(4) is knowingly a member of an organization of Government employees that asserts the right to strike against the Government.

My organization happens to believe these provisions are unconstitutional, but accepting this law on the books, and assuming that the subcommittee is not going to suggest the elimination or repeal of that law, there is still much that is done by the Civil Service Commission far beyond these four-really, they are just two-disqualifications from Federal employment.

At one time there was a loyalty program, which encompassed all Federal employees, under Executive Order 9835, which was issued by President Harry S. Truman, and that set a standard of loyalty of reasonable doubt as to loyalty for all Government employees. That was expressly repealed by President Eisenhower when he issued his Executive Order 10450, which is still in effect today, which repealed Executive Order 9835 and replaced it with an Executive order setting up a security program.

The criterion in this security program was what relationship did the individual's job have to national security. That is a security program. It wasn't setting a basic standard of loyalty. And here is where Chairman Macy seemed incapable, I think, of understanding the distinction in the questions that were posed by the chairman.

As a matter of fact, this confusion, this inability to comprehend the limitation of what is presently in effect exists throughout the Civil Service Commission. For example, they have form 85 which is entitled to my mind incomprehensively, "Security Investigation Data for Nonsensitive Position."

This just doesn't make sense. data for nonsensitive positions. They are inconsistent terms. I had thought that the Civil Service Commission was going to eliminate the form or, as I found out, they were going to change the title to "Investigative Data for Nonsensitive Positions." This was on the basis of a phone conversation I had with the General Counsel of the Civil Service Commission a year ago, the form is still the same.

You don't have security investigation

but

They haven't changed it, but even if they did change the title, it wouldn't change the basic error that they ask for a lot of information on the Form 85 that has no reasonable relationship to employment for the Federal Government. It intrudes into the privacy of applicants and employees.

But let me discuss the kinds of questions that are asked of Federal employees, by the Civil Service Commission. As I say, the only congressional authority it has is Public Law 330, with the disqualifications based on advocacy or membership in organizations which advocate the overthrow of the Government by unconstitutional means. and those that assert the right to strike against the Government. There is nothing passed by Congress which gives any broader power.

On the form 57 are two questions, and these are asked of all applicants, whether they are going to be in jobs that have any access to classified material or not:

26. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party. U.S.A., the Communist Political Association, The Young Communist League, or any Communist organization?

27. Are you now or have you ever been a member of any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which is totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or which has adopted, or shows a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or which seeks to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

It is interesting to note that in Public Law 330, that law requires every employee to file an affidavit that he doesn't hold his job in violation of that law, that he doesn't advocate or doesn't belong to organizations advocating the forceful overthrow of the Government, or the right to strike. That affidavit is supposed to be accepted as prima facie evidence that he is not holding his job in violation of that law.

But the Civil Service Commission goes way beyond that in asking these questions, and it isn't just a question of asking about present membership or present advocacy. It also asks "Have you ever."

Now, perhaps, it might make an argument that it is trying to find out about present membership, by finding out what a person did in his past. But there should be some relevancy, some time limit on this. But they aren't asking about the past year or even the past 5 years.

They are asking about, "Have you ever", and this is the form 57 which is open, unfortunately, to every Tom, Dick, and Harry I can think of in the Federal Government. They don't have security control over forms 57. They are open to clerks. And if a person wants to work for the Federal Government, and he has ever belonged to such organizations, assuming he can figure out what they mean, he has to put that information down.

Don't we ever have any time when a person can forget the mistakes of the past and be rehabilitated? The odds are, and I don't know what the experience is, but I think the odds are that people who have ever belonged to organizations that might come under those questions don't apply for Federal employment; they are under the impression it bars them from Federal employment.

Now Chairman Macy will say, well, no, it doesn't; we will look at each fact, which was his answer, for example, on the arrest question, before they finally changed it.

But the fact is that a lot of people are inhibited from going to work for the Government, because perhaps in their youth, or 30 or 40 years ago, they may have joined organizations that are encompassed by those questions, assuming you know which organizations are. There is no definition as to what a totalitarian organization is.

Senator ERVIN. I started to say this question 27 on the form 57 is in the alternative. There are a lot of alternatives.

Mr. SPEISER. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. I really wouldn't know how to define association with a totalitarian. I don't think I can define it or Fascist or subversive.

Mr. SPEISER. I might suggest that a religious group which has edicts sent down from the top might be listed as a totalitarian organization. I don't know. But how do you define "totalitarian"? If it is undemocratic in how it is run, its edicts are made by a small group which determines policy of the organization, that might be considered totalitarian in contrast to a democratic organization.

How do you define a Fascist organization? When labels were tossed loosely around, as I recall one of the favorite epithets of labor organizations about the National Association of Manufacturers and the chamber of commerce was that they were Fascist organizations.

I don't know. How do you define this? It is not defined here, and it is obviously not limited. How do you define subversive? That is a term that has been thrown around a great deal. The definition of subversive in the dictionary means to attempt to overturn the existing order. It isn't restricted to force and violence, but there are a lot of people that would change the existing order.

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. SPEISER. I might suggest that two constitutional amendments that were proposed by a Member of your body, and which were voted on in the past year, would change what I conceive to be the existing order. One, equal State legislative districts and the other, the prayer amendment-not by force and violence, but by constitutional amendment, but they would make

Senator ERVIN. This bill itself would

Mr. SPEISER. I would hate to call the bill a subversive bill because people grab on these labels, and the first thing you know I would be quoted as saying that this is a subversive bill, but I think as far as a dictionary definition is concerned, to grant and to try to effectuate constitutional rights for Federal employees, in a way that they haven't been protected before is truly a major change, I would think, in how our Government operates.

