you." Needless to say, that woman needed an attorney desperately, as shown by the highly improper questions which these investigators asked her during the six-hour interview.

If Section 1 (k) of S. 3779 is adopted, it is to be hoped it will end any further infringements of the Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of counsel.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Many executive agencies have issued regulations on "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct." None, however, has gone as far as the Uniform Regulations issued by the Department of State, Agency for International Development and United States Information Agency. (Part 10, Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, effective April 20, 1966.) They include some rather surprising sections infringing on right of free expression of employees of these three agencies.

§ 10.735-211, "Expression of Thoughts and Views" contains the following provisions:

"(d) Lectures and interviews abroad

(2) Restrictions. An employee abroad may not publicly speak on, or discuss, issues on official matters outside his fields of responsibility. Security regulations are to be closely observed in the dissemination of any information to the general public.

"(3) Topics to be avoided. An employee abroad may not allude in public speeches or newspaper interviews to disputes between governments, to active political issues in the United States or elsewhere, or to any matter pending at any overseas post, except by the direction or with the authorization of the ambassador, or his designee.

An employee shall not publicly

"(f) Public criticism of another employee. criticize any other employee of the United States. If an employee finds it necessary to criticize, or prefer charges against, any other employee, he shall do so only in a personal and confidential letter to the head of the overseas establishment, or the appropriate personnel office in Washington.

"(g) (3) Correspondence.

(i) In corresponding with anyone other than the proper official of the United States with regard to the public affairs of a foreign government or active political issues in the United States, an employee shall use discretion and judgment to ensure that neither the United States nor the employee will be embarrassed or placed in a compromising position.

"(ii) An employee abroad should not correspond directly on such matters with officials of other agencies but should have such correspondence cleared in Washington for transmission to the interested agency. This does not affect an employee's right to correspond with a Member of Congress (5 U.S.C. 652(d)). Inquiries on such subjects from persons who are not employees of the United States should be acknowledged and the inquiries referred to the appropriate office in Washington."

There may be some justification for setting some guidelines for employees of these three agencies, in what they should say and write as responsibilities of particular jobs. But even if that were true, certainly these regulations go far beyond that in infringing on First Amendment freedoms of such employees. Each of them would be subject to constitutional challenge in the event that any employee were dismissed for violation of them.

We do not know if similar restrictions exist in regulations for other agencies. If they do, this committee should be greatly concerned. I do not find in any of the provisions of S. 3779 specific protections for government employees in the right to freedom of speech and press. We urge the Committee to give serious consideration to amending the bill in order to protect First Amendment rights of federal employees.

COERCION OF EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT TO UNRELATED DUTIES

Section 1(b) of the bill bars the holding of meetings designed to indoctrinate federal employees in respect to any matter other than the performance of their duties.

Section 1(d) bars attempts to require employees to participate in any activities or undertakings not directly within the scope of their employment.

Section 1(e) would bar requiring reports of any employees concerning activities or undertakings not directly within the scope of their employment. All of these

are eminently worthwhile in preventing attempts at indoctrination of government employees. They are still American citizens; they are not sheep; they should be able to pick and choose their own exposure to ideas. Under no circumstances should they be subjected to any kind of governmental compulsion, direct or indirect, to force them to participate in any assemblage, discussion or lecture unassociated with the duties of their jobs.

Section 1(h) would bar attempting to force employees to support any candidate, program or policy of any political party by personal endeavor or contribution.

Section 1(i) would bar attempts to coerce employees to contribute to the purchase of United States Savings Bonds or to make charitable contributions. Both of these prohibitions are also excellent and receive our firm support. We have had a number of cases reported to us of the attempts to coerce employees as well as servicemen to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds in order to make creditable records for their superiors. This is the kind of overbearing pressure to which no federal employee should be subjected.

We also endorse Section 1(j) which would bar requiring the disclosure of financial assets by most government employees.

CONCLUSION

The Chairman and the subcommittee are to be thoroughly congratulated for the fine work they have done in producing and introducing S. 3779. Also, the thirty-four co-sponsors are to be congratulated as well.

