Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the Hatch Act Modernization Act.

Senator Akaka and I introduced this legislation, along with a number of our distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The bill incorporates recommendations for reform that the Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner sent to Congress last year. I want to thank Senator Akaka not only for his work on this bill, but for everything he has done for Federal workers.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my good friend Representative Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, for his very hard work in support of this legislation, as well as Chairman Issa for helping to bring this bill to the floor today.

This legislation makes commonsense reforms to the Hatch Act that are much needed. The Hatch Act was passed to ensure that Federal Government employees work on behalf of the American people rather than whatever political party is in power. The law works well most of the time, but it has had some unintended consequences.

Currently, the Hatch Act prohibits State and local government employees from running for partisan political office if they work on programs that receive Federal funding. This can and has led to some unfair and absurd results. For example, Matthew Arlen, a transit officer in Philadelphia, was barred from running for his school board because his canine partner was paid for by a Federal grant. Officer Arlen told The Washington Post:

I was upset because I truly believed I had something to

offer my community.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times op-ed by Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. In her op-ed, Special Counsel Lerner wrote:

Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon

to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates even when

there is no indication of wrongdoing.

This bill will fix that.

The Hatch Act Modernization Act also creates a range of penalties for Hatch Act violations. Currently, the only available penalty for violation of the Hatch Act, no matter how minor the violation, is termination, unless the Merit Systems Protections Board votes unanimously to impose a lesser penalty. Under this legislation, the Board will have the ability to impose a punishment that fits the crime.

This legislation also ensures that the District of Columbia employees are treated similarly to State and local government employees rather than as Federal employees.

The Hatch Act Modernization Act makes reforms that are much needed, that are bipartisan, noncontroversial, and widely supported. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining in on this effort to make this commonsense bill law.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 2011]

A Law Misused for Political Ends

(By Carolyn N. Lerner)

Washington.--The federal agency I lead, the United States

Office of Special Counsel, enforces a law that is broken and

needs to be fixed.

The law, the Hatch Act of 1939, was intended to keep

improper politics out of the federal workplace. At its best,

it prevents people in political power from abusing their

positions. It prohibits coercion by a government supervisor--

such as pressuring employees to volunteer for or contribute

to a campaign--and shields the civil service and the federal

workplace from politicking.

But at its worst, the law prevents would-be candidates in

state and local races from running because they are in some

way, no matter how trivially, tied to a source of federal

funds in their professional lives. Our caseload in these

matters quintupled to 526 complaints in the 2010 fiscal year,

from 98 in 2000. We advised individuals on this law 4,320

times in 2010.

Matthew P. Arlen is a police officer for the Southeastern

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. A Republican, he

wanted to run for the school board, but we told him in June

he could not because his bomb-sniffing dog is funded through

the Department of Homeland Security.

The Port of Albany, in New York, got stimulus funds to

rebuild its dock and wharf, so we told Terrence P. Hurley,

who is the port's chief financial officer, that he could not

run in last month's Democratic primary for the county

legislature.

Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon

to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates, even when

there is no indication of wrongdoing. An allegation that a

candidate has violated federal law--simply by stepping

forward to run--can cast a cloud.

Of course, the would-be candidate could give up his day

job. But the day job usually pays the rent, and many of the

elective offices being sought pay little or nothing. Forcing

people to resign in order to participate in the democratic

process is unfair and bad policy.

Sheriffs' offices are especially affected. Since 9/11,

federal grants to state and local law enforcement have

soared. Deputies are commonly the most knowledgeable and

capable potential candidates, but they are ineligible to

succeed their bosses because of the influx of federal money.

Anthony C. Nelson is on next month's ballot for sheriff in

Lowndes County, Miss. He stepped up after the previous

Democratic nominee, an acting police chief, left the race

over a Hatch Act problem. Then Mr. Nelson, the head of the

local juvenile detention center, was himself accused of

violating the act. An investigation by our office found that

the center got no federal funding, so he remains on the

ballot.

I have sent Congress proposed legislation to fix the Hatch

Act by removing restrictions on state and local government

workers who want to run for elected office. This would not

cost taxpayers anything. It would demonstrate respect for the

independence of state and local elections, and would allow

qualified candidates to serve their communities as elected

officials.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2170) to amend the provisions of title 5, United States Code, which are commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act'', to scale back the provision forbidding certain State and local employees from seeking elective office, clarify the application of certain provisions to the District of Columbia, and modify the penalties which may be imposed for certain violations under subchapter III of chapter 73 of that title.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The adoption today of S. 2170 will mark an important step in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's long-term effort to modernize the Hatch Act.

At its best, the Hatch Act keeps partisan politics out of the workplace and prevents those in political power from abusing their authority to advance partisan political causes. At its worst, however, the Hatch Act causes the Federal Government to unnecessarily interfere with the rights of well-qualified candidates to run for local office.

S. 2170 addresses these flaws by easing restrictions on State and local government employees and on employees of the District of Columbia Government who are covered by the Hatch Act. The bill also provides a greater range of penalties, in addition to termination, for those Federal employees who violate the law. S. 2170 will allow more individuals the right to run for public office without violating the Hatch Act.

