FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120024-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: March 10, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4 S 3179
March 10, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
Authority. In the form advocated by Vice
President Rockefeller, this agency would
direct investment into increasing domestic
production as.well as reducing demand.
Other signs of awareness of the conserva-
tion potential are gradually appearing in
both public and private sectors. New York's
Metropolitan Transportation Authority has
started pilot runs of two special subway cars
equipped with experimental -flywheel units
that consume one-third less energy than the
normal cars.
The Energy Research and Development
Administration recently agreed to under-
to de-
lif
C
.,
a
write a program in Pasadena,
will call the roll.
sign a "total energy system" for a downtown
redevelopment area. This would use the The second assistant legislative clerk and third any lFiting political c ntribu-
waste heat generated in producing the area's proceeded to call the roll. tions in room or
electricity to supply domestic hot water and Mr; McGEE. Mr. President, 1: ask used in the discharge of duties. H.R. 8617
space heating and cooling-a system already unanimous consent that the order for would also establish a new board, in ad-
well-developed in Sweden. Two-thirds of the the quorum call be rescinded. ditiori to the Civil Service Commission,
potential energy fed into power plants across The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without to adjudicate alleged violations and-allow
now thrown
rap aidly s fo waste heat. objection, it is so ordered. leave without pay and accrued annual wing lcts to
Is off , Private this country Ind ustries now rpi
political who
up Government-sponsored pilot lot projects to Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I yield to fofor
burn garbage for energy, thus relieving two the Senator from Michigan. While the s o for polonc in H.R. 8617
increasingly burdensome problems at the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- certainly are
prthe minimum necessary
same time-urban waste disposal and energy ator from Michigan is recognized.
requirements. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, since its protections for Federal employees from
The United States was recently rated low- enactment over 36 years ago, the Hatch widespread political pressure, it is inv-
members of the I conservation among nternational the Ener gy eiehy Act has survived largely intact despite portant to note that all the other ac-een Agency. This country wasted as much energy repeated court challenges and several tivities currently prohibited under the a mendments. As early as Hatch Act would be permitted if this bill
_ _.,, _ A ,, n,?nec;nnal ' __4__. rr 0
Lion CU7LS2GR4GC4, iu...,g.. ,,,,., -..>..--_ `- _-- -'- -
ment has a central role to play in encourag- Constitutional challenge to the Hatch Act
.ing conservation techniques and technolo- United Public Workers against Mitch-
gies, this is- one aspect of the energy crisis ell. AS Mr. Justice Reed stated in the
where the most important initiatives lie with court oindividual business concerns, homebuilders, Congress opinion:
i may reasonably desire to limit
motorists and every ordinary citizen. party activity of federal employees so as to
avoid a tendency toward a one-party system.
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD 300 U.S. 75, 100 (1947).
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, in Notwithstanding the Court's decision,
the RECORD of March 4, on page S2854, critics of the act continued to challenge
there appears a statement entitled "The its provisions prohibiting Federal em-
Sinai Accord." The statement is mistak- ployees from taking an active part in po-
enly attributed to the distinguished litical activities. The Hatch Act was
senior Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. amended twice, in 1950 and again in
HUGH SCOTT). I am the author of that 1962, before it was brought once more
statement, and I have asked that the to the Supreme Court in 1973. The Court,
error be corrected in the permanent in U.S. Civil Service Commission against
RECORD. I regret any inconvenience to my the National Association of Letter Car-
colleague that may result from this riers, reaffirmed the Mitchell case and
printing error. again held that the prohibitions against
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cor- political activities by Federal employees
rection will be made. were indeed constitutional. In a 6 to 3
decision, Mr. Justice White, speaking for
the majority, further stated that:
RECESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
stand In recess until the hour of 12
o'clock noon.
There being no objection, thgy,Senate
meridian, when called
Presiding Ofcel( jMr. F
iness
business, H.R. 8617, which the clerk: will moted development of - a professional.
state by title. nonpartisan civil service corps. This bill
The legislative clerk read as follows: would strike out important provisions of
A bill (H.R. 8617) to restore to Federal the existing act, including section 7324
civilian and Postal .Service employees their (a) (2) which prohibits executive agency
rights to participate voluntarily, as private employees from taking "an active part
citizens, in the political. processes of the Na- in political management or in political
tion, to protect such employees from im- campaigns"; and would replace such
proper political solicitations, and for other provisions with specific prohibitions
purposes. against: First, using official authority to
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I suggest affect an election or influence an indi-
the absence of a quorum. vidual's vote or political contribution;
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk second, soliciting of employee political
A major thesis of the Hatch Act is that to
serve this. great end of Government-the
impartial execution of the laws-it is essen-
tial that federal employees, for example, not
take formal positions in political parties, not
undertake to play substantial roles in par-
tisan political campaigns, and not run for
office on partisan political tickets. Forbidding
activities like these will reduce the hazards to
fair and effective government. 413 U.S. 548.
