I am sure that most of you recall that in former hearings we went rather fully into that phase of the Hatch Act and there seemed to be some, practically unanimous, I would say, according to my recollection, feeling that there certainly should be some change in this regard to the Hatch Act.

Fifth, the committee recommends amendment of section 16 to permit partisan political activity on the local level up to the State legislature on the part of Federal employees in federally impacted areas in nearby Maryland and Virginia and elsewhere throughout the United States.

We have a list of witnesses here which is rather long. I hope we can hear from everybody. There may be others who have come in since this list was prepared, but if so, I want you to give Mr. Langston, or Mr. Still your name.

Mr. LESINSKI. May I ask a question before you proceed? If I recall correctly, the Hatch Act was put into-Mr. Still can answer this question-came into effect during the thirties when the WPA days were with us throughout the country and the purpose of it was to, from the opposition, because of the administration in power at that time, to keep WPA officials and so forth from political activity; and in view of the fact that WPA funds were involved with the counties, State, municipal governments, and for that reason carried throughout all the political organizations and boundary lines-is that the significance behind this whole thing?

Mr. STILL. Yes.

Mr. CARTER. This Hatch Act actually was not passed until 1939, but the background that created the need for it is just what Mr. Lesinski described here.

Mr. ASHMORE. Grew out of those conditions that existed in the WPA days, and so on.

Mr. CARTER. Actually, the thing that was discussed most in the Congressional Record at the time the bill was passed was the AAA rather than the WPA.

Mr. ASHMORE. I think that pretty well covers the background and history of it.

Mr. LESINSKI. I wanted to make sure in my mind before you went into the subject, that is all.

Mr. ASH MORE. Thank you.

Gentlemen, and ladies-I don't know whether any ladies have statements or not, but if so we will be glad to hear from you—if you have written statements, you witnesses, we would like to have those so we can have them for the record and then, if you will, make your oral statements as brief as possible because we are going to be here when suppertime comes around if we don't cut down our statements somewhat. I believe everybody wants to be heard from.

The first witness is Mr. Keating, vice president, National Association of Letter Carriers.

STATEMENT OF JEROME J. KEATING, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, my name is Jerome J. Keating. I am vice president of the National

Association of Letter Carriers, an organization with a membership of over 110,000 letter carriers located in every State in the Union, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

We are very much interested in H.R. 696, a bill sponsored by the very able chairman of this committee. We are particularly pleased with section 2 of H.R. 696, which effectually removes the mandatory punishment provisions of the present law. The present law is indeed most unjust, in that it provides for removal in the case of an employee found guilty of violating the Hatch Act, and a mitigation of this penalty is provided for only when the three Commissioners-by unanimous action-consent to reduce the penalty to 90 days' suspen

sion.

To illustrate how unjust this provision can be, I wish to briefly outline what happened to one of the members of our organization. One of our letter carriers who lives in a suburban community in Pennsylvania, adjacent to one of the larger cities, without any knowledge or solicitation on his part, was elected as a school director in 1947 through write-ins. The State of Pennsylvania is the only State in the United States, to the best of my knowledge, where school directors are elected on a partisan basis. When this letter carrier became aware of the fact that he had been elected, he went to his immediate supervisor who consulted the "Postal Laws and Regulations," now the "Postal Manual," but it was at that time the "Postal Laws and Regulations," and found therein that employees could hold office as members of school boards or committees. The supervisor as well as the carrier overlooked the fact that the regulations also provided that participation could not involve political activity.

Following the first election, the letter carrier was successfully elected each term thereafter. He did not at any time actively campaign; he did not take part in preparing the necessary petitions; but his name was carried on the ballot as a Democratic candidate for election to the position of school director. The position was the type that people do not seek, but are talked into. He was secure in his belief that according to the regulations it was perfectly legal. In July 1952, form 61 was issued by the Post Office Department, wherein the employee was asked to sign the form and state that he understood the many restrictions that are placed upon postal employees. The carrier entered thereon that he was serving as a school director and signed the form. This signed form had been in that post office for 5 years when someone made a complaint to the Civil Service Commission in the summer of 1957 and an investigation resulted. Upon learning that the Commission regarded being elected to this position as a violation of the Hatch Act, the carrier declined to serve after being elected, even though he had been elected in that particular year. I might say that the Commission ordered suspension and since that time, since 1957, that carrier has been severely punished by the anxiety and worry he has suffered due to the fact that his case has been under investigation and under appeals and hearings ever since 1957.

To have a penalty of removal-even for 90 days-hanging over the head of a man who has so innocently become involved in this position is indeed most cruel. The passage of H.R. 696 would give the Commission latitude to operate so that, in cases of this sort where

extenuating circumstances are so numerous, the charge could be dismissed. There have been remarkably few violations of the Hatch Act since the legislation was first placed on the statute books.

We are also much interested in section 4 of H.R. 696, and we heartily endorse it. We believe that it would be right and propert to extend the same rights to all Federal employees. This would permit their full participation in State, county and municipal elections. We do not believe that participation in other than Federal elections would be in violation or interference of their positions as employees of the U.S. Government.

We hope that this committee will give early consideration to H.R. 696, and favorably report it to the House of Representatives so that this legislation will become law this year.

I appreciate having had the opportunity to testify on this legislation.

We testified previously when we discussed other phases of the Hatch Act, but in this bill we are particularly interested in those two sections, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you a lot, Mr. Keating. We are certainly glad to have your statement and the very enlightening references therein to an actual case as to what can happen in these circumstances. Any questions before the next witness.

Let me say that I am glad to see Congressman Lankford has come in. He has for years shown great interest in this law, in the Hatch Act, and numerous amendments that he is interested in regarding the act.

