[House Report 111-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    111-172

======================================================================



 
           DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HATCH ACT REFORM ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

 June 19, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Towns, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1345]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred 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'', having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 
the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Legislative History..............................................     3
Section-by-Section...............................................     3
Explanation of Amendments........................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Roll Call Votes..................................................     4
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................     4
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................     4
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................     5
Unfunded Mandates Statement......................................     5
Earmark Identification...........................................     5
Committee Estimate...............................................     5
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1345, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 
2009, was introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton on 
March 5, 2009. The bill amends the federal Hatch Act provisions 
applicable to both federal and state and local employees to 
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 government employees. Unlike 
any other U.S. jurisdiction, the District of Columbia and its 
employees are subject to the Hatch Act provisions that apply to 
federal employees, rather than those that apply to states and 
localities.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    In 1939, Congress originally enacted legislation known as 
the Hatch Act, which together with subsequent amendments, 
limited the political activities of federal employees, 
employees of the District of Columbia, and certain employees of 
state and local governments. The Hatch Act was intended to 
eliminate partisan political activity among government 
employees in order to assure that public institutions 
functioned fairly, effectively, and without undue political 
interference.
    In October 1993, the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1992 
were enacted to modify the Hatch Act to permit federal 
employees to take an active part in political management and 
partisan political campaigns while off duty. Despite these 
changes, Congress retained provisions of the law which subject 
District of Columbia employees to the same Hatch Act 
restrictions as federal employees. These restrictions were 
maintained without regard to the fact that the District had 
previously been granted the authority to self-govern and enact 
its own local laws.
    While the 1993 amendments to the Hatch Act exempted the 
District of Columbia Mayor, members of the City Council, and 
the Recorder of Deeds from its restrictions, they did not 
include exemptions for other local elected officials such as 
members of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) or members 
of the former District of Columbia Board of Education. Current 
law has caused confusion about the applicability of the Hatch 
Act to District officials. In recent years, some ANC 
commissioners, who are elected, unpaid officials, have been 
affected by the uncertainty over their status under the Hatch 
Act.
    In 2006, an ANC Commissioner withdrew from the race for 
City Council chairman after the federal Office of Special 
Counsel (OSC) stated that it is unlawful under the Hatch Act 
for ANC Commissioners to campaign for a partisan public 
office.\1\ The OSC noted, however, that it was uncertain 
whether it had enforcement authority under the Hatch Act 
because ANC commissioners are elected officials.\2\ Moreover, 
other ANC commissioners have run for partisan office without 
opposition from the OSC.\3\ The OSC has also found that elected 
members of the former DC Board of Education were technically 
prohibited by the Hatch Act from seeking partisan office, but 
the OSC cited a similar lack of enforcement authority regarding 
Board members.\4\ The OSC has noted that the current legal 
regime is unclear with regard to District elected officials.\5\ 
By contrast, Section 1502(c) of the Hatch Act, which is 
applicable to state and local governments, specifically exempts 
an individual holding elective office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\A Leak in the Hatch Act, Roll Call (Aug. 2, 2006) (online at 
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52--16/ath/14593-1.html).
    \2\Id.
    \3\Norton Bill Would Ease Some Hatch Act Rules, Roll Call (Mar. 22, 
2007) (online at http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52--98/news/17674-
1.html).
    \4\A Leak in the Hatch Act, supra note 1.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1345 attempts to rectify this disparate treatment by 
placing District of Columbia employees under the same Hatch Act 
restrictions that apply to all other states and localities. By 
placing the District of Columbia under state and local Hatch 
Act provisions, H.R. 1345 would subject employees of the 
District of Columbia government to the same restrictions on 
partisan and political activity that currently apply to all 
employees of state and local governments who work in connection 
with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or 
grants. The Hatch Act restricts such state and local employees 
from running for partisan elective office, using their official 
authority or influence to impact election results, and directly 
or indirectly engaging in political coercion.
    H.R. 1345 would also remove the provisions of title 5 that 
specifically apply Hatch Act restrictions on federal employees 
to employees of the District of Columbia. H.R. 1345 would make 
implementation of its amendments to the federal Hatch Act 
contingent upon the District of Columbia government enacting a 
local version of the Hatch Act to place restrictions on the 
political activities of District employees.