It was thought that the landmark
Letter Carriers opinion of the Supreme
Court would cool the debate over cer-
tain political prohibitions in the act.
However, the following year, State and
local employees were exempted from
most of the act's prohibitions by an
amendment included in the Federal
8617, Federal employees could, among
other things, run for political office, man-
age election campaigns, solicit votes,
participate in fund raising, and endorse
candidates.
The question we must ask ourselves, I
think, is can we risk inviting a return to
the spoils system by gutting the Hatch
Act-which I suggest is the effect of the
pending bill? Judging from the argu-
ments presented by proponents of H.R.
8617, I strongly suggest it is not worth
the risk.
Supporters of the bill claim, for ex-
ample, that the Hatch Act is overbroad
and infringes on a Federal employee's
constitutional rights. It is argued that
the Hatch Act is vague and out of date
and that circumstances have changed
making prohibitions against private po-
litical activities unnecessary. It is fur-
ther claimed that the bill would require
stronger employee protection. I would
like to take some of these arguments and
answer them.
Let us take the most frequently heard
argument first-that the act infringes
upon a Federal employee's political
rights to such an extent as to render
him a second-class citizen. As indicated
earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled
that there is no constitutional difficulty
with the present Hatch Act. Nowhere in
the Constitution does anyone find an in-
herent right to be a Federal employee
and tobe a political activist. Unlike the
private employee, the Federal employ-
ee's salary is paid for by the public with
the expectation - that he or she will be
impartial in the execution of the law
and of administrative programs provid-
ing basic services to the general public.
Indeed, the argument against the
Carriers decision, we have before usa mug the right of a Federal employee to be
piece of legislation which would in effect free from political coercion by his or her
repeal an act which has for years with- coworkers and superiors. Since the co-
stood the scrutiny of Congress and the ercive power of coworkers and superiors
Supreme Court, and which thus pro- is derived from the Government itself,
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1975
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the unfinished
Apro ed For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4
 S 3180 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENa1TE March 10, 1976
the Hatch Act is not restricting Federal how many more violations will occur if that the Senate Select Committee on
employees' rights but actually restrain- the less restrictive H.R. 8617 Is passed. I Presidential Campaign Activities the
a
ing the coercive power of the Govern- agree that times have changed, but since Senate Watergate Committee--In their
silent itself. 1939 the number of employees has tripled final 1974 report recommended that th
the Hatch Act Is not a bar to and the budget is 34 times larger. Chang- Hatch Act be extended to include all Juse
?l political activity. Currently, aFed-ing circumstances Indicate that we need tice Department officials.
cral employee may vote, express opinions, the Hatch Act even more now than in It is time that the Senate face up to
make financial contributions to a po- the past. the political realities of the situation and
litical party, participate In nonpartisan Finally, I cannot agree that H.R. 8617 recognize the dangers Inherent in emas-
a,.tivities, be a member of a political would actually provide stronger employee culating the Hatch Act. Although there
party, be an independent candidate in a protection by Its specific prohibitions, the may be areas under current law that
nonpartisan election and In some cases creation of a new board to adjudicate perhaps need clarification, H.R. 8617 is
even in a partisan election, sign petitions, claims, and additional criminal penalties. not the proper means to that end.
be politically active in nonpartisan ref- How does the act prevent such a subtle I, therefore, urge my colleagues to
erendum, and various other activities. act as indirect coercion. H.R. 8617 would oppose this bill.