Also, Mr. Lipscomb from California, a member of the committee is present. Dick, do you have anything you would like to say? Mr. LANKFORD. No, I came to listen, Mr. Chairman. I may have something a little later on I would like to say but right now I came to listen.

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Campbell?

Mr. MCCART. I am director of legislation for the American Federation of Government Employees and I am presenting our testimony today in Mr. Campbell's absence from the city on official

business.

Mr. ASHMORE. All right, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, FOR JAMES A. CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, IN LATTER'S ABSENCE

Mr. MCCART. I thought it would probably be well in view of the fact that we have previously submitted prepared statements to the committee for me to summarize by reading excerpts from our testimony which are intended to point up the various provisions of H.R. 696.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that we want to express our appreciation to you for your introduction of the legislation and for arranging the hearings. And let me emphasize that we feel H.R. 696 is basically a very sound bill. We have some recommendations to make concerning specific sections of the bill but that does not in

any manner detract from our fundamental position in support of the objectives that you are trying to achieve.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will proceed with the excerpts from the testimony.

Mr. ASHMORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCART. Amendment of the Hatch Political Activities Act is of more than ordinary concern to the American Federation of Government Employees. Therefore, we are especially interested in H.R. 696 sponsored by Representative Ashmore of South Carolina.

Our concern with this bill, as it would be with any similar measure, is that while we concur in the basic viewpoint of the Hatch Act, we are of the opinion that it is in need of some liberalization. It appears entirely possible to effect this needed modification without lessening the safeguards which this law provides. Any consideration of proposals to change the Hatch Act should proceed only in the recognition of its intended protection of Federal employees from the insidious demands of a spoils system such as that which plagued our Federal service until the latter part of the last century.

Repeated efforts were made to remove Federal employment from politics. One of these efforts culminated in the issuance of an Executive order, dated April 16, 1872, by President Grant. While this order proved to be ineffective, it is significant for its statement of the underlying principles of the Hatch Act enacted 67 years later. The order stated in part:

Political assessments, as they are called have been forbidden within the various Departments; and while the right of all persons in official position to take part in politics is acknowledged, and the elective franchise is recognized as a high trust to be discharged by all entitled to its exercise, whether in the employment of the Government or in private life, honesty and efficiency, not political activity, will determine the tenure of office.

It was because conditions continued to retrogress and react unfavorably on the efficient operation of Government departments that legislation became not only necessary but possible, and in 1883 the Federal Civil Service was established on a merit basis.

The Civil Service Commission then issued rules pursuant creating it and the first two rules of the Commission dealt with political activities of Federal employees. They were worded as follows:

Rule 1. No person in said service shall use his official authority or influence either to coerce the political action of any person or body or to interfere with any election.

Rule 2. No person in the public service shall for that reason be under any obligation to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service, and he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so.

It is significant that these first civil service rules placed major emphasis on the need for eliminating the type of political activity which had become the bane of the public service. The fact that these rules were considered to be of such importance to the success of the newly established civil service indicated that unrestricted political activity and a merit system are incompatible. Restriction does not and must. not mean that the Federal employee is not permitted to discharge his duty as a citizen and he must by all means take an active interest in public issues at all levels of government. He should be discerning in

his analysis of issues and appraisal of candidates as well as conscientious in casting his vote in every election.

It is clear that a law which restricts political activity is a protection for Federal employees and is decidedly beneficial so long as it does not deprive them of enjoying otherwise the basic rights of citizenship and of fulfilling the duties which are required of citizens. It is a protection to the extent that it offers every qualified person the opportunity to obtain a position in the Government service because of merit and assures him the retention of that position because of efficient service rather than for reasons of political preferment.

Though we believe sincerely that the fullest protection should be given the Federal employee from the slightest encroachment of the political spoilsman, we are equally concerned that the law must not be too rigidly construed so as to penalize an employee chiefly because he is in the public service.

It is gratifying, therefore, to note that H.R. 696 provides substantial modification of section 9 of the Hatch Act which, in our opinion, has from the outset been altogether too severe in its penalty and necessarily too harsh in its application. Removal of the requirement of a 90-day suspension for the slightest infraction of the law is a muchneeded improvement. It represents considerable progress from the original penalty of removal from the service which had to be imposed in every case in which a positive finding had been made. The fact is that the 90-day suspension represents a much heavier penalty than is imposed in many violations of the Criminal Code. For example, it actually represents a fine of $2,000 for the employee who receives an $8,000 salary.

Substantial improvement in section 9 would also be made in the amendment striking out the phrase "by unanimous vote." This change would also lessen the severity of the current law and, in many cases would eliminate the present costly procedure an employee must follow in his effort to clear himself of the charge. At present the employee must be removed before he may utilize the appellate process available. By removing the requirement that the Commission only by a unanimous vote can make a determination that the violation does not warrant removal, it becomes possible for the Commission to delegate its authority, an action which is not now permissible.

Section 4 of the bill includes another amendment in which the American Federation of Government Employees has an interest. The amendment would permit participation in partisan political campaigns up to and including State offices. At present this is permissible only on a local level. There is one aspect of this amendment which should be given serious consideration. As now written, the bill, in rewording subsection (a) (3) of section 16 of the act, would prohibit an employee from engaging in partisan politics "on any Federal property." This phrase could adversely affect the employee who resides on a Federal reservation such as a veterans hospital or a Federal prison. If he received unsolicited campaign literature in the mail at his home, he might be running the risk of a constructive violation of the law.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the intent of the language of the bill. We feel that some clarification might be desirable so that the Federal employees who happen to reside on