This refers to your recent request that we provide an
interpretation of the provisions of section 7322 (9) of H.R.
10 to include an estimate of the number of positions which
would be affected by this section. The definition of a
"restricted position" contained at section 7322 (9) of H.R.
10 could admit of a broad or a narrow interpretation. These
options are further discussed below.

If H.R. 10 is enacted into law, we would anticipate promptly
conferring with each-agency as to what specific categories
of positions within their agency appear to them to be included
within the definition of "restricted position.
" Upon review

of the resulting data from each agency, we would then make
an initial determination as to whether the restrictions to
be imposed are "justified in order to insure the integrity
of the Government or the public's confidence in the integrity
of the Government." This initial determination would then
be subject to notice and comment requirements and finally a
regulatory determination would be made.

Inasmuch as we have not yet had the benefit of conferring
with each agency, as discussed above, have not yet delineated
specific criteria for determining when such restrictions are
"justified", and have not had the benefit of the regulatory
process, the figures set forth herein are somewhat specula-
tive. These figures therefore should be considered only as
a preliminary estimate as to the types and numbers of
positions which may be included within the definition of a
"restricted position."

97-222 O 78 - 5

In order to arrive at a figure representing a "broad" interpretation of "restricted position" we reviewed a listing of Positions Classifications and included in our calculations each position which seemed to deal in any way with the items set forth in the definition. Utilizing this methodology we arrived at a maximum of 279,673 employees who might be included within the definition of "restricted position." We then further examined the classifications involved, deleting those occupational codes which seemed less likely to be properly included within a "restricted position", resulting in a total of 139,239 employees who might be included within a narrow interpretation of "restricted position." Of course these figures include all positions in such Classifications probably an overstatement of the number of positions to be included.

At this point we have no basis on which to make an estimate with respect to when such restrictions would be "justified" under this definition. Presumably a certain number of positions would be excluded under this provision but we have not assigned a specific number thereto.

We would again emphasize that these figures are merely a preliminary estimate which are derived without conferring with the employing agencies, and without the benefit of the rule-making process and the application of policy judgement. They may, however, be useful in defining outer parameters. We trust that the enclosed will be helpful to you. If we can be of any further service to you, please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

Alan K."Campbell

Chairman

Enclosures

LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE HATCH ACT

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1977

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The hearing convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim Sasser (acting chairman of the committee), presiding.

Present: Senators Roth, Percy, Javits, and Heinz.

Staff present: Richard A. Wegman, chief counsel and staff director; Claudia Ingram, professional staff member; Paul C. Rosenthal, counsel; and Elizabeth A. Preast, chief clerk.

Senator SASSER. The committee will come to order. We will resume our hearings this morning on legislation to amend the Hatch Act.

I want to welcome the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Quentin Burdick, and say to you, Senator Burdick, that we are delighted to have you here this morning to testify before the committee. You have been a longtime champion of political rights for Federal and postal employees, and we look forward to hearing your statement this morning.

TESTIMONY OF HON. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator BURDICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is good to come back to my old committee. It is a pleasure to see you as chairman.

I appear here today, Mr. Chairman, as a sponsor of S. 80 and as a longtime supporter of full political rights for Federal and postal employees.

S. 80 and H. R. 10 would amend the long-outdated Hatch Act. This legislation would restore to Federal civilian and postal employees the very basic political rights of citizenship that our country was founded. upon.

There can be no doubt that conditions in the 1930's demanded a remedy such as the Hatch Act. However, the abuses present in 1939, which resulted from a severely depressed economy and a growing Government bureaucracy, are no longer with us. The Federal service has come of age. The merit system has proved itself, and it will not be replaced by a system of political spoils.

The Hatch Act was a drastic remedy for a very serious situation. I remind the committee that it is no small step, in a democracy, to withdraw from a large segment of the population the rights of free politi