The Supreme Court recognized that the determination of loyalty is a very sensitive kind of thing, that you don't do it loosely; it has certainly said that administrators don't assume that they have the power to determine this, unless Congress specifically tells them they do, and in what way and on what standards, and here is where I think the Civil Service Commission has hoisted itself by its own petard. They have not been given the kind of congressional authorization to ask the questions of this kind and to conduct the kind of investigations that they have.

They are not asking people solely about organizations on the Attor ney General's list and, as I mentioned in my testimony, the status of that list is very much in doubt.

The last word the Supreme Court has given on this list was in 1951, in which they held that the Attorney General, before he could list organizations, must give them a hearing. This is really totalitarian when you list organizations without giving them an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to defend themselves.

Well, most organizations on the Attorney General's list are out of existence and have been for many years. They are still carried on the list, simply because they are not in existence to challenge their being on the list. And, then, as far as other organizations are concerned, there still has not been hearings, some kind of administrative hearings. to challenge the listing on the Attorney General's list.

One problem is that for organizations that do attempt to challenge the Attorney General's list of organizations place themselves in jeopardy under the Internal Security Act. Those individuals, by acknowledging that they are representing such organizations whether

or not they are officers would be required to register under the Subversive Activities Control Act, which is part of the Internal Security Act of 1950.

So, consequently, the Attorney General's list goes on unchallenged, even though the Supreme Court says that these organizations all have a right to a hearing before they were listed.

The governmental inquisitiveness on organizations doesn't just end with organizations which are on the Attorney General's list, because on the instructions for the form 57 there is this instruction, referring to the Attorney General's list:

Your use of this list does not release you from the responsibility of listing your past or present membership in any other organization which you have reason to believe comes within the meaning of these questions.

And then in case you have missed anything there, you are asked in the instruction for question 19 on the employment form:

You may include at the end of your employment history, any pertinent religious, civic, welfare, or organizational activity which you have performed, either with or without compensation. Show actual time spent in such activity. I suppose the reason for this is, under the broad statement that Chairman Macy made, the Commission wants to know as much as possible about the background of individuals for Federal employment. The real question is Why? Every time you ask someone questions like this whether it appears to be in this voluntary form here or whether it is actually required as it is under the form 85, there is an infringement on privacy and an infringement on freedom of speech, belief and association. To the extent that individuals are apprehensive they are going to have to, at some future time, tell the Government about what organizations they have belonged to or been associated with that is going to inhibit them in their willingness to explore all kinds of ideas, their willingness to hear speakers, their willingness to do all kinds of things. That has almost as deadening an effect on free speech in a democracy as if the opportunities were actually cut off.

The feeling of inhibition which these kinds of questions cause is as dangerous, it seems to me, as if the Government were making actual

edicts.

The form 85, which I have mentioned before, has the question:

8. Organizations with which affiliated (past and present) other than religious or political organizations or those which religious or political affiliations (if none, so state).

Now I raised the question in my statement as to whether the term "political organizations or affiliations" referred to there is limited only to those connected with political parties. When Mr. Autry asked this question of Chairman Macy he gave no response to indicate otherwise. I did not get a clear answer out of him, but his statement said: Yes, we want to know about all these organizations because it gives us a better idea about the individuals, the Federal employees.

So the question on the form 85 is not a restrictive one. They want to know about all organizations. The exception of those that show religious affiliations, doesn't really help much, because there are a lot of organizations that have some connection with religious bodies that

have no requirement that members be adherents of those particular religions.

For example, anyone can join the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Anybody can join and contribute to the Friends Committee for National Legislation. Anybody can contribute to many of the social action groups connected with various religious faiths. So that really doesn't help much.

And this form, as with all other Federal forms, requires that when you sign it you say your statements are true, complete and correct, to the best of your knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. If you leave out anything, then the Civil Service Commission, it seems to me, utilizes this in an improper fashion.

It isn't just a question of knowing the individuals, what their background is. I have had cases where they have used this question and the employment question and the Communist Party question as whipsaws. If you leave out anything, then charges are brought against you on the grounds that you have filed a false and fraudulent statement, and thereafter the Civil Service Commission asserts the right to bar individuals from Federal employment for a 1-year period up to a 3-year period.

As a practical matter, it is a barring for the rest of the person's life. And that is done without due process. We have had cases challenging not only the lack of due process, but the right of the Federal Civil Service Commission to bar people from Federal employment on grounds such as these, for any period of time, but so far have been unsuccessful in getting court determinations on that.

Now I haven't discussed the suitability program, which much of this information is focused toward, and how it operates. I have three cases which I discuss at some length in my statement, in which not only, in our view, are the kinds of information improper that the Commission utilizes in raising questions about suitability for Federal employment, but also the kinds of questions that are asked that are a part of the investigation itself.

For example, asking a young woman:

1. The extent of your knowledge of the Communist Party membership and activity of your father, your father's views concerning communism and the aims and the purposes of the Communist Party to the best of your knowledge, and the extent to which your father has influenced you or attempted to influence you concerning communism and the aims and purposes of the Communist Party.

2. The names of the associates of your father known and believed by you to be members of the Communist Party or sympathetic to communism and the aims and purposes of the Communist Party and the nature and extent of your association with these individuals.

Now the only thing that they could even ask this woman concerning herself was that she had attended a single gathering 6 years before, in which an alleged member of the Communist Party had spoken, and in which this young woman had purportedly "organized a progressive youth movement."

This is the quote. They didn't identify what made it progressive and how they defined "progressive," and I never really thought progressive was such a bad term. I thought that most people have some visions of themselves as being progressive, but this was the derogatory information sent for which they ask an explanation.