So, Federal employees do have a con- not prevent a friend of a superior from Mr. President, it is my strong view
aiderable degree of flexibility. The pro- soliciting political contributions from the that the Hatch Act is basic and impor-certain other litical . activities arse there not to penalize aFed- would ocontributeyout of fear that his very much that in itbe kept intact. I hone
s wisdom the Senate
eral employee but to insure that the superior might overlook his promotion will not pass the pending bill which
integrity, efficiency, and neutrality of upon learning of the employee's refusal would weaken and gut the Hatch Act.
the employee and the agency he works to contribute. I think, at a time when there is, unfor-
for are maintained in carrying out pub- How does the act deal with a situation tunately, a lot of cynicism and distrust
lic responsibilties. where an employee campaigned against of Government and the Institutions that
Thus, this argument of unnecessary a candidate for public office who later make up the Government, certainly this
infringement does not seem to justify becomes that employee's new-boss? Is it would not be the time-if there ever
removing important Hatch Act restric- not likely that the employee will have a were a time-to repeal the Hatch Act
Lions on certain political activities as difficult time working with his new boss? and to turn, the Federal Civil Service
proposed under H.R. 8617. And these In short, I do not find the arguments over to the spoils system.
restrictions cannot be limited to political in favor of replacing the Hatch Act with The people of this country, it seems
activities occurring during working H.R. 8617 provisions convincing. A weak- to me, want to have their faith in gov-
hours. Political coercion does not end ening of the Hatch Act mav appear to ernmental institutions restored, not fur-
when the employee leaves his office. As be an open invitation to widespread ther diminished. The passage of this
Justice Reed stated in the Mitchell de- abuse. Furthermore, there has not been kind of legislation, to me, would be
vision: a large-scale movement on the part of moving a long way in the wrong direr.-
,nae inauence of political activity by gov- Federal employees to weaker. the act. in ion. I hope it will be defeated.
ornment employees, if evil in its effects on a recent poll conducted by the National I thank the chairman for yielding the
i,he service, the employees, or people dealing Federation of Federal Employees, 89 per- rime.
with them, is hardly less so because the ac- cent of its members wanted to continue Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I oppose
tivity takes place after hours. Mitchell. supra the act as it is. Mail from my Michigan .his legislation to revise the Hatch Act
tt 95. constituents also overwhelmingly dis- and permit Federal civilian and Postal
As tar as arguments that the act is approves of H.R. 8617. Service employees to actively participate
vague as to what activities are prohibited. But, whether or not a widespread in partisan political, campaigns and
1: would cite Mr. Justice White in the politicizing, of federal employees occurs "ether activities.
fetter Carriers opinion in which he under H.R. 8617, it is important that It In my view, the Hatch Act was drawn
stated: not even appear that partisan considera- ,o protect both Federal employees and
,they (the prohibitions) are set out in Lions enter into Federal administrative he public, and proposals to alter Hatch
i.orms that the ordinary person exercising decisionmaking. There must be no hint 'pct restrictions should be examined with
rrdinary common sense can sufficiently un- of a conflict of interest if we are to main- in eye toward their effect upon both of
,ierstand and comply with, without sacrifice tain efficient and fair governmental ad- , hese groups.
the public interest. ministration. As Mr. Justice White so No one argues that, in 1939, when the
"h,_- prohibited activities are specified aptly stated in the Mitchell decision: Batch Act was enacted, it was badly
in regulations promulgated by the Civil It is not only important that the Govern- :ceded to prevent abuse of the civil serv-
Vice Commission. The COITn2liSSiori ment and its employees in fact avoid prac- ,.,,e merit system and to protect public
SerSeT
a iceo established a procedure so that ticing political justice, but it is also critical ?mployees from pressures for political
that they appear to the public to be avoiding :avors and contributions. It was recog-
tin individual may address any questions it, if confidence in the system of representa- ,ized at that time that public employees
;about the meaning of the law to the Com- tive Government is not to be eroded to a
mission for clarification. disastrous extent. ere in a unique position: As adminis-
in response to the argument that the ators of laws affecting all citizens their
There are other troubles;)me issues =rapartiality was essential to the effec-
law is out of date, my question is, has raised by H.R. 8617, such as the propriety iveness of Federal programs and to the
human nature changed so much in 36 of allowing a Federal employee seeking ublic's perception of the Federal serv-
years that there is no longer any need political office to remain connected with -,e as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical entity.
to protect against a politicization of the the government through allowances for Moreover, Federal employees were prime
civil service? A brief look at recent collecting accrued annual leave and leave argets for those who would seek to
t=sandals and the low public opinion of without pay. There is also a constitu- 1 oliticize the Federal service and insure
political figures should answer that ques- tional separation of powers question that programs were administered in a
U011, when an executive agency such as the l -..inner which would promote certain
As for the argument that times have Civil Service Commission must submit 1nlitical goals.
