PROTECTING PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 9, 1999
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 13, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

? FOIAb3b 111111111
, .S12912 Sanitized - ApprWiliVMANVaTseRPONgterF8M166T49ROOkettini3M4L% 1967
that there would be no time to be wasted on
such irrelevant and dishonest name-palling
and buck-passing.
BLAMING ECONOMIC SYSTEM UNFAIRLY
Or, just as we point an accusing finger at
those who succeed within our economic sys-
tem, so we accuse the system itself of faults
which are not of its creation. In short, we
tend to blame the economic system for the
faults of individuals who operate within it.
It is important to recognize that the qual-
ity of any society is directly related to the
quality of the individuals who make It up.
Therefore, let us stop referring naively to
creating a "great" society. It is enough at
this stage of our development to aspire to
create a "decent" ?society. And to do so our
first task is to help each individual Ix decent
unto himself and in his relationship with
other individuals.
A decent society cannot be created out of
a vacuum and imposed. It can only evolve
out of the lives of constituent members. In
this regard, our economic system has become
the scapegoat for the failures of our ethics-
tonal, religious and family institutions to
develop decent and responsible individuals.
Whenever one blames another group of in-
dividuals for one or more of the ills of man-
kind?beware He is expressing personal hos-
tility and offering no solution. There is no
single scapegoat for the world's ills, unless it
be our own personal limitations as finite
beings.
Also, the Puritan ethic and religious Mor-
ality in general have come in for some hevy-
handed humor and disdain. I can support
that criticism which focuses on arbitrary
value judgments. But we seem to be in the
process of developing a much more perverse
kind of moralism?a moralism which says
that since love is the one absolute virtue of
man, the one way we will solve the problems
of poverty, crime, racial discrimination and
the like is by forcingeveryone to love every-
body else?we must love the white man be-
cause he is white, or the black man because
he is black, or the poor because he is poor,
or the enemy because he is the enemy, or
the perverse because he is perverse, or the
afffloted because he is afflicted! Rather than
because he is a human being, any human
being who just happens to be white or black,
poor or rich, enemy or friend.
This is a hideous abuse of the notion of
love that avoids the hard facts that love is a
uniquely personal experience.
If it is idle to attempt to legislate individ-
ual morality, It is even more idle, and even
arrogant, to attempt to force individual love.
There can be no love unless it is genuine
and authentic. To love, or go through the
pretense of loving, without truly feeling that
way is one of the lowest forms of hypocrisy.
It is dishonesty at its worst. And the fruit
of such dishonesty, as with all forms of dis-
honesty, is distrust, degradation, chaos. We
should respect all people so much that we
would not dare demean one by pretending
to love him when we don't. . . .
We need to start being honest with our-
selves in more ways than one. It is too bad
that we have failed to heed the charge that
Polonius made to his son: "This above all,
to thine own self be true." For were we to
do so we would have to admit honestly and
joyously that love in its very essence is selfish.
Were it not so, there would be none?not
real love?only a martyred imitation. . . .
We have serious problems and issues fac-
ing our society at the present time. Let there
be no doubt about it. But they can be solved
over time if we will attack them directly
and honestly?that is, if we will be willing
to pay the price in time and persistent per-
sonal effort.
They will never be subject to instant solu-
tions?to wishing it so. Nor will they be
solved by blaming' others for their existence,
or by making certain segments of society the
scapegoat for the general ills Of society. Nor
will, they be solved by running away from
them by concerning ourselves with remote
situations' rather than those at land. Nor
.will they be solved by application of the
perverse notion that to love means only to
:sacrifice one's self.
The one most certain point is that they
will be solved by doers?not people with good
intentions; but individuals with good deeds.
Not those who talk a good game, but those
who play a good game?the achiever.
? ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL EXCELLENCE
We will never create a good society,' much
less a great one, until individual excellence
and achievement is not only respected but
encouraged. That is why I'm for the upper-
dog?the achiever?the succeeder. I'm for
building an ever better society, and this Will
only be done by those who take seriously
their responsibility for achievement, for
making the most of their native ability, for
getting done the job at hand.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia- Mr. Pres-
ident, if there is no further morning
business, I ask that morning business
be conchided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ving business is closed. ?
PROTECTING PRIVACY AND RIGHTS
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I move that the Senate proceed
to the consideration of Calendar No. 519,
Senate bill 1035.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
'will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 1035)
to protect the civilian employees of the
executive branch of the U.S. Government
In the enjoyment of their constitutional
rights and to prevent unwarranted gov-
ernmental invasions of their privacy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from West
The motion was agreed tp; and the
Senate resumed the consideration of
the bill.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident; I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so Ordered.
PRIVILEGE OP THE FLOOR
'Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent at this time that George
Autry and Marcia J. MacNaughton,
members of the staff of the Subcommit-
tee on Constitutional Rights, be allowed
on the floor of the Senate to assist me
in the presentation of this bill. They are
members of the staff of the subcommit-
tee which handled this bill, and their
intelligent and industrious work on the
bill has made the bill possible. Another
member of the staff who has made an
important contribution is Lewis Evans,
who is also present in the Chamber,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without ?Weals I z z.
ordered. I e_ Is
Sanitized'- Approved For Release : CIA-
A HILL TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND TO PREVENT
UNWARRANTED INVASIONS OF THEIR, PRI-
VACY-S. 1035
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, S. 1035 is
a bill unanimously approved by the Judi-.
ciary Committee to protect the consti-
tutional rights of civilian employees of
the executive branch and to prevent un-
wan anted governmental invasions of
their privacy.
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit
indiscrimittate requirements that em-
ployees and applicants for Government
employment:
Disclose their race, religion or national
origin; attend Government-sponsored
meetings and lectures or participate in
outside activities unrelated to their em-
ployment; report on their outside activi-
ties or undertakings unrelated to their
.work; submit to questioning about their
religious beliefs and practices, personal
relationships or sexual attitudes and con-
duct through interviews, psychological
tests, or polygraphs; support political
candidates or attend political meetings;
buy bonds or make charitable contribu-
tions under coercion from supervisors;
..or disclose their own personal assets, 11-
.e.pilities, or expenditures, or those of any
?member of their families unless, in the
Case of specified employees, certain items
would tend to show a conflict of interest.
It provides a right to have a counsel or
.other person present, if the employee
wishes, at an interview which may lead to
,disciplinary proceedings.
It accords the right to a civil action in
a Federal court for violation or threat-
ened violation of the act.
It establishes a Board on Employees'
Rights to receive and conduct hearings
on complaints of violation of the act, and
to determine and administer remedies
and penalties.
Mr. President, with this bill, Congress
.has a chance to reaffirm the belief of the
American people in a value system as old
as Western civilization: That is, in. the
dignity of the individual; in the unfet-
tered enjoyment of his personal thoughts
and beliefs free of the control of govern-
ment; and in the worth of the expression
of his personality in the democratic so-
ciety.
This bill affords Congress the oppor-
tunity to take a stand on one of the most
Crucial philosophical and practical prob-
lems facing our society?the preservation
of individual freedom in an age of sci-
entific technology.
- Many learned people have analyzed the
legal and scientific issues raised by the
needs to meet certain goals of govern-
ment in a country as vast and diverse as
-ours. But they have balanced the inter-
ests back and forth until they have lost
track of the basic issues of liberty in-
volved.
The Founding Fathers drafted a con-
stitution that was meant to protect the
liberty of Americans of every era, for its
principles are enduring ones. One of the
fundamental aspects of our liberty as
freemen is the privacy of our innermost
thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs: this in-
cludes not only our freedom to express
them as we please, but the freedom from
any form of governmental coercion to
reveal them. Another aspect is the con-
tional protection against self-in-
R000200600601-6
September 13,gfrii. flied -9iRRUKVA-ARNIMell?akWotifil5h itnioqp?psiggcm
no place for this sort of 20th century
witchcraft in a free society.
Nevertheless, I am requesting the com-
mittee amendment granting a partial
exemption to the CIA and NSA be ac-
cepted with the other amendments. I do
this for two reasons. First, the amend-
ment will require that use of the exam-
inations by the two agencies be severely
curtailed; and for the first time Congress
will be withholding its permission for
the agencies to kick American citizens
around with impunity. Second, it is clear
to me that ? a number of the bill's 55
cosponsors prefer that the CIA and NSA
be allowed this partial exemption. I trust
the Directors of the Agencies will use it
with restraint.
I want to make clear my own convic-
tions that for all of the policies and
techniques restricted by this bill, there
are valid alternatives.
In this connection, the subcommittee
has found especially helpful the testi-
mony of Prof. Alan Westin, of Columbia
University, who directed the study by
the special committee on science and
law of the Bar Association of the City of
New York. This bar committee has been
concerned with an analysis of the ways
In which science and technology are
creating new pressures on traditional
patterns of privacy in American society.
Professor Westin analyzed the alterna-
tives to show how we have allowed
polygraphing and personality testing to
expand the scope of questioning in a way
that our law and our governmental prac-
tice have rejected for direct interro-
gation.
He makes the point which has been
evident throughout congressional study
of these problems that?
One, of the key problems of science and
privacy is that things are being dope in the
name of science which we would not allow to
be done directly.
Unfortunately, however the Constitu-
tional Rights Subcommittee study shows
that, in practice, the questions which our
standards of fairness should not allow to
be asked even in personal interviews are
being asked directly, and that they are
obviously beyond the control of the lead-
ership in the executive branch.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that excerpts from the testimony
of Prof. Alan Westin before the Consti-
tutional Rights Subcommittee hearings
on S. 3779 be printed at the conclusion
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING 0.Kr10ER. Without
? objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
- Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, in addition
to the provisos for the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the National Security
Agency, and technical amendments, the
following major changes were adopted
in the bill and are explained in the com-
mittee report.
An exemption was.made for questions
concerning national origin where the in-
formation is needed for security pur-
poses and overseas assignments.
The section relating to prohibitions on
patronizing business establishments has
been deleted.
The criminal penalties have been de-
leted.
crimination for civil servants as well as
for criminals and others.
In its report on S. 1035, the committee
stated:
Each section of the bill is based on evi-
dence from many hundreds of cases and com-
plaints showing that generally in the Fed-
eral service, as in any similar organizational
situation, a request from a superior is equi-
valent to a command. This evidence refutes
the argument that an employee's response
to a superior's request for information or
action is a voluntary response, and that an
employee "consents" to an invasion of his
privacy or the curtailment of his liberty.
Where his employment opportunities are at
stake, where there is present the economic
coercion to submit to questionable practices
which are contrary to our constitutional
values, then the presence of consent or vol-
untarism may be open'to serious doubt. For
this reason the bill makes it illegal for officials
to "request" as well as to "require" an em-
ployee to submit to certain inquiries or prac-
tices or to take certain actions.
Much has been said and written of the
problems we deal with in S. 1035. The
hearings and committee report, as well
as the subcommittee's last three annual
reports, amply document the need for
such legislation. But let no one be de-
'luded that this bill is a panacea for all
the ills besetting the Federal service, all
of the invasions of privacy, all of the vio-
lations of basic due process principles.
There are many areas left untouched,
as the subcommitte daily mail will show.
Passage of the bill will correct some vio-
lations, and provide some recourses
against violations. But more importantly,
it will establish a precedent in this area
of the law and create a climate for de-
cisionmaking in the executive branch.
The zealous men, the unthinking, care-
less, hurried, impatient, pressured, or
misinformed men will still make unrea-
? sonable or illegal decisions. We cannot
legislate against all manner- of fools or
their follies. Where their decisions affect
the liberties of the citizen, we can only
provide the basic standards by which
they can be controlled. For the conscien-
tious administrator anxious to do his job
well, achieving the maximum benefit for
Government and observing individual
rights at the same time, the bill pro-
vides a uniform guide. He will not need
to sit and ponder whether to follow his
conscience or an illegal order or whether
or not to utilize a, questionable scientific
method.
The law will state clearly what his own
rights and duties are in certain areas.
I confess that were I legislating alone,
would rather see fewer compromises
and exceptions than are now contained
in the bill. I see no necessity for any of
the practices prohibited in S. 1035.
Unfortunately, some people, both in
Government and out, have not yet been
alerted to the dangers posed by these
policies and practices. For them, the
symbolic act or the technique?the
means?still triumph over purpose, how-
ever unrelated the two.
A threefold need for this bill is out-
lined in the committee report. -
The first is the immediate need to es-
tablish a statutory basis for the preser-
vation of certain rights and liberties of
those citizens who now work for Govern-
ment and, those who will work for it in
the future. The bill not only remedies
problems of today but looks to the future
in recognition of the almost certain en-
largement of the scope of Federal activ-
ity and the continuing rise in the number
of Americans employed by their Federal
Government or serving it in some capac-
ity.
- Second, the bill meets the Federal
Government's need to attract the best
qualified employees, and to retain them
with the assurance that they will be
treated fairly and as people of honesty
and integrity.
Third, is the growing need for the
beneficial influence which such a statute
would provide in view of the present im-
pact of Federal policies, regulations, and
practices on those of State and local
government and of private business and
industry. Considerable interest in the
bill has been demonstrated in this re-
spect. An example is the following com-
ment by Allen J. Graham, secretary of
the Civil Service Commission of the city
of New York:
It is my opinion, based on over 25 years
of former Government service, including
some years in a fairly high managerial ca-
pacity,. that your bill, if enacted into law, will
be a major step to stem the tide of "Big
Brotherism," which constitutes a very real
threat to our American way of life.
In my present position as secretary of the
Civil Service Commission of the City of New
York, I have taken steps to propose the in-
clusion of several of the concepts of your
bill into the rules and regulations of the
city civil service commission.
AMENDMP.NTEI
With one exception, all of the amend-
ments added in subcommittee and com-
mittee are meritorious. They clarify
possible ambiguities and insure that the
purpose of the bill is achieved.
? The one exception is the new section 6
pertaining to the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency or the Director of the
National Security Agency. Upon a per-
sonal finding that any psychological test-
ing, polygraph testing, or financial dis-
closure is required to protect national
security, they could allow these meas-
ures in individual cases.
Prior to adoption of this amendment,
I met several times with representatives
of the CIA and NSA; and all legitimate
objections on grounds of security were
met.
Personally, I would not favor even the
limited exemption in section 6, As I have
stated before, the subcommittee's study
of psychological testing clearly demon-
strated that such tests are both useless
and offensive as tools of perSonnel ad-
ministration; and my own research has
convinced me that polygraph machines
are totally unreliable for any purpose. If
the security of the United States rests
on these devices, we are indeed pitifully
insecure. Fortunately, it does not, for
th FBI does not use these examinations.
But even if it could be shown that
,psychological tests and polygraphs have
mystical powers and can be used to pre-
dict behavior or divine the truth, I would
still oppose their being used to probe the
religious beliefs, family relationships, or
sexual attitudes of American citizens. A
fundamental ingredient of liberty is the
right to keep such matters to oneself.
-And without liberty?7"national security"
is O
.S12913
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S12914 Sanitized - AppreaKtidsgieleasettECADURDP5MTGCM9R000320060041M4 1967
Provisos were added to assure that sec-
tions 1 (f) and 2(b) will not be construed
to prohibit an officer of the department,
agency, or Civil Service Commission
from advising the employee or applicant
of a specific charge of sexual misconduct
made against him and affording him an
opportunity to refute the charge.
Another amendment spells out the
power of the Attorney General, in cer-
tain circumstances, to defend an official
against whom a charge is brought.
Section 9 was added to provide that
nothing shall prohibit establishment of
agency and department grievance proce-
dures for enforcing the act, but the ex-
istence of such procedures shall not pre-
clude a person from pursuing other rem-
edies. It also provides that if an indi-
vidual shall elect to seek a remedy
through the Board on Employee Rights,
he waives his right to proceed by an
Independent action through the U.S.
district court. Simils.riy, if under the
act he elects to proceed through the
court, he waives his right to seek a rem-
edy through the Board on Employee
Rights.
I ask unanimous consent theft the
complete list of amendments from pages
1 to 3 of the committee report be included
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the list of
amendments was ordered to be printed
In the RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENTS
1. Amendment to section 1(a) page 2,
line 13:
"Provided further, That nothing contained
in this subsection shall be construed to pro-
hibit inquiry concerning the national origin
of any such employee when such inquiry is
deemed necessary or advisable to determine
suitability for assignment to activities or
undertakings related to the national se-
curity within the United States or to activi-
ties or undertakings of any nature outside
the United States."
2. Amendment to section 1(b) , page 2,
line 25: Strike "to" (Technical amendment.)
3. Delete section 1(e) , page 4, lines 1-4
(prohibitions or patronizing business es-
tablishments,) and renumber following sec-
tions as sections 1 (e) , (f) , (g), (h), (1),
(k), and (1) , respectively.
4. Delete section 4, page 10, lines 12-23
(Criminal Penalties) and renumber follow-
ing sections as section 4 and 5, respectively.
6. Amendment to section 1(f), page 4,
line 25:
"Provided further, however, That nothing
contained in this subsection shall be con-
strued to prohibit an officer of the depart-
ment or agency from advising any civilian
employee or applicant of a specific charge of
sexual misconduct made against that per-
son, and affording him an opportunity to
refute the charge."
6. Amendments to section 1 (f ) , page 4, at
lines 17 and 19: Change "psychiatrist" to
"physician."
7. Amendment to section 1(k) , page 7, at
line 10: Change (j) to (I).
8. Amendment to section 2(b) , page 9,
at line 6 and line 9: Change "psychiatrist"
to "physician."
9. Amendment to section 2 (b) , page 9, at
line 15:
"Provided further, however, That nothing
contained in this subsection shall be con-
strued to prohibit an officer of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission from advising any civilian
employee or applicant-of a specific charge of
sexual misconduct made against that per-
son, and affording him an opportunity to
refute the charge."
10. Amendment to section 5, page 11,
line 21: Insert after the word "violation." the
following:
"The Attorney General shall defend all
officers or persons sued under this section
who acted pursuant to an order, regulation,
or directive, or who, in his opinion, did not
willfully violate the provisions of this Act."
11. Amendment to section 6(1) , page 16,
at line 24: Strike "sign charges and specifi-
cations under section 830 (article 30)" and
insert in lieu thereof: "convene general
courts martial under Section 822 (Article
22) " (Technical amendment.)
12. Amendment to seCtion 6(m) , page 17,
line 14: Change subsection (j) to (k).
(Technical amendment.)
13. Amendment, page 18, add new section
6:
"SEc. 6. Nothing contained In this Act shall
be construed to prohibit an officer of the
Central Intelligence Agency or of the Na-
tional Security Agency from requesting any
civilian employee or applicant to take a
polygraph test, or to take a psychological
test designed to elicit from him information
concerning his personal relationship with any
person connected with him by blood or mar-
riage, or concerning his religious beliefs or
practices, or concerning his attitude or con-
duct with respect to sexual matters, or to
provide a personal financial statement, if the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
or the Director of the National Security
Agency makes a personal finding with re-
gard to each individual to be so tested or
examined that such test or information is
required to protect the national security."
14. Amendment, page 18, add new section
8, and renumber following section as sec-
tion 9.
"SEc. 8. Nothing contained in Sections 4
and 5 shall be construed to prevent estab-
lishment of department and agency griev-
ance procedures to enforce this Act, but the
existence of such procedures shall not pre-
clude any applicant or employee from pur-
suing the remedies established by this Act or
any other remedies provided by law: Pro-
vided, however, That if under the procedures
established, the employee or applicant has
obtained complete protection against threat-
ened violations or complete redress for vio-
lations, such action may be pleaded in bar
in the United States District Court or in
proceedings before the Board on Employee
Rights: Provided further, however, That if
an employee elects to seek a remedy under
either section 4 or section 5, he waives his
right to proceed by an independent action
under the remaining section."
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, during the
last few months, the Civil Service Com-
mission has made a good faith effort to
eliminate some of the privacy-invading
practices of the Federal Government.
Also, as a result of complaints which the
subcommittee has sent to the Civil
Service Commission, some individual
grievances have been remedied.
But while isolated cases of injustice
may be corrected by congressional inter-
vention, they do not, as with judicial
decisions on the rights of criminals, es-
tablish a precedent for protecting rights
of all employees. There are vast numbers
of Federal agencies with decentralized
personnel systems, responsive in differ-
ent ways to policy directives. In some
cases, they lack any control at all by
Congress, the President, the Civil Service
Commission, or, in some instances, even
by the head of the department or agency.
They are, in effect, beyond the reach of
the law.
The reply of some in the executive
branch has been that Government em-
ployment is a privilege, and if the indi-
vidual does not like his treatment, he
can quit.
The Association of the Bar of the City
of New York has a reply to this. Their
report on the bill states:
The Ervin bill recognizes the existence of
some serious shortcomings in the behavior
of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov-
ernment as an employer. There are today al-
most three million persons employed by the
Federal Government and the number can be
expected to grow. It is not possible, there-
fore, to deal with the problem within the
narrow framework of an employee's option
to quit his employment if the conditions are
not to his taste.
Employment by the Federal Government
should not be regarded as a privilege to be
withheld or conditioned as the Government
sees fit. Indeed, there is an obligation on the
part of the Federal Government to have
more than the usual respect for rights of
privacy.
It is already a late date for the Federal
Government to begin showing respect for
the rights of privacy. But the Senate can
and must take the first step today by
passing S. 1035.
I ask unanimous consent to insert at
this point in the RECORD an excerpt from
the Judiciary Committee report on the
bill?Senate Report No. 534, pages 7
through 44. This contains the legisla-
tive history of the bill and a section-by-
section analysis of S. 1035.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as fellows:
SENATE REPORT NO. 534,90774 CONGRESS, FIRST
SESSION; PROTECTING PRIVACY AND THE
RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Violations of rights covered by S. 1035 as
well as other areas of employee rights have
been the subject of intensive hearings and
investigation by the subcommittee for the
last five Congresses.
In addition to investigation of individual
cases, the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights has conducted annual surveys of
agency policies on numerous aspects of Gov-
ernment personnel practices. In 1965, pur-
suant to Senate Resolution 43, hearings were
conducted on due process and improper use
of information acquired through psychologi-
cal testing, psychiatric examinations, and
security and personnel interviews.
In a letter to the Chief Executive on Au-
gust 3, the subcommittee chairman stated:
"For some time, the Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee has received disturbing re-
ports from responsible sources concerning
violations of the rights of Federal employees.
I have attempted to direct the attention of
appropriate officials to these matters, and
although replies have been uniformly cour-
teous, the subcommittee has received no
satisfaction whatsoever, or even any indica-
tion of awareness that any problem exists.
The invasions of privacy have reached such
alarming proportions and are assuming such
varied forms that the matter demands your
immediate and personal attention.
"The misuse of privacy invading personal-
ity tests for personnel purposes has already
been the subject of hearings by the subcom-
mittee. Other matters, such-as improper and
insulting questioning during background
Investigations and due process guarantees in
, denial of security clearances have also been
the subject of study. Other employee com-
plaints, fast becoming too numerous to cata-
log, concern such diverse matters as psy-
chiatric interviews; lie detectors; race ques-
tionnaires; restrictions on communicating
with Congress; pressure to support political
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September' 13, 13, e
tized -54111:$98MMAJUS2Pci-441:1F1f5-00149R00020060t011-i
Alal
any discourse on these matters between the
Commission and employees. Furthermore,
there are many who do not even fall within
the Commission's jurisdiction. For them,
there is no appeal but to Congress.
"As for the argument that the discourse
between the unions and the Commission will
remedy the wrongs, the testimony of the
union representatives adequately demolishes
that dream.
"The typical attitude of those responsible
for personnel management is reflected in Mr.
Macy's anewer that there may be instances
where policy is not adhered to, but "There
is always someone who doesn't get the word."
Corrective administration action, he says, is
fully adequate to protect employee rights.
"Administrative action is not sufficient.
Furthermore, in the majority of complaints,
the wrong actually stems from the stated
policy of the agency or the Commission. How
can these people be expected to judge objec-
tively the reasonableness and constitutional-
ity of their own policies? This is the role of
Congress, and in my opinion, Congress has
waited too long as It is to provide the guid-
ance that is desperately needed in these
matters.
? "As I have stated on many occasions, S.
3779 is merely a blueprint for discustion:
the other 35 cosponsors and I have no pride
of authorship in the language. However, we
are determined that Congress shall take af-
firmative action to protect the constitutional
rights of employees enunciated in the bill.
Many illuminating and valuable suggestions
have been made in the COUT130 of the sub-
committee hearings and investigation, and
they will be given careful and thoughtful
study. It is my intention to reintroduce the
bill next January in the hope of obtaining
prompts action on it early in the next see-
'ata."
parties yet restrictions on political activi-
ties; coercion to buy savings bonds; exten-
sive limitations on outside activities yet ad-
ministrative influence to participate in
agency-approved functions; rules for writ-
ing, speaking and even thinking; and re-
quirements to disclose personal information
concerning finances, property and creditors
of employees and members of their families."
After describing in detail the operation of
two current programs to illustrate the prob-
lems, Senator Ervin commented:
"Many of the practices now in extensive
use have little or nothing to do with an in-
dividual's ability or his qualification to per-
form a job. The Civil Service Commission
has established rules and examinations to
deternaino the qualifications of applicants.
Apparently, the Civil Service Commission
and the agencies are failing in their assign-
ment to operate a merit system for our Fed-
eral civil service.
"It would seem in the interest of the ad-
ministration to make an immediate review
of these practices and questionnaires to de-
termine whether the scope of the programs
is not exceeding your original intent and
whether the violations of employee rights
are not more harmful to your long-range
goals than the personnel shortcuts involved."
Following this letter and others addressed
to the Chairman of the Civil Service Com-
mission and the Secretaries of other depart-
ments, legislation to protect employee rights
was introduced in the Senate:'
S. 1035 was preceded by S. 3703 and S.
3779 in the second session of the 89th Con-
gress, S. 3703 was introduced by the chair-
man on August 9, 1966, and referred to the
Judiciary Committee. On August 25, 1966,
the chairman received unanimous consent to
a request to add the names of 33 cosponsors
to the bill. On August 26, 1966, he introduced
a bill similar to S. 3703, containing an
amendment reducing the criminal penalties
provided in section 2. This bill, S. 3779, was
also referred to the Judiciary Committee,
and both S. 3703 and S. 3779 were then re-
ferred to the Subcommittee - on Constitu-
tional Rights.
Comments ? on the bill and on problems
related to it were made by the chairman in
the Senate on July 18, August 9, August 25,
August 26, September 29, October 17 and 18,
1966, and on February 21, 1967.
Hearings on S. 3779 were conducted before
the subcommittee on September 23, 29, 30,
and October 3, 4, and 5, 1966. Reporting to
the Senate on these hearings, the subcom-
mittee chairman made the following state-
ment:
"The recent hearings on S. 3779 showed
that every major employee organization and
union, thousands of individual .employees
who have written Congress, law professors,
the American Civil Liberties Union, and a
number of bar associations agree on the need
for statutory protections such as those in
this 'measure.
"We cften find that as the saying- goes
'things are never as bad as we think they
are,' but in this case, the hearings show
that privacy invasions are worse than we
thought they were. Case after case of intimi-
dation, of threats of loss of job or security
clearance were brought to our attention in
connection with bond sales, and Government
charity drives.
"Case after case was Cited of privacy in-
vasion and denial of due process in con-
nection with the new financial disclosure
requirements. A typical case is the attorney
threatened with disciplinary action or loss
of his job because he is both unable and
unwilling to list all gifts, including Christ-
mas presents from his family, which he had
received in the past year. He felt this had
nothing to do with his job. There was the
supervisory engineer who was told by the
personnel officer that he would have to take
disciplinary action -against the? 25 profes-
sional employees in his division who re-
seated being forced to disclose the creditors
and financial interests of themselves and
members of their families. Yet there are no
procedures for appealing the decisions of
supervisors and personnel officers who are
acting under the Commission's directive.
Theca are not isolated instances; rather, they
represent a pattern of privacy invasion re-
ported from almost every State.
"The subcommittee was told that super-
visors are ordered to supply names of em-
ployees who attend PTA meetings and en-
gage in Great Books discussions. Under one
department's regulations, employees are re-
quested to participate in specific community
activities promoting local and Federal anti-
poverty, beautification, and equal employ-
ment programs; they are told to lobby in local
city councils for fair housing ordinances, to
go out and make speeches on any number of
subjects, to supply flower and grass seed for
beautification projects, and to paint other
people's houses. When these regulations were
brought to the subcommittee's attention sev-
eral weeks ago, we were told that they were
in draft form. Yet, we then discovered they
had already been implemented and employees
whose official duties had nothing to do with
such programs were being informed that fail-
ure to participate would indicate an un-
cooperative attitude and would be reflected
in their efficiency records.
"The subcommittee hearings have pro-
duced ample evidence of the outright intimi-
dation, arm twisting and more subtle forms
of coercion which result when a superior is
requested to obtain employee participation
in a program. We have seen this in the opera-
tion of the bond sale campaign, the drives
for charitable contributions, and the use of
self-identification minority status question-
naires. We have seen it in the sanctioning of
polygraphs, personality teats, and improper
questioning of applicants for employment.
"In view of some of the current practices
reported by employee organizations and un-
ions, it seems those who endorse these tech-
niques for mind probing and thought con-
trol of employees have sworn hostility against
the idea that every man has a right to be
free of every form of tyranny over his mind;
they forget that to be free a man must have
the right to think foolish thoughts as well
as wise ones. They forget that the first
amendment implies the right to remain si-
lent as well as the right to speak freely?the
right to do nothing as well as the right to
help implement lofty ideals.
"It is not under this administration alone
that there has been a failure to respect em-
ployee rights in a zeal to obtain certain goals.
While some of the problems are new, others
have been prevalent for many years with
little or no administrative action taken to
attempt to ameliorate them. Despite con-
gressional concern, administrative officials
have failed to discern patterns of practice in
denial of rights. They seem to think that
if they can belatedly remedy one case which.
is brought to the attention of the Congress,
the public and the press, that this is
enough?that the heat will subside. With
glittering generalities, qualified until they
mean nothing in substance, they have sought
to throw Congress off the track in its purtuit
of permanent corrective action. We have seen
this in the case of personality testing, in the
use of polygraphs, and all the practices which
S. 3779 would prohibit.
? "The Chairman of the Civil Service Com-
mission informed the subcommittee that
there is no need for a law to protect employee
rights. He believes the answer is 'to permit
executive branch management and executive
branch employees as individuals and through
their unions, to work together to resolve
these issues as part of their normal dis-
course.'
"It is quite clear from the fearful tenor of
the letters and telephone calls received by the
? subcommittee and Members of Congress that
there is no discourse and is not likely to be
? S. 1035, 90th. Congress
On the basis of the subcommittee hear-
ings, agency reports, and the suggestions of
many experts, the bill was amended to meet
legitimate objections to the scope and
language raised by administrative witnesses
and to clarify the intent of its cosponsors
that it does not apply to the proper exercise
of management authority and supervisory
discretion, or to matters now governed by
statute.
