Today's hearing will examine the scope of the Hatch Act, how it is being enforced, and whether the Act needs to be enhanced or clarified.

Government works best if the American people know that their government works for them regardless of the political party in charge. The Hatch Act is an indispensable tool for making sure that it does.

Equally important is the protection that the Hatch Act provides for federal workers. The Hatch Act is a central part of the merit-based civil service system that replaced the political spoils system long ago. It restricts federal employees' partisan political action in order to protect federal employees from being coerced by their supervisors to participate in political activities.

That is why the political briefings that the White House provided to political appointees across the federal government have increased concern about the scope and enforcement of the Hatch Act. According to press reports, the White House provided briefings on election results and upcoming elections over several years across the federal government. For example, a January 2007 presentation given at the General Services Administration ended with five slides analyzing House, Senate, and Governors' races that they predict to be competitive in the 2008 elections.

The White House briefings seem designed to solicit federal officials to engage in partisan political activities by suggesting that the White House would appreciate their assistance in the competitive races highlighted. Such a practice has no place in any Administration. In order for the Hatch Act to fulfill its purpose, we must ensure that it covers not only explicit coercion, but also more subtle encouragement of federal employees to assist the President's political party in elections.

The Hatch Act represents a careful balance intended to shield federal employees from pressure to use federal time and money for partisan gain, while protecting employees' freedom of expression and right to engage in politics on their own time. Generally, the Hatch Act prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activity on duty or using government resources. Federal employees may not use their authority to affect elections; they cannot run for election in a partisan race; and they cannot solicit or accept campaign contributions. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from encouraging or discouraging political activities from anyone with a grant or contract application or an investigation pending before the agency.

At the same time, federal employees remain free to vote as they choose, express their opinions on candidates and issues, and attend political rallies and meetings while off duty. As a result of amendments passed in 1993, most federal employees are free to take an active part in election campaigns. However, a small number of employees in sensitive jobs related to national intelligence and elections, as well as certain offices that conduct prosecutorial or court-like functions, still cannot actively participate in election campaigns.

The Hatch Act has not been looked at in depth since the 1993 amendments. As we enter the 2008 election season, it is time for Congress to ask whether the statue is doing what it is intended to do, whether it is being enforced properly, whether the 1993 amendments worked well, and whether the statute needs updating.

I am well aware of the concerns expressed by Office of Special Counsel (OSC) employees and several public interest groups regarding the current Special Counsel. I too have concerns and share in their frustration over the length of the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General investigation. While this situation may be relevant to our review of the Hatch Act, I am addressing it in another forum. Today, I would like to focus on the scope of the Hatch Act and its enforcement.

A critical issue is the amount and quality of education that federal employees receive about the Hatch Act. Individual agencies are primarily responsible for providing information to employees about the Hatch Act's restrictions. I am concerned by reports that some employees receive very little or no training about the Hatch Act while others receive only periodic reminders about the Hatch Act's restrictions.

Most employees know that they are not allowed to engage in political work while on duty, but they may not understand-or even know about-the other restrictions. For example, federal employees who know that they are permitted to work on an election campaign while off duty may accidentally violate the Hatch Act because they do not understand that they cannot directly solicit donations for the campaign.

In particular, the line between informal "water cooler" conversation and political activity that is not permitted may be unclear to many employees. Does inviting a few work friends to a campaign rally after work violate the Hatch Act? Does it matter if an employee asks his friends by emailing, rather than while chatting in the break room? Does it matter if the employee invites two friends or twenty? How do employees know where the line is?

This uncertainty may discourage employees from engaging in conversation and off-duty political action that is allowed under the Hatch Act. This chilling effect is particularly likely because the Hatch Act states that an employee who violates the statute shall be removed from his or her position. That penalty can be reduced in a settlement agreement with the Special Counsel or by a unanimous vote of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Although few employees actually lose their jobs under the Hatch Act, many employees may avoid doing anything that approaches the statute's reach for fear of putting their jobs on the line. I believe the Hatch Act should be enforced vigorously, but that punishments should be more effectively targeted to fit the seriousness of the violation at issue.

Finally, I also am concerned about the difference in treatment between civil servants and certain presidential appointees and White House staff when the OSC finds a violation. The MSPB does not have jurisdiction over Hatch Act violations by most Senate-confirmed political appointees and White House staff. Only the President can decide if these officials will be punished for violations of the Act. Furthermore, there are no requirements on the President to take action on the OSC's findings one way or the other. As a result, the President has little incentive to punish his political appointees and staff if they step over the line to help his political party. These officials are covered by the Hatch Act, but there is no way to enforce the statute if they violate it.

I have devoted a great deal of energy to protecting federal employees' rights and benefits over the years, and I believe that the Hatch Act is an integral part of the merit-based civil service system. Any changes to the Hatch Act must be carefully weighed, as the statute reflects a carefully thought out balance between honoring civil servants' right to political engagement and protecting them from political coercion. Given the recent high profile Hatch Act investigation and the upcoming elections, I do believe that a serious evaluation of the statute is long overdue.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss these important issues.

-30-