Act of 1949 (42 U. S. C., sec. 1445); (2) section 9A of the act entitled “An act to prevent pernicious political activities," approved August 2, 1939 (5 U. S. C., sec. 118j), known as the Hatch Act; and (3) section 305 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U. S. C., sec. 188), known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

Section 612 of the Housing Act of 1949 is repeated, in substance, in paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, of the first section of H. R. 6590.

Section 9A of the Hatch Act prohibits employment of persons who are members of "any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States."

This provision is reenacted in paragraph 2 of the first section of H. R. 6590. Section 305 of the Taft-Hartley Act requires the discharge of persons who strike against the Government. This is repeated in paragraph (3) of the first section of the bill.

Accordingly, since H. R. 6590 includes all of these provisions of existing law such provisions will be repealed.

Hearings were held at which representatives of the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Justice, and a number of Government employees' organizations appeared and testified favorably on H. R. 6590. There were no objections.

GENERAL ANALYSIS

The first section of the bill, as amended, will prohibit the employment in the Federal Government, or in any agency thereof, of any person who (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States; (2) is a member of an organization that advocates overthrow of the Government, knowing of such advocacy; (3) participates in any strike against the Govern ment or any such agency; (4) asserts the right to strike against the Government; or (5) belongs to an organization of Government employees that asserts the right to strike against the Government, or against such agencies, knowing that such organization asserts such right to strike.

Section 2 (a) of the bill requires that, except as provided in subsection (b), every person accepting Federal office or employment, within 60 days after entering on duty, shall execute an affidavit that in doing so he does not violate the first section of the bill. The affidavit will be prima facie evidence that there is no such violation.

Section 2 (b) provides that an affidavit will not be required from a person employed for less than 60 days for sudden emergency work involving the loss of life or destruction of property, but that this exception will excuse no one from liability for violation of the first section of the bill."

Section 3 makes any violation of the first section of the bill a felony, for which the penalty shall be a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year and a day, or both.

The favorable report of the Civil Service Commission and the report of the Department of Justice interposing no objections to a similar bill (H. R. 617) follow:

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., June 21, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

Hon. Toм MURRAY,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MURRAY: This is in reply to your request of June 21 for the Commission's views on H. R. 6590, a bill to prohibit the employment by the Govern ment of the United States of persons who are disloyal or who believe in the right to strike against the Government of the United States, and for other purposes. The bill would provide that no person shall accept or hold office or employment in the Government of the United States who (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States; (2) is a member of an organization that advocates such overthrow, knowing that the organization so advocates; (3) participates in a strike against the Government; or (4) is a member of an organization that asserts the right to strike against the Government, knowing that the organization asserts such right. The bill further provides that every person who accepts office or employment in the Government shall, not more than 60 days later, execute an affidavit that his employment will not constitute a violation of the statute. Affidavits would not be required from persons employed for less than 60 days for sudden emergency work involving the loss of human life or the destruction of property. Violation of the statute would constitute a

felony punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year and a day, or both.

The bill would repeal section 612 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U. S. C. 1445); section 9A of the Hatch Act (5 U. S. C. 118j); and section 304 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U. S. C. 188). Section 612 of the Housing Act is substantially identical in its provisions to H. R. 6590, but is limited in its application to employment in the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Section 9A of the Hatch Act makes it unlawful for any person employed in the Government "to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States." The only penalty provided is removal from the service, with the provision that appropriated funds shall not thereafter be used to pay the compensation of such person. Section 304 of the Labor Management Relations Act forbids striking by Government employees, requires the discharging of an employee who strikes and the forfeiture of his civil-service status, if any, and makes him ineligible for employment for 3 years.

For some years provisions similar to the proposed legislation have appeared in appropriation acts each year. The Commission believes that H. R. 6590 represents desirable legislation, since it would put such legislation into permanent form, and would also consolidate and supersede the several statutes which now partially cover the subject.

Time has not permitted clearance of this report with the Bureau of the Budget. However, the Bureau advised it had no objection to our report on H. R. 617, a bill similar to H. R. 6590.

Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice relative to the bill (H. R. 617) to prohibit the employment by the Government of the United States of persons who are disloyal or who believe in the right to strike against the Government of the United States, and for other purposes.

The bill would make it a felony for any person to accept or hold office or employment in the Government of the United States who (1) advocates the overthrow of that Government by force or violence, (2) is a member of an organization that advocates such overthrow, knowing that such organization advocates the same, (3) engages in a strike against the Government, or (4) is a member of an organization of Government employees that asserts the right to strike against the Government.