This amended version of S. 3779 was in-
troduced in the Senate by the chairman on
February 21, 1967. As S. 1033, it was referred
to the Judiciary Committee. The 54 cospon-
sors are Senators Fong, Burdick, Smathers,
Long of Missouri, Tydings, Bayh, Eastland,
Hruska, Scott, Dirksen, Thurmond, Brewster,
Montoya, Prouty, Fannin, Bible, Byrd of Vir-
ginia, McIntyre, Young of North Dakota,
Talmadge, Bartlett, Williams of New Jersey,
Lausche, Jordan of North Carolina, Nelson,
Jordan of Idaho, Yarborough, Randolph,
Inouye, Miller, Metcalf, Mundt, Muskie, Coop-
er, McCarthy, Brooke, Sparkman, Moss, Hat-
field, Hollings, Carlson, Hansen, Clark, Domi-
nick, Church, McGovern, Tower, Hill, Percy,
Pearson, Soong, Dodd, Magnuson, and Gruen-
ing.
Comparison of S. 1035 and S. 3779 ?
As introduced, the revised bill, S. 1035, dif-
fers from S. 3779 of the 89th Congress in the
following respects:
1. The section banning requirements to
disclose race, religionaer national origin was
amended to permit inquiry on citizenship
where it is a statutory condition of employ-
ment.
2. The provision against coercion of em-
ployees to buy bonds or make charitable do-
nations was amended to make it clear that
it does not prohibit calling meetings are
taking any action appropriate to afford the
employee the opportunity voluntarily to in-
yest or donate.
3. A new section providing for administra-
tive' remedies and penalties establishes a
Board on Employee Rights to receive and con-
duct hearings on complaints of violation of
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-110149R000200600001-6
S 12916
Sanitized - Approve)
tho act, and to determine and administer
remedies and penalties. There is judicial re-
view of the decision under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act.
1. A specific exemption for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is included.
5. Exceptions to the prohibitfons on pri-
vacy-invading questions by examination, in-
terrogations, and psychological tests are pro-
vided upon psychiatric determination that
the information is necessary in the diagnosis
and treatment of mental illness in individual
cases, and provided that it is not elicited
pursuant to general practice or regulation
governing the examination of employees or
applicants on the basis of grade, job, or
agency.
6. The section prohibiting requirements to
disclose personal financial information con-
tains technical amendments to assure that
only persons with final authority in certain
areas may be subject to disclosure require-
ments.
'7. For those employees excluded from the
ban on disclosure requirements, a new sec-
tion (j) , provides that they may only be re-
quired to disclose items tending to show a
conflict of interest.
8. Military supervisors of civilian employees
are included within the prohibitions of the
bill, and violation of the act is made a punish-
able offense under the Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice.
9. A new section 2 has been added to as-
sure that the same prohibitions in section 1.
on actions of department and agency officials
with respect to employees in their depart-
ments and agencies apply alike to officers of
the Civil Service Commission with respect
to the employees and applicants with whom
they deal.
10. Section (b) of S. 3779, relating to the
calling or holding of meetings or lectures to
indoctrinate employees, was deleted.
11. Sections (c), (d), and (e) of S. 3779?
sections (b), (c), and (Cl) of S. 1035?con-
taining prohibitions on requiring attendance
at outside meetings, reports on personal ac-
tivities and participation in outside activi-
ties, were amended to make it clear that they
do not apply to the performance of official
duties or to the development of skill, knowl-
edge, and abilities which qualify the person
for his duties or to participation in profes-
sional groups or associations.
12. The criminal penalties were reduced
from a maximum of $500 and 6 months' im-
prisonment to $300 and 30 days.
13. Section (h) of S. 3779 prohibiting re-
quirements to support candidates, programs,
or policies of any political party was revised
to prohibit requirements to support the nom-
ination or election of persons or to attend
meetings to promote or support activities or
undertakings of any political party.
, 14. Other amendments of a technical na-
ture.
QUESTIONS ON RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Many complaints received by the subcom-
mittee concerned official requests or require-
ments that employees disclose their race, re-
ligion, or ethnic or national origin.. This,
information has been obtained from em-
ployees through the systematic use of ques-
tionnaires or oral inquiries by supervisors.
Chief concern has focused on a policy in-
augurated by the Civil Service Commission
in 1966, under which present employees and
future employees would be asked to indicate
on a questionnaire whether they were
"American Indian," "oriental," "Negro,"
"Spanish-American" or "none of these." Ap-
proximately 1.7 million employees were told
to complete -the forms, while some agencies
including the Department of Defense con-
tinued their former practice of acquiring
such information through the "head count"
method. Although the Civil Service Commis-
sion directive stated that disclosure of such
information was voluntary, complaints show
that employees and supervisors generally felt
it to be mandatory. Administrative efforts to
ss4Pgfigiratiel.INSaftfrqSadTk9R000Y15841381:rig , 1967
obtain compliance included in some in- The Civil,Service Commission on May 9 in-
stances, harassment, threats, and intimida- formed the subcommittee that it had "ra-
tion. Complaints in different agencies showed
that employees who did not comply received
airmail letters at ?their homes with new
forms; or their names were placed on ad-
ministrative lists for "followup" procedures,
and supervisors were advised to obtain the
information from delinquent employees by a
certain date.
In the view of John McCart, representing
the Government Employes' Council, AFL-
CIO:
"When the Civil Service Commission and
the regulations note that participation by
the employee will be voluntary, this removes
some of the onus of the encroachment on an
individual's privacy. But in an organizational
operation of the size and complexity of the
Federal Government, it is just impossible to
guarantee that each individual's right to pri-
vacy and confidentiality will be observed. _
"In addition to that, there have been a
large number of complaints from all kinds of
Federal employees. In the interest of main-
taining the rights of individual workers
against the possibility of invading those
rights, it would seem to us it would be better
to abandon the present approach, because
there are other alternatives available for de-
termining whether that program is being
carried out."
, The hearing record contains numerous ex-
amples of disruption of employee-manage-
ment relations, and of employee dissatisfac-
tion with such official inquiries. Many told
the subcommittee that they refused to com-
plete the questionnaires because the matter
was none of the Government's business; complaints of invasion of privacy and dis-
others, because of their mixed parentage, felt
unable to state the information. criimnation as Congress has received for a
Since 1963, the policy of the American Civil' number of years. It will protect Americans
Liberties Union on the method of collecting from the dilemma of the grandson of an
_ information about race has favored the head American Indian who told the subcommittee
count wherever possible. Although the policy that he had exercised his option and did not
is presently under review, the subcommittee complete the minority status questionnaire.
finds merit in the statement that: He did not know how to fill it out. Shortly
"The collection and dissemination of in- thereafter he received a personal memoran-
formation about race creates a conflict among dum from his supervisor "requesting" him to
several equally important civil liberties: the complete a new questionnaire and "return it
right of free speech and free inquiry, on the immediately." He wrote: "I personally feel
one hand and the rights of privacy and of ' that if I do not comply with this request
equality of treatment and of opportunity, on (order), my job or any promotion which
the other. The ACLU approves them all. But comes up could be in jeopardy."
at this time in human history, when the The prohibitions in
section 1(a) against
principle of equality and nondiscrimination official inquiries about religion, and in sec-
must be vigorously defended, it is necessary tion 1(e) concerning religious beliefs and
that the Union oppose collection and die- practices together constitute a bulwark to
semination of information regarding race, protect the individual's right to silence con-
except only where rigorous justification is corning his religious convictions and to re-
shown for such action. Where such collection frain from an indication of his religious be-
and dissemination is shown to be justified, liefs.
the gathering of information should be kept Referring to these two sections, Lawrence
to the most limited form, wherever possible Speiser, director of the Washington office of
by use of the head count method, and the the American Civil Liberties Union testified:
confidential nature of original records should "These provisions would help, we hope,
be protected as far as possible." eliminate a constantly recurring problem in-
Former Civil Service Commission Chairman volving those new Government employees
Robert Ramspeck told the subcommittee: who prefer to affirm their allegiance rather
"To consider race, color, religion, and na- than swearing to it. All Government em-
tional origin in making appointments, in ployees must sign an appointment affidavit
promotions and retention of Federal em- and take an oath or affirmation of office.
ployees is, in my opinion, contrary to the "A problem arises not just when new em-
merit system. There should be no discrimina- ployees enter Government employment but
tion for or against minority persons in Fed- in all situations where the Government re-
eral Government employment." quires an oath, and there is an attempt made
As the hearings and complaints have dem- on the part of those who prefer to affirm,
onstrated, the most telling argument against It is amazing the intransigence that arises
the use of such a questionnaire, other than on the part of clerks or those who require
the constitutional issue, is the fact that It the filling out of these forms, or the giving
does not work. This is shown by the admis- of the statement in permitting individuals
sion by many employees that they either to affirm.
did not complete the forms or that they gave "The excuses that are made vary tremen-
inaccurate data, dously, either that the form can only be
Mr. Macy informed the subcommittee: signed and they cannot accept a form in
cently approved regulations which will end
the use of voluntary self-identification of
race as a means of obtaining minority group
statistics for the Federal work force." The
Commission indicated its decision was based
on the failure of the program to produce
meaningful statistics. In its place the Com-
mission will rely on supervisory reports based
solely on observation, which would not be
prohibited by the bill.
As-Senator Fong stated:
"It should be noted that the bill would not
bar head counts of employee racial extrac-
tion for statistical purposes by supervisors.
However, the Congress has authorized the
merit system for the Federal Service and the
race, national origin or religion of the in-
dividual or his forebears should have nothing
to do with his ability or qualifications to do
a job."
Section 1(a) of the bill was included to
assure that employees will not again be sub-
jected to such unwarranted invasion of their
privacy. It is designed to protect the merit
system which Congress has authorized for
the Federal service. Its passage will reaffirm
the intent of Congress that, a person's reli-
gion, race, and national or ethnic origin or
that of his forebears have nothing to do with
his ability or qualification to perform the
requisite duties of a Federal position, or to
qualify for a promotion.
By eliminating official authority to place
the employee in a position in which he feels
compelled to disclose this personal data, the
bill will help to eliminate the basis for such
"In the State of Hawaii the entire program
was cut out because it had not been done
there before, and it was inadvertently in-
cluded in this one, and the feeling was that
because of the racial composition there it
would be exceedingly_difficult to come up
with any kind of identification along the
lines of the card that we were distributing."
which `so help me God' is struck out, be-
cause that is an amendment, and they are
bound by their .instructions which do not
permit any changes to be made on the forms
at all.
"Also, in connection with the giving of
oaths, I have had one case in which an in-
vestigator asked a young man this question:
Sanitized,,- Approved For Release: CIA,RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 1gar4ffied - AMZIWifrtiPistgeakKOVIA-REWM30149R0002006000611-917
'For the purposes of administering the oath,
do you believe in God?'
"It is to be hoped that the provisions of
this bill would bar practices of that kind.
The law should be clear at this time. Title
I, United States Code, section 1 has a num-
ber of rules of construction, one of which
says that wherever the word 'oath' appears,
that includes 'affirmation,' and wherever the
word 'swear' appears, that includes 'affirm.'
"This issue comes up sometimes when
clerks will ask, 'Why do you want to affirm?
Do you belong to a religious group that re-
quires an affirmation rather than taking an
oath?' And unless the individual gives the
right answer, the clerks won't let him affirm.
.It is clear under the Torcaso case that re-
ligious beliefs and lack of religions beliefs
are equally entitled to the protection of the
first amendment."
The objection has been raised that the
prohibition against inquiries into race, re-
ligion, or national origin would hinder in-
vestigation of discrimination complaints. In
effect, however, it is expected to aid rather
than hinder in this area of the law, by de-
creasing the opportunities for discrimination
initially. It does not hinder acquisition of
the information elsewhere; nor does it pre-
vent a person from volunteering the infor-
mation if he wishes to supply it in filing a
complaint or in the course of an investiga-
tion.
CONTROL OF EMPLOYEE OPINIONS, OUTSIDE
ACTIVITIES
Reports have come to the subcommittee
of infringements and threatened infringe-
ments on first amendment freedonis of em-
ployees: freedom to think for themselves free
of Government indoctrination; freedom to
choose their outside civic, social, and politi-
cal activities as citizens free of official guid-
ance; or even freedom to refuse to partici-
pate at all without reporting to supervisors.
Illustrative of the climate of surveillance
the subcommittee has found was a 13-year-
old Navy Department directive, reportedly
similar to those in other agencies, warning
employees to guard against "indiscreet re-
marks" and to seek "wise and mature" coun-
sel within their agencies before joining civic
or political associations.
In the view of the United Federation of
Postal. Clerks:
"Perhaps no other right is so essential to
employee morale as the right to personal
freedom and the absence of interference by
the Government in the private lives and ac-
tivities of its employees. Attempts to place
prohibitions on the private associations of
employees; mandatory reporting of social
contacts with Members of Congress and the
press; attempts to "orient" or "indoctrinate"
Federal employees on subjects outside their
immediate areas of professional interest: at-
tempts to "encourage" participation in out-
side activities or discourage patronage of
selected business establishments and coercive
campaigns for charitable donations are
among the most noteworthy abuses of Fed-
eral employees' right to personal freedom."
An example of improper on-the-job in-
doctrination of employees about sociological
and political matters was cited in his testi-
mony by John Griner, president of the AFL-
CIO affiliated American Federation, of Gov-
ernment Employees:
One instance of disregard of individual
rights of employees as well as responsibility
to the taxpayers, which has come to my at-
tention, seems to illustrate the objectives of
subsections (b) , (c), and (d), of section 1 of
the Ervin bill. It happened at a large field
Installation under the Department of Do-
"The office chief called meetings of dif-
ferent groups of employees throughout the
clay * ? *. A recording was played while em-
ployees listened about 30 minutes. It was
supposedly a speech made at a university,
Which went deeply into the .importance of
Integration of the races in this country. ,
There was discussion of the United Na-
tions?what a great thing it was?and how
there never could be another world war.
The person who reported this incident made
this comment:
"'Think of the taxpayers' money used that
day to hear that record.' I think that speaks
for itself."
Other witnesses were in agreement with Mr.
Griner's view on the need for protecting em-
ployees now and in the future from any form
of indoctrination on issues 'unrelated to their
work. The issue was defined at hearings on B.
3779 in the following colloquy between the
subcommittee chairman and Mr. Griner.
"If they are permitted to hold sessions such
as this on Government time and at Govern-
ment expense, they might then also hold ses-
sions as to whether or not we should be in-
volved in the Vietnam war or whether we
should not be, whether we should pull out
or whether we should stay, and I think it
could go to any extreme under those condi-
tions.
"Of course, we are concerned with it, yes.
But that is not a matter for the daily routine
of work.
"Senator Donn. Can you think of anything
which has more direful implications for a
free America than a practice by which a gov-
ernment would attempt to indoctrinate any
man with respect to a particular view on any
subject other than the proper performance of
his work?
"Mr. GRINER. I think if we attempted to do
that we would be violating the individual's
constitutional rights.
"Senator ERVIN. Is there any reason what-
ever why a Federal civil service employee
should not have the same right to have his
freedom of thought on all things under the
sun outside of the restricted sphere of the
proper performance of his work that any
other American enjoys?
"Mr. GR/NER. No, sir."
With one complaint of attempted indoc.
trination of employees at a Federal installa-
tion, a civil servant enclosed a memorandum
taken from a bulletin board stating the time,
place, and date of a lecture by a sociology
professor on the subject of the importance of
racial integration. Attendance was to be vol-
untary but the notice stated that a record
would be made of those attending or not
attending.
Concerning such a practice, one witness
commented: "If I had been a Federal em-
ployee and I cared anything about my job,
I would have been at that lecture."
Employees of an installation in Pennsyl-
vania complained of requirements to attend
film lectures on issues of the cold war.
Witnesses agreed that taking notice of at-
'tendance at such meetings constituted a form
of coercion to, attend. Section 1(b) will elim-
inate such intimidation. It leaves unaffected
existing authority to use any appropriate
means, including publicity, to provide em-
ployees information about meetings concern-
ing matters such as charity drives and bond-
selling campaigns.
Section (c) protects a basic constitutional
right of the individual employee to be free
of official pressure on him to engage in any
civic or political activity or undertaking
which might involve him as a private citizen,
but which has no relation to his Federal
employment. It preserves his freedom of
thought and expression, including his right.
to keep silent, or to remain inactive.
This section will place a statutory bar
against the recurrence of employee com-
plaints such as the following received by a
Member of the Senate:
"DEAR SENATOR : On 1966,
a group of Treasury Department adminis-
trators were called to Miami for a conference
led by , Treasury Personnel Officer,
with regard to new revisions in Chapter 713
of the. Treasury Personnel Manual.
? "Over the years the Treasury Department
has placed special emphasis on the hiring
of Negroes under the equal employment op-
portunity program, and considerable progress
in that regard has been made. However, the
emphasis of the present conference was that
our efforts in the field of equal employment
opportunity have not been sufficient. Under
the leadership of President Johnson and
based on his strong statement with regard to
the need for direct action to cure the basic
causes leading to discrimination, the Treas-
ury Department has now -iSsued specific in-
struetions requiring all supervisors and line
managers to become actively and aggressively
involved in the total civil rights problem.
"The requirements laid down by chapter
713 and its appendix include participation in
such groups as the Urban League, NAACP,
etc. (these are named specifically) and in-
volvement in the total community action
program, including open housing, integra-
tion of schools, etc.
"The policies laid down in this regula-
tion, as aerbally explained by the Treasury
representatives at the conference, go far
beyond any concept of employee personnel
responsibility previously expressed. In es-
sence, this regulation requires every Treas-
ury manager or supervisor to become a social
worker, both during his official hours and
on his own time. This was only tangentially
referred to in the regulation and its ap-
pendages, but was brought out forcefully in
verbal statements by Mr. and --.
Frankly, this is tremendously disturbing to
me and to many of the other persons with
whom I have discussed the matter. We do
not deny the rind for strong action in the
field of civil rights, but we do sincerely
question the authority of our Government
to lay out requirements to be met on our
own time which are repugnant to our per-
sonal beliefs and desires.
"The question was asked as to what dis-
ciplinary measures would be taken against
individua's declining to participate in these
community action programs. The reply was
given by the equal employment officer, that
such rafusal would constitute an undesir-
able wo k attitude bordering on insubordi-
nation and should at the very least be
reflected on the annual efficiency rating of
the employee.
"The principles expressed in these regu-
lations and in this conference strike me
as being of highly dangerous potential. If
we, who have no connection with welfare or
social programs, can be required to take
time from our full-time responsibilities in
our particular agencies and from the hours
normally reserved for our own refreshment
and recreation to work toward integration
of white neighborhoods, integration of
schools by artificial means, and to train
Negroes who have not availed themselves of
the public schooling available, then it would
seem quite possible that under other lead-
ership, we could be required to perform other
actions which would actually be detrimental
to the interests of our Nation."
Testifying cu the issue of reporting out-
side activities, the American Civil Liberties
Union representative commented:
"To the extent that individuals are appre-
hensive 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 oppor-
tunities 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."
Witnesses gave other examples of invasion
Of employees' private lives which would be
halted by passage of the bill.
In the southwest a division chief dis-
patched a buck slip to his group supervisors
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12918 Sanitized - AppgabigdFeh804likistiMALR-DISY#4)TA49R006M166d660113-6 1967
demanding: "the names * * * of employees
* * who are participating in any activities
including such things as: PTA in integrated
schools, sports activities which are inter-
social, and such things as Great Books dis-
cussion groups which have integrated mem-
berships."
In a Washington office of the Department
of Defense, a branch chief by telephone asked
supervisors to obtain from employees the
names of any organizations they belonged to.
The purpose apparently was to obtain invita-
tions for Federal Government officials to
speak before such organizations.
Reports have come to the subcommittee
that the Federal Maritime Commission, pur-
suant to civil service regulations, requested
employees to participate in community ac-
tivities to improve the employability of mi-
nority groups, and to report to the chairman
any outside activities.
In addition to such directives, many other
instances involving this type of restriction
have coins to the attention of the subcom-
mittee over a period of years. For example,
some agencies have either prohibited flatly,
or required employees to report, all contacts,
social or otherwise, with Members of Con-
gress or congressional staff members. In
many cases reported to the subcommittee,
officials have taken reprisals against em-
ployees who communicated with their Con-
gressmen and have issued directives threat-
ening such action.
The Civil Service Commission on its Form
85 for non-sensitive positions requires an
Individual to list: "Organizations with which
affiliated (past and present) other than re-
ligious or political organizations or those
with religious or political affiliations (if
none, so state) ."
PRIVACY INVASIONS IN INTERVIEWS, INTERRO-
GATIONS, AND PERSONALITY TESTS
Although it does not outlaw all of the un-
warranted personal prying to which employ-
ees and applicants are now subjected, sec-
thin 1(c) of the reported bill will prohibit
404 IMO+ till 1.1
t ritot.1 NI. 'nit!
will also result in limitations beyond Its spe-
cific prohibitions by encouraging adminis-
trative adherence to the principles it reflects.
It will halt mass programs in which, as a
general rule, agency ollicials conduct inter-
views during which they require or request
applicants or employees to reveal intimate
details about their habits, thoughts, and
attitudes on matters unrelated to their qual-
ifications and ability to perform a job.
It will also halt individual interrogations
such as that involving an 18-year-old col-
lege sophomore applying for a summer job
as a secretary at a Federal department.
In the course of an interview with a de-
partment investigator, she was asked wide-
ranging personal questions. For instance, re-
garding a boy whom she was dating, she was
asked questions which denoted assumptions
made by the investigator, such as:
"Did he abuse you?
"Did he do anything unnatural with you?
You didn't get pregnant, did you?
"There's kissing, petting, and intercourse,
and after that, did he force you to do any-
thing to him, or did he do anything to you?"
The parent of this student wrote:
"This interview greatly transcended the
bounds of normal areas and many probing
personal questions were propounded. Most
questions were leading and either a negative
or positive answer resulted in an appearance
of self-incrimination. During this experi-
ence, my husband was on an unaccompanied
tour of duty in Korea and?I attempted alone,
without sucess, to do battle with the De-
partment.
"I called and was denied any opportunity
to review what had been recorded in my
daughter's file. Likewise my daughter was
denied any review of the file in order to merify
or refute any of the record made by the State
Department interviewer. This entire matter
was handled as if applicants for State De-
partment employment must subject them-
selves to the personal and intimate questions
and abdicate all claims to personal rights and
privileges.
"As a result of this improper intrusion into
my daughter's privacy which caused all great
mental anguiah. I had her application for
employment withdrawn from the State De-
partment. This loss of income made her
college education that much more difficult.
"Upon my husband's return, we discussed
this entire situation and felt rather than
subjecting her again to the sanctioned meth-
ods of Government investigation we would
have her work for private industry. This
she did in the summer of 1966, with great
success and without embarrassing or humili-
ating Gestapo-type investigation."
Upon subcommittee investigation of this
case, the Department indicated that this was
not a unique case, because it used a "uni-
form policy in handling the applications of
summer employees as followed with all other
applicant categories." It stated that' its pro-
cedure under Executive Order 10450 is a
basic one "used by the Department and other
executive agencies concerning the process-
ing of any category of applicants who will
be dealing with sensitive, classified ma-
terial." Its only other Comment on the case
was to assure that "any information de-
veloped during the course of any of our in-
vestigations that is of a...Medical nature, is
referred to our Medical Division for proper
evaluation and judgment." In response to a
request for copies of departmental guide-
lines governing such investigations and in-
terviews, the subcommittee was told they
were classified.
Section 1(e) would protect every employee
and every civilian who offers his services to
his Government from indiscriminate and
unauthorized requests to submit to any test
designed to elicit such information as the
following:
"My sox life is satisfactory.
"I have never been ill trouble because of
Ply ev,i behavior,
"Everything Is tinning out just like the
prophets of the Bible said it would.
"I loved my father.
"I am very strongly attracted by members
of my own sex.
"I go to church almost every week. ?
"I believe in the second coming of Christ.
"I believe in a life hereafter,
"I have never indulged in any unusual
sex practices.
. "I am worried about sex matters.
"I am vyry religious (more than Most
people).
"I loved my mother.
"I believe there is a Devil and a Hell in
afterlife.
"I believe there is a God.
"Once in a while I feel hate toward mem-
bers of my family whom I usually love.
"I wish I were not bothered by thoughts
about sex."
The subcommittee hearings in 1965 on
'Psychological testa and constitutional
rights" arid its subsequent investigations
support the need for such statutory prohibi-
tions on the use of tests.
In another case, the subcommittee was
told, a woman was questioned for 6 houra,
"about every aspect of her sex life?real,
imagined, and gossiped?with an intensity
that could only have been the product of
inordinately salacious minds."
The specific limitation on the three areas
of questioning proscribed in S. 1035 in no
way is intended as a grant of authority to
continue or initiate the official eliciting of
personal data from individuals on subjects
not directly proscribed. It would prohibit
investigators, or personnel, _ security and
medical specialists from indiscriminately
requiring or requesting the individual to
supply, orally or through tests,- data on re-
ligion, family, or sex. It does not prevent a
physician from doing so if he has reason
to believe the employee is "suffering from
mental illness" and believes the informa-
tion is necessary to make a diagnosis. Such
a standard is stricter than the broad "fit-
ness for duty" standard now generally ap-
plied by psychiatrists and physicians in the
interviews and testing which an employee.
can be requested and required to undergo.
There is nothing in this section to pro-
hibit an official from advising an individual
of a specific charge of sexual misconduct
and affording him an opportunity to refute
the charge voluntarily.
POLYGRAPHS
Section 1(f) makes it unlawful for any
officer of any executive department or agency
or any person acting under his authority to
require or request or attempt to require or
request any civilian employee or any appli-
cant' for employment to take any polygraph
test designed to elicit from him information
concerning his personal relationship with
any person connected with him by blood or
marriage, or concerning his religious be-
liefs, practices or concerning his attitude
or conduct with respect to sexual matters.
While this section does not eliminate the
use of so-called lie detectors by Government,
it assures that where such devices are used
for these purposes it will be only in limited
areas.
John McCart, representing the Govern-
ment Employees Council of AFL-CIO, sup-
ported this section of the bill, citing a 1965
report by a special subcommittee of the
AFL-CIO executive council that:
"The use of lie detectors violates basic
considerations of human dignity in that they
?
Involve the invasion of privacy, self-incrim-
ination, and the concept of guilt until
proven innocent."
Congressional investigation1 has shown
that there is no scientific validation for the
effectiveness or accuracy of lie detectors.
Yet despite this and the invasion of privacy
involved, lie detectors are being used or may
be ivied in various agencies of the Federal
Government for purposes of screening ap-
plicants or for pursuing investigations. ?
This section of the bill is based on com-
plaints such the following received by the
subcommittee:
"When I graduated from college in 1965,
I applied at NSA. I went to 2 days of testing,
which apparently I passed because the in-
terviewer seemed pleased and he told me
that they could always find a place for some-
one with my type of degree.
"About one month later, I reported for a
polygraph test at an office on Wisconsin
Avenue in the District or just over the dis-
trict line in Maryland, I talked with the
polygraph operator, a young man around 23
years of age. He explained how the machine
worked, etc. He ran through some of the
questions before he attached the wires to
me. Some of the questions I can remember
are?
'When was,the first time you had sexual
relations with a woman?
"'How many times have you had sexual
Intercourse?
"'Have you ever engaged in homosexual
activities?
"'Have you ever engaged in sexual ac-
tivities with an animal?
"When was the first time you had inter-
course with your wife?
"'Did you have intercourse with her before
you were married? How many times?'
"He also asked questions about my parents,
Communist activities, etc. I remember that
I thought this thing was pretty outrageous,
but the operator assured me that he asked
1 Hearings and reports on the use of poly-
graphs as "lie detectors," by the Federal
Government before a Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Government ? Opera-
tions, April 1961 through 1966.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sep!ember 13,?96LZ
annized - RaTFOIWIE1?4telartIASKIEWS-00149R0002006060111)-9
everybody the same questions and he has
heard all the answers before, it just didn't
mean a thing to him. I wondered how he
could ever get away with asking a girl those
kind of questions.
"When I was finished, I felt as though I
had been in a 15 round championship boxing
match. I felt exhausted. I made up any mind
then and there that I wouldn't take the job
even if they wanted me to take it. Also, I
concluded that I would never again apply for
a job with the Government, especially where
they make you take one of these tests."
Commenting on this complaint, the sub-
committee chairman observed:
"Certainly such practices should not be
tolerated even by agencies charged with secu-
rity missions. Surely, the financial, scientific,
and investigative resources of the Federal
Government are sufficient to determine
whether a person is a security risk, without
strapping an applicant to a machine and sub-
jecting him to salacious questioning. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation does not use
personality tests or polygraphs on applicants
for employment. I fail to see why the Na-
tional Security Agency finds them so fasci-
nating."
COERCION TO BUY BONDS AND CONTRIBUTE TO
CAUSES
The hearing record and subcommittee com-
plaint files amply document the need for
Statutory protection against all forms of coer-
cion of employees to buy bonds and con-
tribute to causes. Involved here is the free-
dom of the individual to invest and donate
his money as he sees fit, without official
coercion. As the subcommittee chairman ex-
plained:
"It certainly seems to me that each Federal
employee, like any other citizen in the United.
States, is the best judge of his capacity, in
the light of his financial obligations, to par-
ticipate or decide whether he will participate
and the extent of his participation in a bond
drive. That is a basic determination which
he and he alone should make.
"I think there Is an interference with fun-
damental rights when coercion of a psy-
chological or economic nature is brought on
a Federal employee, even to make him do
right. I think a man has to have a choice of
acting unwisely as well as wisely, if he is
? going to have any freedom at all."
The subcommittee has received from em-
ployees and their organizations numerous
? reports of intimidation, threats of loss of
job, and security clearances and of denial
of promotion for employees who do not par-
ticipate to the extent supervisors wish. The
hearing record contains examples of docu-
mented eases of reprisals, many of which
have been investigated at the subcommit-
tee's request and confirmed by the agency
involved. It is apparent that policy state-
ments and administrative rules are not suf-
ficient to protect individuals from such
coercion.
The president of the United Federation of
Postal Clerks informed the subcommittee:
"Section I, paragraph (1) of S. 3779 la
particularly important to all Federal em-
ployees and certainly to our postal clerks.
The extreme arm-twisting coercion, and
pressure tactics exerted by some postmasters
on our members earlier this year during the
savings bond drive must not be permitted
at any future time in the Government
service.
"Our union received complaints from all
over the country where low paid postal
clerks, most having the almost impossible
problem of trying to support a family and
exist on substandard wages, were practically
being ordered to sign up for purchase of
U.S. savings bonds, or else. The patriotism
of our postal employees cannot be chal-
lenged. I recently was advised :that almost
75 percent of postal workers are veterans
of the Armed Forces and have proven their
loyalty and patriotism to this great country
of ours in the battlefield in many wars. Yet,
some postmasters questioned this patriotism
and loyalty if any employee could not afford
to purchase a savings bond during the drive."
The president of the National Association
of Government Employees testified:
"We are aware of instances wherein em-
ployees were told that if they failed to par-
ticipate in the bond program they would
be frozen in their position without promo-
tional opportunities.
"In another agency the names of individ-
uals who did not participate were posted for
all to see. We have been made aware of this
situation for some years and we know that
Congress has been advised of the many in-
stances and injustices Federal employees
faced concerning their refusal or inability
to purchase bonds.
? "Certainly, the Government, which has
thousands of public relations men in its
agencies and departments, should be capable
of promoting a bond program that does not
include the sledge-hammer approach."
Some concern has been expressed by offi-
cials of the United Community Funds and
Councils of America, the American Heart
Association, Inc., and other charitable or..,,,.
ganizations, that the bill would hamper their
campaigns in Federal agencies.
