[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21093-21095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HATCH ACT REFORM ACT OF 2009

  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1345) to amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the 
discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under the 
provisions of law commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act''.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1345

       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 ``District of Columbia Hatch 
     Act Reform Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE SUBJECT 
                   TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY 
                   AS APPLY TO STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Applicability of Provisions Relating to State and Local 
     Employees.--Section 1501(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``a State or territory'' and inserting 
     ``a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory''.
       (b) Provisions Relating to Federal Employees Made 
     Inapplicable.--Section 7322(1) of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (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;''.

[[Page 21094]]



     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act--
       (1) shall take effect on the effective date of a law, 
     enacted by the government of the District of Columbia after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, which places 
     restrictions on political activities of employees of the 
     government of the District of Columbia; and
       (2) shall apply with respect to actions occurring on or 
     after the effective date referred to in paragraph (1).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATSON. I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the consideration of H.R. 1345, 
which is designed to ensure that employees of the District of Columbia 
are subject to the same rules of political activity under the Hatch Act 
that apply to all other State and local government employees, thereby 
ending the discriminatory treatment they have received since 1993.
  In October of 1993, Congress passed the Hatch Act Reform Amendments, 
allowing Federal employees to take part in political campaigns on their 
off-duty, personal time. The legislation of 1993 did continue to 
prohibit Federal employees from seeking public office in partisan 
elections. However, it also retained a measure which subjected D.C. 
employees to Federal Hatch Act provisions. This ignored the District's 
authority to self-govern and enact its own local laws; not to mention 
that employees in all other State and local jurisdictions are subjected 
to laws written by their own State and local governments and are not 
subject to the Federal Hatch Act like D.C. government employees. H.R. 
1345 ends this disparate treatment by placing D.C. employees under the 
same Federal Hatch Act restrictions that apply to all other States and 
localities.
  This bill was offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) on March 5, 2009. Having been considered by the 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of 
Columbia, chaired by Representative Stephen Lynch, the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform under Chairman Towns ordered the bill 
reported to the full House by voice vote on June 4, 2009.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1345 is a commonsense measure, treating employees 
of the District of Columbia the same way that other State and local 
government employees are treated. The difference in treatment under the 
Hatch Act has persisted for far too long. I urge my colleagues to help 
end the disparate treatment by supporting this measure.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill authored by Eleanor Holmes 
Norton that is, in fact, timely or perhaps beyond its time. This was 
passed by our committee on a voice vote and is supported by all members 
of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, home rule by the District of Columbia will not be 
complete until we harmonize as many rights and responsibilities as we 
can to the District. Our committee is dedicated to do that 
harmonization, to look for inequities, either by too much or too 
little, much of it well-intended in the past, some of it even needed in 
the past. But as the District of Columbia takes on its immediate 
responsibilities, we must also treat it appropriately and not have it 
governed by special rules. This narrowly constructed change will, in 
fact, cause the Hatch Act to be identical in the way it is implemented 
throughout the country, being implemented toward the District of 
Columbia. I think every American appreciates that if you lived in a 
city in Maryland or in a city in Virginia, you would have the same 
expectation of the rules of national governance as you should have here 
in the Nation's capital if you're involved in similar activity.