Under current law, State and local government employees may not run for partisan office if their jobs are connected to Federal funding. For example, in Pennsylvania, a K-9 officer was not allowed to run for a local school board because his partner, a black Labrador, was tied to funding from the Department of Homeland Security. In another case, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel advised an ambulance driver that he would violate the Hatch Act if he ran for county coroner because some of the patients he transported received Medicaid.

In enforcing the Hatch Act, the Office of Special Counsel routinely advises deputy sheriffs they are ineligible to run for sheriff, and the number of

local law enforcement Hatch Act cases has dramatically increased with the influx of Federal dollars to local police departments as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001. The best candidates for local law enforcement and other positions are often disqualified from participating in local elections. The concern is especially acute in rural areas, where the pool of candidates for elective office is limited by the population.

Congressman Latta has led the way in championing Hatch Act reform for State and local sheriffs. The National Sheriffs Association has noted that the current law ``severely limits the number of qualified candidates for sheriff.''

The OSC is required by law to intervene in State and local contests hundreds of times a year through formal investigations. The OSC also issues thousands of advisory opinions annually to potential State and local candidates. Approximately 45 percent of the OSC's overall Hatch Act case load, including more than 500 investigations over the past 2 years, involves State and local campaign cases. These cases do not involve any allegations of coercive or abusive political conduct.

Investigating hundreds of State and local campaigns annually is a poor use of the OSC's limited budget, and it creates a burden on States and localities that must respond to these investigations. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel should be spending its limited resources on investigations of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. It should not be spent interfering with State and local elections and disqualifying qualified candidates from seeking elective office.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this one final opportunity to urge my colleagues to support the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. We've heard from speakers on both sides of the aisle indicating some of the absurd results that we have seen as a result of this act, none more glaring than the officer whose canine partner, a Labrador named Haynes, was prohibited from running for office.

With that, and all the other examples, I think it's clear we need to support passage of S. 2170.

I see the chairman has asked for some time. If my colleague on the other side of the aisle doesn't object, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the chairman, Mr. Issa.

I do urge all Members to join me in support of this bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work in helping to bring this bill to the floor today.

I especially want to thank the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings, who introduced the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 in the House, and to thank Senator Daniel Akaka, who introduced the bill in the Senate.

I want to especially thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who held very productive and revealing hearings on the Hatch Act during this session, without which this bill could not have come to the floor today.

And I thank our friends in the Senate, Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, who had their own hearings to modernize the Hatch Act, and who supported the provisions of this bill that pertain to the District of Columbia only.

The Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 contains two of our longtime priority bills for the district--the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act and the Hatch Act National Capital Region Parity Act--giving D.C. full equality under the Federal Hatch Act.

Our first bill, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act, which is included in this bill, passed the House in the last Congress but stalled in the Senate. I have been fighting for the bill for most of my term of service in the Congress.

The D.C. Hatch Act Reform Act eliminates discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia, which, alone among U.S. jurisdictions, still falls under the Federal Hatch Act, as it did before Congress made the District an independent jurisdiction in 1973 able to enact its own local laws.

My provision retains Federal Hatch Act authority concerning prohibited partisan and political activity that applies to every locality upon receipt of Federal funds or functions, and requires the District to enact its own local Hatch Act barring similar local violations. And I'm pleased to say that the District has already done that and is waiting only for passage of this bill and for signing by the President.

Hatch Act violations in the District are rare, but the District needs to be

able to enforce its own Hatch Act to be fully accountable and responsible for local violations, with which only a local objective body would be familiar.

The present treatment of District employees under the Hatch Act, as if these employees of a local government were employees of a Federal agency, has led to confusion for the Office of Special Counsel, or OSC, which enforces the Hatch Act.

In a recent case, an advisory neighborhood commissioner, elected by the people of the District of Columbia, was cited for violations of the Hatch Act when he ran for higher office, even though these commissioners are elected officials under local D.C. law.

Or to cite another absurdity, the District of Columbia will have its first election for a partisan attorney general in 2014. Under current law, the winner of that election would be treated as if he were a Federal employee. That would mean that the person who won the office of attorney general for the District of Columbia would have to resign that office in order to seek reelection in 2018. And this is not what the Federal Hatch Act, let alone a local Hatch Act, would have intended.

As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion between local and Federal jurisdictions, the application of the Hatch Act to D.C. government employees has been inconsistent by the OSC. The present law leaves the OSC with local responsibility when Federal jurisdiction is not indicated. This fix, therefore, is long overdue.

Our second bill, the Hatch Act National Capital Region Parity Act, allows OPM to permit Federal employees who reside in the District to run as independent candidates in local partisan elections. Under the Hatch Act, Federal employees generally may not be candidates in partisan elections.

In the 1940s, Congress gave OPM the authority to exempt Federal employees living in towns in Maryland, Virginia, and the immediate vicinity of the District from the Hatch Act's prohibition on Federal employees running in partisan elections, so that towns with a high concentration of Federal employees would not be deprived by having a significant percentage of their residents unable to participate in local affairs.