For this reason, the bill contains a pro-
viso to express the intent of the sponsors
that officials may still schedule meetings and
take any appropriate action to publicize cam-
paigns and to afford employees the oppor-
tunity to invest or donate their money vol-
untarily. It is felt that this section leaves
a wide scope for reasonable action in pro-
moting bond selling and charity drives.
The bill will prohibit such practices as
were reported to the subcommittee in the
following complaints:
"We have not yet sold our former home
and cannot afford to buy bonds while we
have both mortgage payments and rental
payments to meet. Yet I have been forced
to buy bonds, as I was told the policy at this
base is, "Buy bonds or Bye Bye."
"In short, after moving 1,700 miles for the
good of the Government, I was told I would
be fired if I didn't invest my money as my
employer directed. I cannot afford to buy
bonds, but I can't afford to be fired even
more."
* *
"Not only were we forced to buy bonds,
but our superiors stood by the time clock
with the blanks for the United Givers Fund,
and refused to let us leave until we signed ,
up. I am afraid to sign my name, but I am'
employed at * ?."
A -representative of the 14th District De-
partment of the American Federation of Gov-
ernment Employees, Lodge 421 reported: "the
case of a 13S-13 professional employee who
has had the misfortune this past year of
underwriting the expenses incurred by the
last illness and death of both his mother and
father just prior to this recent bond drive.
This employee had been unofficially informed
by his supervisor that he had been selected
for a then existing GS-14 vacancy. When'
it became known that he was declining to
increase his participation in the savings bond
drive by increasing his payroll deduction for
that purpose, he was informed that he might
as well, in effect, kiss that grade 14 goodby."
DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS, DEBTS, AND PROPERTY
Sections (1) and (j) meet a need for im--
posing a reasonable statutory limitation on
the extent to which an employee must reveal
the details of his or his family's personal
finances, debts, or ownership of property.
The subcommittee believes that the con-
flict-of-interest statutes, and the many other
laws governing conduct of employees, to- -
gether with appropriate implementing regu-
lations, are sufficient to protect the Govern-
ment from dishonest employees. More zeal-
ous informational activities on the part of
management were recommended by witnesses
in lieu of the many questionnaires now
required.
The employee criticism of such inquiries
was summarized as follows:
"There are ample laws on the statute books
dealing with fraudulent employment, con-
flicts of interest, etc. The invasion of privacy
of the individual employee is serious enough,
but the invasion of the privacy of family,
relatives and children of the employee is an
outrage against a free society.
"This forced financial disclosure has
caused serious moral problems and feelings
by employees that the agencies distrust their
integrity. We do not doubt that if every
employee was required-to file an absolutely
honest financial disclosure, that a few,
though insignificant number of conflict-of -
interest cases may result. However, the dis-
covery of the few legal infractions could in
no way justify the damaging effects of forced
disclosures of a private nature. Further, it is
our opinion that those who are intent on
engaging in activities which result in a con-
flict of interest would hardly supply that
information on a questionnaire or financial
'statement. Many employees have indicated
that rather than subject their families to
any such unwarranted invasion of their right
to privacy, that they are seriously considering
other employment outside of Government."
The reduce to reasonable propor-
tions such inquiries as the following ques-
tionnaire, which many thousands of em-
ployees have periodically been required to
submit.
(Questionnaire follows:)
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS
' (For Use By Regular Government Employees)
Name (Last, First, Initial)
ITitle of Position
Date of Appointment in Present Position I aganization Location (Operating Agency, Bureau Division)
PART I. EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS
List the names of all corporations, companies, firms, or other
business enterprises, partnerships, nonprofit organizations,
and educational, or other institutions: (a) with which you are
connected as an employee, officer, owner, director, member,
trustee, partner, adviser, or consultant; or (b) In which you
have any continuing financial interests, through a pension or
retirement plan, shared Income, or other arrangement as a
result of any current or prior employment or business or
professional association; or (c) in which you have any financial
Interest through the ownership of stock, stock options, bonds,
securities, or other arrangements including trusts. If none,
write None.
Naive and Kind of Organization
(Use Part 1 design-Bons
where applicable)
,
. .
_ Address
Position in Organization
(Use Part1(a)designations,
if applicable.
.
Nature of Financial Interest,
e.g., Stocks, Prior income
(Use Part 1(b) & (c)
- designations if applicable)
,
?
Sanitized.- Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
12920
Sanitized - ApiF5PoVgiTN-9:NefkatiTIR-WEIFff-a149RO'lltd6g6601011-
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF M LOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS?Continued At our ages (64 and 58) we would be far less
deserving of respect had we not made the
prudent provisions for our retirement which
g967
PART II. CREDITORS
List the names of your creditors other than those to whom
you may be indebted by reason of a mortgage on property
which you occupy as a personal residence or to whom you may
be Indebted for current and ordinary household and Hying
expenses such as household furnishings, automobile, educa-
tion, vacation, and similar expenses. If none, write None.
Name and Address of Creditor
Character of Indebtedness, e.g., Personal Loan, Note, Security
PART III: INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY
List your interest In real property or rights in lands
None.
our assets and the income they earn repre-
sent. Yet this reporting requirement carries
with it the implication that to have "clean
hands" it would be best to have no assets or
outside, unearned income when you work for
the Federal Government.
"For your information I am a GS-15, earn-
ing $19,415 * *.
"Thank you for speaking out for the con-
tinually maligned civil servant.
"Sincerely yours,
0
!IDEAR SENATOR ERV/N : I am a GS-12
other than property which you occupy as a personal residence. If none,,write career employee with over 15 years service.
"The highest moral and ethical conduct
has been my goal in each of my positions of
Nature of Interest e.g., Ownership,
Mortgage, Lien, Investment Trust
Type of Property, e.g., Residence, Hotel,
Apartment, Undeveloped Land
Address (If rural, qive RFD or county and
State)
PART IV INFORMATION REQUESTED OF OTHER PERSONS
If any information is to be supplied by other persons, e.g.,
trustee, attorney, accountant, relative, please indicate the
name and address of such persons, the date upon which you
requested that the information be supplied, and the nature of
subject matter Involved. If none, write None,
Name and Address
Date of request
Nature of Subject Matter
(This Space Reserved for Additional Instructions)
I certify that the statements I have made are true, completer and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(Date)
The vagueness of the standards for re-
quiring such a broad surrender of privacy
is illustrated by the Civil Service Commis-
sion's regulation applying this to any em-
ployee whose duties have an "economic im-
pact on a non-Federal enterprise."
Also eliminated will be questionnaires ask-
ing employees to list "all assets, or every-
thing you and your immediate family own,
including date acquired and cost or fair
market value at acquisition. (Cash in banks,
cash anywhere else, due from others?loans,
etc., automobiles, securities, real estate, cash
surrender of life insurance; personal effects
and household furnishings and other as-
. sets.) "
The view of the president of the United
Federation of Postal Clerks reflected the
testimony of many witnesses endorsing sec-
, tions 1 (1) and (j) of the bill:
"If the conflict-of-interest questionnaire
is of doubtful value in preventing conflict
of interest, as we believe, we can only con-
clude that it does not meet the test of es-
sentiality and that it should be proscribed
as an unwarranted invasion of employee pri-
vacy. Such value as it may have in focusing
employee attention upon the problem of con-
flict of interest and bringing to light honest
oversights that may lead to conflict of in-
terest could surely be achieved by drawing
attention to the 26 or more laws pertaining
to conflict of interest or by more zealous
information activities on the part of man-
agement."
The complex problem of preserving the
confidential nature of such reports was de-
scribed by officials of the National Associa-
tion of Internal Revenue Employees:
"The present abundance of financial ques-
tionnaires provides ample material for even
more abusive personnel practices. It is al-
most inevitable that this confidential infor-
mation cannot remain confidential. Typi-
cally, the financial questionnaire is filed with
an employee's immediate supervisor. The net
worth statements ultimately go Into Inspec-
(Signature)
tion, but they pass through the hands of
local personnel administrators. We have re-
ceived a _great number of disturbing reports
?as have you?that this information about
employees' private affairs is being used for
improper purposes, such as enforced retire-
ment and the like."
Inadequacies in agency procedures for ob-
taining such information from employees
and for reviewing and storing it, are dis-
cussed in the Subcommittee report for the
89th Congress, 2d session. Widely disparate
attitudes and practices are also revealed in a
Subcommittee study contained in the ap-
pendix of the printed hearings on S. 3779.
The bill will make such complaints as the
following unnecessary in the future conduct
of the Federal Government:
"DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : I am writing to ap-
plaud the stand you have taken on the new
requirement that Federal employees in cer-
tain grades and categories disclose their fi-
nancial holdings to their immediate superior.
Having been a civil service employee for 26
years, and advanced from GS-4 to GS-15,
and been cleared for top secret during World
War II, and because I currently hold a posi-
tion that involves the disposition of hun-
dreds of thousands of the taxpayers' money,
it is my conviction that my morality and
trustworthiness are already a matter of rec-
ord in the files 'of the Federal Government.
"The requirement that my husband's
financial assets be reported, as well as my
own assets and those we hold jointly, was
particularly offensive, since my husband is
the head of our household and is not em-
ployed by Government.
"You might also be interested in the fact
that it required 6 hours of after-hours work
on our part to hunt up all the information
called for and prepare the report. Since the
extent of our assets is our private business,
it was necessary that I type the material my-
self, an added chore since I am not a typist.
"Our assets have been derived, in the main,
from laying aside a portion of our earnings,
employment and I have found this to be true
of a vast majority of my fellow workers. It
may be true a few people do put material
gain ahead of their ethics but generally these
people are in the higher echelons of office
where their influence is much greater.
"Our office has recently directed each em-
ployee from file clerk to the heads of sections
to file a "Statement of Financial Interest."
As our office has no programs individuals
could have a financial interest in and es-
pecially no connections with FHA I feel it is
no one's business but my own what real
estate I own. I do not have a FHA mortgage
or any other real property and have no out-
side employment, hence have nothing to
hide by filing a blank form. Few Govern-
ment workers can afford much real property.
The principal of reporting to "Big Brother"
in every phase of your private life to me is
very degrading, highly unethical and very
questionable as to its effectiveness. If I could
and did use my position in some way to make
a profit I would be stupid to report it on an
agency inquiry form. What makes officials
think reporting will do away with graft?
"When the directive came out many man-
hours of productive work were lost in dis-
cussions and griping. Daily since that date at
some time during the day someone brings up
the subject. The supervisors filed their re-
ports as "good" examples but even they
objected to this inquiry.
"No single thing was ever asked of Gov-
ernment employees that caused such a de-
cline in their morale. We desperately need a
"bill of rights" to protect ourselves from any
further invasion of our private lives.
"Fifteen years ago I committed myself to
Government service because: (a) I felt an
obligation to the Government due to my
education under the GI bill, (b) I could
obtain freedom from pressures of uniont,
(c) I could obtain freedom from invasion
of my private life and (d) I would be given
the opportunity to advance based solely on
my professional ability and not on personal
politics. At this point I certainly regret my
decision to make the Government my
career.
"Sincerely
"DEAR SENATOR: I write to beg your sup-
port of a 'Bill of Rights' to protect Federal
employees from official snooping which was
introduced by Senator Ervin of North Caro-
lina.
"I am a veteran of two wars and have
orders to a third war as a ready reservist.
And I know why I serve in these wars: that
is to prevent the forces of tyranny from
invading America.
"Now, as a Federal employee I must fill
out a questionnaire giving details of my
financial status. This is required if I am
to continue working. I know that this in-
formation can be made available to every
official in Washington, including those who
want to regulate specific details of my life.
"Now I am no longer a free American. For
example, I can no longer buy stock of a for-
eign company because that country may be
in disfavor with officials of the right or left
Sanitized -Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
ISept.ortber .13, .196Z
ban iti zed - 90:MeWkelliMPCOTREW5-00149R00020060bd612-i3
And I cannot 'own part of America' by buy- affairs derives from recent developments in
the law of the sixth amendment by the Su-
preme Court. In view of the decisions of
Miranda v. Arizona, 984 U.S. 436 and Esco-
bedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, it is clear that
any person (including Federal employees)
Who is suspected of a crime is absolutely en-
titled to counsel before being subjected to
custodial interrogation. Accordingly, some
agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice, acknowledge, an unqualified right to
counsel for an employee suspected of crime
but decline to do the same for coworkers
threatened with the loss of their livelihoods
for noncriminal reasons. In the subcommit-
tee's view, this discrimination in favor of
the criminal suspect is both bad personnel
policy as well as bad law. It would be cor-
rected by this section of the bill.
The ultimate justification for the "right-
to-counsel" clause, however, is the Constitu-
tion itself. There is no longer any serious
,doubt that Federal employees are entitled to
due process of law as an incident of their em-
ployment relation. Once, of course, the courts
felt otherwise, holding that- absent explicit
statutory limitation, the power of the execu-
tive to deal wih employees was virtually
unfettered.
The doctrinal underpinning of this rule
was the 19th-century notion that the em-
ployment relation is not tangible "property."
Both the rule and its underpinning have
now been reexamined. The Supreme Court
in recent years has emphasized the necessity
of providing procedural due process where
, a man is deprived of his job or livelihood by
governmental action.
While the courts have as yet had no oc-
? casion to articulate a specific right to counsel
in the employment relationship, there can
obviously be n6doubt that the right to coun-
? sel is of such a fundamental character that it
- is among the essential ingredients of due
process. What is at stake for an employee in
a discharge proceeding?often including per-
sonal humiliation, obloquy and penury?is
just as serious as that involved in a criminal
trial. This is not to suggest that all the
incidents of our civilized standard of a fair
trial can or should be imported into Federal
discharge proceedings. But if we are to have
fair play for Federal employees, the right of
counsel is a sine qua non. It is of a piece
with the highest traditions, the fairest laws,
and the soundest policy that this country
has produced. And, in the judgment of this
subcommittee, the clear affirmation of this
basic right is very long overdue.
The need for such protection was confirmed
at the hearings by all representatives of
Government employee organizations and
unions.
The president of the National Association
of Letter Carriers testified:
"It is a practice in the postal inspection
service, when an employee is called in for
questioning by the inspectors on a strictly
postal matter that does not involve a felony,
to deny the right of counsel. The inspectors
interrogate the employee at length and, at
the completion of the interrogation, one of
the inspectors writes out a statement and
pressures the employee to sign it before he
leaves the room. We have frequently asked
the postal inspection service to permit these
employees to have counsel present at the
time of the interrogation. The right for such
counsel has been denied in all except a few
cases: If the employee is charged with a
felony, then, of course, the law takes over
and the right for counsel is clearly estab-
lished but in other investigations and in-
terrogations no counsel is permitted."
Several agencies contest that right to coun-
sel is now granted in formal adverse action
proceedings and that appeals procedures
make this section unnecessary for informal
questioning. Testimony and complaints from
employees indicate that this machinery does
not effectively secure the opportunity of the
ing common stocks until an 'approved list'
Is published by my superiors.
"I can never borrow money because an
agent may decide that debt makes me sus-
ceptible to bribery by agents of any enemy
power. Nor do I dare own property lest some
official may decide I should sell or rent to
a person or group not of my choosing.
"In short, I am no longer free to plan
my own financial program for the future
security of my family. In one day I was
robbed of the freedom for which I fought
two wars. This is a sickening feeling, you
may be sure.
"It seems plain that a deep, moral issue
Is involved here that concerns every citizen.
If this thing is allowed to continue, tomor-
row or next year every citizen may come
under the Inquisition. The dossier on every
citizen will be on file for the use of any
person or group having enough overt or.
covert power to gain access to them.
"Sincerely,
AI
social security, pensions (non-military), rent
(minus expenses), interests or dividends,
unemployment insurance, welfare payments,
or from any other source not already entered?
"How much did other members of your
family earn in 1965 in wages, salary, com-
missions or tips? (Before any deductions.)
(For this question, a family consists of two
or more persons in the same household who
are related to each other by blood, marriage,
or adoption.) If the exact amount is not
known, give your best estimate.
"How much did other members of your
family earn in 1965 in profits or fees from
working in their own business, professional
practices, partnership, or farm?
"How much did any other member of your
family receive in 1965 from social security,
pensions, rent (minus expenses), interest or
dividends, unemployment insurance, welfare
payments; or from any other source not al-
ready entered?"
? RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Section 1(k) of the bill guarantees to Fed-
eral workers the opportunity of asking the
presence of legal counsel, of a friend or other
person when undergoing an official interro-
gation or investigation that could lead to the
loss of their jobs or to disciplinary action.
The merits of this clause are manifold; not
least of which is that uniformity and order
it will bring to the present crazy quilt prac-
tices of the various agencies concerning the
right to counsel for employees facing disci-
plinary investigations or possible loss of se-
curity clearances tantamount to loss of em-
ployment. The Civil Service Commission
regulations are silent on this, critical issue.
In the absence of any Commission initiative
or standard, therefore, -the employing agen-
cies are pursuing widely disparate practices.
To judge from the questionnaires and other
evidence before the subcommittee, a few
agencies appear to afford a legitimate right
to counsel, probably many more do not, and
still others prescribe a "right" on paper but
hedge it in such a fashion as to discourage
its exercise. Some apparently do not set any
regulatory standard, but handle the problem
on an ad hoc basis,
On a matter as critical as this, such a
Pointless diversity of practice is poor policy.
SO far as job-protection rights are concerned,
all Federal employees should be equal.
A second anomaly in the present state of
In August 1966 Federal employees who
were retired from the armed services were
told to complete and return within 7 days,
with their social security numbers, a 15-page
questionnaire, asking, among other things;
"How much did you earn in 1965 in wages,
salary, commissions, or tips from all jobs?
"How much did you earn in 1965 in profits
or fees from working in your own business,
professional practice, partnership, or farm?
"How much did you receive in 1965 from
employee to defend himself early enough in
the investigation to allow a meaningful de-
fense.
The predicament of postal employees as
described at the hearings reflects the situa-
tion in other agencies as reported in many
individual cases sent to the subcommittee.
While it is undoubtedly true that in some
simple questioning, counsel may not be nec-
essary, in many matters where interrogation
will result in disciplinary action, failure to
have counsel at the first level reacts against
the employee all the way up through the
appeal and review. In the case of a postal
employee, the subcommittee was told?
"The first level is at the working foreman's
level. He is the author of the charges; then
the case proceeds to the postmaster, who ap-
pointed the foreman and, if the individual is
found guilty of the charge at the first level,
it is almost inevitable that this position will
be supported on the second level. The third
level is the regional level, and the policy
there is usually that of supporting the local
postmaster. A ditinterested party is never
reached. The fourth level is the Appeals
Board, composed of officials appointed by the
Postmaster General. In some cases, the region
will overrule the postmaster, but certainly
the individual does not have what one could
style an impartial appeals procedure."
Employees charged with no crime have
been subjected to intensive interrogations
by Defense Department investigators who
ask intimate questions, make sweeping al-
legations, and threaten dire consequences
unless consent is given to polygraph tests,
Employees have been ordered to confess oral-
ly or to write and sign statements. Such in-
terviews have been conducted after denial
of the employee's request for presence of
supervisor, counsel, or friend, and in several
instances the interrogations have resulted
in revocation of a security clearance, or
denial of access to classified information by
transfer or reassignment with the resulting
loss of promotion opportunities.
Witnesses testified that employees have no
recourse against the consequences of formal
charges based on information and state-
ments acquired during a preliminary inves-
tigation. This renders meaningless the dis-
tinction urged by the Civil Service Commis-
sion between formal and informal proceed-
ings.
EXCEPTIONS
The bill, under section 7, does not apply to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Fur-
thermore, section 6 provides that nothing
in the act will prohibit an official of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and the National
Security Agency from requesting any em-
ployee or applicant to take a polygraph test
or a psychological test, or to provide a per-
sonal financial statement, designed to elicit
the personal information protected under
subsections 1(e), (f), (I), and (j) . In such
cases, the Director of the Agency must make
a personal finding with regard to each in-
dividual to be tested or examined that such
test or information is required to protect the
national security.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement of the rights guaranteed in
sections 1 and 2 of the bill is lodged in the
administrative and civil remedies and sanc-
tions of sections 3, 4, and 6. Crucial to en-.
forcement of the act is the creation of an
independent Board on Employee Rights to
determine the need for disciplinary action
against civilian and military offenders under
the act and to provide relief from violations.
Testimony at the hearings as well as in-
vestigation of complaints have demonstrated
that in the area of employee rights, a right is
only as secure as its enforcement. There is
overwhelming evidence that employees have
heretofore frequently lacked appropriate
remedies either in the courts or the Civil
Service Commission for -pursuing rights
Which belong to them as citizens.
Sanitized -Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approve
Keiease . ulA-KOPSfe-M49ROOL-- -- I-
S 12922 CONGRESS.LONAL RFCORD. 1:37
Under the remedies afforded by sections 3, ment, would be authorized to make rulings mation resulting from activities and opera-
tions of the proposed act."
Sanctions
The need for sanctions against offending
officials has been evident throughout the
subcommittee's investigation of flagrant dis-
regard of basic rights and unpunished
flaunting of administrative guidelines and
prohibitions. It was for this reason that S.
3779 of the 89th Congress and S. 1035, as
introduced, contained criminal penalties for
offenders and afforded broad civil remedies
and penalties.
Reporting on the experiences of the Amer-
ican Civil Liberties Union in such employee
cases, Lawrence Speiser testified:
"In filing complaints with agencies, in-
cluding the Civil Service Commission, the
Army and the Navy, as I have during the
period of time I have worked here in Wash-
ington, I have never been informed of any
disciplinary action taken against any in-
vestigator for asking improper questions, for
engaging in improper investigative tech-
niques, for barring counsel when a person
had a right to have counsel, or for a violation
of any number of things that you have in
this bill. Maybe some was taken, but I cer-
tainly couldn't get that information out of
the agencies, after making the complaints. I
would suggest that the bill also encompass
provision for disciplinary action ithat would
be taken against Federal employees who vio-
late any of these rights that you have set
out in the bill."
Other witnesses also pointed to the need
for the disciplinary measures afforded by the
powers of an independent Board to determine
the need for corrective action and punish-
ment, and felt they would be more effective
than criminal penalties.
In view of the difficulty of filing criminal
charges and obtaining prosecution and con-
viction of executive branch officials which
might render the criminal enforcement pro-
vision meaningless for employees, a subcom-
mittee amendment has deleted the criminal
penalties in section 4 from the bill as re-
ported.
Although the Civil Service Commission and
the executive agencies have advocated plac-
ing such administrative remedies within the
civil service grievance and appeals system,
the subcommittee believes that the key to
effective enforcement of the unique rights
recognized by this act lies in the employee's
recourse to an independent body.
"The theory of our Government," Profes-
sor Westin testified, "is that there should be
somewhere within the executive branch
where this kind of malpractice is corrected
and that good administration ought to pro-
vide for control of supervision or other prac-
tices that are not proper. But the sheer size
of the Federal Establishment, the ambiguity
of the relationship of the Civil Service Com-
mission to employees, and the many different
interests that the Civil Service Commission
has to bear in its role in the Federal Govern-
ment, suggest that it is not an effective in-
strument for this kind of complaint proce-
dure."
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
4, and 5 of the bill, an employee who believes
his rights are violated under the act has sev-
eral courses of action:
(1) He may pursue a remedy through the
agency procedures established to enforce the
act, but the fact that he does not choose to
avail himself of these does not preclude exer-
cise of his right to seek other remedies.
(2) Ho may register his complaint with
the Board on Employee Rights and obtain a
hearing. If ho loses there, he may appeal to
the district court, which has the power to
examine the record as a whole and to ailirra,
modify, or set aside any determination or
order, or to require the Board to take any
action it was authorized to take under the
act.
(3) He may, instead of going directly to
the Board, institute a civil action in Federal
district court to prevent the threatened vio-
lation, or obtain complete redress against
the consequences of the 'violation.
. He does not need to exhaust any adminis-
trative remedies but if he elects to pursue his
civil remedies in the court under section 4,
he may not seek redress through the Board.
Similarly, if he initiates action before the
Board under section 5, he may not also seek
relief from the court under section 4.
The bill does not affect any authority,
right or privilege accorded under Executive
Order 10988, governing employee-manage-
ment cooperation in the Federal Service. To
the extent that there is any overlapping of
subject matter, the bill simply provides an
additional remedy.
THE BOARD ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
As a result of hearings on S. 3779, the sec-
tion creating a Board on Employee Rights
was added to the pill for introduction as
S. 1035.
Employees have complained that adminis-
trative grievance procedures have often
proved ineffective because they are cumber-
some, time-consuming, and weighted on the
side of management. Not only do those who
break the rules go unpunished many times,
but the fearful tenor of letters and telephone
calls from throughout the country indicate
that employees fear reprisals for noncom-
pliance with improper requests or for filing
of complaints and grievances. Oral and writ-
ten directives of warning to this effect have
been verified by the subcommittee. Section
1(e) of the bill, therefore, prevents reprisals
for exercise of rights granted under the act
and in such event accords the individual
cause for complaint before the Board or the
court.
Concerning the original bill in the 89th
Congress, which did not provide for a board,
representatives of the 14th department of
the American Federation of Government
Employees commented that the remedies are
the most important aspects of such a bill '
because "unless due process procedures are
explicitly provided, the remaining provisions
of the bill may be easily ignored or circum-
vented by Federal pefsonnel management. As
a matter of fact, we believe, the reason em-
ployees' rights have been eroded so rapidly
and so devastatingly in the last few years
is the absence of efficient, expeditious, uni-
form, and legislatively well defined pro-
cedures of due process in the executive de-
partments of the Federal Government."
An independent and nonpartisan Board
is assured by congressional participation in
its selection and by the fact that no member
is to be a government employee. Provision is
made for congressional monitoring through
detailed reports.
Senator Ervin explained the function of
the Board established by section 5 as follows:
"The bill sets up a new independent Fed-
eral agency with authority to receive com-
plaints and make rulings on complaints?
complaints of individual employees or unions
representing employees. This independent
agency, which would not be subject in any
way to the executive branch of the Govern-
on these matters in the first instance. It
would make a ruling on action in a particular
agency or department that is an alleged vio-
lation of the provisions of the bill, with au-
thority either on the part of the agency or
the part of the individual or on the part of
the union to take an appeal from the ruling
of this independent agency to the Federal
court for judicial review."
Throughout its study the subcommittee
found that a major area of concern is the
tendency in the review process in the courts
or agencies to do no more than examine the
lawfulness of the action or decision about
which the employee has complained. For pur-
poses of enforcing the act, sections 3, 4, and 5
assure adequate machinery for processing
complaints and for prompt and impartial de-
termination of the fairness and constitution-
ality of general policies and practices initi-
ated at the highest agency levels or by the
Civil Service Commission or by Executive
order.
Finding no effective recourse against ad-
ministrative actions and policies which they
believed unfair or in violation of their rghts,
ndivdual employees and ther families turned
to Congress for redress. Opening the hearings
on invasions of privacy, Senator Ervin stated:
"Never in the history of the Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights have we been so
overwhelmed with personal complaints,
phone calls, letters, telegrams, and office vis-
its. In all of our investigations, I have never
seen anything to equal the outrage and in-
dignation from Government employees, their
families, and their friends. It is obvious that
appropriate remedies are not to be found in
the executive branch.
"The complaints of privacy invasions have
multiplied so rapidly of late that It is beyond
the resources of Congress and its staff to re-
pel effectively each individual official en-
croachment. Each new program brings a new
wave of protest."
Prof. Alan Westin, director of the Science
and Law Committee of the Bar Association of
the City of New York, testified that these
complaints "have been triggered by the fact
that we ,clo not yet have the kind of execu-
tive branch 'mechanism by which employees
can lodge their sense of discomfort with per-
sonnel practices in the Federal Government
and feel that they will get a fair hearing,
that they will secure what could be called
'employment due process.'"
To meet this problem, Professor Westin
proposed an independent board subject to ju-
dicial review, and with enforcement power
over a broad statutory standard governing all
invasion of privacy. Although It is continu-
ing to study this proposal, the subcommit-
tee has temporarily rejected this approach
in the interest of achieving immediate en-
forcement o fthe act and providing adminis-
trative remedies for its violation, For this
reason it supports the creation of a limited
Board of Employee Rights.
Perhaps one of the most important sec-
tions of the bill, if not the most important
section, according to the United Federation
of Postal Clerks, is the provision establishing
the Board. The subcommittee was told?
"It would appear absolutely essential that
any final legislation enacted into law must
necessarily include such a provision. We can
offer no suggestions for improvement of this
section. As presently constituted the section
is easily understood; and the most excellent
and inclusive definition of the proposed
'Board on Employees' Rights' which could
possibly be enacted into law. It defines tile
right of employees to challenge violations of
the proposed act; defines the procedures in-
volved, as well as the authority of the Board,
? penalties for violation of the acts as well as
establishing the right of judicial review for
.9./1 aggrieved party, and finally provides for
congressional review, and in effect, an, an-
nual audit by the Congress of all complaints.
decisions, orders, and other related infor-
SECTION 1
Section 1(a) makes it unlawful for a Fed-.
eral official of any department or agency to
require or request, or to attempt to require
or request, any civilian employee of the
United States serving in the department or
agency or any person seeking employment to
disclose his race, religion, or national origin,
or the race, religion, or national origin of any
of his forebears.
This section does not prohibit inquiry con-
cerning citizenship of such individual if his
citizenship is a statutory condition of his
obtaining or retaining his employment. Nor
does it preclude inquiry of the individual
concerning national origin when such inquiry
Is thought necessary, or advisable in order to
Sanitized Approved For Release : CIA-RpP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 181 itized C943f4464elePirli*Faillgig4P:-?ECRIXE75-00149R0002006600S213-6
determine suitability for assignment to activ-
ities or undertakings related to national se-
curity within the United States or to activ-
ities or undertakings of any nature outside
the United States.
This provision is directed at any practice
which places the employee or applicant un-
der compulsion to reveal such information
as a condition of the employment relation.
It is intended to implement the concept un-
derlying the Federal merit system by which
a person's race, religion, or national origin
have no bearing on his right to be considered
for Federal employment or on his right to
retain a Federal position. This prohibition
does not limit the existing authority of the
executive branch to acquire such information
by means other than self-disclosure.
Section 1(b)
Section 1(b) makes it unlawful for any
officer of any executive department or execu?
tive agency of the U.S. Government, or for
any person acting or purporting to act under
this authority, to state, intimate, or to at-
tempt to state or intimate, to any civilian
employee of the United States serving in the
department or agency that any notice will
be taken of his attendance or lack of attend-
ance at any assemblage, discussion, or lec-
ture held or called by any officer of the execu-
tive branch of the U.S. Government, or by
any person acting or purporting to act under
his authority, or by any outside parties or
organizations to advise, instruct, or indoc-
trinate any civilian employee of the United
States serving in the department or agency
in respect to any 'matter or subject other
than (1) the performance of official duties
to which he is or may be assigned in the
department or agency, or (2) the develop-
ment of skills, knowledge, or abilities which
qualify him for the performance of such
duties.
Nothing contained in this section is to
be construed to prohibit taking notice, of the
participation of a civilian employee in the ac-
tivities of any professional group or associa-
tion.