We have urged that this bill be amended in some respects and broadened in others, in order to protect the rights of all American citizens in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy. If this bill is not the best vehicle for that, then we respectfully suggest that a similar bill be drafted for the protection of the public.

No one has better expressed what is at stake here than did Justice Brandeis, forty years ago, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 at 478: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They know that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Speiser, is the ACLU taking a position on the proposed data center which has received so much publicity recently? Mr. SPEISER. Yes, we did. I will send you a copy of the statement that we sent to the House Government Operations Subcommittee in which we expressed our opposition to the Federal Data Center and I will be glad to include that as an amendment to my remarks.

Mr. AUTRY. Good. Were you present when we discussed with Mr. Macy the proposed modernizing and management information system for Federal civilian manpower report this afternoon?

Mr. SPEISER. I was.

Mr. AUTRY. In that, you will recall 100 percent of the employees GS-5 and above would have their work history put in computers. Can you give us your own personal opinion on the potential consequences of whether it is desirable, or whether we should raise warning flags?

Mr. SPEISER. Well, it depends on what they conceive to be their work history.

Mr. AUTRY. This includes what is work history. It includes also his minority status. It includes his complete educational background. It includes his vital statistics, and that is to be computerized, I take it for informational purposes. I am not so sure what those purposes are supposed to be.

Mr. SPEISER. Well, it raises the question about confidentiality. Are you going to be able to identify a work history with a particular individual. And it also raises, it seems to me, another question about the permanence of what an individual does.

For example, I would assume the work history would have a judg ment, the judgments made about the efficiency reports of Government employees, and that will follow him for the rest of his life, and there may be an efficiency report which is in there by a supervisor who didn't like him, and yet he will bear the burden of having that with him for the rest of his life.

Mr. AUTRY. Right. Now, presently you can enter, can you not, into the present work history reports that are not computerized, statements in rebuttal to allegations that may be made? I would doubt that you could rebut what might be fed into a computer.

Mr. SPEISER. And even if you had rebuttal, the fact is that you have both of those there for the rest of your life, I assume.

Mr. AUTRY. That is right.

I

Mr. SPEISER. The derogatory judgment made plus your rebuttal. find it appalling that individuals would have their whole life as a permanent record for the rest of their lives in some governmental hand. I think we have all done things that we would prefer to forget, and part of life is making mistakes. Part of life is doing things that perhaps in a later day we would consider to be foolish or unwise, and yet more and more there is this trend of permanence for everybody, so that you have a record somewhere by some governmental agency about everything that you have ever done.

I think the effect of this is to make our society less free, because people who are going to watch their step, because they are aware of the fact that there is going to be put in a record, are going to avoid experimentation, are going to avoid mistakes, and to that extent we will have a less dynamic society. It will be a stultifying society, and that, it seems to me, is not desirable for a democratic society.

Mr. AUTRY. What the machine eventually spits out on more and more people, is available to more and more agencies, more and more corporations and individuals, and is determined in the first instance by a human being who places and chooses the raw data that goes into the computer.

Mr. SPEISER. In which a judgment is made.

Mr. AUTRY. Yes, and then when it comes back out, it is a human being who interprets it.

Mr. SPEISER. You know this is very much like something that now exists in the so-called raw, unevaluated information in investigative files about individuals. The FBI in particular resists attempts to get at the raw unevaluated files about people, because they say "We collect everything. We collect gossip, we collect every bit of information that comes along," and there is no process for elimination so that if someone wants to say that an individual has leftwing ideas, that goes in. It stays in.

Ör if someone says he is a friend of a notorious gangster or a Communist, that stays in whether it is true or not. It is checked out, and even if it is untrue, it stays in. And these allegations come back to haunt people.

There is an example just recently in what was done by another Senate subcommittee in releasing evaluations made of some eight individuals I believe who were being considered for State Department positions. They were checked out and were screened and were found to be clear. Nevertheless the fact that allegations had been made and a State Department employee thought that there had been too quick a waiver made for a security clearance, all of that is a permanent record, including the original allegations, which were washed out by that same State Department employee who had raised the question. Nothing is ever forgotten.