However, OPM was not given the authority to exempt Federal employees living in D.C. because the city did not have local elections before the Home Rule Act of 1973. The Hatch Act Modernization Act includes these two bills and brings the District one step closer to equal treatment and self-government, and implements these and other commonsense revisions to the Hatch Act.

I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for the entire Act, and I thank them very much that our bills are included.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman, Levin, and Lee have joined as cosponors.

The Hatch Act restricts political activity of Federal employees, District of Columbia employees, and certain other state and local employees. Originally enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act has not been amended since 1993.

The Hatch Act plays two very important roles. First, it ensures that the government works for American citizens regardless of the political party controlling the White House or Congress. Second, the Hatch Act protects Federal employees in the workplace. Specifically, the Hatch Act restricts Federal employees' partisan political action in order to protect them for being coerced to participate in political activities in the workplace. This is essential to the merit-based system that currently exists.

In 2007, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee of Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which examined whether enhancements or clarifications to the Hatch Act were necessary. Since that time, I have considered what changes to the law would be appropriate, while being mindful that the Hatch Act represents a careful balance intended to shield employees from pressure to use federal time and money for partisan gain, while also protecting employees' personal freedoms of choice and expression.

The legislation I am introducing today makes common sense changes to the Hatch Act. First, it would grant State and local employees the freedom to run for partisan elective office. Under current law, state and local employees are permitted to run for nonpartisan elective office, but are prohibited from running for partisan elective office. This can lead to confusing and inconsistent rules in different locations, depending on whether a particular elective office is categorized as partisan or non-partisan. This change will also save the government money, as the Office of Special Counsel would not be required to spend valuable time and resources investigating the hundreds of complaints it receives each year on this issue.

The legislation would also modify the Hatch Act's draconian penalty provisions. The Hatch Act currently provides for a presumed penalty of termination for any violation of the law, regardless of its severity. Under the law, it is possible that a federal employee could lose his or her job for inadvertently sending an email at work containing improper political content or hanging a picture on his or her wall during a campaign season. My bill would amend these provisions of the Hatch Act to allow the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates Hatch Act complaints in the federal government, to impose a range of penalties, from termination to a reprimand, depending on the nature of the offense involved.

Finally, the legislation would ensure that employees of the District of Columbia are subject to the same restrictions on political activity that currently apply to all other state and local employees. Under present law, District of Columbia employees are subject to the Hatch Act provisions that apply to federal employees, rather than those that apply to employees of States and localities.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I rise in support of S. 2170, the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. I'd also like to thank and commend Ranking Member Cummings and his work with Chairman Issa for bringing this bill to the floor on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis.

I also want to commend Senator Mike Lee for his tireless work on this, his concern, particularly on what happened in Utah, and his good work with Senator Akaka. The bill wouldn't be here today without their good work, and I commend them both for working, again, in a bipartisan way.

I am also a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4152, sponsored by Ranking Member Cummings--I'm glad to come together with him--which is the House companion to S. 2170. S. 2170 makes commonsense, long overdue reforms to the Hatch Act, which became law nearly 75 years ago. While the numerous reforms this legislation includes are all important, I'd like to highlight the critical reform made by section 2 of this bill.

In May of this year, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal workforce held a hearing where members heard of the ongoing problems with the Hatch Act and options for reform. At the hearing, the subcommittee heard from my fellow Utahn Jon Greiner, an individual whose experience with the Hatch Act has become far too common and is the reason why we're here today.

In 2006, Mr. Greiner, while serving as the chief of the Ogden City Utah Police Department, was elected to the Utah State Senate. While this occasion would presumably be joyous, unfortunately for Chief Greiner, it was the beginning of a 5-year legal battle with the Federal entities charged with the enforcing of the Hatch Act. At the end of the long and costly legal battle, Chief Greiner was ultimately found by these Federal entities to have violated the Hatch Act in December 2011. Chief Greiner was not only fired by Ogden City for his violation, but was also banned by the Federal Government from serving as a law enforcement officer in Utah for 18 months.

And what did Chief Greiner do to deserve such punishment? He simply signed a required quarterly report for a Federal technology grant awarded to upgrade the Weber and Morgan County, Utah, emergency dispatch center--a Federal grant that didn't even directly benefit the Ogden City Police Department but, instead, was designed to enhance the dispatch capabilities for the entire county. Chief Greiner didn't receive a cent of the money in his paycheck nor did his department. He was simply the department and city's point of contact after one pen stroke ended an exemplary career of nearly four decades of distinguished public service.

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, section 2 of S. 2170 will now make it possible for State and local public servants whose job is connected to Federal funding to be able to run for office--while still preventing those who are paid completely by the Federal Government from running for office.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, Chief Greiner's Hatch Act violation, while absurd, has occurred all over the country. I'm happy to say, after this legislation is passed, it should never, ever happen again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation.

Again, I thank Chairman Issa for making this happen and for the work of Ranking Member Cummings.