                              {time}  1515

  For that reason, on a bipartisan basis, we support this simple but 
technically necessary fix.
  I reserve my time.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the distinguished 
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton from the great District of 
Columbia recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. First off, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her work on this bill and for managing this bill as well 
and explaining it to the House.
  I'm very grateful to the ranking member of the full committee for his 
work on this bill and his cooperation in helping us to move this bill 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more or nothing less than a holdover 
from the old pre-Home Rule days in the District of Columbia. The 
Congress passed the Home Rule Act and intended that local laws would be 
a matter for the District of Columbia, and somehow, this got left out 
of the mix. And the OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, and its 
council's office has been vexed--that's the only word for it--vexed by 
these complaints that these sometimes come and sometimes don't.
  For example, advisory neighborhood commissioners, peculiar to the 
District of Columbia, are ``elected officials.'' They're unpaid. If you 
look at the council of the District of Columbia, almost all of them 
were advisory neighborhood commissioners. But somehow, people bring 
complaints against them when they run for office because they're not 
regarded in Federal law as elected officials. They're elected 
officials; unpaid, but they're elected officials. They run for office. 
Those are not matters that you would expect a Federal regulatory agency 
to pay any attention to. And I don't want the OPM, in fact, spending 
the time of its special council on the arcane laws of the District of 
Columbia.
  What this law says is you, D.C., will have to have your own Hatch 
Act. The Hatch Act was one of the great reforms in government. Perhaps 
there's no reform ever in government that's been more important than 
the Hatch Act. This bill can't go into effect until the District of 
Columbia has its own Hatch Act for its own local law, the way 
California and all the States of the Union have their own version of 
the Hatch Act. As I heard the ranking member say, When you're getting 
Federal money and you're involved in Federal matters--and often matters 
in the State are Federal matters--the Hatch Act applies as always.
  When you're dealing in D.C. with D.C. management, you need your own 
Hatch Act, and you need OPM to deal with the often more serious matters 
that affect the Federal Government when millions of dollars may be 
involved in Hatch Act violations.
  I want to thank my good friends from California, both of them, for 
their work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009 
eliminates anomalous treatment of the District of Columbia which, alone 
among U.S. jurisdictions, still falls under the Federal Hatch Act as an 
uncorrected leftover provision from before the Congress made the 
District an independent jurisdiction that today enacts its own local 
laws. Fortunately, the House recognized that the present Federal Hatch 
Act jurisdiction over the District was inappropriate and obsolete and 
removed this Federal responsibility several years ago, but the Senate 
failed to act. H.R. 1345 will eliminate the double indignity of placing 
a local burden on the Federal Government while depriving the District 
of a responsibility that only local jurisdictions familiar with local 
laws can be expected to handle appropriately. H.R. 1345 retains Federal 
Hatch Act authority concerning prohibited partisan and political 
activity that applies to every State and locality upon receipt of 
Federal funds or functions, and importantly, requires the District to 
enact its own local version of the Hatch Act barring similar local 
violations before H.R. 1345 can become effective. Local Hatch Act 
violations in the District are rare, but the District needs its own 
Hatch Act to fully account and be responsible for local violations, 
with which only a local, objective body would be familiar.

[[Page 21095]]

  H.R. 1345 leaves in place the Federal Hatch Act restrictions that 
apply to other jurisdictions on the use of official authority, 
specifically as it relates to elections; the solicitation, acceptance, 
or receipt of political campaign contributions; the prohibitions on 
running for public office in partisan elections; and the use of on-duty 
time and resources to engage in partisan campaign activity when Federal 
funds or responsibilities are involved. My bill would remove only the 
Federal Hatch Act jurisdiction that applies to the District of Columbia 
and would require the District to enact its own local Hatch Act, 
similar to those in other jurisdictions, instead of requiring the 
Federal Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and its Special Counsel to 
devote staff time and other resources to investigation, fact-finding 
and judgment of unfamiliar local matters.
  In fact, OPM has asked for the Federal guidance my bill offers. In 
recent cases, OPM was confused by protests after citing an ANC 
(Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner) for violations of the Hatch Act 
when he ran for higher office, even though ANCs are ``elected 
officials'' under D.C. law and therefore should be permitted to run for 
higher office. As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion, 
the application of the Hatch Act to ANCs has been selectively enforced 
by OPM. For example, although OPM has filed cases charging Hatch Act 
violations against an ANC running for the D.C. Council, it more often 
has not filed when several members of the current D.C. City Council ran 
for the D.C. Council from positions as ANCs. These examples show the 
difficulty created because Congress has failed to conform D.C.'s local 
jurisdiction created by the Home Rule Act of 1974 with the OPM's 
Federal jurisdiction over Federal Hatch Act matters today.
  This is an uncomplicated and straightforward bill. It is not 
controversial, and it has been enacted by the House before. I ask that 
the House approve H.R. 1345.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
support this much-needed measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1345.
  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.

                          ____________________