This provision is designed to protect any
employee from compulsion to attend meet-
ings, discussions, and lectures on political,
social, and economic subjects unrelated to
his duties. It prevents Government officials
from using the employment relationship to
attempt to influence employee thoughts, at-
titudes, and actions on subjects which may
be of concern to them as private citizens. Ire
particular, this language is directed at prac-
tices and policies which in effect require at-
tendance at such functions, includiiag official
lists of those attending or not attending; its
purpose is to prohibit threats, direct or im-
plied, written or oral, of official retaliation for
nonattendance.
This section does not affect existing au-
thority for providing information designed
to promote the health and safety of em-
ployees. Nor does it affect existing authority
to call meetings for the purpose of publiciz-
ing and giving notice of activities or service,
sponsored by the department or agency, or
campaigns such as charitable fund cam-
paigns and savings bond drives.
Section 1(c)
Section 1(c) makes it unlawful for any of-
ficer of any executive department or agency,
or for any person acting or purporting to act
under his authority, to require or request or
to attempt to require or request any civilian
employee serving in the department or agen-
cy to participate in anyway in any activities
or undertakings unless they are related to
the performance of official duties to which he
is or may be assigned in the department or
agency or to the development of skills,
knowledge, or abilities which qualify him for
the performance of such duties.
This section is directed against official
practices, requests, or orders that an em-
ployee take part in any civic function, polit-
ical program, or community endeavor, or
other activity which he might enjoy as a
private citizen, but which is unrelated to his
employment. It does not affect any existing
authority to use appropriate techniques for
publicizing existence of community programs
such as blood-donation drives, or agency pro-
grams, benefits or services, and for affording
opportunity for employee participation if he
desires.
Section 1(d)
Section 1(d) makes it unlawful for any of-
ficer of any executive department or agency,
or for any person acting under his authority
to require or request or attempt to require
or request, any civilian employee serving in
the department or agency to make any report
of his activities or undertakings unless they
are related to the performance of official
duties or to the development of skills, knowl-
edge, or abilities which qualify him for the
performance of such duties, or (2) unless
there is reason to believe that the employee
Is engaged in outside activities or employ-
ment in conflict with his official duties.
This section is a minimum guarantee of
the freedom of an employee to participate or
not to participate in any endeavor or activity
in his private life as a citizen, free of com-
pulsion to report to supervisors his action or
his inaction, his involvement or his nonin-
volvement. This section is to assure that in
his private thoughts, actions, and activities
he is free of intimidation or inhibition as a
result of the employment relation. ?
The exceptions to the prohibition are not
legislative mandates to require such infor-
mation in those circumstances, but merely
provide an area of executive discretion for
reasonable management purposes and for
observance and enforcement of existing laws
governing employee conduct and conflicts
of interest.
Section 1(c)
Section 1(e) makes it unlawful for any
officer of any executive department or agen-
cy, or any person acting under his authority,
to require or request any civilian employee
serving in the department or agency, or any
person applying for employment as a civilian
employee to submit to any interrogation or
examination or to take any psychological
test designed to elicit from him, any infor-
mation concerning his personal relationship
with any person connected with him by blood
or marriage, or concerning his religious be-
liefs or practices, or concerning his attitude
or conduct with respect to sexual matters.
In accordance with an amendment made
after hearings on S. 3779, a proviso is in-
cluded to assure that nothing contained in
this section shall be construed to prevent a
physician from eliciting such information or
authorizing such test in the diagnosis or
treatment of any civilian employee or appli-
cant where he feels the information is neces-
sary to enable him to determine whether
or not the individual is suffering from men-
tal illness. The bill as introduced limited this
inquiry to psychiatrists, but an amendment
extended it to physicians, since the subcom-
mittee was told that when no psychiatrist
is available, it may be necessary for a gen-
eral physician to obtain this information in
determining the presence of mental illness
and the need for further treatment.
This medical determination is to be made
in individual cases and not pursuant to gen-
eral practice or regulation governing the
examination of employees or applicants ac-
cording to grade, agency, or duties.
Under an amendment to the bill, this lan-
guage is not to be construed to prohibit an
official from advising an employee or appli-
cant of a specific charge of sexual miscon-
duct made against that person and affording
him an opportunity to refute the charge.
While providing no authority to request or
demand such information, the section does
not prevent an official who has received
charges of misconduct which might have a
detrimental effect on the person's employ-
ment, from obtaining a clarification of the
matter if the employee wishes to provide it.
This section would not prohibit all per-
sonality tests but merely those questions on
the tests which inquire into the three areas
in which citizens have a right to keep their
thoughts to themselves.
It raises the criterion for requiring such
personal information from the general "fit-
ness for duty" test to the need for diagnosing
or treating mental illness. The second pro-
viso is designed to prohibit mass-testing pro-
grams. The language of this section provides
guideliness for the various personnel and
medical specialists whose practices and deter-
minations may invade employee personal
privacy and thereby affect the individual's
employment prospects or opportunities for
advancement.
A committee amendment in section 6 pro-
vided an exception to this prohibition in the
case of the use of such psychological tests
by the Central Intelligence Agency and the
National Security Agency, only if the Direc-
tor makes a personal finding that the infor-
mation is necessary to protect the national
security.
Section 1(j)
Section 1(f) makes it unlawful for any
officer of any executive department or agency
or any person acting under his authority, to
require or request or attempt to \require or
request any civilian employee or any appli-
cant for employment to take any polygraph
test designed to elicit from him informa-
tion concerning his personal relationship
with any person connected with him by
blood or marriage, or concerning his religious
beliefs or practices or concerning his atti-
tude or conduct with respect to sexual mat-
ters. While this section does not eliminate
entirely the use of so-called lie detectors in
Government, it assures that where such de-
vices are used, officials may not inquire into
matters which are of a personal nature.
As with psychological testing, the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Se-
curity Agency, under section 6, are not pro-
hibited from acquiring such information by
polygraph, provided certain conditions are
met.
Section 1(g)
Section 1(g) makes it illegal for an offi-
cial to require or request an employee under
his management to support the nomination
or election of anyone to public office through
personal endeavor, financial contribution, or
any other thing of value. An employee may
not be required or requested to attend any
meeting held to promote or support the ac-
tivities or undertakings of any political party
in the United States.
The purpose of this section is to assure
that the employee is tree from any job-re-
lated pressures to conform his thoughts and
attitudes and actions in political matters
unrelated to his job to those of his super-
visors. With respect to his superiors, it pro-
tects him in the privacy of his contribution
or lack of contribution to the civic affairs and
political life of his community, State and
Nation. In particular, it protects him from
commands or requests of his employer to
buy tickets to fundraising functions, or to
attend such functions, to compile position
papers or research material for political pur-
poses, or make any other contribution which
constitutes a political act or which places
him in the position of publicly expressing
his support or nonsupport of a party or can-
didate. This section also assures that, al-
though there is no evidence of such activities
at present, no Federal agency may in the fu-
ture improperly involve itself in the under-
takings of any political party in the United
States, its territories, or possessions. -
Section 1(h)
Section 1(h) makes it illegal for an official
to coerce Or attempt to coerce any civilian
employee in the department or agency to in-
vest his earnings in bonds or other govern-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75700149R000200600001-6
S 12924. Sanitized - ApPiagdIVE6i(RokiaggcaniXt--RDP13-130149R0802006000031 -6967
ment obligations or securities, or to make
donations to any institution or cause. This
section does not prohibit officials from call-
ing im.etings or taking any other appropriate
action to afford employees the opportunity
voluntarily to invest his earnings in bonds
or other obligations or voluntarily to make
donations to any institution or cause. Ap-
propriate action, in the committee's view,
might include publicity and other forms of
persuasion short of job-related pressures,
threats, intimidation, reprisals of various
types, and "blacklists" circulated through
the employee's office or agency to publicize
his noncompliance.
Section 1(i)
Section 1(1) makes it illegal for an official
to require or request any civilian employee
in the department or agency to disclose any
items of his property, income, or other as-
sets, source of income, or liabilities, or his
, Personal or domestic expenditures or those of
any member of his family. Exempted from
coverage under this provision is any civilian
employee who has authority to make any
final determination with respect to the tax
or other liability to the United States of
any person, corporation, or other legal entity,
or with respect to claims which require ex-
penditure of Federal moneys. Section 6 pro-
vides certain exemptions for two security
agencies.
Neither the Department of the Treasury
nor any other executive department or
agency is prohibited under this section from
requiring any civilian employee to make such
reports as may be necessary or appropriate
for the determination of his liability for
taxes, tariffs, custom duties, or other obliga-
tions imposed by law. This proviso is to
assure that Federal employees may be sub-
ject to any reporting or disclosure require-
ments demanded by any law applicable to
all persons in certain circumstances.
Section 1(j)
Section 1(j) makes it illegal to require or
request any civilian employee exempted.from
application of section 3(1) under the first
proviso of that section, to disclose any items
of his property, income, or other assets,
source of income, or liabilities, or his personal
or domestic expenditure or those of any
member of his family or household other
than specific item ? tending to indicate a
conflict of interest in respect to the perform-
ance of any of the official duties to which he
is or may be assigned.
This section is designed to abolish and pro-
hibit broad general inquiries which em-
ployees have likened to "fishing expeditions"
and' to confine any disclosure requirements
impoged on an employee to reasonable in-
quiries about job-related financial interests.
This does not preclude, therefore, question-
ing in individual cases where there is reason
to believe the employee has a conflict of
interest with his official duties.
Section 1(k)
Section 1(k) makes it unlawful for a Fed-
eral official of any department or agency
to require or request, or attempt to require
or request, a civilian employee who is under
Investigation for misconduct, to submit to
interrogation which could lead to disciplinary
action without the presence of counsel or
other person of his choice, if he wishes.
This section is intended to rectify a long-
standing denial of due process by which
agency investigators and other officials pro-
hibit or discourage presence of counsel or a
friend. This provision is directed at any in-
terrogation which could lead to loss of job,
pay, security clearance, or denial of promo-
tion rights.
This right inures to the employee at the
inception of the investigation, and the sec-
tion does not require that the employee be
accused formally of any wrongdoing before
he may request presence of counsel or friend.
The section does not require the agency or
department to furnish counsel._ ?
Section 1(Z)
Section 1(1) makes_it unlawful for a Fed;
eral official of any department or agency to
discharge, discipline, demote, deny promo-
tion, relocate, reassign, or otherwise impair
existing terms or conditions of employment
of any employee, or threaten to commit any
such acts, because the employee has refused
or failed to comply with any action made
unlawful by this act or exercised any right
granted by the act.
This section prohibits discrimination
against any employee because he refuses to
comply with an illegal order as defined' by
this act or takes advantage of a legal right
embodied in the act.
SECTION 2
Section 2(a) makes it unlawful for any
officer of the 'U.S. Civil Service Commission
or any person acting or purporting to act
under his authority to require or request, or
attempt to require or request, any executive
department or any executive agency of the
U.S. Government, or any officer or employee
serving in such department or agency, to
violate any of the provisions of section 1 of
this act.
Specifically, this section is intended to
ensure that the Civil Service Commission,
acting as the coordinating policymaking
body in the area of Federal civilian employ-
ment shall be subject to the same strictures
as the individual departments or agencies.
Section 2(b) makes it unlawful for any
officer of the U.S. Civil Service Commission,
or any person acting or purporting to act
under his authority, to require or request,
or attempt to require or request, any person
seeking to establish civil service status or
eligibility for civilian employment, or any
person applying for employment, or any
civilian employee of the United States serv-
ing in any department or agency, to submit
to any interrogation or examination or to
take any psychological test which is designed
to elicit from him information concerning
his personal relationship with any person
connected with him by blood or marriage, or
concerning his religious beliefs or practices,
or concerning his attitude or conduct with
respect to sexual matters.
This section is intended to assure that the
Civil Service Commission shall be subject
to the same prohibitions to which depart-
ments and agencies are subject in sections
1 (e) and (f) . The provisos contained in sec-
tion 1(e) are restated here to assure that
nothing in this section is to be construed
to prohibit a physician from acquiring such
data to determine mental illness, or an offi-
cial from informing an individual of a spe-
cific charge of sexual misconduct and afford-
ing him an opportunity to refute the charge.
Section 2(c) makes it unlawful for any
officer of the U.S. Civil Service Commission
to require or request any person seeking to
establish civil service status or eligibility for
employment, or any person applying for em-
ployment in the executive branch of the
U.S. Government, or any civilian employee
serving in any department or agency to take
any polygraph test designed to elicit from
him information concerning his personal re-
lationships with any person connected with
him by blood or marriage, or concerning his
religious beliefs or practices, or concerning
his attitude or conduct with respect to sexual
matters.
This section applies the provisions of sec-
tion 1(f) to the Civil Service Commission
in instances where is has authority over
agency personnel practices or in cases in
which its officials request information from
the applicant or employee.
SECTION 3
This section applied the act to military
supervisors by making violations of the act
also violations of the Uniform Code of
Mili-
tary Justice.
. SECTION 4
Section 4 provides civil remedies for vio-
lation of the act by granting an applicant
or employee the right to bring a civil action
in the Federal district court for a court order
to halt the violation, or to obtain complete
redress against the consequences of the vio-
lation. The action may be brought in his
own behalf or in behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, and the action may be
filed against the offending officer or person
in the Federal district court for the district
in which the violation occurs or is threatened,
or in the district in which the offending of-
ficer or person is found, or in the District
Court for the District of Columbia.
The court hearing the case shall have juris-
diction to adjudicate the civil action with-
out regard to the actuality or amount of
pecuniary injuily done or threatened. More-
over, the suit may be maintained without
regard to whether or not the aggrieved party
has exhausted available administrative reme-
dies. If the individual complainant has pur-
sued his relief through administrative reme-
dies established for enforcement of the act
and has obtained complete protection against
threatened violations or complete redress for
violations, this relief may be pleaded in bar
of the suit. The court is empowered to pro-
vide whatever broad equitable and legal re-
lief it may deem necessary to afford full pro-
tection to the aggrieved party; such relief
may include restraining orders, interlocutory
injunctions, permanent injunctions, manda-
tory injunctions, or such other judgments or
decrees as may be necessary under the cir-
cumstances. ? \
Another provision of section 4 would per-
mit an aggrieved person to give written con-
sent to any employee organization to bring a
civil action on his behalf, or to intervene in
such action. "Employee organizations" as
used in this section includes any brother-
hood, council, federation, organization, union,
or professional association made up in whole
or in part of Federal civilian employees, and
which deals with departments, agencies, com-
missions, and independent agencies regarding
employee matters.
A committee amendment provides that the
Attorney General shall defend officers or per-
sons who acted pursuant to an order, regula-
tion, or directive, or who, in his opinion, did
not willfully violate the provisions of the act.
SECTION 5
Section 6 establishes an independent Board
on Employees' Rights, to provide employees
with an alternative means of obtaining ad-
ministrative relief from violations of the act,
short of recourse to the judicial system.
Section 5(a) provides for a Board composed
of three members, appointed by the President
with the consent of the Senate. No member
shall be an employee of the U.S. Government
and no more than two members may be of the
same political party. The President shall des-
ignate one member as Chairman.
Section 5(b) defines the term of office for
members of the Board, providing that one
member of the initial Board shall serve for
5 years, one for 3 years, and one for 1 year
from the date of enactment; any member
appointed to fill a vacancy in one of these
terms shall be appointed for the remainder
of the term. Thereafter, each member shall
be appointed for 5 years.
Section 5(c) establishes the compensation
for Board members at $75 for each day spent
working in the work of the Board, plus ac-
tual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of
subsistence expenses when away from their
usual places of residence.
Section 5(d) provides that two members
of the Board shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business. ?
Section 5(e) provides that the Board may
appoint and fix the compensation of neces-
sary employees, and make such expenditures
necessary to carry out the functions of the
Board.
- Section 5(f) authorizes the Board to make
necessary rules and regulations to carry out
its functions.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13,0e4-unaized - AfeRlifi41M-IfteitEegiiqt1ASMO16-00149R000200606664)241
Section 5(g) provides that the Board shall
have the authority and duty to receive and
investigate written complaints from or on
behalf of any person claiming to be affected
or aggrieved by any violation or threatened
violation of this act, and to conduct a hear-
ing on each such complaint. Moreover, with-
in 10 days after the receipt of such a com-
plaint, the Beard must furnish notice of
time, place, and nature of the hearing to
all interested parties, and within 30 days
after concluding the hearing, it must render
its final decision regarding any complaint.
Section 5(h) provides that officers or rep-
resentatives of any employee organization
in any degree concerned with employment of
the category in which the violation or threat
occurs, shall be given an opportunity to
participate in the hearing through submis-
sion of written data, views, or arguments. In
tho discretion of the Board they are to be
afforded an opportunity for oral presenta-
tion. This section further provides that Gov-
ernment employees called upon by any party
or by any Federal employee organization to
participate in any phase of any administra-
tive or judicial proceeding under this section
shall be free to do so without incurring travel
cost or loss in leave or pay. They shall be
free from restraint, coercion, interference, in-
timidation, or reprisal in or because of their
participation. Any periods of time spent by
Government employees during such proceed-
ings shall be held to be Federal employment
for all purposes.
Section 5(1) applies to the Board hearings
the provisions of the Administrative Proce-
dure Act relating to notice and conduct of
hearings insofar as consistent with the pur-
pose of this section.
Section 5(j) requires the Board, if it deter-
mines after a hearing that this act has not
been violated, to state such determination
and notify all interested parties of the find-
ings. This determination shall constitute a
final decision of the Board for purposes of
judicial review.
Section 5(k) specifies the action to be
taken by the Board if, after a hearing, it
determines that any violation of this act has
been committed or threatened. In such case,
the Board shall immediately issue any cause
to be served on the offending officer or em-
ployee an order requiring him to cease and
desist from the unlawful practice or act. The
Board is to endeavor to eliminate the unlaw-
ful act or practice by informal methods of
conference, conciliation, and persuasion.
Within its discretion, the Board may, in
the case of a 'first offense, issue an official
reprimand against the offending officer or
employee, or order the employee suspended
from his position without pay for a period
not exceeding 15 days. In the case of a
second or subsequent offense, the Board may
order the offending officer or employee sus-
pended without pay for a period not exceed-
ing 30 days, or may order his removal from
office.
Officers appointed by the President; by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate,
are specifically excluded from the applica-
tion of these disciplinary measures; but the
section provides that, in the case of a viola-
tion of this act by such individuals, the
Board may transmit a report concerning such
violation to the President and the Congress.
Section 5(1) provides for Board action
when any officer of the Armed Forces of the
United States or any person acting under
his authority violates the act. In such event,
the Board shall (1) submit a report to the
President, the Congress, and to the Secre-
tary of the military department concerned,
(2) endeavor to eliminate any unlawful act
or practice through informal methods of con-
ference, conciliation, and persuasion, and (3)
refer its determination and the record in the
case to any person authorized to convene
general courts-martial under section 822
(article 22) of title 10, United States Code.
When this determination and report is re-
._
eeived, the person designated shall imme-
diately dispose of the matter under the pro-
visions of chapter 47 of title 10 of the United
States Code.
Section 5(m) provides that when any party
disagrees with an order or final determina-
tion of the Board, he may institute a civil
action for judicial review in the Federal dis-
trict court for the district wherein the viola-
tion or threatened violation occurred, or in
the District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia.
The court has jurisdiction to (1) affirm,
modify, or set aside any determination or
order made by the Board, or (2) require
the Board to make any determination or
order which it is authorized to make under
section 5(k) but which it has refused to
make. In considering the record as a whole,
the court is to set aside any finding, con-
clusion, determination, or order of the Board
unsupported by substantial evidence.
The type of review envisioned here is simi-
lar to that obtained under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act in such cases but this
section affords a somewhat enlarged scope
for consideration of his Case than is now gen-
erally accorded on appeal of employee cases.
The court here has more discretion for action
on its own initiative. To the extent that they
are oonsistent with this section, the provi-
sions for judicial review in title 5 of the
United States Code would apply.
Section 5(n) provides for congressional re-
view by directing the Board to submit to
the Senate and to the House of Representa-
tives an annual report which must include a
statement concerning the nature of all com-
plaints filed with it, the determinations and
orders resulting from hearings, and the
names of all officers or employees against
whom any penalties have been imposed under
this section.
Section 5(o) provides an appropriation of
$100,000 for the Board on Employee Rights.
SECTION 6
Section 6 is a committee amendment
which provides that nothing in the act shall
be construed to prohibit an officer of the
Central Intelligence Agency or of the Na-
tional Security Agency, under specific con-
ditions, from requesting an applicant or em-
ployee to submit a personal financial state-
ment of the type defined in subsections 1
(1) and (j) or to take any polygraph or
psychological test designed to elicit the per-
sonal information protected under subsec-
tion 1(e) or 1(f).
In these Agencies, such information may
be required from the employee or applicant
by such methods only If the Director of the
Agency makes a personal finding with regard
to each individual that such test or informa-
tion is required to protect the national se-
curity.
SECTION 7
Section 7 provides that the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation shall be excluded from
the provisions of this act.
SECTION 8
Section 8 is a subcommittee amendment.
It provides that nothing contained in sec-
tions 4 or 5 shall be construed to prevent
the establishment of department and agency
grievance procedures to enforce this act. The
section makes it clear, however, that the
existence of such procedures are not to pre-
clude any applicant or employee from pur-
suing any other available remedies. However,
if under the procedures established by an
agency, the complainant has obtained com-
plete protection against threatened viola-
tions, or complete redress for violations, such
relief may be pleaded in bar in the U.S. dis-
trict court or in proceedings before the Board
on Employee Rights.
Furthermore, an employee may ,not seek
his remedy through both the Board and the
court. If he elects to pursue his remedies
through the Board under section IL for in-'
stance, he waives his right under section 4
to take his case directly to the district court.
SECT/ON 9
Section 9 is a statement of the standard
severability clause. In the event that any
provision in this act ie held invalid, the
remaining parts of the act are not to be af-
fected by its invalidity.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that various articles
and editorials reporting the purposes of
the bill be printed at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OloriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the committee
_amendments to the bill be agreed to en
bloc, and that the bill, as amended, be
considered as original text for the pur-
pose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is So ordered.
ExHrerr 1
EXCERPT PROM TESTIMONY OF PROF. ALAN
WESTIN BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS ON S. 3779
There is a wealth of evidence, including
hearings and reports of this subcommittee,
that show the seriousness of the problem
of Federal practices in the areas that are
being examined in these hearings. First of
all, personnel selection and periodic em-
ployee checking by means such as polygraphs
and personality testings have been used by
a wide variety of Federal agencies, and are
still used today, often in situations where
there is no real need to resort to such tech-
niques of psychological surveillance and
when other methods that intrude far less
into personal privacy are available to serve
the legitimate needs of Federal agencies.
If I can give one example of this?in the
general field of personality testing the main
argument that is made for the need to use
personality testing, either to select among
employees or to screen employees for promo-
tion purposes, is that other techniques of
assessing them are not as profound or not
as penetrating as the personality tests. This
is a premise which has never been proved
in the psychological literature. More than
that, there are other techniques such as the
careful interview, record analysis of a per-
son's performance in jobs in the past, apti-
tude tests that will allow you to form a
judgment on the individual's capacity to
perform the kind of job that he is being
considered for, and simulated exercises which
will present the kinds of problems an indi-
vidual will be called on to deal with on the
job. This is illustrated by the 1n-basket exec-
utive technique, which gives a person a set
of descriptions of a company, and calls on
him to write certain memos and react to
certain problems.
Another kind of important test which gets
at things important in making personnel de-
cisions, but does not invade privacy im-
properly are tests to gage whether a pro-
spective employee understands the role that
he is going to play in the organization. This
calls for individuals to be able to describe
what kind of qualities are desirable in a
salesman for Sears, Roebuck or a person
going to be a farm agent for the Department
of Agriculture. To be able to describe these
in a way of insuring that the candidate
comprehends the social role he is being
called on to play, but does not try to find
out whether he really is such a person deep
down in his private self.
This is not an invasion of privacy because
it does not use questions about sex, religion,
ideology, and personal life to try to get an
individual to reveal what he really is inside,
but rather you ask him to project himself
into the role that he Is being considered for
?
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 1292.6 Sanitized - ApprealailfliffiReleisitEAMPR-BM400149ROM2006000a/76/9 6 7
in an agency, and thus you are able to ask'
a person: "Do you understand what is ex-
pected of you? Can yo v ',ay the game that.
is expected of you as a corporate executive
or as an employee of the Government?"
While some might argue that this still
calls on him to say things that are an incli-
cation of his capacity to be like all others in
the organization, it is not an invasion of
privacy. * * *
It is often said that an interview is often
more of an invasion of privacy than the
administration of personality tests. This is
not an effective argument because there is a
saving human quality in the oral interview.
People cannot be as aggressive or as decep-
tive in interviews as on the personality teats
because American society has built up a set
of social conventions about what is fair
Interviewing. Thus you cannot ask a person
face to face many of the questions that are
written down in personality tests for the in-
dividual to fill in or answer.
Also, if you ask someone a question di- ;
roctly, be knows about 11, it becomes coin-
611'11 1111,w1011es 16 1404 aeofisir. 164 oho lo
p111111116 Hideo- oi11?11 oillesefiltill hal
I I,
1,11111;111111110 I) 1,1 Ihe rs t611.111116s
11111s 111, 115,111 I 111111,1, 111111 If
,1 11 1111 111011101 II v1111111111110 111
1.1 11! 11 11.11 1.1 111.1 1. 111 11111 111.1,t11ii1 1.111111111i
1 1.1111 1 1111., , ..11111 1111111 III 10 11,0111th,11
1111 11 . 11 11., 01
hiss ii {111,011,in
1,1 !Ill 1.111 11i1 i.1.1.1t.1 1 1011110 11001011
1
ilk IWO* 111.11 1111.1 10
(lilt lot 11 It tilt 111 0 11 111 01 111101 viow
soleei Ion of tor t hp Pollito
ltitt, Isysiesi it lit wrapped the mrottio of
001010(1, 1111ki t.110vo ls supposed to be some
hi?ki ,.f oityr,WE'd 0001111110 vorldeettontiC
1111s tillOrit 101% INts119; 1.010v ;till. ineonio way to
] it pokm?tl'n 011\ oh 1,0111).1 t.11?1,tItty, htiVO
%Wept (It I the 1,1,01 leo of allowlits; that tines-
lion to he a:.1sed tildire,?tly, through a per-
i10111v vt. In a V.%),' 111;:t \?'?,11111 IttueC
101erzit r that cpae,tion being asked directly in
an int cry tew with that person. when he ap-
plied for selection or evaluation within ail
agency.
I use these as examples of the fact that
we have allowed ourselves to let polygraph-
ing and personality testing expand the scope
of questioning in a way that our law and our
governmental practice has rejected for di-
rect oral questioning or written interroga-
tion of individuals.
This is one of the key problems of science
and privacy?that things are being done in
the name of science which we would not al-
low to be done directly. It is at this point
that scientists who support these techniques
must justify their case, and do so in a way
that persons who defend the personality test
have never been able to justify in any public
hearing?before the Congress or in their own
literature nor has this been done in terms of
the ethical issue of the role a psychologist is
supposed to play in his relationship to the
individual who trusts him and reveals him-
self for purposes of other kinds of occasions,
? such as helping an individual who is men-
tally disturbed or who seeks counseling for
vocational choice. Trading on this kind of
reputation for confidence the psychologist
has allowed himself to become an agent of
extraction for institutional employers?,
corporations and government.
I would suggest that, despite some on-
going work by special committees .that have
been set up by the executive branch, the
Federal executive branch has not established
clear and sensitive rules governing the oc-
casions on which techniques such as poly-
graphs and personality testing might be
used, and surely 'has not .yet established
careful procedures for conducting such in-
terrogations in any of the limited areas. in
which it might be justified.
BEHMIT 2
[From the Columbus (Ohio) Sunday Dis-
patch, July 30, 1967] ?
ERVIN BILL SEEKS To CURTAIL NOSY ACTIONS
OF BIG BROTHER
(By Richard Wilson)
Big Brother has been putting in overtime
watching his good and faithful servants and
reporting to the computers when and how
long they go to the rest room, how many
are pregnant, how they like their sex, and
how many savings bonds they buy.
Five large filing cabinets in the offices of
the Constitutional Rights subcommittee of
the Senate Judiciary Committee are bulging
with the complaints of the good and faith-
ful servants who resent, not to say detest,
Big Brother's nosiness.
Anyone who wishes to understand what
intrusion of privacy really means can find
out by getting a government job.
The range of the intrusion runs to psychia-
tric interviews, psychological 'testing, prob-
ing interrogations about religious, family,
sod sextuthimilters, menden-I to buy bonds
suit simporl, polhles1 'males, 0l11i111 out nee
Ott II 15511 forms, 01.1(141min-1 or ph,r-
loom tholihwi.g, mot 0101111mm, pressure LI) 1.111(13
1411I III 10111111111M V nollvillsr. having nothing
lo 0,1 0111
III 0141010 1?011110,11' islit I 1,111t1 1,1111r111.111-
tiql lit 'ti' 1111111,$vp,1
it 111010111V (11' 1110 111111.011 111111.0h Itonsto,
All 1110111)11.1A, 11114 Iiittlett In sponsoring logls-
liillon proposed hy firm, Rim .1, Ervin,
plying federal employes slid their families,
some 10 inliliolt people, a little more privacy.
llut Senator Ervin's bill means more than
that. It means that the federal government
will set an example for many millions more
of stale and loon employes, end for the still
many more millions in the computerized
world of private employment,
What is most astonishing about Senator
F.rvin's bill is that it must be stated in statu-
tory form that executives of the government
shall not order the federal employe to patron-
ize any business establishment, shall not
make him reveal "his attitude or conduct
with respect to sexual matters," shall not
make him take a lie detector test, shall not
require him to buy savings bonds, shall not
make him disclose his personal and domestic
expenditures, shall not make him buy tickets
to testimonial dinners, and so on.
And Senator Ervin's subcommittee could
agree to a bill on employe rights only after
eliminating criminal penalties for officials
violating the act. The bill originally pro-
vided for a fine of $300 or 30 days in jail.
This indicated that a majority of the
committee members had something less
than strong convictions about the work-
ability of the bill.
An independent board on employes rights
would be set up and an employe could also
make his complaint to a local federal judge.
As weak as these provisions are, they are
at least a beginning in the war against the
computerization of mankind.
A dozen million white collar workers
ought to be grateful for this small beginning
and write their congressmen about intru-
sions of privacy in private as well as public
employment.
Either that, or be prepared for the day
when all their behavior patterns and -be-
liefs, private as well as public, have to be
approved in advance by self-automated su-
pervisors and bosses activated by the holes
in IBM cards.
[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Twin City
Sentinel, July 3, 1967]
ERVIN AND win SNOOPERS
? Before Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. came along,
some federal agency chiefs evidently derived
a great deal of pleasure?for what such
pleasure was worth?snooping into the pri-
vate lives of government employes,
The Library of Congress, for example, de-
manded from workers a complete description
of their sexual habits. The U.S. Air Force,
which was often portrayed by actor James
Stewart as a swinging, liberal outfit, pro-
hibited employes from visiting the person-
nel office without first explaining to their
superiors why they wanted to visit the per-
sonnel office. The Federal Aviation Agency
had a rule which threatened reprisals
against employes who wrote letters of com-
plaint to congressmen. The Defense Depart-
ment twisted a few arms when it came to
promoting saving bonds sales among mili-
tary personnel?and the Civil Service Com-
mission frowned on employes who were not
part of a "Be a Booster" group.