changed and Federal employees are pro- proposed implementing regulations to Since 1939, the Federal Government
essionai people less subject to oldtime Congress for approval. I,-ss increased vastly in size and strength
:political coercion, I point to the Survey It seems rather ironic that we are now The fact that there are more civilian
Research Center's figures indicating that debating a bill that would allow and even employees now than ever before and
at least 1.5 percent of all Federal em- encourage Federal employees to become ti,at Federal programs affect more
s;oyees were asked to contribute money political activists and possibly political r"mericans directly and indirectly than
to political campaigns by their superiors, officeholders when not so long ago many t any time in our history argues strong-
and 1.2 percent were requested to par- Senators questioned the propriety of 1: in my view, for continued protection
ticipate in prohibited political activities. nominating a gentleman with a political c Federal employees and the public from
If this number of violations are occurring background to a politically sensitive in- 1. _klitical influences rather than a lessen-
while the Hatch Act is In effect, think telligence post. Nor was it so long ago i of that protection.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4
 March '10 , 19 6 Approved FoE8glees T?J/1 CORED P7SENATER001100120024-4 S3181
Supporters of the bill contend that:
First, Federal employees are denied their
first amendment freedoms and relegated
to second-class citizenship by the Hatch
Act; and second, H.R. 8617 provides ade-
quite protection from coercion by those
who would enlist the involuntary aid of
employees for political purposes. -
The Hatch Act does not prohibit Fed-
eral employees from exercising a whole
range of options relating to political ac-
tivity. They may register and vote, freely
express political opinions, join political
parties and participate in political ral-
lies and fund-raisng activities. They
may not, however, take an active part in
political campaigns; and this provision of
the law has been upheld by, the Supreme
Court as constitutional and consistent
with the public benefit inherent in fair
and impartial administration of Federal
laws. As stated so well by my col-
leagues-Senators Fono and BELLMON--
in their minority views filed with the re-
port on this bill-
The act merely recognizes that . . one
has no inherent right under the Constitution
to be a Federal employee and a political acti-
vist at the same.time.
Moreover, it seems clear that manly,
perhaps a majority, of Federal employees
would prefer no change in current Hatch
Act restrictions. My own mail has run
heavily in opposition to this measure,
and I understand ;that polls taken by
other Members of Congress whose dis-
tricts contain a heavy percentage of Fed-
eral employees have shown that a great
majority favored retention-of the Hatch
Act.
In addition, I am not persuaded that
the prohibitions included in the bill
against solicitation of employees by those
with supervisory authority over them will
adequately protect employees themselves
from coercion. Surely all of us realize
that subtle political pressures are dif l-
cult, if not impossible, to demonstrate
and prove. Recent years have shown that
existing law has been violated more than
once. How much greater will be the po-
tential for violation when current prohi-
bitions against active participation in
political campaigns are removed. I won-
der how an employee passed over for
promotion would undertake proving,that
his failure to support the election of a
candidate whose campaign his supervisor
was responsible for his having been re-
fused the job.
In the wake of Watergate and the
revelations associated therewith, one of
the most important tasks of the Congress
and the executive branch is to rebuild
and restore public confidence in Govern-
ment. I do not believe that we can com-
bat examples of use of Federal funds for
political purposes by lessening existing
protection against political activities by
Federal employees. On the contrary, I
believe that enactment of this legisla-
tion would result in an erosion of public
confidence, an increase in cynicism on
the part of Americans as they view the
Federal service and a weakening of the
merit system on which Federal employ-
ment is based. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the bill.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, we want to
bring up an amendment that the Senator
from Hawaii has.
Mr. President, I wish to say one or two
things today and I prefer not to make it
too long because of the questionable re-
ceptivity of the empty desks that are
around the chamber. These are very wise
desks in the history of the Senate. They
have accumulated a collection of knowl-
edge. But it takes a little longer than
would be possible to serve here in order
to get the point across.
Mr. President, for the RECORD, I would
like to_ mention a couple of things.
We have heard a great deal of polls
being taken about what Federal em-
ployees think about the pending measure.
I have noted in checking various Federal
employee groups around the country,
and .particularly in some close by, that
there has been a common misrepresenta-
tion or a mistake made in the way the
question has often been posed.
I was amazed at the number of Fed-
eral employees who said to me, "Why
are you trying to repeal the Hatch Act?
We oppose the repeal of the Hatch Act."
That is where the gamesmanship has
come into play among certain groups
around the country, leaving the impres-
sion that somebody back here in Wash-
ington is trying to wipe out the Hatch
Act.
I want to say again in unvarnished
terms, the purpose of this legislation is
to upgrade the Hatch Act. The Hatch
Act was one of the wisest and most ven-
erable of the legislative changes made in
the processes of public service. We be-
lieve it is important to keep it intact.
