Section 15 of the latch Act incorporating all previous Ci vil Service Commission decisions into the Act creates more evil than the good intended. The case of J. Cole can be used as on example of resultant evil from good intentions. Cole was a rural letter carrier and Jehovah Witness. He was fired because he subscribed to the latchtower publication which advocated "anti-war" policies, a clear violation of first amendmat rights34 In llarper v Board Of Education the Court declared that it had a higher duty to protect fundamental freedoms from violations of equal protection. "Classification which might invade or restrain fundamental freedoms must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined. It is beyond dispute that first amendment rights must be considered fundamental freedoms! Good government results from the largest possible participation in political life. The latch Act usurps this fundamental liberty. Permitting government employees to become involved in the political process will help to create a healthier United States. 34.U.S. 383,663 (1966) 35.Albany L.R.,355 97-222 O - 78 - 10 Senator SASSER. Mr. La Penta? TESTIMONY OF JAMES LA PENTA, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DIVISION, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Mr. LA PENTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am James J. La Penta. I am appearing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, and its general president, Angelo Fosco. Our union represents over 650,000 workers. In this membership, approximately 100,000 are postal, Federal, and public employees. We also would like to thank the committee for holding these hearings so soon after the legislation has passed the House. I will be very brief in my statement and sum it up because, like my colleagues and our sister unions here, we support the provisions pretty much as outlined by Ken Meiklejohn, the legislative representative of the AFL-CIO. Particularly, we support his remarks about those provsions in H.R. 10, the so-called Ashbrook amendment, and that provision dealing with restrictions on Cabinet appointees and sub-Cabinet appointees. We would like to go on record in support of what he said on those particular sections of the legislation. The concepts of the Hatch Act have been carried over into Government employment so that there is, as my colleagues have pointed out, a constant fear in Federal and postal employment of violations of the political restrictions, and a corresponding neglect of political activity so essential to the survival of the kind of democratic procedures that our country holds so dear. The Hatch Act, as has been pointed out, was born in a completely different atmosphere than the one that currently exists in the Federal, State, and local fields of government activity today. You raised a question about, were there enough protections to keep the so-called merit system intact? I think it has been pointed out, at least from our side of the table, we feel there are. I might add to that, I think there has been a large body of protective measures incorporated in the various executive orders that provide for collective bargaining, for Federal and postal employees, and along with the merit system this also is going to protect any of the kinds of political activities that could be considered to be unwise or not the proper kinds of political activities, such as coercion, insofar as solicitation, and extortion, and some of the other things that have been mentioned in regard to those on the other side of the fence who fear that the reform of the Hatch Act is going to do something to the merit system or make Federal employees nothing but partisan political activists. I do not think that is going to happen. Our union does not think that is going to happen. We strongly urge that the 39-year-old Hatch Act be amended as outlined in H.R. 10. and in our testimony, so that the disgraceful prohibitions against Federal and postal workers to engage in the full activity of the American political life be acted upon by the Senate, hopefully this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. La Penta. [Two letters from Laborers International Union of North America follow:] LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Hon. JAMES R. SASSER, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1977. Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SASSER: This will reply to your letter of July 27 wherein you ask the question: How did your organization determine its position on the Hatch Act? Did you poll your membership? If so, when? Response: The position of our organization was determined by convention action. Delegates to the convention held in Anaheim, California, August 1976, voted in favor of a resolution amending the Hatch Act. Sincerely, Hon. TED STEVENS, JAMES J. LAPENTA, Jr., Director, Federal-Public Service Division. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: This is in response to your questions sent to me by Senator Sasser relative to the Hatch Act. (1) What effect, if any, do you think H.R. 10 would have on employee-toemployee relationships away from the work situation? Response: I do not think H.R. 10 would materially affect any employee-toemployee relationships away from the work situation. (2) Do employees who run for political office currently get the benefit of health insurance and life insurance coverage when they are on annual leave without pay? If so, how are premium payments made? Response: Yes. Premiums are paid by the employee and agency. (3) How do you feel about limiting the use of employee lists (a) by parties? (b) by political candidates? (c) by fund raisers? (d) by employees recruiting fellow employees? Response: Existing Civil Service regulations prohibits disclosure for political purposes. It should be retained. Sincerely, Senator SASSER. Mr. Waldie? JAMES J. LAPENTA, Jr., Director, Federal-Public Service Division. TESTIMONY OF JEROME R. WALDIE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS Mr. WALDIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senators. I would like to explore just briefly, if I may, some historical thrusts that I think are contained in this legislation and not touched upon. One is that the historical thrust of our entire democracy since its founding, with this one exception, has been to expand the franchise, to expand the numbers of those Americans whom we have invited to participate in making the political decisions of this free society. One exception to that historical thrust has been the enactment of the Hatch Act. From the very beginning, we have expanded the franchise. We brought in all kinds of individuals in America to increase the numbers that could participate. All