These invasions of personal privilege and
privacy have now gone by the board, not
because the agencies no longer relish snoop-
ing but because Sen. Ervin is threatening
them with his "Bill of Rights" for govern-
ment workers. More than 50 senators have
signed this bill and chances are that it will
be passed in the 90th Congress. And just
the threat of such legislation has been
enough to scare federal officials into abolish-
ing some of the more absurd regulations.
Sen. Ervin means many things to many
people. Mit his efforts to free federal em-
ployee from bureaucratic pressures shows
that his light for individual choice is not
Oriel ly limited to restaurant owners en-
gaged in interstate commerce. When Sen.
Ervin says that the individual citizen must
be absolutely protected from conformist
government pressures, he isn't just whis-
tling Dixie?and this connotes an honesty
often lacking among those southern con-
gressmen who, unlike Ervin, refuse to apply
their "freedom of choice" doctrine to non-
southerners.
1From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
June 20, 1967]
QL1k-1 VICTORY FOR SENATOR E3IVIN
The Civil Service Commission has moved
to reduce the number of federal employes
required to file statements on their personal
finances. The announcement indicates this
will affect a substantial segment of govern-
ment workers, and it strikes us as a wise if
overdue move by the Commission.
Until now employes in lower grades, with
little or no influence in making policy, had
been obliged to submit detailed information
about their financial interests and those of
their immediate families. The regulation was
a blunderbuss, aimed at hundreds of thou-
sands of persons who were not in a position
to conduct conflict-of-Interest shenanigans,
even if they had the desire.
The development demonstrates that pro-'
posed legislation doesn't necessarily have to
be signed into law to achieve results. Sena-
tor Ervin of North Carolina has been press-
ing for financial disclosure changes and in-
cluded them in his "bill of rights" for fed-
eral employes introduced last year.
So far the Senate Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee hasn't acted on the Ervin bill,
but the CSC apparently has made this and
other changes in response to reforms pro-
posed in his legislation. The Commission
has stopped federal agencies from requiring
employes to state their race, for example. It
also has taken action to bar unwarranted in-
vasions of privacy, such as medical question-
naires which ask intimate sex questions.
The Ervin bill faces a long and difficult
road before it can reach the President's desk.
Even there the possibility of a veto exists
because of objections to the harsh penalties
provided for administrators who violate em-
ployes' rights.
But if the effects of the bill on the Com-
mission continue at the present rate, It
won't be many months before the Senator
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 12927
will have achieved most of his worthy ends
in a bloodless battle.
[From the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News,
July 5, 1067]
PRIVACY DOR FEDERAL EIVIDLOYEES
Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. continues his praise-
worthy efforts to Insure that federal em-
ployees will not have their private rights
threatened by the government they serve.
From an original attempt to protect the
national security by assembling personal
data files for key workers, some federal
agencies have gone on to sweeping person-
nel policies that include financial investiga-
tion, psychological testing, crude sleuthing
and "confidential" interviews that border
on institutional voyeurism.
Perhaps less insidious but equally an-
noying are directives for after-hours con-
duct, discriminatory record-keeping, and
group pressures for certain contributions
and "loyalty" demonstrations.
Senator Ervin was not the first to notice
and deplore all of this, but he is leading a
strong attempt to stop it.
The senator's methods are varied. He has
written a "bill of rights" for government
employees, and has persuaded more than
half of the U.S. Senate to sign it. He is
pushing for full congressional considera-
tion of the bill and is hoping it can become
law.
Using the bill and growing public senti-
ment for its guarantees, Sen. Ervin is ap-
plying pressure on many federal agencies
to change "Invasion of privacy" policies to-
ward their employees. The threat of con-
gressional action already has had some
laudable effects.
The Civil Service Commission, for ex-
ample, has reduced its widespread require-
ments for financial disclosures and has
stopped insisting on race listings on per-
sonnel forms. The Library of Congress has
discarded inquiries about sex habits. The
Federal Aviation Agency no longer discour-
ages its employees from complaining to their
congressmen. The Defense Department and
its branches have reduced pressures, on serv-
icemen to buy savings bonds and ' have
withdrawn directives concerning off-duty
associations.
Obviously, Sen. Ervin is not the only per-
son working to protect the privacy a gov-
ernment workers; other officials and many
agency leaders realize that their personnel
policies have gone too far. The reported,
results are encouraging, but the protection
needs to be consistent among the agencies
and guaranteed for all employees.
In a recent letter to constituents Sen.
Ervin noted that "the need for -the (pri-
vacy) bill is still great, because regulations
by government agencies are subject to
change according to the whim and caprice
of the administrators." Well said.
The senator's immdeiate concern is to
protect employees of the federal govern-
ment, and surely that is the most appro-
priate starting point. But no less compelling
is the need to end invasions of employee
privacy in business and industry. For that
enormous, task, Sen. Ervin will need the
help of a great many others who believe that
people have a right to be left alone.
[From the Federal Times, May 17, 19671
BACK DOOR RIGHTS
The bill of rights proposed by Senator Sam
Ervin may never become law. But, it already
has had a good effect on government policy.
The Civil Service Commission now is act-
ing to put into operation measures to curb
abuses cited in the Ervin proposal.
Clear rules are being drafted on the con-
duct of charity drives. Ahead are restrictions
on the use of lie detector tests and the re-
quirement for financial statements.
Racial questions on applications are being
re-examined?
Sufficient Ration by the commission May
result In an agreement with Senator Ervin
on the contents of his bill.
The present moves constitute a clear ad-
mission that the abuses pointed out by Ervin
do in fact exist.
It is unfortunate thEitsthe commission had
to wait to be pushed by Ervin before taking
action.
[From the Indianapolis (Ind.) Star, April 23,
190)
THE BOND BUSINESS
United States savings bonds are an excel-
lent investment. They represent a share in
the United States and are about as secure an
Investment as this nation is itself.
But the persons who purchase these bonds
should have the right to decide for them-
selves if they wish to buy them.
In stories emanating from Vietnam are
tales of American fighting men being badg-
ered by their superiors to buy U.S. savings
bonds. The reports are so prevalent that one
is forced to believe the reports are true, which
leads to the belief that the superiors doing
the badgering are doing so on orders.
The situation is serious enough that Sena-
tor Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina has
introduced a bill to prohibit coercion of serv-
icemen to buy bonds or contribute to charity
fund drives. Senator Ervin said he was "dis-
gusted" with stories of forced sale qf bonds
to servicemen flowing into his office.
These stories included one from a private
who reported that men refusing to buy sav-
ings bonds had been threatened with extra
duty and told it would "go hard" on anyone
who did not subscribe to a bond plan.
We agree with the Army enlisted man who
'complained that his unit's savings bond offi-
cer had threatened to continue savings bond
"pep rallies" until every soldier had signed
up.
"I am here to do a job," the soldier wrote.
"I ask little more than to be left alone to do
that job. With commanders perpetually 'on
one's back' it does not create a very good
atmosphere for completing a mission."
The pay of our fighting men in Vietnam is
the highest- of any Army in the world. But
we submit that those fighting men are privi-
leged to spend their money in whatever way
they see fit. By being in the service they are
being asked to put their lives on the line for
their country. They should not, in addition, -
be expected to finance their own service un-
less they choose, of their own free will, with-
out coercion, to do so.
(From the Dothan (Ala.) Eagle,
Apr, 24, 1967]
Thee HAVE RIGHTS, Too
Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D.-NC) is chair-
man of the Senate's Subcommittee on Con-
stitutional Rights and, as such, Is concerned
with the rights of all people?not merely
those of loud, pushy and pampered minori-
ties. In fact, he is exploring reports that
rights of men in service have been abueed
and this is something all Americans will
applaud.
Furthermore, Senator Ervin is letting the
public in on what he finds as his search
goes along. His latest accounting, which fol-
lows, should be of interest not only to mem-
bers of the Armed Forces but to their fami-
lies, friends and the public as well:
In the past two weeks numerous additional
complaints about coercion to buy savings
bonds have been received from servicemen
stationed in many parts of the world, in-
cluding Vietnam,
In connection with these cases, the Sub-
eonunittee's attention was directed to a re-
cent advertisement which appeared in Sun-
day news supplements on March 26 showing
men in battle uniform being presented a
Minute Man flag for having over 90% par-
ticipation in Payroll Savings plans. The ad
states: "Buy bonds where you work?they
do" and continues: "These men, now in vies-
resin, deserve your support. When you pur-
chase Savings Bonds regularly, you show men
Of the let Brigade you're with them."
Commenting on the letters from service-
men, the Chairman stated: "I deeply believe
that the fighting men in Vietnam deserve the
support of all Americans. However, on the
same day that I read this advertisement, I
also read a letter from Vietnam signed by
over 30 enlisted men expressing support for
the Subcommittee's efforts to end coercion
of these same fighting men. I can only en-
dorse the plea of the airman who wrote:
'Aren't we doing enough for our fellow man
as it is?' "
During March, complaints included the fol-
lowing: A private at Fort Hood, Texas, was
called a Communist and threatened with de-
ntal of promotion because he refused to par-
ticipate. Another private wrote that he and
his comrades were threatened with K.P. on
weekends if they didn't buy bonds. Eventu-
ally, the Battalion Commander was presented
with his own Minuteman flag for obtaining
? 100% participation. A private writing from
Pleiku, Vietnam, reported that non-buyers
had been threatened with extra work and loss
of three-day passes. Another soldier wrote
from Germany, "It is the policy of this Bat-
tery that in order to get promoted, one must
have a savings bond." A private wrote that
his sergeant had trumped up a rainier disci-
plinary charge and then offered a choice?
take the punishment or take a bond. Be took
a bond.
Letters of support for S. 1036 to prohibit
coercion have been received from officers as
well as enlisted men. According to a Lt. Colo-
nel, "the charity-abuse bill will protect not
only the men, but the commanders them-
selves 'who suffer fantastic pressures from
post commanders and high-level commanders
who want 100% participation. If the sol-
diers think they are being pressured they
should attend a commanders' kick-ofr meet-
ing at about the time the local community
chest drive begins."
A Captain in Massachusetts stated that
junior officers are expected to display their
military "leadership ability by getting 100%
participation from their units.". This officer
said that after 7 years of such pressure he
had finally adopted the practice of contribut-
ing his own money to cover those of his men
who did not wish to participate. In that way
"I can meet the goals set for me and still
live with my conscience," the officer wrote.
, Commenting on these letters, Senator Ervin
stated: "As long as senior officers measure
the 'leadership ability' of their junior officers
' in this way, all the fine-sounding directives
from the Pentagon expressing support for
'voluntarism' will not end this coercion.
These military techniques are by no means
limited to servicemen, but apply with equal
force to civilian employees of the Defense
Department. Clear and unequivocal legisla-
tive prohibitions such as E. 1035 and S. 1036
are urgently needed."
[WSPD editorial, April 27, 1967]
CONGRESS SHOT-7Ln PROTECT THE GI AGAINST
HIGH PRESSURE Peomarens
We imagine that it's a rare ex-serviceman
who does not recall having his arm twisted
by some superior to contribute to a particular
charity or to buy savings bonds.
In the past, the long-suffering G.I. would
simply continue to submit in silence. He
would contribute rather than balk and be
marked for some kind of subtle retalia-
tion . . . such as being picked for extra k.p.
duty, or missing a pass or liberty.
Apparently, today's serviceman is getting
the same kind of pressures to sign up, but
he's not keeping mum about it.
According to Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., of
North Carolina, letters from men in Viet Nam
are Rowing into his office. The letters com-
plain of coercion being used to make the
boys subscribe for savings bonds and
charities.
Sanitized -Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 129'28 Sanitized - ApprS9APARVaVaiselttaliktiFiftl0f1T49R0003/0660b001.-% 1967
One letter from a father was followed by a
second which gave permission to use his,
name, since his son had been killed in action
and was beyond any retaliation for com-
plaining.
Expressing disgust at the whole sorry spec-
tacle of men being squeezed for money while
they're risking life and limb, Senator Ervin
has introduced a bill to prohibit any and all
high-pressure fund-raising.
Here's one proposal that should have been
on the books wars ago. Nothing could be
more contemptible than an eager-beaver
leaning on his subordinates to meet specious
quotas that make a mockery of voluntary
giving.
There's nothing wrong with servicemen
behig given an opportunity to save. But if a
man doesn't want to contribute to a charity
or to buy bonds . . . or if he wants to limit
his giving, no superior should be allowed to
punish him. This goes double for servicemen
who are already doing everything anyone
should ask of them.
[From the Rocky Mount (N.C.) Telegram,
Apr. 11, 1967]
THE COERCION MUST BE STOPPED
The government drive to force civil federal
employes and servicemen to buy U.S. sayings
bonds and participate in other such fund
drives is beginning to stir up protests from
the victims. American troops fighting a war
in Vietnam complain they are being badg-
ered by their superiors to buy bonds; many
are quite unhappy about it.
They have written to Sen. Sam Ervin ex-
pressing their anger at being pressured into
? such contributions. "Aren't we doing enough
for our fellowman as it As?" one American
airman demanded in a letter to the senior
Tar Heel senator.
Ervin has been fighting such harassment
for a long time. He has proposed legislation
?to prohibit coercion of servicemen and civil-
ian employes to buy bonds or contribute to
charity fund drives.
One Army specialist-five complained that
his unit's "savings bond officer" had threat-
ened to continue having savings-bond pep
rallies until every soldier had signed up. This
sort of thing disgusts Ervin, as it should
disgust every citizen.
Certainly a serviceman wearing the uni-
form of his country is obligated to obey
orders; he would be a poor citizen if he
didn't. But there are some limits to what
he should be required to do. What he does
with his meager pay is his own affair; the
government has no right to force him to buy
bonds or participate in any other charity
fund drive. That should be solely a matter
for the individual to decide personally, with-
out coercion.
One soldier wrote: "I am here to do a job.
I ask to do that job. With commanders per-
petually on one's back, it does not create a
very good atmosphere for completing a mis-
sion."
From Pleiku, South Vietnam, a private re-
ported that men refusing to buy savings
bonds had been threatened with extra work
and loss of three-day passes. Some 34 GIs
wrote to thank Ervin for his bill. They called
arm-twisting to buy bonds "a problem which
has troubled members of the military for
quite some time."
A private first-class serving in Vietnam
now recalled that during training at Ft. Gor-
don his company commander would an-
nounce, "there goes a cheapskate," when
spotting non-bond-buying soldiers.
Ervin's files turned up one letter from a
father in California who reported his son was
' fighting in Vietnam, despite the family's con-
viction that the war was unjust. "This is
insult enough without his also being forced
to buy savings bonds which he does not want,
to make it easier for a government to spen4
money on a war we are ashamed of."
The man's son was later killed near Saigon.
Citizens who oppose such bureaucratic
coercion of individuals should offer their
wholehearted support of Ervin in his fight
to gain approval of his proposal which would
prohibit coercion of servicemen and civilians
who are on the government payroll.
[From the Southern Pines (N.C.) Pilot,
Apr. 12, 1967]
MINOR FREEDOMS, Too, ARE IMPORTANT'
A "civilian employee privacy bill," to pro-
tect Federal workers from unwarranted in-
vasions of their constitutional rights, was in-
troduced recently in the U.S. Senate by Sen.
Sam J. Ervin and 52 other Senators who are
disturbed by the shocking amount of coer-
cion and interrogations to which govern-
ment agencies are increasingly subjecting
their employees.
A companion bill was introduced at the
same time, to protect the rights of military
personnel from coercion in savings bond
campaigns and charity drives.
The nation should be grateful for these
efforts. How the proposed legislation stands
as this is written we do not know, but we
hope to see its enactment into law.
"Employees by the thousands," reports
Senator Ervin, "are constantly badgered with
interrogations on such intimate matters as
sex, religion, their willingness to invest in
savings bonds, their disclosures of property
down to the last bottle-cap received from
the Welcome Wagon hostess, and their will-
ingness to work while off-duty for causes
unrelated to their employment . . ."
All this, says the Tar Heel senator "smacks
of Big Brotherism," and he makes this tell-
ing point: "What has been lost sight of in
the bureaucratic process is that the best
way to attract men of dignity to public serv-
ice is to treat them with dignity."
There is a built-in coercive potential in a
government job, in which a person's em-
ployer is not an individual or even a group
of individuals, such as a private firm's board
of directors?with whom rational, personal
dealings are possible?but a vast, authorita-
tive, administrative machine. This is even
more true with the armed forces. ,
On the rights of military personnel, Sen-
ator Ervin notes: "I think it is a national
disgrace to deny weekend passes, allot re-
striations, assign K.P., specify forced
marches and give adverse efficiency reports to
military personnel simply because they are
unwilling to spend their small paycheck as
the Government dictates."
There is, of course, a great deal of senti-
mental nonsense spoken and Written about
the evils of "big government" and its dom-
ination of "private business"?and the like.
In a huge nation, with a complicated econ-
omy and numerous areas of life in which "pri-
vate" efforts are necessarily inadequate to
meet people's needs, the government must
be given and must exercise power.
However, the areas of rights and privileges
and dignities which Senator Ervin's pro-
posals would protect are a different matter
and irrelevant to the main concerns of gov-
ernment.
Indeed, an old truth is revived here: the
petty annoyances of minor bureaucrats can
make life more miserable than legitimate
major invasions of personal privacy such as
the income tax, social security and the draft.
Senator Ervin and his colleagues are on the
right track in their attempts to protect what
might be called the minor freedoms that
all citizens, but most particularly govern-
ment employees, should enjoy.
[From the Columbia (S.C.) Record, Mar. 16,
1967]
CONTROLLING Bra BROTHER
Big Brother has breathed too long down
the necks of Federal employees, intruding
without warrant into the privacy of their
lives and unduly interfering with their con-
stitutional rights.
Fifty-two Senators, including Sam Ervin
of North Carolina, have sot about correcting
the injustice. Introducing his bill, the North
Carolinian said: "It is time for Congress to
forsake its outdated reluctance to tell the
Executive branch how to treat its employees.
When so many American citizens for so many
years are subject to unfair treatment, to
being unreasonably coerced or required with-
out warrant to surrender their liberty, their
privacy, or their freedom to act or not to
act, or to reveal or not to reveal information
about themselves, and their private thoughts
and actions, then Congress has a duty to
call a statutory halt to such practices and
to penalize their resumption."
We hope that the bill passes and that Fed-
eral employees and their relatives will be
relieved of the reams of regulations, guide-
lines and questionnaires they've been inun-
dated with in the past.
We hope that the new Board on Employee
Rights will' protect the South Carolina em-
ployees of the Federal government from such
indiscriminate requirements as disclosure of
their race, religion or national origin; com-
pulsory attendance at government-sponsored
meetings not directly related to their work;
submitting to very personal questioning
needless to their employment; and support
of political candidates or attendance at polit-
ical meetings.
Coercion of employees to contribute to
various charitable drives, to purchase bonds
and the like will no longer?if the bill
passes?be legal.
A great burden will have been lifted from -.
the backs and minds of loyal federal serv-
ants, who've been smothered with Big
Brotherism.
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Mar. 21, 1967]
IMPROPER QUESTIONS
Certain tests and questionnaires used by
the federal government threaten an unjusti-
fied invasion of the privacy of government
employees. For several years, Sen. Sam J.
Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional
rights has kept a sharp eye open to detect
possible infringement of individual liberties.
The subcommittee extensively probed the
psychological testing of federal government
employees. It pointed to the use of some test-
ing forms which include what many would
consider objectionable questions relating to
religion, sex, and other personal matters.
From one test, the following, for example,
were to be answered "true" or "false":
"Christ performed miracles."
"I pray several times a week."
"I like to talk about sex."
"I am a special agent of God."
More recently, the subcommittee found
that -various government agencies were using
a "report of Medical History" which includes
questions of an extremely personal nature,
some of which have no apparent bearing on
the individual's physical fitness.
After the subcommittee and the American
Civil Liberties Union pressed the matter with
the United States Civil Service Commission,
the commission dropped the form for all
civilian employees and job applicants. But
the Defense Department continues to use it
for military personnel.
A "false or dishonest answer" to this ques-
tionnaire is punishable by fine or imprison-
ment. It was by no means clear that access
to these forms would be strictly limited to
medical staff. If they were made available to
personnel or security officers, answers irrele-
vant to physical fitness might well have re-
stilted in exclusion from government service.
Government must, of course, obtain cer-
tain information about applicants in order
to select able, conscientious, and reliable em-
ployees. But there are some personal matters
which government has no right to extract
from an individual as a condition of employ-
ment.
We are encouraged that both Congress and
Sanitized - Approved For Release-: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
:Sanitized - Approved For Release': CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
',September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
an organization dedicated to the preserva-
tion of civil liberties have seen fit to look
into the matter. It deserves continuing sur-
veillance.
[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal,
Mar. 8, 19671
ERVIN'S PRIVACY CAMPAIGN
Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. has summoned the
faithful?that means most of us?to join
him in a crusade to rid government and in-
dustry personnel files of information that
infringes on individual privacy.
We are with him, right down to the last
cartridge.
? It is preposterous, silly, idiotic and maybe
even a trifle totalitarianist for a bureaucrat
or an industrial personnel director to have
In hand the most intimate information
about an employee.
Who do you love more?your father or
your mother?
Do you ever dream of fire?
Do you seek extra-marital relations?
Have you ever had an impuse to murder
another person?
Would you rather go hunting with a group
of male friends or take your wife on a second
honeymoon?
These and thousands of other similarly
goofy questions appear on dozens of "per-
sonnel questionnaires" across the land. Sen.r
Ervin dislikes the compilation of such in-
formation?and seeks to put an end to it.
The defenders of such questionnaires and
dossiers and lie-detector tests are numerous
and powerful; and they rationalize their en-
thusiasm for this peek-a-boo nonsense by
solemnly intoning the need to find out what
"motivates" a potential employe. Their argu-
ments rarely touch on the efficiency or dedi-
cation of such employees; what they are in-
terested in primarily is his private thoughts,
dreams and frustrations.
But what may win this war for those
Americans who believe individual privacy
to be as important as the constitutional bar
to self-incrimination is the fact that those
1 officials who demand such questionnaires are
not serious men at all. They are voyeurs?
sophisticated versions of those poor souls
who derive pleasure from peeking into other
people's windows at night.
Sen. Ervin believes they can be curbed;
and the American people have a greater stake
than most of us realize in the success of his
efforts to do just that.
[Prom the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun,
Mar. 5, 19671
BILL OF RIGHTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYES
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was
accused recently of having threatened to
forge psychiatric records in an effort to dis-
credit an officer of the National Student
Association (NSA).
Whether this charge is true or not, there
Is reason to believe that officials in some
federal agencies have accused employes of
being mentally ill as a method of forcing
them to retire. Robert G. Sherrill made this
charge in an article in The Nation magazine
on Civil Service Commission practices. More
than 13,000 civil service employes left gov-
ernment employment between 1055 and 1962
for what was labeled mental or nervous
disorders?half of them under protest.
An employe may be told he needs attention
and ordered to go to a Civil Service psychia-
trist. If he refuses, he can be discharged for
violating orders. Usually the employe does
not get the opportunity to go to a private
psychiatrist. There is no hearing before or
after the psychiatric examination.
Senatoa Sam Ervin (Dem., N.C.) is again
pushing for action at this session on legis-
lation to protect federal employees against
such treatment, Interest in the proposed
"bill of rights" for federal employes has In-
creased as a reault of disclosures of spying,
coercion and invasions of privacy.
The Ervin bill would create an independ-
ent Board on Employe Rights. This would
give employes a place to make complaints
without fear or reprisal.
The legislation would prohibit indiscrimi-
nate requirements that employes submit to
questioning about their religion, personal
relationships or sexual attitudes through
interviews, psychological tests or lie detector
tests.
Federal employes would not be required
to report to their bosses on outside activities
unrelated to their business, nor would they
have to attend political meetings. They
couldn't be coerced into lauying bonds, They
would have the right to counsel or other
representation at an interview which could
lead to disciplinary proceedings. They also
could bring civil action for violation of the
act.
Senator Ervin thinks federal employes are
being "smothered by tons of big brotherism."
Congress has the responsibility, he believes,
"to assure as far as possible that those in
the executive branch responsible for admin-
istering the laws adhere to constitutional
standards in their programs, policies and
administrative techniques."
We agree with Senator Ervin and hope
this legislation gets favorable attention at
this session of Congress.
[From the Charleston (S.C.) Evening Post,
March 1, 1967]
SAM ERVIN'S RIGHTS BILL
Sen. Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina re-
cently introduced a civil rights bill that all
good and reasonable men can support. If
his bill passes, federal employes will get back
those rights of citizenship that our heavy-
handed bureaucrats have robbed them oa.
Moreover, any future robberies could land the
offending bureaucrats in jail.
It has long been the practice in many fed-
eral agencies to recruit political ambassadors
from the ranks of civil service. Sometimes
this has taken the form of requiring gov-
ernment workers to further, in their off
hours, various community projects of which
Big Brother approves. A case that recently
came to light involved an agency directive
commanding civil servants to enlist in local
projects aimed at promoting "open housing"
laws. This is only one example. Such com-
pulsion is commonplace.
In election years, the machinery of bureau-
cracy operates in such a way as to enrich
the political warchest of the ruling party.
Donations are solicited on the sly, and a
variety of subterfuges are resorted to in an
effort to escape the prohibitions of the Hatch
Act. Government workers have even been
known to get the word from above that out-
right campaigning is expected of them.
Invasions of privacy are likewise a common
occurrence. In the famous case of Otto
Otepka, to cite a single example, employes
spied on a fellow worker, bugged his office
phone, rifled his trash basket and even broke
into his confidential files?all on orders from
higher up in an attempt to get evidence in-
no way related to furthering national
security. In many other less celebrated eases,
bureaucratic muckety-mucks have also tram-
pled with impunity on the private rights of
their underlings.
If Senator Ervin's bill is enacted into law,
all this will change. His bill outlaws such
practices altogether. Furthermore, it estab-
lishes a three-member Board of Employe
Rights to investigate individual complaints,
conduct hearings and fix penalties. No Mem-
ber of the board may be otherwise employed
by the federal government, and the penalties
it could impose are substantial: fines of up
to $300 for each offense and jail terms up to
30 days.
Any federal supervisor who tampered with
the rights or personal lives of his subordi-
nates would be subject to punishment, and
the Washington Post reports that the word is
S 12929
already spreading throughout the bureauc-
racy to lay off, lest some new scandal propel
the Ervin measure through Congress.
Fortunately, the bureaucracy seems to have
moved too late. Last year, the Johnson ad-
ministration successfully fought off a similar
measure, also introduced by Senator Ervin,
but the bureaucrats learned little from the
experience of a close shave. The old ways
were resumed once the bill was beaten. This
year is different. Senator Ervin has persuaded
50 of his colleagues?a majority?to co-spon-
sor the measure. If the House will go along,
the temptation for the government to manip-
ulate the private lives of its workers will be
greatly reduced.
[From the Wilmington (N.C.) Morning Star,
Feb. 23, 1967]
MATTV1 OF PRIVACY
The bugging with hidden microphones
and the tapping of telephones are far from
the only ways of depriving us of our personal
privacy in this age which has become Orwel-
lian before its forecast 1084 time. a
Nearly every government questionnaire re-
quired to be filled out requests information
that is not only pertinent to the subject and
immediate usage, but gives away such per-
sonal matters as religion, living standards,
politics, family relationships and like man-
ner of data most of us have long held as priv-
ileged and private.
In the tracking down of income tax infor-
mation, for further, instance, the federal
government employs informers to , come up
with income dossiers on private citizens and
taxpayers?for a fee, of course; a percentage
of whatever additional taxable sums are un-
earthed.
As Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., North Carolina's
senior U.S. Senator charged Tuesday "a very
large segment of our population is being
smothered by tons of big-brotherism."
Sen. Ervin has introduced a bill, with 50
other senators as co-patrons, to protect the
privacy of public workers. His bill would pro-
hibit indiscriminate requirements that em-
ployes and applicants disclose their race, re-
ligion or national origin. It would also free
these from having to report on much of their
activity which is normally considered per-
sonal.
The Ervin bill would also protect service-
men from coercion in savings bond cam-
paigns and in charity drives.
In this day of increasing person-to-person
prying, Sen. Ervin's bill should be comfort-
ing to all those in public employment.
The bill, or an enlarging amendment to
it, would be universally acclaimed if it could
help restore a measure of privacy to private
citizens.
[From the Richmond News Leader,
Feb. 23, 19671
THE PROPOSAL OF SENATOR ERVIN
Senator Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina
was in fine form Wednesday night in his
address here to the Virginia Sons of the
Revolution and, needless to say, he was
among friends. Senator Ervin's benignity, his
judicial background and his shrewd balance
have made him a formidable Southern
tribune in Washington. All this was in evi-
dence as he spoke in behalf of a remedy that
would restrain the U.S. Supreme Court from
acting as legislature and redeem it as an
Interpreter of the Constitution as written.
Yet Senator Ervin, for DM the light he cast
upon the subject and the force of his Indict-
ment of the court as a power pirate, did not
convince all his listeners that he had indeed
perfected the remedy.
Senator Ervin proposed a constitutional
amendment altering the fashion in which
justices of the court are appointed. He would
provide that the chief justice of the highest
State appellate courts recommend a small
eligible roster of lawyers; the President
Sanitized -Approved For Re,!ease : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
12930 CONGRESSIO.NAL RECO ?SENAT_F, ,..Se3oLe_wler t967
Sanitized - Approved i-or Keiease : -Rui0/5-ou149RoOozoo600oui-6
would make a selection; the Senate woul be This, and other efforts by government
agencies to intimidate their employees and
pry into their privacy resulted during the
last session of Congress in a series of hear-
ings by Senator Ervin's Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights.
John F. Griner, president of the 220,000-
member American Federation of Government
Employees, spent nearly three hours before
this committee telling of pressure, propagan-
dizing, and intimidation, and of "secret
dossiers" kept on government workers. In
addition to the snooping, pressure to buy
savings bonds, and similar coercion, Griner
said that some Federal installations have
held sessions with employees to mold their
attitudes on civil rights, the United Nations,
and other public issues.
He told of a case at a Defense Department
field installation where groups of employees
were assembled to hear a thirty minute re-
corded speech on the "Importance of integra-
tion" and the "greatness" of the United Na-
tions. The AFL-CIO leader pointed out that
if this continues an Administration with a
different attitude might hold employee in-
doctrination sessions on the "Evils of the
United Nations" or on whether or not we
should be involved in the Vietnam war.
Government questionnaires ask employees .
to identify themselves as "American Indian,
Negro, Spanish American, none of these."
George B. Autry, a Committee staff aide,
noted that preliminary reports indicate "that
there are an awful lot of American Indians
in the State Department which we didn't
know about."
Employees have often refused to fill out
such forms, believing that the government
was meant to be "color blind" in its rela-
tionship with its employees, as with all citi-
zens. It seems a clear double standard, for
example, to have a national Civil Rights Act
barring discrimination in private employ-
ment and have a federal government policy of
keeping employee records on the basis of race.
Senator Ervin attacked the government
questionnaires, which he said are supposed
to be confidential but aren't, on the racial
backgrounds of employees and their outside
financial interests. He said that he "saw no
need" for the racial questionnaires which
the government says it uses to check on equal
employment opportunities, "unless the gov-
ernment is interested in establishing a sys-
tem of racial quotas."