Here are people who were being considered for State Department positions in this day and age are hurt by the original allegations which were found to be of no substance. I find this reprehensible about the permanence of Government records that individuals are hurt by them, that there are no mistakes that can't be washed away with time, and they are sitting there subject to whatever changes there may be in governmental policy as far as disclosure is concerned.

I think there is a trend, not only a trend, but also a practive that exists now. It is something that should be not only resisted as far as extension is concerned, it ought to be cut back.

Mr. AUTRY. With respect to your reference on page 13 to the Skallerup memorandum, which has been implemented in each of the services, I believe-have any other departments adopted such rules?

Mr. SPEISER. First of all, I don't even know whether the three services adopted such rules. They said they did.

Mr. AUTRY. But they haven't released them?

Mr. SPEISER. No.

Mr. AUTRY. So that you don't know what the rules are?

Mr. SPEISER. I don't know what the rules are, nor do I know, for example, whether any of the three services use the questions that Walter Skallerup had used as examples of questions that should never be asked. I don't know whether any of the three services, much less any other Government agency, ever issued instructions in which they gave these examples, in saying you are never to ask a person "Do you believe in God," for example, which is one of the questions that he had listed.

Mr. AUTRY. I think you were here this morning when the chairman read proposed regulations now being implemented in two sections of the country, urging Treasury employees to participate in the NAACP and the Urban League. Did you feel left out? [Laughter.]

Mr. SPEISER. If the ACLU had been included, we would still object to it. I would view with great horror Government employees joining the ACLU in droves because it was suggested or they were ordered to. I think that they might affect the independence of our organization in challenging what we conceive to be improper governmental actions and unconstitutional laws.

The people joined our organization, who did not really believe in what we stand for and the policies that we have, but were doing it because it was considered to be desirable to join, by some Government bureaucrat, they undoubtedly would have an effect on our policies at some time, and I think it would make us a less independent, less gadfly, a less thorn-in-the-side kind of organization than I think we should

be. So I do not have any regrets that we were not included within that suggested order.

Mr. AUTRY. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Do you agree with me that the Government ought not either to expressly or impliedly undertake to tell its employees what they should do in respect to any outside activities not directly associated with the performance of their work?

Mr. SPEISER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, I oppose the Government's requiring or requesting Government employees to support even the things I deem most righteous and most worthy because I recognize, as Madison said, that we have to resist the first encroachments of liberty if we want to keep liberty. That is the reason I fear things like the directions or requests, whatever they call them, that are included in this proposed manual of the Treasury.

I just feel you can't have true liberty where a government is undertaking to direct what kind of activities anybody should engage in, regardless of whether those persons are Government employees or nonGovernment employees, if the activities as such are not directly related to their governmental duties.

Mr. SPEISER. I quite agree, Mr. Chairman. We have had an example of that, although it was not, as I recall, so much directed toward Federal civilian employees as military personnel.

A few years ago there were a number of so-called seminars which were sponsored by military posts. Great Lakes was one of them. There was another one of them in Dallas, in which they set up antiCommunist programs primarily with Fred Schwaltz and his anti-Communist crusade, which is rather a controversial one.

He represents a point of view that is not widely accepted in the country, and which some people view with horror. A number of military posts were sponsoring lectures with him, and the problem primarily was whether they were encouraging or ordering military personnel to attend. Then there was General Walker, as you may recall, with his lectures over in Germany.

But I think that the power to encourage employees to go to "good" lectures, or lectures for good and desirable ends that you and I might agree are good and desirable also, would encompass the power to encourage them to go to things that you and I would disagree should be encouraged. It is that power that I don't think the Government should have toward Federal employees.

Senator ERVIN. As I see it, it is an infringement on one's right of freedom of association or his freedom not to associate in the first place. Also, I think it is an infringement on the right of freedom of speech, to even request participation in outside activities. It seems to me that if we have any ultimate security in this country, it is in the principles of the first amendment and especially in the principle of the right of freedom of speech. This bill is a recognition that a Federal employee has the same freedom guaranteed all citizens under the Constitution to think his own thoughts, and reach his own conclusions. I think that that is the greatest security we have and any kind of encroachment on that freedom on the part of the Government, is just abhorrent to me.