                          Legislative History

    Earlier versions of H.R. 1345 (H.R. 1572, H.R. 4969) were 
introduced in previous Congresses. H.R. 1572 was introduced on 
March 27, 2007, and referred to the Subcommittee on Federal 
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. H.R. 
4969 was introduced on March 15, 2006, and referred to the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee 
held a markup of the bill on September 21, 2006, and ordered 
the bill reported by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 1345 was introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes 
Norton on March 5, 2009, and referred to the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Federal 
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. The 
Committee held a markup of H.R. 1345 on June 4, 2009, and by 
unanimous consent ordered the bill discharged from the 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the 
District of Columbia. The Committee then ordered H.R. 1345 
reported by voice vote.

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1. Short title

    The short title of the bill is the District of Columbia 
Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009.

Section 2. Employees of the District of Columbia to be subject to the 
        same restrictions on political activity as apply to state and 
        local employees

    Subsection (a) of Section 2 would amend Section 1501(1) of 
title 5, U.S.C., to include the District in the section of the 
Hatch Act covering states, territories, and possessions of the 
United States. Subsection (b) of Section 2 would amend Section 
7332(1) of title 5, U.S.C. to remove the employees of the 
District from the portion of the Hatch Act applicable to 
federal employees.
    Under Section 2, District employees would be subject to the 
same restrictions on political activity that are applicable to 
state and local employees, including restrictions on running 
for elective office, using their official authority or 
influence to impact election results, and directly or 
indirectly engaging in political coercion. These Hatch Act 
provisions apply to state and local employees whose principal 
employment is in connection with an activity which is financed 
in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United 
States or a federal agency.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\5 U.S.C. Sec. 1501(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3. Effective date

    Section 3 would make H.R. 1345 effective on the effective 
date of legislation to be enacted by the District of Columbia 
government in order to restrict the political activities of 
District employees.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    No amendments to H.R. 1345 were offered or adopted in 
Committee.

                        Committee Consideration

    On Thursday, June 4, 2009, the Committee met in open 
session and favorably ordered H.R. 1345 to be reported to the 
House by a voice vote.

                            Roll Call Votes

    No roll call votes were taken.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
    H.R. 1345 is not applicable to the legislative branch in 
relation to the terms and conditions of employment or access to 
public services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and Clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report, including the need to subject District of Columbia 
employees to the same restrictions on political activity that 
are applicable to state and local employees of other 
jurisdictions under the Hatch Act, and to eliminate confusion 
caused by current law.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions 
of this report, including the requirement that the District of 
Columbia enact its own local version of the Hatch Act to 
restrict the political activities of District employees.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Under Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law 
proposed by H.R. 1345. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 
of the Constitution of the United States grant the Congress the 
power to enact this law.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                      Unfunded Mandates Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement on 
whether the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. 
In compliance with this requirement, the Committee has received 
a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1345 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
Clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1345. However, Clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of Clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and Section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and Section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for H.R. 1345 from the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                      June 9, 2009.
Hon. Edolphus Towns,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1345, the District 
of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1345--District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009

    H.R. 1345 would amend the Hatch Act to remove some 
restrictions on the political activities of District of 
Columbia government employees. Under current law, such 
employees are subject to the same restrictions as federal 
employees under the Hatch Act. The bill would amend federal law 
to subject District of Columbia government employees to the 
same Hatch Act restrictions imposed on other employees of state 
and local governments whose principle employment is connected 
to an activity financed by funds from the federal government. 
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill 
would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1345 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART II--CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 15--POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1501. Definitions

  For the purpose of this chapter--
          (1) ``State'' means [a State or territory] a State, 
        the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession 
        of the United States;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART F--LABOR-MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 73--SUITABILITY, SECURITY, AND CONDUCT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER III--POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 7322. Definitions

  For the purpose of this subchapter--
          (1) ``employee'' means any individual, other than the 
        President and the Vice President, employed or holding 
        office in--
                  (A) an Executive agency other than the 
                Government Accountability Office; or
                  (B) a position within the competitive service 
                which is not in an Executive agency; [or]
                  [(C) the government of the District of 
                Columbia, other than the Mayor or a member of 
                the City Council or the Recorder of Deeds;]
        but does not include a member of the uniformed services 
        or an individual employed or holding office in the 
        government of the District of Columbia;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
