to welcome this morning to the committee Senator William Scott, the distinguished Senator from the State of Virginia, and thank you, Senator Scott, for appearing here before us this morning. I might inquire if you wish to make some preliminary remarks, or if you have an opening statement, we would be delighted to receive it, and if not, we would be delighted to enter it.

TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not have a prepared statement for the committee.

I enjoyed hearing the statement made by the distinguished chairman of the full committee, as well as the other statements.

per

I was glad to hear the Senator from Tennessee indicate that he felt that we should look at the history of the Hatch Act, and I think haps we need to go even further back to the beginning of our Government, and I believe we need to consider the spoils system under which the Government was operated for a period of years, and what led to the creation of the Civil Service Commission, and Teddy Roosevelt's statement with regard to the spoils system, the changes that took place in the Government employment when there was a change of administration, and I might say that I certainly do not have the answers to this complex problem that is confronting us, but I was privileged to be a Government employee subject to the Hatch Act for more than 25 years before coming to the Congress, and I did serve as a member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee in the House of Representatives for 6 years, and represented the district with perhaps the largest number of Government employees as the district was then constituted, of any congressional district, including part of suburban Washington, half of Fairfax County, all of Loudoun and Prince William counties, it included Fort Belvoir, and Quantico, and of course all of the post offices and postal employees that are in each of our congressional districts, and I took a survey of the old Eighth District to see how the people felt with regard to suggested amendments to the Hatch Act, or the possible repeal of the Hatch Act.

As the chairman well knows, there was a Commission established, the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel, and did hold extensive hearings on this matter in 1967. It was chaired I believe by Arthur Fleming, a former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

We had Bob Ramspeck, a long time chairman of the House Civil Service Committee, and I believe also a member of the Civil Service Commission who was on that Commission, and there is a rather exhaustive report they prepared.

I hope their report might be reviewed to determine the action that should be taken by the Government at this time, but in the poll that I took, of the people in the Eighth District, I posed the question to them, "Should the Hatch Act be amended to permit participation in partisan politics at the Federal Government level?"

Thirty-one percent of those responding said yes, it should be amended to permit participation at the Federal level.

Forty-five percent felt that it should be permitted at the State level, and 64 percent felt it should be amended to permit participation at the local level.

Now, I might add that 53 percent, slightly more than half, said it should not be changed, that we should retain the present law, and the law substantially as it exists today.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to any broad change in the Hatch Act.

It involves many, many Federal employees, as the chairman has indicated to a lesser extent, some State employees that are paid by Federal funds, insofar as their becoming candidates for public office, but it is said that no chief executive can manage the bureaucracy that we have in Washington, the Federal employment we have as well as that throughout the country, and I am sure this is an accurate statement, it is very difficult for a chief executive regardless of his ability to control the vast number of Federal employees, and the actions that they take.

The subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on what the chairman of the Subcommittee calls the fourth branch of Government, the bureaucracy, and it does exert, and we know this, through the regulations that are promulgated, it does exert tremendous influence on the course of Government, but if a bureaucracy is difficult to control when we have a merit system, would it not be more difficult to control under a spoils system, a system where a person's employment would at least in part depend upon what political party he supported.

Now, I am well aware of the desire on the part of this committee, the desire on the part of the proponents of this bill that we separate partisan politics, any part that an employee would play in the political process, from his job, so that his job could not be jeopardized by his activities, but I do not believe any of us possess the skill, or the knowledge whereby we can separate the activities on election days, or prior to election day from the job that a person would do after the election is over, or from the feeling that his superior might have to reward him.

For example, if someone runs as a candidate for public office against a Member of Congress, and the career Government employee was defeated, and the opponent being elected certainly would have the opportunity perhaps of taking some action against him in a direct or indirect

manner.

I just feel that we cannot separate the Government employee's activities in politics from his activities as a careerist, or as an employee. It seems that we have a greater need today for merit employment than we have had in the past, because the art of government is more complex than it was in former days.

I believe we need stability in Government employment.

I believe we need loyalty to the Government, not loyalty to a political party, and I know that we have this conflict between a desire on the part of some Government employees to participate in partisan politics, and yet a desire for a job protection.

I believe it is impossible for us to draw up legislation, or to enact legislation that would resolve this conflict so that a Government employee could do as he pleases insofar as partisan politics is concerned, and still have the protection that he would like to have in his job.

Now, I have a bill, Mr. Chairman, S. 980, that would permit a Federal employee to voluntarily participate in the political process at the local level.

The political subdivisions of the State, county, or a city, or in organizations that are connected, affiliated with local governments, and

he could participate as a partisan, say for city council, or for county supervisor or county commissioner.

He could participate as a member of the board of education, and to me if he is going to participate at all, he is more interested ordinarily in education administered at the local level, and proper police and fire protection, and zoning matters, such matters as the local government deals with on a day-to-day basis, and perhaps this would be a way to create an outlet for his energies in the political field, and I would restrict it to the local level, because once you get participation at the State level, then one might well serve on the State central committee, or the governing body, and I believe the distinguished chairman has been chairman of the State party in Tennessee, he is probably much more familiar with this matter than I am, but it would be very difficult for him to participate at the State level, and still avoid any participation at the Federal level, and so I would leave that barrier at the State level between the Federal and local participation, I would leave it so that he could participate at the local level, subject to such rules as the Civil Service Commission might draw up where he would not be involved in Federal politics, either directly or indirectly.

This would be as far as I feel that the Senate should go in this respect.

I know that all of us would like to have the best possible system of employment and career system for our Federal employees.

We may differ as to how to obtain this, but to my way of thinking, it is inconsistent with a merit system to have political participation by the Federal employee at the Federal level any further than the Federal employees are permitted to participate today.

Now, they do have the right to vote, a right that every American should have.

They have the right to discuss politics, and I believe that the committee is aware of the many ways in which a Federal employee today can participate.

We have the familiar phrase that he can talk politics with his friends and neighbors, but he cannot get on a soap box, and give one candidate or another favorable treatment, and, Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be a step backward for us to amend this law, and to have active participation of the Federal employee in Federal and State partisan politics.

Once again, I feel his loyalty should be first to his Government and not to his political party, and I am fearful of the results of the enactment of the bills for participation at the Federal level in partisan politics.

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to respond to any questions the chairman may have, or the Senator from Illinois.

Senator SASSER. Thank you, Senator Scott.

You did make a statement on two occasions that you felt that the loyalty of the Federal employee should be directed to the Government and not to a political party.

I am sure you would agree, Senator, that perhaps one of the problems we have had in recent years is that with many Government employees, perhaps their loyalty is to their bureaucracy, their loyalty