Union leader Griner also accused the In-
ternal Revenue Service of being especially
hard on employees. He said it has bugged
telephones and fired employees accused of,
but not proven guilty of, taking bribes. He
said that the IRS is an "outstanding example
of an agency that believes every one of its
employees is dishonest until proven honest."
In Huntsville, Alabama, the union leader
said, Army investigators were questioning a
man about some alleged thefts from a candy
machine. During the long grilling session,
they repeatedly asked "if he knew his wife
was running around with a fellow employee?"
In another instance a security investigator
asked neighbors of a government employee
whether or not he and his wife treated their
adopted children in a proper manner. Until,
that time, no one in the community knew
that the children had been adopted, Gov-
ernment prying led to this unfortunate cir-
cumstance.
Senator Ervin's proposed bill is meant to
put an end to pressure from higher up on
civilian and military people voluntarily to
join in charity or bond drives which have
pre-set quotas or dollar amounts for all the
volunteers. The bill may provide criminal
and/or administrative penalties for supervi-
sors, who join In the pressure exercise, or
otherwise invade the privacy of their workers.
Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas
spelled out in graphic detail the full extent
of this whole trend. He said: "We are rap-
idly entering the age of no privacy; where
called upon to confirm.
The fact is, the 1787 constitutional pro-
visions concerning the U.S. Supreme Court
and its powers represented an unfinished
symphony. No qualifications for the justices
were established (until this day a justice
need not be a lawyer and a non-lawyer has
served) and it required the genius, not to
mention inventiveness, of John Marshall to
establish something so basic as Judicial
Revue.
. The thrust of Senator Ervin's proposal for
insuring the appointment of fit justices is
by no means new and is found in the 1787
debates within the Constitutional Conven-
tion. There was a strong disposition not to
endow the President with exclusive appoint-
ive power, though this disposition was over-
come. The genius of Benjamin Franklin had
to have its horse laugh along with a seventh-
inning stretch and, in the debate on Ervin-
like proposals, he pointed to the custom in
Scotland. There, Franklin said, the judges
were nominated by the lawyers, and the
lawyers happily selected the ablest of their
brethren "in order to get rid of him and
share in his practice among themselves."
This-sally launched James Madison on an
alternate mode of selection in which the
power of appointment would have been con-
fided to the Senate.
For much of the life of this Republic, the
Supreme Court has been abominated by one-
half of the citizenry and cherished by the
'other half. It has been packed and unpacked.
It has bent to the political winds and has
been flatly defied by Presidents such as
Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, not
to mention some of the States. All in all, we
wonder that Senator Ervin has not given
more thought to the election of the kind of
President who could be depended upon to
appoint fit justices to the exclusion of leg-
islative justices. The means is there, only the
will is missing.
[From Roll Call (D.C.), Feb. 2, 1967]
RIGHT TO PRIVACY?GOVERNMENT IS BIG
BROTHER TO ITS EMPLOYEES
(By Allan C. Brownfeld)
The Founding Fathers did not specifically
.write a "right of privacy" into the Constitu-
tion. They felt that this was understood by
civilized men, but history has shown us that
this was not the case, In fact, Mr. Justice
Brandeis felt the need in Oinistead.vs. United
States in 1928 to clearly state that "The right
to be alone?the most comprehensive of
rights, and the right most valued by civilized
men" was one guaranteed by our laws.
This week Senator Sam Ervin of North
Carolina will introduce in the Senate a bill
which he calls a "bill of rights" for fed-
eral employees, protecting them from what
his committee's hearings have found to be
clear invasion of their privacy, coercion, and
often forced indoctrination.
Senator Ervin's committee found that far
from creating a "welfare state" in which the
good of each employee is considered of over-
riding importance, the government had cre-
ated for its own employees a system which
they felt deprived them of their own freedom,
and unfairly pried into their private lives.
The examples have been numerous. When
President Johnson sought to increase the
purchase of United States Savings Bonds the
request that government employees step up
their buying was often put in terms which
left little to the imagination. At the National
Science Foundation employees were asked
if they had been "prudent and intelligent"
and signed up for the program, or "are you
a rebel without a cause who wants a little
attention?" A marine general sent repre-
sentatives into Vietnam foxholes and "kept
track of the patrols so that every indi-
vidual had an opportunity to hear how he
could invest his money in a Worthwhile
program."
everyone is open to surveillance at all times;
where there are no secrets from government.
The aggressive breaches of privacy by the
government increase with geometric propor-
tion. Wiretapping and 'bugging' run ram-
pant, without effective judicial or legislative
control . . . Personality tests seek to ferret
out a man's innermost thoughts in family
life, religion, racial attitudes, national origin,
politics, atheism, ideology, sex and the like."
Justice Douglas notes that "Taken indi-
vidually, each step may be of little conse-
quence. But when viewed as a whole, there
begins to emerge a society quite unlike any
we have seen?a society in which government
may intrude into the secret regions of a
man's life at will."
In 1901 in the case of Roberson v-Rochater
Folding Box Company Chief Justice Alton B.
Parker of the New fork Court of Appeals
stated that "A man has a right to pass
through this world, if he wills, without hav-
ing his pictures published, his business en-
terprises discussed, his succesful experi-
ment written up for the benefit of others,
or his eccentricities commented upon,
whether in handbills, circulars, catalogues,
newspapers or periodicals."
This is not 1901, but 1967. Senator Ervin
believes that this right of privacy still exists
for Americans, and as the Senate begins dis-
cussions of this bill we will see whether or
not that is, in fact, the case.
[From the Greensboro (N.C.) Record,
Feb. 24, 1967]
FIGHTING BIG BROTHER
In his battle with "big brotherism" in the
federal bureaucracy, Sen. Sam Ervin has
picked up some varied supporters.
Among the 50 senators supporting the Tar
Heel's proposals to give federal employes a
"bill of rights" against overly inquisitive job
interviewers or supervisors, are Democratic
liberal Joe Clark of Pennsylvania and Re-
publican conservative Strom Thurmond of
South Carolina.
Senator Ervin has uncovered a number of
cases in which would-be secretaries were
subjected to psychological examinations
which would be of dubious value even when
applied to prospective CIA employes. The
call to kick in to various "voluntary" fund
drives is also a target for Senator Ervin's
wrath. All too often, the drives are volun-
tary in name only, and he wants to put a
stop to it.
The aims; of the bill are laudable, and its
prospects for passage appear bright, given
the broad spectrum of support it has won
from both sides of the Senate aisle, and from
federal employe groups. Senator Ervin has
often presented a lamentably blind eye to
civil rights proposals, but his latest effort
does something to redress the balance.
He is quite right in contending that fed-
eral employes should enjoy the rights of
other citizens. Regimentation and unwar-
ranted invasion of privacy should not be
part of the price for employment with the
government.
RIGHTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYES
(This Editorial was broadcast on February
24 and 25, 1967, over WTOP Radio and Tele-
vision.)
This is a WTOP Editorial.
On the theory that federal employes are
full-fledged American citizens, Senator Sam
Ervin of North Carolina has proposed a bill
to protect certain fundamental rights of
members of the federal establishment.
To say that his measure is receiving sup-
port is to understate the case. So far, 50
senators of all shades of political opinion
have joined as co-sponsors, including the
two senators from Maryland and the two
from Virginia.
Mr. Ervin undoubtedly has found a popu-
lar comae. It grows out of the well-founded
suspicion that federal employes sometimes
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 12931
are exposed to interrogations and other
techniques which go a long way beyond
normal or decent practice.
By this we mean lie detector tests and
impertinent psychological test questions
about the private life of an employe or pros-
pective employe, questions dealing with sex
habits and other intimate matters which are
nobody's business.
Inquiries like these, the senator declares,
are intolerable invasions of privacy. Ile feels
the same about attempts by the armed forces
to use coercion?the threat of ICP, for ex-
ample--to compel servicemen to buy savings
bonds or contribute to various charities. The
bill would stop these abuses also.
The Senate Subcommittee on Constitu-
tional Rights, which is handling the Ervin
bill, intends to give the Civil Service Com-
mission and other agencies plenty of time
to make their views known. Civil Service was
hostile to a similar measure last year; its
attitude this year may be considerably more
conciliatory.
Even if Senator Ervin's complaints about
personnel abuses are overdrawn?which is
always possible?there's plenty of reason to
believe that abuses exist that ought to be
corrected. Upward of three million federal
employee obviously need protection they do
not now have but are very likely to have
before 1967 is over.
This was a WTOP Editorial, Jack Jurey
speaking for WTOP.
[Prom the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Aug. 2, 19671
U.S. EMPLOYEES ARE DENIED BASIC RIGHT
(By John Cramer)
The Senate Constitutional Rights Sub-
committee, headed by Sen. Sam Ervin (a,
N.C.) reports a passel of Federal employe
complaints alleging that U.S.-agencies. are
ignoring?or greatly diluting?that recent
Civil Service Commission order guaranteeing
employes free access to their personnel of-
flees. -
Under heavy pressure, the commission is-
sued the order several months ago after the
sub-committee turned up numerous agency
and installation policies virtually prohibiting
employes with grievances or other problems
from seeking personnel office advice.
The order itself is excellent, It directed
agencies to make sure that they put no
"road blocks" in the way of free access to
personnel offices. Supervisors no longer can
deny such access, as they frequently did in
the past. They no longer can demand to
know the employee reasons. They may re-
quire only that he schedule his personnel
office visit so as to cause minimum work
disruption.
Consider, however, how descending eche-
Ions of the Railroad Retirement Board, Head-
quarters Chicago, diluted the order as they
filtered It down to employees. According to
the subcommittee files:
RRB itself relayed the order to major units
almost word for word.
One lower echelon added language saying:
"This is not to be construed as an invitation
to go over the head of your immediate super-
visor or violate lines of authority."
That can be read only as a warning to em-
ployees: Go to the personnel office, and you're
in the doghouse.
And a still lower echelon told employees
that if they wished to contact designated
personnel officers, "you must ask your im-
mediate supervisor to arrange- an appoint-
ment for that purpose."
That, of course, was the precise sort of
thing the commission order was designed to
prevent.
mom=
But for a real shocker, there's the Air Force
case reported to the sub-committee by an
Alaska official of the AFL-CIO American Fed-
eration of Government Employes.
?
The colonel in charge of a segment of a
major AF unit there appeared, at least, to
' take the commission order seriously. He
posted it on official bulletin boards. Along
with it, he posted his personal notice assur-
ing employees that he had "an open doer".
that he and his station commanders were
available "around the clock" to hear em-
ploye grievances . . . without fear of re-
prisal.
So a female employe took him at his
word. She went to her station commander, an
AP captain, with her problems.
Soon thereafter, she found herself con-
fronted by her immediate superior and the
base personnel director, who informed her
she must never, ever go direct to the Station
Commander again.
When she asked "Where, then, can I go?",
the personnel director, according to the
AFGE official, brightly replied:
"Oh, to the President, his name is Johnson,
I believe ... or the Vice President ... or Sec-
retary Rusk . . or the Air Force Secretary."
RESOLVED
The AFGE took her grievance (an unusu-
ally messy one) to the Ervin sub-committee.
It has since been resolved in her favor.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
July 27, 19671
WHEN WILL THE NAVY GET Wise?
(By John Cramer)
Here I- am, back again, on that piddling
little matter I first wrote about a few weeks
back?a Navy installation which requires its
employes to display names and insurance ex-
piration dates on bumper-sticker permits for
on-base parking.
Piddling perhaps, but another example of
Government-type privacy invasion which
never would be tolerated by employes in pri-
vate enterprise.
The installation is the big Naval Training?
Center, Great Lakes, Ill., where some 15,000
vehicles park daily.
PROTEST
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., NC.), the Constitu-
tional Rights Subcommittee chairman, wrote
Navy to protest the privacy invasion in the
Great Lakes practice.
In reply, he got a letter from Richard A.
Beaumont, Deputy Under Secretary for Man-
power, who blandly supported everything'
about the Great Lakes rule ... finding noth-
ing "unreasonable" . . . absolutely no pri-
vacy invasion.
As Mr. Beaumont explained it, Great Lakes
requires employes to have not less than
$10,000/920,000 bodily injury arid $5000 Prop-
erty damage insurance.
He said that each bumper (or maybe wind-
shield?) sticker must be of a distinctive color
to indicate "whether the owner is an officer,
enlisted man, civilian employe, vendor, or
contractor's employe."
That's just about as bureaucratic as you
can get, but no doubt it won a promotion for
the eager-beaver Navy milicrat who dreamed
it up.
PREVENT THEFT
In Mr. Beaumont's view, however, it's a
highly-desirable system because he said it
assists in identifying non-insured characters
who have stolen stickers . . ? helps prevent
theft and speeds the recovery of stolen ve-
hicles ? . . makes for rapid owner identifica-
tion when it's "necessary to remove automo-
biles at the scene of fires, emergency con-
struction work, snow removal operations,
etc."
All this sounds great.
But consider a moment, and you'll begin to
wonder whether the Great Lakes system
really accomplishes the things Mc. Beaumont
claims.
Maybe I'm thick, but I completely fail to
see what it can do to prevent theft or help
, recover stolen cars. And I suspect the great
U.S. Navy is entirely capable of identifying
vehicles moved in emergencies--without re-
quiring names and insurance expiration dates
on parking stickers.
INSULTING
In fact if I were Sen. Ervin, I'd consider
Mr. Beaumont's letter, with its absurd claims,
pretty close to insulting.
That, however, isn't the point.
The point is that Government agencies
have no damn business requiring of their em-
ployes more than is required by law . .
more than is required of employes in private
enterprise.
No business demanding insurance in ex-
cess of state law?unless the agencies them-
selves are prepared to pay for it.
No business requiring an employe's name
on his car?license tag identification is en-
tirely enough.
At the risk of belaboring, let it be said
again that if Government can require seat
belts, and names-and-insurance-data on
parking stickers, it also can require power
brakes, power steering, air conditioning, roll
bars, and any number of other desirable -
safety features.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Beaumont's
letter was prepared by a subordinate . . .
that Mr. Beaumont didn't take the time to
read (or at least understand it) .
May I say, sir: One of the things you're
paid for is to double-check official Navy an-
swers to U.S. Senators!
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
July 6, 19671
MONSTROSITY OF BIG BROTHERISM
(By John Cramer)
Perhaps this is just a piddling little thing.
Perhaps it's something more.
Given the creeping Big Brotherism so evi-
dent in the Government's dealings with its
employes (and the rest of us) I happen to
think the latter. Mebbe I'm wrong. You
judge.
Anyway, Senate Constitutional Rights Sub-
committee Chairman Sam Ervin (D., N.C.),
who had worked so effectively to educate U.S.
agencies against invading Federal employe
privacy, recently related a protest to Navy
Department.
OBJECTED
Relayed the protest of employes at a small
Navy installation, who resented an order
directing that future bumper-style sticker
permits for parking at the installation would
carry spaces to show:' (1) the employe's '
name; (2) the expiration date of his auto in-
surance.
To the Senator's letter, Navy blandly re-
plied that it found in the order "nothing
inappropriate"?or words to that effect.
Sen. Ervin disagrees. Me, too.
As it happens, I wish we had compulsory
insurance for all drivers. But until we do,
I can be nothing but unhappy with eager-
beaver milicrats who buck for promotion
by requiring more than is required by law.
ADVANTAGE
I can even see some advantage?to the
milicrats--in requiring names to be dis-
played on parking stickers.
(And I also can understand that neither
names nor insurance expiration dates would
be necessary if the Navy people were bright
enough to install relatively private coding
systems for bumper stickers numbers.)
The line has to be drawn.
But so long as rank-happy "base security
officers" or whatever they call them in various
parts of the military, are permitted to do
their own line drawing, we'll have privacy-
invasions to disgrace the entire Federal
Establishment.
COULD DE
MOO them their heads, and we'll soon have
base parking stickers with any number of
additional blanks to help these characters
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
. S 12932 Sanitized - ApiCati6d136:510MdatECOMA-RDEIMIDD149R09012400:100.114-e 967
perform their assigned duties with more
promotable efficiency. Like:
Social Security numbers?Well, lots of
people have them don't they?
Home phone number?In case of serious
on-base traffic accident.
Office phone?Ditto.
Grade and pay?To guide the arresting
officer in issuing on-base traffic tickets.
National origin, whether white, Negro,
American Indian, Spanish-American, or
Other?for same purpose as above.
Pinanical assets of employe and family?
as above.
Blood type?In case the on-base accident
requires a transfusion.
Religion?In case it threatens to be fatal.
Name and phone number of pastor?ditto.
SUCKLES
Answers to all of these questions can help
the, base security officers spend more time at
their jobs and appear to be more efficient
and more worthy of promotion.
But Big Brotherism suckles, thrives, and
eventually flourishes to full monstrosity on
just such things.
Piddling, they may be. "Nothing inappro-
priate," that may be.
On guard, good citizens! On guard!
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
July 3, 1967]
FTS CALLED SAD-SACK OPERATION
(By John Cramer)
Here's more about that sad-sack operation,
the Federal Telecommunications System
(FTS).
PTS is Government's own long distance
telephone network. It's supposed to save tax
dollars, but actually wastes them?because
Federal secretaries lose so much time getting
busy signals from its overloaded circuits.
Anyway, an Office of Education official tells
me:
OE does a lot of business by long distance
phone with university executives. Frequently,
an OE man will place a call to an executive
Who isn't immediately available. The latter
ordinarily then will call back by commercial
phone?collect.
- When that happens, OE has a policy.
The policy says the OE man's secretary
must reject the collect call, explaining that
her boss is out.
The boss then is supposed to return the call
by FTS. And this is supposed to save money?
because, theoretically, FTS calls are cheaper
than commercial calls.
In practice, however, what the policy does
is to force the boss's secretary to waste an-
other half hour or more getting thru by FTS.
Its circuits overload badly each day as soon
as West Coast Federal offices go to work.
General Services Administration is the
agency in charge of this mis-managed op-
eration.
BITING COMMENT
The independent National Federation of
Federal Employees, in the current issue of its
monthly newspaper, has biting comment on
that recent Civil Service Commission order
telling U.S. agencies to make sure their em-
ployes have free access to agency personnel
offices. '
The order was issued after the Senate's
Ervin Constitutional Rights Sub-committee
turned up numerous instances in which
agencies had made it difficult or impossible
f^r employees to consult personnel people.
Says the NFFE:
"Does it not seem ironical . . . does it not
'trike any unbiased observer as a graphic
oommentary on the unhappy state of em-
.)loyee-management relations in the Federal
-"rvice . . . that in this day and time the
CSC should find it necessary to Issue, be-
- l'Aedly, an order on such a basic matter?
'Consider this directive in all of its impli-
cations . . or consider only the single state-
ment that Federal agencies sh9uld not deny
Federal employees' access to personnel offices.'
In either case, as a whole or in its separate
parts, this directive, certainly well enough
intentioned by CSC, is an unwitting but
nevertheless shocking indictment of condi-
tions prevailing in too many Federal agencies.
"It reflects how far the Federal Govern-
ment has yet to go to improve and bring its
employee relations fully into the third quar-
ter of the twentieth century.
"In this directive the CSC is asking Fed-
eral departments and agencies to take only
the most elementary of steps .. . only to sc.
cord Federal employees rights which are the
most basic . .. only to be sure that the door
Is not kept locked or slammed in the em-
ployee's face.
"It is scarcely to be wondered that the
issuance of this revelatory directive has not
been greeted with loud huzzas by career Fed-
edal employes."
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
June 13, 1967]
SHE SPOKE UP AND WAS FIRED
(By John Cramer)
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), chairman of the
Constitutional Rights Sub-committee, has
called on Civil Service Commission to set up
new safeguards for Federal employee fired
from Government during their probationary
first year of service.
He thoroly agrees with the,idea of proba-
tion for newcomers.
His concern is for those who find their
records permanently tarnished because they
are dismissed by incompetent or unscrupu-
lous supervisors.
WROTE MACY
Thus, he has written Commission Chair-
man John Macy:
"While I am aware of the need for a pro-
bationary period to insure that Government
employes meet the highest standards, I be-
lieve that the present system may not con-
tain sufficient guarantees to protect individ-
uals, particularly professional people, from
the impact of arbitrary dismissals and un-
founded charges which can bar them from
employment elsewhere, either in Govern-
ment or private enterprise."
He suggested hearings, under certain cir-
cumstances, in such cases, or deleting the
charges from personnel records.
The Ervin proposal was prompted by
numerous complaints from former employes
whose records?on the surface at least?
strongly indicated they had been the victims,.
of unscrupulous supervisors.
One case: A professional woman who an- ?
tagonized her boss, and subsequently was
dismissed as incompetent, because she cor-
rectly suggested that her agency's procedures
in her field did not follow accepted profes-
sional safety standards.
Now she's saddled With a record?very
possibly unwarranted?which may prove in-
surmountable handicap when she seeks other
employment.
Surely, Sen. Ervin can be nothing but
right when he proposes some form of appeal
in such cases.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
June 5, 1967]
COMPROMISE IN "BILL OF RIGHTS" FOR
EMPLOYES
(By John Cramer)
Both sides are cagey?but there's at least
reason to hope that the Administration may
be nearing essential compromises with Sen.
Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), the Constitutional
Rights Subcommittee, chairman, on his pro-
posed "bill of rights" for Federal employes.
The Civil Service Commission, speaking
for the Administration, has backed somewhat
off its original position that there's no need
whatsoever for the Ervin bill.
And Sen. Ervin, in response, has indicated
increasing willingness to listen to commis-
sion proposals large and small, intended, it's
said, to make the legislation more "workable."
There's a long way yet to go. But the signs
are hopeful, a word used advisedly?because
of an abiding conviction here that something
aprpoaching the Ervin bill is desperately
needed to protect rank-and-file Federal
workers against the father-knows-best incli-
nations of their well-intentioned superiors.
FROM STRENGTH
Sen. Ervin pitches from strength. His bill
has been cosponsored by 54 other Senators.
But the commission has a lot of clout, too.
So long as the bill remains in its present
form, It has every reason to believe it could
persuade LBJ to veto.
The bill is designed to protect Federal
workers against invasions of privacy by their
agencies?officious orders requiring any num-
ber of supposedly good things not required
by law.
It would, among other things, prohibit the
coercion of employes in charity drives and
U.S. bond drives . . . restrict financial dis-
closure by employes to those potentially in
true conflict-of-interest situations . ? pro-
hibit agencies from requiring employes to
state their race, creed, or national origin .
prohibit lie detector tests . . . drastically re-
strict so-called psychological tests.
It would set up an independent Board of
Employe Rights to adjudicate complaints
against alleged violations . . . provide both
civil and criminal penalties for violators . . .
give employes direct access to Federal Courts
to seek redress or injunction against real or
threatened violations.
The commission particularly dislikes:
The proposed independent Board of Rights.
Criminal penalties for violators.
Direct access to the Courts.
On all of those things, however, there are
signs?at least some signs?of compromise.
For instance, there's a proposal that the
commission itself set up machinery to per-
form many of the functions proposed for the
Board of Rights. It would do this by making
violations of key "bill of rights" provisions
subject to employe appeal under strengthened
Commission g- ieva-nce procedures.
PENALTIES SCRAPPED
There's another proposal that criminal
penalties in the Ervin bill be scrapped with
only civil penalties?dismissal, suspension or
the likes?remaining for violators.
Under this proposal, the civil penalties
could be invoked either by the commission,
under its grievance procedures, or by the
Courts.
Finally, there's a proposal to limit the al-
most-unrestricted access to Federal Courts
provided in the original Ervin bill.
The orignal would allow employes to go
direct to Court to seek redress or restrainers.
The compromise plan first would force them
to exhaust their administrative remedies?
whatever appeals processes were available
thru their agencies or the Commission.
But the compromise also would place a
time limit on the appeals processes. Neither
agencies nor employes would be permitted
to stall indefinitely.
INSISTENT
Also?and it's understood Sen. Ervin is
insistent on this?employes, once their ad-
ministrative remedies were exhausted, would
be permitted to take their cases to Court
"de novo."
In legal parlance, that means their cases
would be ?onside' ed by the courts as new . . .
not confined by Executive Branch Interpreta-
tion of thp law . . . In no way affected by
decisions reached as they exercised their
administrative remedies.
There's no assurance these compromises
will be worked out. As of now, they're discus-
sion points?on both sides.
It's promising, however, that both sides
are discussing.
Sanitized :Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S.epteinber taleMked AgOattISFida?RalemsecERVAARDIN?E00149R000200600CTA3
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
June 1, 1967]
You CAN, TOO, BEEF IF You WANT
(By John Cramer)
Here are two more major victories for the
Senate Constitutional Rights Sub-commit-
tee, headed by Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.),
which is pushing that proposed "bill of
rights" for Federal employees.
Victory No. 1?Civil Service Commission
has issued a strongly-worded directive to all
agencies, telling them to make sure that
employes have free access to their personnel
offices, and that "road blocks are not placed
in the way of an employe who wishes to visit
the personnel office, file a grievance, or talk
with" appropriate officials.
The CSC action stems directly from hun-
dreds of letters to the Ervin Sub-committee
from employes complaining that they were
denied the right to take problems to their
personnel offices.
SUPPORTED
In many cases, the denials were supported
by agency (or installation) regulations.
The CSC directive said:
"An employe has the right to communicate
with the personnel officials of his agency,
the equal employment opportunity officer,
and a supervisory or management official of
higher rank than his immediate super-
visor . . .
"An employe has the right to file a com-
plaint, .a grievance, or an appeal under the
procedures of his agency or the Commission
without interference or threat of reprisal. An
employe acting in an official capacity for an
agency shall not interfere with or attempt
to interfere with such right . . .
"It is not enough for a supervisor to ab-
stain from overt acts or threats of inter-
ference; he should refrain from making any
statement or taking any action that has the
flavor of threat, interference or intimida-
tion." ?
CSC said it's permissible for an agency to
require that an employe wishing to consult
his personnel office ask his supervisor to
designate a convenient time which will not
disrupt work.
UNNECESSARY
But the employe is not required to state
his reasons for wanting to see a personnel
officer or other management official.
Victory No. 2?involved a 1954 (McCarthy
era) Defense Department regulation, which:
Warned employes against "indiscreet re-
marks; unwise selection of friends or asso-
ciates; membership in an organization whose
true objectives are concealed behind a popu-
lar or innocuous title . . ."
Advised them "to study and seek wise and
mature counsel prior to association with per-
sons or organizations of any political or civic
nature, no matter what their apparent mo-
tives may be . . ."
A companion directive ordered key offi-
cials to provide the "wise and mature coun-
sel."
Under pressure from the Ervin Sub-com-
mittee, both recently were canceled.
In addition, however, the Commission has
ordered all agencies to re-examine their own
regulations to make sure they contain noth-
ing similar.
The Commission quoted the Sub-commit-
tee as being "concerned with a general cli-
mate of tear and coercion revealed by em-
ploye letters to the Sub-committee, and with
the implications of a Government-wide pol-
icy of surveillance of citizens, especially' em-
ployes."
It said it "shares this concern."
Chief officers of the Patent Office Profes-
sional Association, have recommended that
PO employes undertake a boycott of mer-
chants at Crystal ?laza, Va.. to which major
units of the Office recently were moved under
circumstances shrouded in unusual secrecy.
MAIN OBJECTION
Their chief complaint: After a month in the
new' location, parking privileges in the PO
garage have been jumped "by a whopping
50 per cent" to $15 per month.
They allege that the garage is "filthy with
trash, mud and dust costing you a small
fortune just to keep your car clean . . .
large stagnant lakes . . . and no lighting at
all in some areas."
Patents Office management: they say, dis-
claims all responsibility, but: "We challenge
them to admit that they have a responsibility
for the welfare of their employes."
The Association has asked all employes to
ballot on the propositions: 1. Boycott of the
"On April 5, I was interrupted at my Gov-;
ernment job by two military police and a
county police sergeant, who had papers stat-
ing my husband was AWOL. I told them he
was at Ft. Carson. They called me a liar, and
said he never had been there.
"Since I had received numerous telephone
calls and letters from him at Ft. Carson, I
knew their accusation was unfounded.
"They informed me the Army never makes
mistakes, and requested proof that he was
at Ft. Carson. The only way this could be ac-
complished was to drive to my home, ap-
proximately 15 miles.
"I had to return to my office for the keys
to my car, and when I came back, was escort-
ed, like a common criminal, to the parking
lot by the two M.P.'s. This was especially
humiliating because the incident took place
garage; 2. Boycott of all Crystal Plaza at a congested hour.
cilities; 3. Boycott of both. "At my home, they looked at the letters
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
May 19, 1987]
You COULD BE WRONG, MR. M!
(By John Cramer)
Civil Service Commission Chairman John
Macy continues to insist there's absolutely
no need for the "bill of rights" sponsored by
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.) and 54 other Sena-
tors to protect Federal employes against
privacy invasions by bureaucrats and mill-
crate.
He should read my mail! Yesterday's, for
instance.
There was a note from an employe at An-
drews Air Force Base?
"Base regulations say we must have auto
insurance in order to qualify for registra-
tion stickers entitling us to drive and park
on the Base.
"If you utilize the parking facilities at
Air Force Systems Command and are a GS-7
or higher, all that is required is a verbal
statement that you have adequate insur-
ance.
"However, if you are a GS-6 or lower or an
enlisted person, you are required to submit
the actual insurance policy to the Air Police.
_ "This surely shows that the old military
adage, -R,H? (Rank has its privileges), 18
practiced at Andrews here with a vengeance."
Here, Your Government Reporter inter-
rupts with two questions:
Even tho permitted, as it is by AF regula-
tions, is it really the proper business of the
Andrews milicra,ts to check employe insur-
ance?
Do they honestly believe that GS-8s are
less trustworthy that GS-'7s?
The letter writer then goes on to say that,
altho Andrews brass is real super-efficient
about the insurance thing, it can't manage
such a simple matter as soap for women's
restrooms.
"There has been none for the last 2 or
3 weeks. We're told there will be none until
the first of the fiscal year?July 1. No money
appropriated for soap?!!"
By way of Sen. Ervin's Constitutional
Rights sub-committee came a letter from a
GS-9 employe at a military installation?
"Recently, my military supervisor called me
into his office, and told me to join the Of-
ficers' Club or face the loss of my job.
"It seems the commander of our installa-
tion was dissatisfied with the, response of
civilian employes in attending his cocktail
parties (to which he invites many non-pay-
ing guests for his personal gain).
"Dues at the Club are $7.50 per month for
civilians with no voting rights or say in the
management of the club. The rate is the
same for military officers, who can vote and
manage the club I
"Needless to say, civilians are 'second-
class' members who are tolerated only be-
cause the club wants and needs the dues
money."
And finally, a letter from a serviceman's
wife in Indianapolis?
and still were not convinced. Therefore, I
had to call Ft. Carson to satisfy them. When
they had been assured that my husband
was indeed there, they said it must have been
a name mixup.
"After all this humiliation, I asked them
to call my boss and explain.
"They refused."
Just one day's mail, Mr. Macy, from Fed-
eral employes who know just how badly they
need a "bill of rights".
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Apr. 13, 1987]
KOOK HAS A PREGNANT QUESTION!
(By John Cramer)
Today, I crown a new Government priVacy
invading champion?A Pennsylvania-type
kook, who richly deserves to be immortalized
among the most officious of all Federal bu-
reaueratS.