Section 2 (a) of the measure would provide for the execution, by persons accepting office or employment in the Government of the United States, of affidavits to the effect that their acceptance and holding of such office or employment does not or will not constitute a violation of the bill's prohibitions Subsection (b) would exempt from the application of subsection (a) persons employed by the Government of the United States for less than 60 days for sudden emergency work involving the loss of human life or the destruction of property. Such persons, however, would not be relieved of liability for a violation of the prohibitions contained in the bill. Section 4 would repeal section 612 of the Housing Act of 1949, a section which, with respect to officers or employees of the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Department of Agriculture, contains provisions similar to those which would be provided for generally by this measure. Whether or not this bill should be enacted constitutes a question of policy concerning which the Department of Justice prefers to make no comment. However, there are certain matters to which the attention of the committee is invited. The prohibitions contained in section 1 of the bill are not new. Under existing law persons entering the employ of the United States are required to execute appointment affidavits which include certifications such as are contemplated by this bill. Likewise, various appropriation acts forbid the use of Government funds to pay officers or employees who fall within any of the categories enumer

ated in section 1 and provide penalties for the use of Government funds in viola tion of such prohibitions. Illustrative of other legislation which is concerned with the problem to which the bill is addressed is section 118 (j) of title 5 of the United States Code which provides that it shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal government whose compensation or any part thereof is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any act of Congress to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States. Any person violating the provisions of the section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person. Also, section 188 of title 29, United States Code, provides that it shall be unlawful for any individual employed by the United States or any agency thereof, including wholly owned Government corporations, to participate in any strike. If any individual employed by the United States or by any such agency strikes, he shall be discharged immediately from his employment and shall forfeit his civil-service status, if any, and for 3 years shall not be eligible for reemployment by the United States or any such agency.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, from the Committee on Civil Service, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2628]

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2628) to increase rates of compensation of the heads and assistant heads of executive departments and independent agencies, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.

STATEMENT

This bill was introduced and considered in response to a request of the President of the United States for legislative action to improve the top pay scales in the executive branch of the Government. President's letter of July 15, 1955, follows:

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,

The

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, July 15, 1955.

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

United States Senate, Washington, D, C.

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: The Government must provide executive salary rates which will permit able men to lend their talents for substantial periods of time to the conduct of governmental affairs without excessive financial sacrifice. Experience in every kind of endeavor shows that effective top leadership is reflected at every working level of an organization. So vast and complex an establishment as modern Government must have the very best leadership. At present, the disparity is far too great between the financial rewards of executive leadership in private industry and the compensation provided for equivalent responsibilities in Government. It is neither necessary nor desirable that the Government compete with industry for its administrators solely on a financial basis. Government has many nonmonetary attractions which will always appeal to public-spirited men and women. Nevertheless, the top pay scales in Government must be improved sufficiently to enable the Nation's most capable men to respond, when they are needed, to the call of public service.

During this session, the Congress has provided a pay increase for its own Members, for members of the judicial branch, and for certain selected positions

in the executive branch formerly included under the Executive Pay Act. It has also provided increases for the military, for the postal field service, and for the classified civil service, excepting those positions in grade GS-18 of the classified service where statutory ceilings prevented needed adjustments. This pay legislation has been a major accomplishment in the modernization of Federal salary schedules from top to bottom. It is now of vital importance that the pay rates for positions covered by the Executive Pay Act and other related statutes be increased appropriately.

For 85 years the pay for Cabinet members has been 50 percent to 60 percent higher than the pay of Members of Congress. I have always felt that this differential has been excessive and was pleased when the Members' pay was recently increased. The effect of Public Law 9 was to put congressional pay on the same level as that of Cabinet officers. Reestablishment of the traditional relationship would require that Cabinet pay be increased from $22,500 to $33,750. I consider such an increase to be neither desirable nor necessary and suggest that the Cabinet rate be increased to a level of $25,000.

Already the Congress has established a pattern for the levels of Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary, for in Public Law 9 the Congress in this session approved a salary of $21,000 for the Deputy Attorney General and $20,000 for the Assistant Attorneys General. This pattern was recently reconfirmed by the Senate when it approved S. 2237, providing the same pay levels for the Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries of State.

Continuing this general pattern, it appears desirable to fix the Assistant Secretary level throughout the Government at $20,000 and the same rate for members of boards and commissions.

It is also necessary to provide a progressive relationship between the Executive Pay Act and related rates for the top positions under the pay scales of the Classification Act, the Postal Pay Act, and the Foreign Service Act. This could be provided in the case of the Classification Act, with comparable adjustments in the other pay scales, by raising the maximum pay of grade GS-18 to a level of $17,500. These suggestions would provide a framework for creating prope relationships between the executive pay area, statutory pay scales, and those positions created by special legislative authority.

I believe that revisions in accordance with these suggestions would give proper weight to the responsibilities of these positions, qualifications required for execu tive performance, and the exacting demands of work and working conditions in the top levels of the Government structure. The proposed pay scales would help to attract and retain the competent administrators and advisers without subjecting them and their families to economic setbacks so great as to outweigh the nonmonetary attractions of Government employment. Action along these lines is urgently needed in the interests of Government efficiency, fairness to individuals who devote their exceptional talents to public service in the top rungs of Government, and proper relationship of the various salary scales and systems of the Government.

I earnestly hope that such legislation can be approved by the Congress before this session adjourns.

Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

There has been only a relatively short time available in which to study the details of the President's proposals. There has been no opportunity for hearings. Because of the responsibility of the President for the selection or nomination and the effective performance of heads of departments and agencies and other topmost administrators and other executives, the committee felt that the Congress should give immediate consideration to his request. The committee unanimously reports S. 2628 with a few minor amendments to accomplish what seem to be needed corrections or adjustments.