of a sudden, for no good purpose, we constricted that franchise. We rolled back the rights to politically participate that had been possessed by significant numbers of our people. The Hatch Act, then, is almost inexplicable as being contrary to that historical thrust. Second, the other historical part of the Hatch Act that seems incomprehensible to me as an attorney, and, if you will, as perhaps a civil liberties' freak, is that it is an explicit repression on the part of the Government of the right of an individual to voluntarily and freely participate in the political process. The concern in the enactment of the Hatch Act was to protect those who were involuntarily forced to participate in the political process. The remedy to protect those who were involuntarily forced to participate in the political process was to deny those who desired voluntarily to participate in the political process. That is inconsistent, and that is difficult to understand. The repression that is embodied in the Hatch Act is far more coercive and far more dangerous in a free society than is the repression and coercion that the Hatch Act sought to remedy. That oppression and coercion was the oppression of one individual against another, one individual seeking to force another to involuntarily participate in the political process. There was a remedy always for the individual who was involuntarily coerced, and that was to deny that coercion. It did not always occur, but the remedy now for the individual who is forced by his government and coerced by his government from voluntarily participating is not as easily obtainable. It is far more dangerous and far more unlikely that an individual citizen would resist the coercion of his government, fearful of his participation, when the government oppresses and denies his participation in the political process, so we substitute for the coercion. of an individual that could be responded to by another individual, the coercion of a government, on a totally innocent group of people who had not been accused of wrongdoing. The assumption was, since they were Federal employees, that they were en masse as a class guilty of involuntarily being coerced into political participation. The remedy was to deny innocent people perhaps the most precious right-certainly in my own personal, individual view the most precious right I possess as an American—to participate in the political system. There is a certain meanness to those who maintain that the Hatch Act should be maintained. There is a fearful response, in my view, that motivates that. It probably was most exemplified by the proposal to limit participation in the political process of Federal employees to elections other than to Federal office. I cannot think of a more clear definition of the fear of those who are making the decision that the inclusion of this group of Americans who have been denied the right to participate in the political process would have consequences adverse to their own political interests. I think that is an error, and I think that that ought not to be permitted to continue. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in our testimony we address one amendment that we think is important to emphasize, which was adopted in the House, and that was the amendment that brings under the Hatch Act a group of Federal employees who were, prior to this amendment at least, excluded from the coverage of the Hatch Act. Those are Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate. It is not realistic to believe that Presidential appointees at that level should become political neuters. To the extent that they might violate the ethics and the standards that govern their participation in government, those abuses that are potential should best be discovered and acted upon during the confirmation process. Mr. Chairman, we think it is unwise and improper and probably would produce an undesirable result to have these individuals become impotent in their capacity to defend, support, and advance the causes of the administration. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I am testifying here in place of the President of the Union, Mr. Joseph Vacca, and the executive vice president of the union, Mr. Tony Huerta, both of whom were unable to be present in Washington for this testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Waldie, for a very thoughtful statement. [The prepared statement of Mr. Vacca follows.] PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. JOSEPH VACCA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jerome R. Waldie, and I am the Administrative Assistant to the President of the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, Mr. J. Joseph Vacca. Neither President Vacca nor Executive Vice President Tony Huerta, are able to be present today because of union business requiring their presence out of Washington, D.C. Therefore, on their behalf, I will present this testimony. Postal employees, as well as all other federal employees, have been encouraged by the response of the Congress to their efforts to regain the political freedoms denied them some years ago with passage of the restrictive Hatch Act. We were particularly pleased when both the House and Senate, last year, by substantial majorities recognized the injustice contained in the existing Hatch Act and approved a measure similar to the one before you today largely removing the more onerous restrictions on federal and postal employees' rights to engage in the political process. We were, of course, discouraged when President Ford vetoed that historical measure. But when President Carter gave his support to a renewed effort to restore political rights to us our optimism that such would occur this Congress, returned. The House, by a surprisingly large margin of 244–164 indicated their willingness to bring into the political process the millions of participants sidelined by the Hatch Act. We are confident that the Senate will do no less than the House and the President. It is not my intention to dwell in any detail on the provisions of H.R. 10 and S. 80. In the previous Session of Congress, we expressed our views on the specifics of this legislation. But I do intend to emphasize our position on the general thrust of this vital legislation. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that few measures of historical significance have come before this Session of Congress. But this legislation is, in fact, of historical significance. Just as, 39 years ago it was historically significant, and regrettable that a Congress deprived a vital and extensive portion of the electroate of the right to fully engage in the political process of the country, it is now historically signifi |