He succeeds to the throne briefly held by
that Omaha, Neb., Air Force major, who, in
an official order, now countermanded by top
Pentagon brass, presumed to tell his sub-
ordinates exactly how far they could drive
their private cars on week-end trips.
My new champion is a minor wheel?clearly
of the two-bit variety?in Social Security
Administration's Philadelphia Award Proces-
sing Branch.
LETTER
According to a letter to Sen. Sam Ervin
(D., N.C.), chairman of the Constitutional
Rights Subcommittee, from Lawrence B.
James, president of Lodge 2008 of the AFL-
CIO American Federation- of Government
Employe's:
"On March 30, female employes of the
Award Processing Branch, both married and
single, were asked by their supervisors
whether or not they were pregnant!
"We have signed statements from the em-
ployes who suffered this injustice."
On the phone, Mr. James told me:
That the, Branch has about 200 female
employer,
That the signed statements number 20.
That all eight supervisors in the Branch
were asked to conduct the pregnancy poll.
That four, however, had the good sense to
refuse.
That it's his understanding that Branch
management justified the poll on "safety"
grounds, saying it planned special consid-
eration for the pregnant gals in Ere drills.
REPORT ASKED
Sen. Ervin wrote Social Security Commis-
sioner Robert M. Ball, April 5, requesting a
full report.
So far, he has no reply.
When he gets one, I'll relay the word.
In the circumstances, I'd think Mr. Ball
would want to convey his own apologies to
the embarrassed employes.
And a sharp reprilnand to my hew privacy
invading champ. ?
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
.S 12934 Sanitized - AprifeWitizniPPAiklaiW9M-REffirtgb149R06012tiette104A-61967
. [From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Feb. 22, 19671
BILL OP RIGHTS GETS BIG BACKING
(By John Cramer)
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), chairman of the
Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, yester-
day re-introduced his proposed "bill of
rights" for Federal employes, with impres-
sive backing from 52 other Senators who
signed as co-sponsors.
That means the bill now has the support
of a clear majority of the Senate?a con-
sensus which will bring no joy to Adminis-
tration spokesmen who were alone in op-
posing it at Sub-committee hearings last
year.
In 1966, co-sponsors totalled 35.
GUARD
The "bill of rights" is designed to protect
Federal workers against growing invasions of
their privacy by their agencies?invasion at-
tested in a remarkable outpouring of thou-
sands of letters to the Sub-committee.
In re-introducing it yesterday, in slightly-
revised form, Sen. Ervin told the Senate:
"It is time for Congress to forsake its out-
dated reluctance to tell the Executive branch
how to treat its employes.
"When so many American citizens for so
many years are subject to unfair treatment,
to being unreasonably coerced or required
without warrant to surrender their liberty,
their privacy, or their freedom to act -or riot
to act, or to reveal or not to reveal informa-
tion about themselves and their private
thoughts and actions, then Congress has a
duty to call a statutory halt to such prac-
tices, and to penalize their resumption.
- "The reams of regulations, guidelines, and
questionnaires issued for applicants, em-
ployes and their families to promote various
causes make it clear that a very large seg-
ment of our population is being smothered
by tons of big-brotherism."
The bill would prohibit these agency prac-
tices, among others:
Requiring or pressuring employees to dis-
close their race, religion, or national origin.
Requiring or pressuring them to . attend
meetings or participate in other outside
activities not connected with their duties.
Forbidding them to patronize specified
business establishments.
Requiring them to submit to psychological
or lie detector tests which include questions
about their relationships with relatives, re-
ligious beliefs, or sex attitudes and conduct..
-An exception to the general ban on psycho-
logical tests would be made for 'individual
employes being examined for possible mental
illness.
Requiring or pressuring employes to attend
politidal fund-raising functions.
Coercing employes to purchase U.S. Bonds,
or contribute to charity campaigns. How-
ever, reasonable, noncoercive solicitation
would continue to be permitted.
Requiring employes to disclose financial
assets and those of their relatives. The Ervin
bill would restrict such. disclosure to em-
ployes in potential conflict-of-interest situa-
tions?and only to such portion of their
assets as might occasion a conflict.
Requiring employes undergoing criminal
Investigation to submit to questions without
benefit of counsel.
WOULD APPLY.
The bill's prohibitions would apply?in
slightly different manner?to both civilian
and military supervisors -of civilian- em-
ployes.
It would give employes the right to bring
civil actions in Federal District courts to en-
join threatened violations?or redress actual
violations.
- And it would make "willful" violation a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to $300 fine
or 30 days in prison.
In addition, the bill would set up a three-
member Board of Employe Rights, appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Sen-
ate.
The Board would have the power to investi-
gate and conduct hearings on alleged viola-
tions, and issne cease-and-desist orders.
In the case of first violations by civilian
officials, it could issue official reprimands and
suspensions up to 15 days. For subsequent
violations; it could suspend up to 30 days, or
order the official's dismissal.
Military violators would be reported to the
President, the Congress and the heads of
their services, and would be subject to Code
of Military Justice procedures.
Both officials and employes would have
the right to ask Federal District Courts to re-
view Board decisions.
A Ervin bill introduced yesterday would
outlaw coercion of military personnel in
'Savings Bond and, charity campaigns.
[From the Greensboro, (N.C.) Daily News,
June 28, 19671
ERVIN BILL BRINGS FEDERAL WORKERS PER-
SONAL PRIVACY
(By Roy Parker, Jr.)
WASHINGTON.?Employes of the Library of
Congress no longer must fill out medical
forms describing their ,sexual habits.
The Air Force has called off a directive for-
bidding most employes from telephoning or
visiting their personnel office without ex-
plaining to their immediate boss.
The Federal Aviation Agency has quietly
buried a personnel rule which threatened
reprisals against employes who wrote cons.
piaining letters to their congressman.
The Civil Service Commission has reversed
a policy order which encouraged government
workers to take part in off-duty "community
activities." -
These and other reversals of policy have
flowed from North Carolina Sen. Sam Ervin's
pressure on the federal bureaucracy to stop
what he calls "invasions of privacy" of the
army of government workers.
The Tar Heel senator has authored a "Bill
of Rights" for government workers that has
been signed by more than half the 100 mem-
bers of the Senate.
Ervin this week listed some of the changes
that have been wrought by the mere threat
of the legislation.
While he negotiates with executive branch
_officials for even further shifts in policy,
Ervin said he would continue to push for
Senate consideration of his bill. He did not
rule out the possibility that the original ver-
sion might be watered down somewhat in
view of the policy changes.
However, said Ervin in a newsletter to con-
stituents, "the need for the bill is still great,
because regulations by government agencies
are subject to change according to the whim
and caprice of the administrators."
One of the most significant results of Er-
vin's pressure was a Civil Service Commis-
sion order reducing the requirement that
thousands of federal workers file financial
disclosure information in a program designed
to head off influence-peddling and conflict
of interest.
The commission has also called off its race-
oount program under which government
workers were encouraged to list their race on
personnel forms. Instead, government man-
agers will keep such statistics through an
informal "head count" method.
The government has, also begun to relax
some of the "be a booster" programs which
were borrowed from private industry and
business.
The Defense Department has watered down
its promotional methods for savings bond
sales among military personnel. It has also
withdrawn a directive telling employes to
"seek wise and mature counsel" concerning
friendships, associations, and civic activities.
To head off Ervin's call for an independent
personnel grievance council, the Civil Service
Commission has also issued a new regula-
tion spelling out employees' rights "without
interference or threat of reprisal" to visit
personnel offices and make formal com-
plaints, appeals, and grievance claims under
existing personnel regulations.
[From the Washington Post, June 8, 1967]
CSC LAUNCHES EMPLOYE STUDY
(By Jerry Kluttz)
A broad review of the Government's col-
lection and use of data on its nearly 2.9 mil-
lion civilian employes has been undertaken
by the Civil Service Commission.
Chairman John W. Macy said the inquiry
had a dual purpose: to assist Federal man-
agers to plan and meet manpower needs,
and to guarantee that the privacy of individ-
ual employes will not be violated.
The study is another victory for Sen. Sam
J. Ervin (D-N.C.) who has been pounding
away at the Government in general, and CSC
In particular, for violating the privacy of
Federal workers.
Charles J. Sparks, deputy director of CSC's
Bureau of Management Services, will head
the study group. Serving with him will be
half a dozen agency personnel directors. The
group also hopes to find better ways to use
computers in personnel work.
Meantime, CSC is exploring the possibility
of working out a compromise on Ervin's bill
which is cosponsored by more than 50 sen-
ators, a majority of the Senate. The bill
would protect the constitutional rights of
bath oivilian and military personnel.
[Prom the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 1967]
ERVIN FIGHTING THE BATTLE
(By Jerry Kruttz)
Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D-N.C.) turned his
spotlight yesterday on two practices at the
Navy Finance Center here which he said were
invasions of privacy and unwarranted sur-
veillance of its civilian employees.
The chairman of the Constitutional Rights
Subcommitte said that Navy efficiency ex-
perts monitor the women's restrooms to
determine how many minutes they are in
there.
The agency, located in the Munitions
Building here, checks on all actions by its
employes, including the blowing of their
noses, according to the Senator, who was
given the information by an employe there.
Ervin contends that we look to the First
Amendment to the Constitution for protec-
tion against any form of tyranny and that
Federal agencies in recent years had dis-
regarded it. Said he:
"A regulation which threatens surveillance,
or worse, for indiscreet remarks or unwise
choice of associates is covered by this Amend-
ment. Within its restrictions fall require-
ments to submit to interviews, tests and
polygraphs which Solicit information about
a person's politics, religious beliefs and prac-
tices, sexual attitudes and conduct, or rela-
tionships with members of one's family.
"To condition a citizen's employment on
submission to such pumping of his mind and
thoughts and beliefs, is to exercise a form
of tyranny and control over his mind which
is alien to a society of free man. ?
"Similarly," the Senator continued, "to
require him to state his associations, his out-
side activities, his financial interests and his
creditors, and to make them factors in deci-
sions affecting his employment interests, is
to force conformity of thought, speech and
action to some subjective, pre-established
standard, unrelated to his official assign-
ments.
"To ask him to report his civic and political
organizations is as intimidating as to tell him
to go out and lobby for legislation, or to take
part in beautification projects when he would
rather go fishing. Yet the Government does
bo,t,Tho.
coerce him to contribute a given
amount to charity, or to buy savings bonds
against his will as a condition of employ-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Siptember 1,1?, CONGRESSIONAL
Inent is equally reprehensible. Yet Federal
,Jfilcials do this.
"These practices affect not only the right
to speak and act according to the dictates
of his conscience; they invade also his right
not to speak at all, not to act at all, and not
to participate at all. In today's society .
this may be the most precious right enjoyed
by civilized man."
Voting Block: Nine Civil Service Commis-
sion investigators have been restrained from
compiling eligible voter lists in the Louisiana
parishes of DeSoto, Caddo, and Bossier, The
temporary order was issued by Federal Dis-
trict Judge Ben Dawkins of Shreveport.
Dawkins concluded that Attorney General
Ramsey Clark who had ordered CSC investi-
gators into the three parishes, had said
earlier that there was no voter discrirnina.,
tion in them. The Government will appeal
the case.
Meantime, CSC will continue to list voters,
in five other Louisiana parishes that weren't'
affected by the ruling. Under the Voting
Rights Act the Attorney General has the au-
thority to order CSC investigators into
counties where he believes voter discrimina-
tion is practiced to police voter registration
and voting.
[From the Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution',
May 20, 1967]
PROTECTING GOVERNMENT WORKERS
There has been considerable comment that
college graduates find no challenge in work-
ing for private enterprise and that they
would rather work for some branch of gov-
ernment. It is therefore interesting to read
an article in the March, 1967, "Engineer. in
Government Newsletter," published month-
ly by the National Society of Professional
Engineere.
It says that Sen. Sam J. Ervin of North
Carolina is sponsoring a federal employe
"Bill of Rights" which would guarantee em-
ployes legal protection from snooping and
coercion by federal agency officials.
Ervin's bill "would . . outlaw the prac-
tice of coercing employes to make political
or charitable contributions, and would
greatly restrict the conditions under which
an agency could require the submission of
Information concerning an employe's finan-
cial or- other private affairs . . . make it
unlawful to: Require employes or applicants
to take tests asking questions about their
personal relationships . . . their attitudes
about religion or sexual matters. . . . For-
bid employes to patronize any business; re-
quire employes under investigation to an-
swer questions without the presence of coun-
sel; request or require employes to refrain
from participating in outside activities un-
less related to official duties, or to state that
notice will be taken of attendance or lack of
attendance at non-job related meetings."
- Other coercive practices are objected to
by the engineers. Working under such re-
strictions would seem to be depressant rather
than a challenge to an energetic and am-
bitious individual with forward-looking
Ideas.
[From the Washington Post, May 11, 1967]
PRESSURE HIT IN FUND DRIVES
(By Mike Causey)
Memo to fund-drive keymen and Savings
Bond salesmen.
Subject: Arm-twisting.
From: Civil Service Commission Chairman
John W. Macy Jr.
Remarks: Don't do iti
That, in effect, is the message Macy has
sent around for all agencies to read and not
J forget.
Macy doesn't want to put a damper on any
of the programs. But he wants to head off
any intimidation or setting individual goals,
which have been common in many agencies
during the last couple of years.
RECORD ? SENATE S 12935
The CSC Chairman echoed the words of
Savings Bond Chairman Lawrence P. O'Brien,
who earlier told his keymen not to lean on
people to buy bonds. -
Macy's directive said that agencies are to
make it plain that the fund drive and bond
programs are voluntary, and if people can't
or won't give, they should be left alone.
Agencies may continue to use the "fair
share" guides, which indicate what donations
people might make according to their salary.
"But there may be no requirement that in-
dividual employe contributions meet such
guides," Macy warned.
In addition, donations and bond purchases
are supposed to be kept confidential this
year. They were supposed to be confidential
last year, but some overzealous supervisors?
military and civilian?posted the names of
nongivers or "cheapskates" on bulletin
boards, or accused them, publicly of being
un-American. Macy said CSC would issue
instruction soon to advise employes of griev-
ance procedures, if they are being pressured
to give.
Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.) has gotten
CSC's report * * * which would protect em-
ployes from pressure, snooping and invasions
of privacy. Fifty-five other Senators are co-
sponsoring Ervin's bill, which would provide
stiff enforcement penalties for supervisors
'found guilty of invading employe privacy.
But Ervin says that CSC doesn't want any
criminal penalties for arm-twisting officials,
- that it feels the situation can be met "with
administrative proclamations."
Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Consti-
tutional Rights Subcommittee, will meet
with CSC officials Friday, when he hopes
agreement can be reached on his bill.
[From the Durham (N.C.) Herald,
April 29, 1967]
ERV/N OUTLINES BATTLE TACTICS IN ALL-OUT
WAR ON SNOOPING
A T.I.S. Senator who has waged an all-out
war against government snooping outlined
his battle tactics at the Duke University
Law School Friday.
Sen, Sam. J. Ervin Jr. denounced invasion
of privacy on the part of federal administra-
tors and predicted Congress will enact addi-
tional legislation this year to protect em-
ployes and job applicants.
Sen. Ervin said his experience as chairman
of the Senate Constitutional Rights Sub-
committee has convinced him "about the
most important thing a man has is his right
to privacy and to individual dignity."
The senator charged the federal govern-
ment has been bent on setting itself up as
the "Great Protector" of personal habits,
thoughts, actions and emotions of its vast
work force.
"This over-protectiveness and big brother-
ism of government has led it to devise in-
genious means to rob employes of the Ameri-
can dream of freedom," he asserted.
Questions addressed to an individual's sex
habits, religion, and family' relationships
were attacked by Ervin in his appearance
before the Duke law students. He denounced
them as "an unwarranted and substantial
invasion of privacy,"
Ervin said his investigation led to the un-
covering of abusive uses of financial ques-
tionnaires required of employes as far down
the Civil Service scale as the raisin inspeo-
tors in the Department of Agriculture.
He acknowledged that conflict-of-interest
scandals provided the use of financial dis-
closures to apprehend a few corrupt
individuals.
"Still it seems unwarranted to require
countless thousands to reveal personal busi-
ness and financial affairs," he added.
Ervin said he is proud to be a sponsor of
the administration's current bill to restrict
wiretapping. And he nnounced that his
own bill restricting the 'use of questionnaires
has the signatures of 54 colleagues in the
Senate?or a comfortable majority.
Prior to his address, Ervin told a news
conference he will vote for the censure of
Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut as rec-
ommended by the Senate Committee on
Standards and Conduct.
He also criticized members of Congress
who have voiced opposition to an address
by Gen. William Westmoreland, commander
of American forces in Vietnam.
"I'm a great believer in free speech. The
people opposing him believe in free speech
when they are involved," Ervin told the
newsmen.
Expressing vigorous opposition to a bill
that would allow taxpayers to deduct from
their annual income taxes $1 for a presiden-
tial campaign fund. Ervin offered his own
program for contributions.
He suggested that each taxpayer be al-
lowed a "reasonable deduction"?he men-
tioned $50?tor contributions to the party
or candidatesiof his choice.
[From the Idashington (D.C.), Evening Star,
June 9, 1967]
RULES EASED ON EMPLOYE FILING OF DETAILED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(By Joseph Young)
The Civil Service Commission today acted
to "significantly reduce" the number of fed-
eral workers who must file detailed finan-.
alai statements on behalf of themselves and
their families.
The CSC modified its regulations on the
ethics and conduct of government employes
after the Senate Constitutional Rights sub-
committee headed by Sen, Sam Ervin, D-N.C.,
had sharply criticized the system. Hereto-
fore hundreds of thousands of federal em-
ployes, many of them in lower grades and
in non-policy jobs, had been required to file
these statements.
The CSC said the revised program will be
limited "to those in positions in which the
possibility of conflict-of-interest involvement
is clear."
RECOMMENDED DIVISIONS
The former mandatory inclusion of all
employes above grade GS-15 and all hearing
examiners has been eliminated. Statements
on an employe's outside employment and
financial interests, including those of mem-
bers of an emplbye's immediate family, will
? be required only from employes in grade GS-
13 and above who are responsible for making
decisions or taking actions in regard to con-
tracting, procurement, grant or subsidy ad-
ministration, regulating a non-federal enter-
prise, or another activity having an eco-
nomic impact on a non-federal enterprise.
An employe who merely recommends a
decision or action will no longer be required
to file a financial statement. An employe
below grade GS-13 will be required to file
only if his employing agency justifies to the
CSC that his filing is essential.
To further assure that the filing require-
ment extends only to employes whose posi-
tions make it essential for the government
to have the information sought, the CSC
has authorized agencies to exclude any em-
ploye whose duties make the likelihood of
his involvement in a conflict-of-interest sit-
uation remote.
Also, an agency may exclude employee
from the reporting requirement when the
agency has an alternative procedure that
the CSC has approved.
The new regulations also specify that no
question may be used in an agency's form
on employment and financial interests un-
less it is One included on the CSC's stand-
ard form or has the CSC's approval.
GRTEVANCE PROCEDURE
Also, each employe must be informed that
his agency's grievance procedure is available
to settle any complaint against being re-
quired to file a statement. Also, agencies may
a
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
..
S 12936 ' . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1967
excuse an empUnitillrelatTIAP PIMP CUParliF8) eu#?i.Pr I). a9 a-esRRE7 ye5a1:9 ovhpo03
subcommittee 1.; expected toapprove it
too remote or inconsequential to affect the HUSBA.ND (suddenly contrite). I guess we shortly after that.
integrity of his work, are a little harsh on him. Fifty-four senators?a majority of the Sen-
The former requirement that employes file WIFE. As if all this isn't bad enough, you're ate?have joined Ervin in sponsoring the
quarterly supplements to their statements even afraid for us to join the Parent Teachers measure.
of employment and financial interests has Association or let Junior join the Boy Scouts.
been canceled. From now on, only an an- HUSBAND. But you know what the directive
[From the Omaha World-Herald, Apr. 8,
nual statement will be required from those says about that. (He moves over to the tele-
1967]
who must file. vision set and takes from tbe top of the set
Other changes will provide better assur- the Defense directive. He looks for a partic- H.S. EMPLOYEES SAY RIGHTS INVADED
once of the confidentiality of financial state- vier passage.) The chairman of the Senate Constitutional
ments by requiring agencies to designate Here, I found it. (Ho reads aloud) . . . "A Rights subcommittee has asked Defense Dea
which employes are authorized to review the number of our citizens unwittingly expose partment opinion of a series of policy let-
statements and by making these employes re- themselves to unfavorable or suspicions ap- ters issued by an Omaha Army officer, which
sponsible for restricting the use of informa- praisal which they can and should avoid. the Senator suggests are "misguided . . .
tion contained to that necessary in carrying This may take the form of an indiscreet paternalistic."
out the purpose of the ethics regulations, remark, an unwise selection of friends and Senator Sam J. Ervin's (Dem., N.C.) letter
Th3 new regulations also incorporate a re- associates, membership in an organization to Secretary of Defense McNamara, which are
cent decision by the Comptroller General whose true objectives are concealed behind tied to his long-continuing legislative battle
that federal officials and employes are not a popular and innocuous title. . . . -to prevent unwarranted invasion into the
to accept non-government reimbursement Therefore, it is advisable to seek wise and private lives of military and civilian em-
(such as from industry) for-travel on ?Ill- mature counsel prior to association with per- ployees of the Government, deals with policy
cial business. sons or organizations of any political or civic letters issued in January over the signature
nature. . . ." of Maj. Edward M. Corson, commander of
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, WIFE (interrupting). That's enough. You've the Armed Forces Examining and. Entrance
Apr. 21, 1967] read that to me 58 times. Station in Omaha.
VOIDING OF "BIG BROTHER" DIRECTIVE MAY HUSBAND. But that's why I'm hesitant Since the subcommittee began its investi-
HAVE STARTED IN HOME DRAMA about us joining the PTA or Junior joining gation several years ago, it has received
(By Joseph Young)the Boy Scouts. The way things are happen-
thousands of complaints from all the states
ing these days, these groups could be fronts from Federal employees contending that
From the Federal Spotlight Column, Even- for hippies, topless something or others or
their rights have been invaded.
ing Star, April 18: Ervin subcommittee dis- heaven knows what. Mr. Ervin is the author of two pending
closes Defense directive cautioning civilian WIFE (starting to cry). But what's left for bills, one relating to civilian employees and
employes against joining any organization, us. What kind of a life are we 'destined to another to military personnel.
political or civic or forming friendships, with lead.
_
They are designed to prohibit coercion in
out first getting the "mature advice" of their HUSBAND (suddenly brightening). Well, solicitation of charitable contributions or
supervisors. Employes also admonished about Who knows. Maybe one of 'the television net-
the purchase of United States Savings
use of "indiscreet" remarks, works will reschedule our favorite program Bonds?a frequent complaint?as well as re-
AP Story, Evening Star, April 20. Defense and we can "Sing Along with Mitch" again, quests for disclosure:of race, religion and na-
cancels directive. ? . tional origin, or pressure to attend func-
The Defense Department's decision to Dan- [From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Apr. 15, tions, or reports on their outside activities
cel its Big Brother directive could have . 1967]
unrelated to their work.
stemmed from its employes getting into
SOME WORKERS CAN'T BLOW NOSES WITHOUT In one of his policy, letters, Major Corson
sticky situations like the one described below.
ENTRY IN PERSONNEL PILE wrote that the President had urged Gov-
Scene: the living room of a Navy civilian
- (By Joseph Young) ernment personnel to buy Savings Bonds,
employe. The employe is seated, reading and he said:
"Alone" by Adm. Richard Byrd, while his wife Such is the rapid encroachment of Big "All personnel of this station will aid this
stands over him and glares. Brother in government that some employes program by participation in the Army Say-
WIFE. I'm sick and tired of our boring literally can't even blow their noses without ings Bond program."
existence. No friends, not even neighbors that it being noted in their records.
O
we can talk to . . . no place to go. The Senate Constitutional Rights subcom- Namara:
this,
Senator Ervin told Secretary Mc-
HUSBAND (sighing). I know what you mean, mittee discloses that eagle-eyed methods en- "Major Corson's enthusiasm on behalf of
But I'm a loyal Navy employe, And you know ginoers in one Navy unit sit in front of the the savings bond drive appears to be mis-
what that means. ' room monitoring all actions of employes. guided."
WIFE. I think you're a Casper Milquetoast. When an employe blows his nose, this is A memorandum issued by the Pentagon
Why can't you at least make friends with noted on his "personal" card, the subcommit- last December 21 says "The choice of whether
some of our neighbors? We've lived here for tee said,
a month now, but we're not on speaking In another Navy office, to buy or not to buy a United States Savings
methods engineers Bond IS one that is up to the individual con-
terms with anyone, monitor the women's restrooms to see how cerned. He has a perfect right to refuse to
HUSBAND. But you know what the directive much time each female employe spend there, buy and to offer no reasons for that refusal."
said . . . It . . . Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., chairman of the In another policy letter, relating to mili-
WIFE (interrupting). The hell with the Senate unit, describes these indignities as tary personnel, Major Corson wrote:
directive! ranging from the "ludicrous to the pathetic." "Several functions and activities are
HUSBAND. Careful! You know what It says While Ervin feels such actions are definitely planned and sponsored by this station during
about indiscreet language. symptomatic of an increasing invasion of the course of the year. All personnel will at-
WIFE. (her face flushed with anger) . I never employes' rights to privacy, he is even more tend such events unless excused by the corn-
was so humiliated in my life as I was the day concerned over a recent Navy directive to em- mander becauSe of extenuating circum-
we moved in. Mr. Jones, our next door neigh- ployes. stances, such as financial hardship, physical
bor came over to say hello and introduced The directive instructs employes not to join indisposure, leave, etc?' ,
himself . . . and what did you do! any organization, political or civil, or strike In another policy letter, the major said all
HUSBAND. Well, I was sorry to have to ignore up new friendships without first securing personnel "are required to have at least two
Ms outstretched hand, And I really felt very "mature counsel" as to the wisdom of these front seat belts in their privately owned ve-
bad about slamming the door in his face moves. hides," He said also that maximum travel
without replying to his greeting. But what Presumably the "mature counsel" is the in a privately owned vehicle on a two-day
could I do? I'm not allowed to make any employe's supervisor who will advise in this -week end is 250 miles, for a three-day week
friendships without the mature advice of my. sortvf thing. end, 350 miles.
supervisor. Employes also are cautioned to be careful A number of Nebraska employe b of the Fed-
WIFE. Well, why don't you clear it with at all times of their conversation. "An in- eral Housing Administration protested FHA
your supervisor? discreet remark" could backfire on an em- practices, particularly what they said was
HUSBAND. I'm afraid to. He's a misanthrope. ploye, the Navy directive warns.
He hates everyone, and I'm sure he would a requirement that questionnaires regarding
John Macy, chairman of the Civil, Service outside employment include information on
blackball our neighbor. ? Commission, in response to Ervin's query as an employe's family and outside jobs held
WIFE (ignoring his explanation). And why to what he thought of the directive, said he by them.
did we have to hide and pretend we weren't felt Navy "had gone too far."
home when the Welcome Wagon lady came to There was criticism of a regulation said to.
our door with those little gifts. "It goes beyond the bounds of reasonable require information on either the sale or .
HUSBAND.Simply following instructions security precautions," he said. _ purchase of a residence even when PHA Is.
not to strike up new acquaintances or Meanwhile, Ervin predicts early action by not involved.
friendships, his subcommittee on his "bill Of rights" for . MAJOR CORSON: NO STATEATE\NT
WITE (continuing to vent her indignation), government employes. , , Contacted in Omaha Friday, Major Corson
a And forbidding me to say good morning to He has given government agencies until said he has no statement at this time,
the mailman. And to think that they're the April 20 to file their reports on this bill. Russell M. Bailey. director of the Nebraska
?
Sanitized Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
.. Sanitized - pproved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
FHA, WAS asked for comment. He said his
office follows the regulations of the Civil
Service Commission and the Federal Employ-
ment Manual.
These include rules to avoid conflict of in-
terest, he said, which is why queStions are
asked about outside employment and prop-
erty purchases.
[From Newsday, Garden City, Long Island
(N.Y.) 19071
THE .ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWORTHY IDIOT
(By Charles McDowell, Jr.)
Wasmasorox.?A reporter was talking on
the telephone the other evening to an official
of the International Monetary Fund who
was working overtime in his office at the
agency's fancy new building here. Suddenly
the official said, "Oops, pardon me. The com-
puter just turned off my lights."
There was the sound of the telephone be-
ing laid on the desk, followed by the sound
of the official stumbling over his waste-
basket in the dark. Then he returned to the
telephone after switching on the lights.
The poor fellow explained that the agen-
cy's computer turned off the lights in all
the offices at 6:30 p.m. every clay. This offi-
cious machine's regular Job involved, of
course, things like calculating interest rates
in Peru, car-loading in Zambia, and the po-
tential export market for Australian wom-
bats.
In its spare time, however, the computer
handled a variety of economical housekeep-
ing chores like turning off a man's lights
and causing him to trip over his waste-
basket.
This sort of reliance on computers is
sweeping Washington. The federal govern-
ment has MOO computers attended by 71,000
keepers. According to the Budget Bureau, the
computers are saving money left and right
as they track space satellites, issue Social
Security checks, shuffle census figures, order
supplies, file records and perform heaven
knows what duties for the CIA.
Senator Sam J. Ervin, a Democrat of North
Carolina, thinks the computers are getting
out of hand and something ought to be done
about them before it is too late.
He is worried but he is not stuffy about it.
Ervin says, for instance, 'The day may
come when we will replace politicians with
computers. Judging from some of the rea-
soning of politicians I've seen over the years,
I know I would sooner take the logic of a
computer. The machine may suffer the same
lack of intelligence as some politicians, but
at least there is consistency in its idiocy.".
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights, Ervin is seriously
concerned about the information that com-
puters are storing up on 3,000,000 civilian
employees of the federal government. With
every test and interview these people ever
submitted to being available at the push of
a button, Ervin sees the danger of wholesale
invasions of privacy.
Various government agencies give so-called
personality tests when screening people for
employment and promotion. Ervin is frankly
appalled to know that computers keep a
secord of individual citizens' reactions to
such test propositions as these:
I am very seldom troubled by constipation.
At times I feel like swearing.
I do not always tell the truth.
I believe in a life hereafter.
My mother was a good woman.
Many of my dreams are about sex matters.
It is hardly reassuring to Ervin to know
_hat mighty machines can remember forever
nyone's responses to such nosiness, co-ordi-
aste it with even more personal information
sathered in lie-detector tests, cross-file, It
-ith job histories, credit checks and random
Dssip, and regurgitate it all instantly for a
Litton-pusher. (Today ,a computer tricks a
an into falling over his wastebasket; to-
_orrow it blabs his private life to a computer
in California that tells anyone who is In-
terested.)
Senator Ervin suggests "a massive nation-
wide clean-up campaign to cleanse present
flies of improperly acquired, irrelevant per-
sonal information." He is proposing legisla-
tion to protect federal employees from psy-
chologists, snoops and Orwellian nuts work-
ing in conspiracy with computers.
Like everyone who gets serious about com-
puters, Ervin knows that mankind must take
the blame for what the machines do. As Dr.
Charles DeCarlo, a computer expert, told him,
"A computer is an absolutely ;trustworthy
idiot."