But I have to remind those who may
read this RECORD, Mr. President, that the
abuses of the Hatch Act very rarely
started at the bottom and worked their
way up to the top. The abuses that were
envisaged by the Hatch Act were those
that started at the top, often at the
White House level, and went down
through pressures, aim twisting, threats
and :firings. TI..he Hatch Act was aimed at
protecting the public employee from that
kind of pressure. It was to try to pro-
tect his position in public service from
unauthorized, illegal, or covert efforts to
abridge his own freedom of choice.
The suggestion is made to us from time
to time that the Civil Service 'Commis-
sion has the responsibility for interpret-
ing law and what it means and what kind
of a case the law applies to.
We have several thousand opinions
from the Civil Service Commission; some
of them fall in very uneven ways. There
is the case of a Federal employee who was
pentalized because his wife worked for
the candidacy for President of a contro-
versial public figure. I mentioned the case
of another employee who was hailed be-
fore the Commission because he had is-
sued an obscene statement about one of
the political parties at a cocktail party,
not on the job. I must say that in our
political system probably one of the
healthiest forms of therapy and release
is the ability to criticize a political group
with whatever language you choose.
Given the fact that the Commission
has a difficult, fine line to draw in many
cases, the purpose of this legislation is
to catch up with lessons of our time in
order to make sure what the intent of~
the Hatch Act in fact is.
The intent should never be to inhibit
participation in a relevant, political way
of any Federal employee as long as he
confines himself to the rules on the job.
That is, he cannot use his job as a means
for purveying his political wishes or ac-
tivities in behalf of a candidate. At the
present time, the Hatch Act is inter-
preted as prohibiting a Federal employee
from contending for some levels of pub-
lic service through the election route.
There are variables here. Variables
making it more permissible for him to
run for the board of commissioners or
the school board, or even the State leg-
islature. But there seems to be a general
prohibition against running for Federal
office. .
'Mr. President, this bill simply would
preserve for all Federal employees the
unaltered right of citizenship with only
the caveat attached that it not interfere
with his job; that it not take place on
the premises where he is employed, and
that he himself would not be free to in-
vade other Federal premises for the pur-
poses of furthering his own political
ambitions.
That is as it should be.
It further provides that, if he chooses
to run for Federal office, he should take
a leave of absence from the job, the same
kind of leave of absence that many peo-
ple take at the present time. They dis-
associate themselves from the job so they
might run as a citizen of the United
States. But they have the right to return
to the job without penalties if unsuccess-
ful.
However, there is no option left open
that in the event of success the job will
be left open for an indefinite period of
time. That would be unfair. It simply
means that he must separate on leave
without pay for the duration of his can-
didacy for whatever the office.
That is really what this bill is all
about. It not only pursues the original
intent of the Hatch Act but it enhances
it. The intent is to make sure that we
prohibit meddling from the top, pressure
from above, and the assertion of author-
ity by a superior over one of his own
employees. Those are the matters that
are indeed sharpened and tightened, as
they should be.
We have the Hatch Act operating now
but not without abuses to its intent.
Those abuses have occurred from the top
down, not from the bottom up. There-
fore, it, seems to me that it misses the
point when critics of this proposal con-
tinue to warn us that we are going to
have all kinds of trouble coming from the
lower echelons up through the service.
There is no record of that, Mr. Presi-
dent. In fact, in the legislative history a
few years ago, in the wisdom of Congress,
we separated a lot of public employees
from that implication of the Hatch Act;
that is, State and local employees. We
have yet to receive a case in this in-
stance of any significance where there
were abuses at the bottom.
Thus, the purpose, of the bill is to re-
store the Hatch Act to its original intent
Without hobbling the broadest citizenship
rights and responsibilities of those who
are covered by the Hatch Act. It is spelled
out very clearly.
If we can only eradicate this hogwash
about repealing the Hatch Act, I believe
we will then be getting down to the sum
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4
 S3182
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120024-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 10', 1976
=d substance of the measures included
in this bill.
Mr. President, It was said here In the
Senate late yesterday afternoon that pas-
=awe of the pending bill to amend the
Hatch Act would be a step backward, not
just to 1939 and 1940 when the Hatch
tcc as we know it was enacted, but to
1907-the year Civil Service Rule I. was
promulgated. But is that so? I think that
passage of H.R. 8617 would at long-last
improve and refine the Hatch Act. To
those of us who favor and support this
legislation it is a step forward, in conson-