[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 164 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H7320-H7323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HATCH ACT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 2170

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hatch Act Modernization Act 
     of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. PERMITTING STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES TO BE CANDIDATES 
                   FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE.

       Section 1502(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) if the salary of the employee is paid completely, 
     directly or indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United 
     States or a Federal agency, be a candidate for elective 
     office.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE AND 
                   LOCAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) State or Local Agency.--Section 1501(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or the 
     executive branch of the District of Columbia, or an agency or 
     department thereof'' before the semicolon.
       (b) State or Local Officer or Employee.--Section 1501(4) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) an individual employed by an educational or research 
     institution, establishment, agency, or system which is 
     supported in whole or in part by--
       ``(i) a State or political subdivision thereof;
       ``(ii) the District of Columbia; or
       ``(iii) a recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural 
     organization.''.
       (c) Exception of Certain Officers.--Section 1502(c)(3) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking `` `or municipality'' and inserting ``, 
     municipality, or the District of Columbia' ''; and
       (2) by striking `` `or municipal'' and inserting ``, 
     municipal, or the District of Columbia' ''.
       (d) Merit Systems Protection Board Orders.--Section 
     1506(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``(or in the case of the District of Columbia, in 
     the District of Columbia)'' after ``the same State''.
       (e) Provisions Relating to Federal Employees Made 
     Inapplicable.--Section 7322(1) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (4) by striking ``services;'' and inserting ``services or 
     an individual employed or holding office in the government of 
     the District of Columbia;''.
       (f) Employees Residing in Certain Municipalities.--Section 
     7325(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) the municipality or political subdivision is--
       ``(A) the District of Columbia;
       ``(B) in Maryland or Virginia and in the immediate vicinity 
     of the District of Columbia; or
       ``(C) a municipality in which the majority of voters are 
     employed by the Government of the United States; and''.

     SEC. 4. HATCH ACT PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       Chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking section 7326 and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 7326. Penalties

       ``An employee or individual who violates section 7323 or 
     7324 shall be subject to removal, reduction in grade, 
     debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 
     5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $1,000.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Applicability Rule.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendment made by section 4 shall apply with respect to any 
     violation occurring before, on, or after the effective date 
     of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The amendment made by section 4 shall not 
     apply with respect to an alleged violation if, before the 
     effective date of this Act--
       (A) the Special Counsel has presented a complaint for 
     disciplinary action, under section 1215 of title 5, United 
     States Code, with respect to the alleged violation; or
       (B) the employee alleged to have committed the violation 
     has entered into a signed settlement agreement with the 
     Special Counsel with respect to the alleged violation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. 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

[[Page H7321]]

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. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of S. 2170, the Hatch Act Modernization Act. This 
needed bill is based on recommendations from the head of the U.S. 
Office of Special Counsel, Carolyn Lerner. This legislation was 
introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka, along with the ranking member of 
the Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings. This bill will make three key 
reforms:
  The first reform will allow State and local government workers to run 
for political office. The Hatch Act prohibits any of these employees 
from running in a partisan political election if their jobs involve 
Federal funding. This creates problems for many government workers who 
are otherwise well qualified to run for local office.
  For example, Mr. Jon Greiner had to be fired as police chief of 
Ogden, Utah, because he ran for a State senate seat and won. Ms. 
Kristin DiCenso, an Illinois State employee, was prevented from running 
for court clerk. In response to this barrier, she said, ``I was utterly 
deflated. It's insanity.''
  The second reform would institute a less severe range of penalties 
for Hatch Act violations. Current law requires employees who violate 
the Hatch Act to be terminated unless the Merit Systems Protection 
Board unanimously votes for a lesser penalty. Jon Adler, the president 
of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, testified that 
this penalty system is draconian.
  The third reform made by this bill is to treat District of Columbia 
employees like State and local government employees under the Hatch 
Act.

                              {time}  1550

  This is a commonsense change.
  In closing, I support the Hatch Act Modernization Act, and I hope 
that every Member of the House will support this bill so that it can 
become law.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass the underlying bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. 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. CHAFFETZ. 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.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings, the chief sponsor of the 
bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. 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.

[[Page H7322]]

  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. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. I 
want to applaud Chairman Issa for the oversight and work he has done on 
the Hatch Act reform during this Congress and thank him for working 
with me. I'm particularly pleased that the legislation before us today 
contains a major piece of my legislation, H.R. 498, the State and Local 
Law Enforcement Hatch Act Reform Act.
  Currently, more than six decades since the enactment of the original 
Hatch Act, there is virtually no law enforcement agency that does not 
receive some amount or type of Federal funds. Consequently, almost all 
State or local law enforcement officers are covered under the Hatch Act 
and must quit their jobs to run for the office of sheriff. This reality 
discourages experienced individuals from running for the position and 
places a serious financial burden on them.
  Reform to the current version of the Hatch Act is sorely needed. With 
the passage of the Hatch Act Modernization Act, we will ensure that 
citizens have the opportunity to elect the best candidate as their 
sheriff.
  Further reform to the Hatch Act is still needed, but the Hatch Act 
Modernization Act is a step in the right direction and will do a great 
deal to make sure that highly qualified men and women are able to run 
for the office of sheriff or other elected positions.
  I want to thank Congressman Tim Holden for his partnership with me in 
this Congress on my legislation, Hatch Act reform for State and local 
law enforcement officers, and I look forward to continuing to work on 
this issue in the upcoming Congress.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. NORTON. 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

[[Page H7323]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CLAY. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. NORTON. 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. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, 
and continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this bill. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. 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.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, particularly my friend, Mr. Clay.
  It is not often that we get to come here as a committee and talk 
about something that, in fact, affects perceived government cronyism 
and misconduct, a law that protects the American people against 
politics getting into your government, and then say, but we need to 
reduce it a little. We need to make it a little tighter.
  This is an example where, as many of my colleagues have said, 
unintended consequences have made a good bill into a bill that stifles 
the opportunity and legitimate political activity that occurs by people 
serving in State and local office.
  So I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with my good 
friend from the District of Columbia, and say this is the time in which 
we're making small technical changes that make a big difference to our 
political landscape around the country, and in a good way.
  We want to make sure that we have the opportunity to have everyone 
participate, and I want to thank Members of both parties for bringing 
this bill. And I want to particularly thank my colleague, Mr. Cummings, 
for his effort throughout the entire Congress to get us where we are 
here today.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do urge all Members to join me in support of this 
bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 2170.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________