And the villainy of small-minded men in
all this reminds Sam Ervin of a line from
William Faulkner; "Men ain't evil; they jest
ain't got no sense."
[From the Boston (Mass.) Christian Science
Monitor, Mar. 21, 1967]
IMPROPER QUESTIONS
Certain tests and questionnaires used by
the federal government threaten an unjusti-
fied invasion of the privacy of government
employees. For several years, Sen. Sam J.
Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional
rights has kept a sharp eye open to detect
possible infringement of individual liberties.
The subcommittee extensively probed the
psychological testing of federal government
employees. It pointed to the use of some
testing forms which include what many
would consider objectionable question,s re-
lating to religion, sex, and other personal
matters.
's From one test, the following, for example,
were to be answered "true" or "false":
"Christ performed miracles."
"I pray several times a week."
"I like to talk about sex."
"I am a special agent of God."
More recently, the subcommittee found
that various government agencies were using
a "report of Medical History" which includes
questions of an extremely personal nature,
some of which have no apparent bearing on
the individual's physical iltneab.
After the subcommittee and the American
Civil Liberties Union pressed the matter with
the United States Civil Service Commission,
the commission dropped the farm for all
civilian employees and job applicants. But
the Defense Department continues to use
it for military personnel.
A "false or dishonest answer" to this ques-
tionnaire is punishable by fine or imprison-
ment. It was by no means clear that access
to these forms would be strictly limited to
medical staff. If they were made available to
personnel or security officers, answers irrele-
vant to physical fitness might well have re-
sulted in exclusion from government service.
Government must, of course, obtain certain
information about applicants in order to se-
lect able, conscientious, and reliable em-
ployees. But there are some personal matters
Which government has no right to extract
from an individual as a condition of employ-
ment.
We are encouraged that both Congress and
an organization dedicated to the preserva-
tion of civil liberties have seen fit to look into
the matter. It deserves continuing surveil-
lance.
[From the Norfolk (Va.) Virginian Pilot,
Mar. 8, 1967]
THOSE QUESTIONS?AGAIN
Senator Ervin of North Carolina, long a
champion of the right to privacy, has re-
newed, and broadened, his crusade. In a
speech before the American Management As-
sociation's annual conference on electronic
data processing, he called for the govern-
ment and private employers "to cleanse
present files of improperly acquired, irrele-
vant personal information."
As examples of such information, the
Senator Cited questions being asked in Fed-
S 12937
oral "personality tests" administered to job
applicants. They include queries about sex
life, belief in the second coming of Christ,
and love of parents. Mr. Ervin says such
questions, whatever the source, are invasions
of privacy. We agree. And that such questions
have been asked for a long time makes even
more pertinent not only a purge of such in-
formation from present files, but a revision
of business and government estimates of the
nature and relevancy of information de-
manded from employes.
The spreading use of computers?which
can instantly produce potentially damaging
information without the applicant's having
an opportunity to explain, modify, or chal-
lenge answers that might have been given
under stress years before?heightens the
urgency for regulation. Mr. Ervin's assess-
ment of the threat as coming not from the
computer as a machine but from its abuse
by political executives, managers, and tech-
nicians is correct. His call for a "code of
ethics" involving "self-regulation and self-
restraints," however, seems insufficient.
The need is for a re-establishment of the
Fourth Amendment, for Congressional ac-
tion to extend Its guarantee of privacy to
cope with the insidious erosion produced
by man's amazing technology. Unnecessary
probing into private lives by whatever means,
and necessity exists only in national security
cases, must cease if the Bill of Rights is to
win the race with electronics?and the po-
litical executives, managers, and technicians.
[From the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, May
7, 19671
Eava Hrrs PRIVACY INVASION?NATIONAL
DRIVE URGED BY SENATOR
NEW Yonx.--Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., 0-
N.C., called Monday for a massive nation-
wide campaign to rid government and in-1
dustry personnel files of data that jeopard-
izes privacy. `
Ervin told the American Management As-
sociation that business and management
must place immediate restraints on the type
of information they force employes to give
about themselves.
"They must launch a massive nationwide
a clean-up campaign to cleanse thtir present
files of improperly acquired, irrelevant per-
sonal information," Ervin added.
Ervin said if these steps are not taken be-
fore proposed personnel data computer cen-
ters are set up, the public will demand strict
congressional controls.
"Government appropriations for research
and development will be denied and the
computer will become the villain of ,our
society," Ervin said.
Ervin, chairman of a Senate Judiciary
subcommittee on constitutional rights, ad-
dressed the association's annual conference
on electronic data processing.
He said the subcommittee has a huge
dossier of complaints by federal employes
about computerized questionnaires and even
lie-detector interviews that probe into their
private affairs.
If such information is consolidated into
a central computer center it will make pos-
sible a massive invasion on the privacy of
millions of persons. Ervin said.
"Decisions affecting a person's job, retire-
ment benefits, security clearance, credit rat-
ing or many other rights may be made with-
out benefit of a hearing or confrontation
of the evidence," he said.
"The computer reduces his opportunity
to talk back to the bureaucrats, Ervin said.
"It raises the specter of a possible program
of routine denial of due process."
[From the Washington Poet, Sept. 3, 19671
OUTSIDE THE LAW
The Central Intelligence Agency has not
shown any valid reason for its demands for
exemption- from a bill designed to protect
the privacy at Federal employes. Senator
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12938 Sanitized - ApprcilialWrskigelhier!-WAVDPMOtiglaR000,2066'040011-6, 1967
Ervin hardly overstated the case when he
assertecithat the agency was seeking an "un-
mitigated right to kick Federal employes
around." This "right" is sought, of muse, in
the name of national security; and there is
no question that the CIA needs to screen its
personnel with the utmost care. But national
security is not served by disregarding the
rights of Government employes.
As reported to the Senate, the Ervin bill
already contains an amendment exempting
the CIA and the National Security Agency
from provisions which prohibit Federal
agencies from asking their employes about
their religion, sexual activities or family re-
lationships. There is no reason for such an
exemption and no reason why any Federal
agency should intrude so offensively upon
areas of privacy. Government investigators
have too often been known to make such
inquiries wantonly and pruriently. They de-
mean the Government itself as well as the
individuals involved. And it is highly donlat-
ful that they yield information of the slight-
est value in determining the trustworthiness
of employes.
To make matters worse, moreover, these
offensive inquiries are commonly undertaken
in conjunction with lie detector tests. Lie
detector tests ought to be forbidden in deter-
mining qualification for employment in any
Federal agency?and especially an agency
affecting national security?if for no other
reason than that they are, like the reading
of tea leaves or other forms of divination,
notoriously unreliable.
The CIA and the NSA are now seeking
exemption, in addition, to provisions of the
Ervin bill which give Federal employes the
right to have legal counsel present during
disciplinary hearings and which permit em-
ployes to bring suits to enforce their rights.
These are elements of due process designed
to insure fairness in dealing with employes,
and there is no reason why sensitive agencies
should be empowered to deal with personnel
arbitrarily and/ capriciously.
. Senator Ervin gave the CIA and the NSA
ample opportunity to present their case for
exemption in the course of committee hear-
ings. Instead, they chose, after the bill had
been reported out, to state their objections
in a letter stamped "Secret" and in private
conversations with Senators; and for this
purpose they have persuaded the Senate to
postpone a' vote on the bill. One can hardly
help supposing that their arguments are so
specious that they will not bear inspection.
We commend to the Senate Lord Acton's wise
observation that "Everything secret degen-
erates, even the administration of justice;
nothing is safe that does not show it can
bear discussion and publicity."
) [Prom the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer,
Aug. 31, 1967]
IN THE NAME OF SECURITY
Sen. Sam J. Ervin has proposed, and al-
ready guided through the Senate Judiciary
Committee, an excellent bill to protect the
privacy and civil rights of federal employes.
In the main, it would prevent agency officials
from delving into the unquestionably private
aspects of an employe's life. And it would give
government workers protection against being
pressured to support supposedly worthy
causes unrelated to their jobs, sometimes
outside of government offices.
Senator Ervin has worked long and care-
fully to shape this bill. It deserves?almost
certainly it will gain?passage in both the
Rouse and the Senate. Perhaps it should ap-
ply equally to protect workers within the
Central Intelligence Agency and the National
Security Agency. But doubts-abont that, par-
ticularly from CIA officials, have resulted in
postponement of Senate action and the pro-
voking of Senator Ervin's anger. Some excep-
tions are written into the bill to meet CIA
objections, he insists, and the measure ought
not to be delayed further.
This is not just a collision between basic
rights of individual workers and the prac-
ticed abuses of an overbearing employer. The
CIA does indeed operate above the law, as
most of us understand that phrase. It is
answerable only to a small, select committee
of the Congress; its appropriations are not
identifiable in the budget; its expenditures
are not audited for public accountability;
its activities, which include discrete viola-
tion of American codes of law as well as
those of enemy, neutral and allied nations,
are shrouded in super secrecy. Such a spy
agency is deemed essential to the security of
this country and the furtherance of its for-
eign policy. Changing its posture or limiting
the scope of its activities is not at issue in
Senator Ervin's bill.
The question which his measure raises is
whether CIA employes should not be entitled
to legal protection of their privacy the same
as all other government workers. That could
be amended to ask whether the CIA should
even seem to be just another government
agency. It ought not to abuse the rights of
its employes. It is given, and no doubt it uses,
the authority to do much more in the name
of security.
[From the Raeford, (N.C.) News-Journal,
Sept. 7, 1967]
SAM GETS MAD
Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina all but
"blew his stack" on the floor of the U.S.
Senate one day last week after the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) maneuvered be-
hind the scenes and allegedly had scratched
.from the Senate agenda an Ervin-sponsored
bill to safeguard the rights of federal em-
ployes. The senator was justifiably perturbed,
and his allegation that the CIA wants "to
stand above the law . . . wants the unmiti-
gated right to kick federal employes around
. . . deny them the basic rights which belong
to every American" has the familiar ring of
CIA super-secrecy and behind the curtain
intrigue.
The Central Intelligence Agency, the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Serv-
ice, and other agencies enjoy almost total
Immunity to regulation and supervision.
There have been many criticisms of the CIA,
dating back to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but
Senator Ervin's denunciation was the strong-
est attack to date.
He objects to the CIA and the National Se-
curity Agency?or any other investigating
agency?asking employes or job applicants
about their sex habits, family relations or
religious beliefs as part of certain tests. The
sole exception Is that when the national se-
curity may be involved.
Senator Ervin contends federal employes
are brow-beaten by the CIA and others. Cer-
tainly, the rights of federal employes ought
to be protected, and the CIA ought to be ke-
strained from lobbying. Senator Ervin may
have yet another shot at the CIA, however,
because he is a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, which has jurisdiction
over the CIA.
[From the Boston (Mass.) Morning Globe,
Aug. 29, 1957]
FOOT-IN-MOUTH DISEASE
The Central Intelligence Agency, backed
by the National Security Agency, has been
caught with its foot in its mouth again. This
awkward position is deplorable in any event,
but it is twice to be deplored in the case of
agencies which could play a vital role in
the international cloak-and-dagger market
if they were run judiciously.
Their latest affront to the democratic
process is the successful maneuver, un-
covered by The Christian Science Monitor, to
remove from the U.S. Senate calendar a
scheduled debate on a bill designed to pro-
tect Federal employees from police-state in-
trusion. It is the so-called "Right to Privacy
bill" sponsored by 54 senators who are ap-
palled at the CIA-NSA technique of "strap-
ping an applicant (for employment) to a
machine and subjecting him to salacious
questioning" to determine whether he would
or would not be a "security" risk.
Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D-N.C.) , chief sponsor
of the bill, points out that the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation does not resort to such
tests in hiring its staff and overseeing em-
ployee conduct because it knows that such
tests are not foolproof in sifting truth from
'falsehood and because other and acceptable
techniques are available for testing the
- character, reputation and capacity of job
applicants.
"The basic premise of the bill," says Sen.
Ervin, "is that employees of the Federal
government sell their services, not their
souls. The idea that a government agency
is entitled to 'the whole man' and to the
most intimate knowledge and control of all
the details of his personal and community
life, his religious beliefs and sexual attitudes
is more appropriate for totalitarian coun-
tries than for a society of free men. The
questioning process disgusts many applicants
and sours some against taking any Federal
job."
The CIA and NSA, which spurned all re-
quests to testify before a Senate subcom-
mittee, now, demand to be heard by the
Judiciary Committee behind closed doors.
The request has been denied on the ground
that there is already too much secrecy in
government, that the public business should
be conducted publicly.
A showdown on this issue can come none
too soon, for it is even larger than the rights
of Federal employees to be treated as Ameri-
can citizens. What is at stake is nothing less
than the right of the U.S. Senate to conduct
its own affairs, and certainly its own de-
bates, without behind-the-scenes interfer-
ence, especially from what is essentially a
secret police agency.
[Prom the Christian Science Monitor, Aug.
29, 1967]
"Spy" AGENCIES RESIST "PRIVACY" BILL
COVERAGE
(By Lyn Shepard)
WASHINGTON.?The Central Intelligence
Agency is making an 11th-hour effort to re-
? main exempt from a "right to privacy" bill
before the Senate now.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sam J. Ervin
Jr. (D) of North Carolina, would protect fed-
eral employees from prying questionnaires
and other means of invading a worker's
private life.
But the CIA holds that its mission requires
the "right to pry" by means of polygraph or
"lie detector" tests in order to know the per-
sonal attitudes of its staff. It contends that
the national security is often at stake.
The Edvin bill, which boast 54 cosponsors,
cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee
unanimously Aug. 21. It was scheduled for
floor debate Aug. 25 but withdrawn from the
calendar following a unique CIA request.
Though the agency earlier spurned Senator
Ervin's invitation to testify before his sub-
committee, it now has asked to state its
ease before the full Judiciary Committee.
This poses an unusual dilemma for Sen.
James 0. Eastland (D) of Mississippi, its
chairman, Senator Ervin has consented to
the unprecedented request?but only if the
CIA testifies in public. The agency follows
a strict rule of. speaking "off the record" and
behind closed doors.
Thus Senator Eastland must decide whose
wish to grant; the CIA's or a close Southern
ally's. Senator Ervin holds two aces which
could sway his chairman's thinking.
A committee amendment already gives the
directors of the CIA and the National Se-
curity Agency (its counterpart in the De-
fense Department) the authority to use poly-'
graph tests in individual cases when they
believe the national security demands it.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
' Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 12939
The Federal Bureau of Investigation does
not rely on such tests in hiring its staff or
overseeing Its conduct. Nor does it regard
them as foolproof in sifting truth from
falsehood.
Behind the closed doors or the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Ervin had opposed any
moves to grant the CIA and NSA special
"right to pry" privileges. The limited-testing
amendment proposed by Sens. Birch Bayh
(D) of Indiana and Edward NI. Kennedy (D)
of Massachusetts, gained a majority anyway.
AGENCIES STAY QUIET
? Despite this amendment, the agencies have
sought a hearing in hope of recommitting the
Ervin bill. In a letter to Judiciary Commit-
tee members dated Aug. 25 Senator Ervin
fought back.
"These agencies are apparently lobbying for
complete exemption on the Senate floor from
all provisions of the bill, an action which I
consider both unwise and unconstitutional,"
he wrote.
The Senator reminded his colleagues that
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover found the poly-
graph unreliable. Even if it were dependable,
lie said, qeuseions relating to an applicant's
family relationships, religious beliefs, and
sexual attitudes do not belong in such a test.
"The basic premise of this bill," he noted,
"Is that a man who works for the federal
government sells not his soul, but his serv-
ices.
"The idea that a government agency is en-
titled to the 'total man' and to knowledge
and control of all the details of his personal
and community life is more appropriate for
totalitarian countries than for a society of
free men."
The security agencies decline official com-
ment on their operation, including the use of
polygraph tests without the proposed restric-
tions.
One Senate source close to the issue, how-
ever, said that such tests serve a dual pur-
pose. At times they screen out undesirable
applicants who might be subject to enemy
blackmail pressure. And sometimes they are
used to deliberately "screen in" such unde-
sirables so the agency can make contacts in
vice circles. ?
"The other big issue is the 'right to pry'"
the source said. "These agencies are in the
prying business. They have to ask some of
these questions?no matter who they offend.
"They have to recruit some drug addicts
and sex deviates to contact others like them
Iii London, Paris, or hippy circles wherever
to find out what the agencies need to know."
In this way, the source maintained, the
CIA and NASA seek to justify their curiosity
in the "total man." Senator Ervin con-
tended during hearings that the questioning
process disgusts many applicants and sours
some against taking any federal job,
"Surely," he said, "the financial, scientific,
and investigative resources of the federal
government are sufficient to determine
whether a person is a security risk, without
strapping an applicant to a machine and sub-
jecting him. to salacious questioning."
SENATOR UNMOVED
The CIA-NSA arguments obviously leave
Senator Ervin unmoved.
"They want the unmitigated right," he
told other members, "to kick federal em-
ployees around, deny them respect for in-
dividual privacy and the basic rights which
belong to every American regardless of the
mission of his agency."
The administration has opposed the Ervin
bill from the beginning. Its spokesman, the
chairman of the Civil Service Oommission,
John Macy, testified that any grievances can
be resolved without a law through federal
employee unions.
But a majority of the Senate?Including
_et least 35 Democrats?disagrees. It is this
support which Senator Ervin looks to as a
showdown with the security agencies drawe
aseale
[From the New York Times, Aug. 30, 1967]
CIA WINS DELAY IN BILL To RESTRICT U.S.
JOS INQUIRIES
(By Fred P. Graham)
WASH/NGTON, August 29.?The Senate
granted today an 11th-hour plea by the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency for a delay in con-
sidering a bill designed to protect Federal
employees from being asked personal ques-
tions.
The action evoked an angry outburst from
the bill's author, Sam J. Ervin Jr., Democrat
of North Carolina who said the C.I.A. was
seeking a complete exception from the bill
to give it the "unmitigated right to kick
Federal employees around."
A spokesman said the agency would make
no comment on Senator Ervin's charges.
'However, it was learned that the C.I.A. has
complained that the bill might undermine
its ability to protect itself from penetration
by enemy agents.
Under the bill, which had been scheduled
to be debated and possibly voted upon today,
Federal agencies would be prohibited from
asking their employes about their finances,
religion, sex activities or family relation-
ships. It would also forbid questions about
employes' outside activities, unrelated to
their work, and their race, religion or na-
tional origin. In addition the bill would pro-
bible pressure tactics aimed at coercing Fed-
eral workers to buy bonds or support political
candidates.
The bill contains an exemption that would
permit the C.I.A. and the National Security
Agency to ask its employes about their fi-
nances, sex attitudes, religion and family
affairs if necessary in specific cases to pro-
tect the national security.
STAR OF DISCLOSURES
However, these agencies would he covered
by the other provisions of the law, and the
C.I.A. is said to fear that the law would ex-
pose it to suits that could embarrass the
agency and disclose some of its secrets.
Among the provisions that reportedly
worry the C.I.A. are theft that give employes
the right to have legal counsel present dur-
ing disciplinary discussions with superiors
and that permit employes to bring suits in
Federal court to enforce their rights.
Both security agencies are also said to
resent the fact that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has been exempted entirely
from the bill.
A spokesman for Senator Ervin said today
that this was done to give the F.B.I. a free
hand in investigating employes of other
agencies.
Senator Ervin appeared particularly miffed
today because the C.I.A., after declining twice
in the last two years to testify publicly about
the bill, asked for a delay only hours before
the final Senate vote was scheduled to be
held.
He said such a request by a Federal-agen-
cy was "without precedent."
Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield said
in an interview that he had "never heard of
,such a request" before, but that he granted
it to give the agency time to explain its case
to Senate leaders before the vote was taken.
Mr. Mansfield announced later from the
Senate floor that the bill would be taken up
on Sept. 10.
In his speech, Senator Ervin said the
C.I.A. had given its objections to the bill in
a 10-page letter stamped "secret," and in pri-
vate meetings with his staff.
He said the agency's objections were so
"specious" that he insisted that any CIA.
testimony be given publicly. The intelligence
agency has agreed only to private hearings.
It is known that a number of changes have
been made in the original bill to, make it
more palatable to the agency.
One significant C.I.A.-inspired amend-
ment modified a section that, in the' original
version, forbade any agency to ask its em-
ployees "to support any candidate, program,
or policy of any political party by personal
endeavor or contrivation of money or other
thing of value."
The C.I.A., which has been accused on oc-
casion of dabbling hi foreign political af-
fairs, was reportedly responsible for an
amendment that changed this section to ap-
ply only to elections within the United
States.
[From the Winston-Salem Journal, Aug. 30,
1967]
SENATOR ERVIN PROTESTS BILL'S DELAY
(By Bill Connelly)
WASHINGTON.?Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. of
North Carolina pretested angrily yesterday
when the Senate postponed action at the
request of the Central Intelligence Agency,
on a bill to protect the private rights of gov-
ernment employes.
In a 30-minute floor speech, Ervin said it
was unprecedented for such an agency to
hold up the Senate's business. He said the
bill has been under study for a year.
He questioned whether the CIA, by seek-
ing the Senate delay, has violated a federal
law which forbids excessive lobbying activi-
ties by employes of federal agencies.
Ile also implied that CIA employes need
more protection than most civil servants
from snoopy supervisors and lie-detector
tests. '
HAS CLEARED COMMITTEE
Ervin introduced the bill, which prohibits
federal departments from questioning em-
ployes on personal matters and from asking
them to take lie detector tests and psycho-
logical tests.
The measure has cleared the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee. It includes a partial ex-
emption for the CIA and the National Se-
curity Agency. But the CIA is said to want :
total freedom in its personnel policies.
The bill was scheduled for floor action
yesterday, but was postponed at the request :
of minority leader Everett Dirksen,
who said the CIA had asked, him to seek the
delay.
Dirk
sen later told an informal news oon-
ference that he favors the Ervin bill, with
or without an exemption for the security
agencies, but feels there will be no harm in
postponing a vote.
BLUNT SPEECH
Because of the postponement, the Senate'
probably wil not act on the measure until
after the Labor Day recess. The majority
leader, Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., said it likely
would come up around Sept. 19.
Ervin said in his blunt speech that he sees
"no practical or policy reasons" for exempt-
ing the CIA from his bile. "It is neither neces-
sary nor reasonable," he said.
The safeguards of the Constitution, Ervin
said, "were meant to apply to all Americans;
not to all Americans with the exception of
those employed by the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security Agency.
"My research has revealed no language in
our Constitution which envisions enclaves
in Washington, Langley or Fort Meade, where
no law governs the rights of citizens except
that of the director of an agency. Nor have
I found any decision of the (Supreme
Court) to support such a proposition."
Ervin said it is inconceivable that the CIA
e.nd NSA could be hampered by provisions
of the bill. The bill would?In addition to
prohibiting personal questions, lie detector
tests and psychological tests?keep agencies
from making employes buy bonds, lobby for
legislation, support political candidates or
take part in activities unrelated to their
work.
Do the CIA and NSA, Ervin asked, want to
make their employes do these things?
"Ia (their mission) such that they must
be able to order their employes to go out
and lobby in their communities for open
housing legislation or ,take part in Great
Society poverty programs?" he asked.
?
? Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12940 Sanitized - ApprogolUggsftimotteditgalUki141149ROON90M0136 1667
"Must they order them to go out and
support organizations, paint fences, and
hand out grass seeds
Ervin said the Constitutional nights sub-
committee, of which he is chairman, has
found ample evidence of very personal ques-
tioning of government employes and pros-
pective employes. One of the worst offenders,
he said, is the CIA.
He said "some of the brightest young
people in this country" are refusing employ-
ment with the CIA because of its "deplorable
personnel practices." He said applicants for
jobs in this and other agencies had been
asked intimate questions about sex, family
relationships and personal finances.
Nevertheless, he said, the privacy bill as
now written allows the directors of the CIA
and NSA to waive the restrictions when they
feel employes must be questioned in specific
cases involving national security. Ervin op-
posed even this exemption, which he said
was unnecessary.
"What more do they want?" Ervin asked.
''Apparently, what they want is to stand
above the law."
It was earlier reported that ,both the CIA
and NSA were attempting to have Ervin's
bill returned to committee. Ervin said yes-
terday, however, that only the CIA appears
to be trying to hold up action. It is uncertain
now whether there will be an attempt to
return it to committee or whether an amend-
ment will be offered on the Senate floor.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I gladly
yield to one of the cosponsors, the able
and distinguished Senator from Neb-
raska, who has done a tremendous
amount of work in bringing the bill to
its present state.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, prior to the Labor Day
recess, I spoke in favor of the Constitu-
tional Rights Subcommittee's bill which
had been approved by the full Judiciary
Committee. S. 1035 is designed to protect
Government employees as to personnel
and employment practices, and it has my
wholehearted approval.
This bill is long overdue. Case after
case of flagrant violation of basic rights
has been reported to and reported by the
? subcommittee. These documented inci-
dents compel this Congress to draw the
line, to decide how much of his dignity a
man must surrender to become a Gov-
? ernment employee.
This Government was the first to pro-
claim in a Constitution the first amend-
ment freedoms, the fifth amendment
freedoms, the concepts of due process
and equal protection of the laws. Our
courts vigorously defend these constitu-
tional restrictions. Government agencies
espouse the principles. And yet the Gov-
ernment is a flagrant violator of those
rights.
Subcommittee hearings over the last
tame Congresses have documented the
need to protect the employee. However
well intentioned the Civil Service Com-
mission, however voluntary the study,
however beneficial the goal of surveys
and fund drives, the fact remains that
the individual has been coerced into re-
vealing personal information, forced to
account for his off duty hours, and com-
pelled to donate his time and money to
projects and drives. His integrity has
been questioned without reason, and, in
extreme cases, he has been stripped of
his dignity. All of this has been done in
the name of high ideals.
We all recognize that procedures are
required to insure that capable employees
perform governmental duties. We recog-
nize that, in some cases, the security of
the Nation depends on the integrity and
stability of these employees. This bill
does not restrict control over the quali-
fications of Federal employees.
What is prohibited is indiscriminate
probing, snooping, direction, and control.
Overzealous officials and well meaning
supervisors are restrained. But with all
the resources and resourcefulness of our
Federal Government, security risks can
be detected, criminal conduct can be dis-
covered, and charitable fund drives can
succeed. The ligitimate activities of Gov-
ernment can continue, hampered only by
the constitutional requirements of due
process and equal protection.
Mr. President, I wish to take this oc-
casion once again to commend the senior
Senator from North Carolina for his very
steadfast and persistent efforts. I hope
and trust that the Senate will approve
this measure.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from
Nebraska for his very gracious remarks.
I should like to reiterate my statement
that if it had not been for the diligence
and the dedication of the Senator from
Nebraska, this measure would not be
here in its present state.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
should like to join with the Senator from
Nebraska and the other Members of the
Senate in congratulating the Senator
from North Carolina for the work he has
done in the preparation and the develop-
ment of this measure. It is a tribute to
his own sense of fairness and his con-
scientiousness, and his efforts to provide
legislation which would protect Federal
employees, that S. 1035 is before us
today.
I have had an opportunity to review
the Senator's statement, and I am re-
minded that on page 3 the Senator said:
I confess that /ere I legislating alone, I
would rather see fewer compromises and ex-
ceptions than are now contained in the bill.
I see no necessity for any of ;the practices
prohibited in S. 1036.
Since I believe this is important, I am
wondering if the Senator, recognizing
that his own personal views may differ,
could review for the Senate and for the
record the principal reasons asserted
for the exemptions in the bill and the
need for such exemptions. I should also
appreciate being apprised of the Sena-
tor's own attitude toward this matter.
Mr. ERVIN. There is an exception of
a special type, and that is one which'
exempts the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation entirely from the provisions of
the bill. That exemption was made for
two reasons. In the first place, the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation has been
operated in such a way that it has not
been charged with any substantial viola-
tions of any of the provisions of this
bill. On the contrary, if all the agencies
and departments of Government had
been operated in the manner in which
the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
been operated, there would be no neces-
sity for a bill of this character. That is
one of the reasons for the exemption of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The other reason for the exemption
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
from the coverage of the bill is the feel-
ing among many of the cosponsors of the
bill that the Bureau should not be in-
cluded for the reason I have stated, and
for the further reason that it must con-
duct investigations in respect to viola-
tions of law and should not be handi-
capped in so doing by any of the pro-
visions of the bill.
In addition to this specific provision
exempting the FBI from the coverage of
the bill, certain exemptions are written
Into the bill to meet objections voiced
by various departments and agencies,
principally the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security
Agency.
Most of the exemptions for certain _
activities otherwise covered by the bill
were included in order to meet objec-
tions voiced by those agencies, for which
I believed there might be some reason-
able basis.
I believe that in its present form the
bill meets all legitimate objections that
can be raised to the bill by any agency
or department of the Government. It also
provides employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment a minimum of protection in
having their constitutional rights ob-
served and their rights to privacy re-
? spected.
I should also like to say that the dis-
tinguished senior Senator from Mass-
achusetts, as a member of the commit-
tee which considered and reported this
bill, has clone a great service in assisting
in bringing the bill to its present state.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I ap-
preciate the comments of the Senator
from North Carolina, and also the ex-
planation that he has given with regard
to the exemptions.
I, too, share the understanding of the
Senator from North Carolina with re-
spect to the fine record of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in conducting
investigations and in recruiting their
personnel. My understanding is similar
to that of th3 Senator from North Caro-
lina, that they have not, particularly re-
cently, engaged in polygraph tests and
the other kinds of tests w:.ich are pro-
scribed in the pending measure.
Mr. ERVIN. That is my understand-
ing. I have been assured by the FBI that
It does not use psychological tests or
polygraph tests in its personnel work.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is
the Senator satisfied, and has he received
assurances from people within the
Bureau who have the principal respon-
sibilities in this connection, that in the
future these rights will continue to be
respected?
Mr. ERVIN. I have been assured by the
FBI that it does not regard psychological
testing or polygraph testing as a reliable
method of determining the capacity and
the loyalty of employees. I have been as-
sured by the FBI that it considers other
methbds of determining these qualities
of an employee far superior to those that
are employed, unfortunately?more than
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
by any other branches of the Govern-
ment?by the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security
Agency.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And
the Senator is further satisfied that the
techniques which are utilized by the FBI
are not violative of the spirit or the letter
of the measure which the Senate is con-
sidering this afternoon?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes. With the exception of
one case which has been called to the
? attention of the subcommittee, in which
an employee was interrogated without an
attorney or a friend, I have received no
reports of transgression on rights or ac-
tivity on the part of the FBI which would
constitute a violation of the proposed bill.
In that particular case, my understand-
ing is that no request was made by the
employee for the presence of counsel or a
friend at the time of the interrogation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is
the Senator prepared to give us what as-
surance he can that he at least is satis-
fied that the FBI will respect the pur-
poses and the spirit of the measure? I
would be interested in his assurances
with respect to this matter, because I
know of the great amount of time he
has spent on the problem and the amount
of study he has given to it. I am of the
opinion that his assurances would be
very helpful to many of us who are con-
cerned about the problem of the exemp-
tions from this bill.
Mr. ERVIN. I reiterate that if all the
departFients and agencies in the execu-
tive branch of the Government had been
conducted as the FBI has been con-
ducted in times past, insofar as its rela-
tionship with its employees is concerned,
there would be no necessity? for a meas-
ure of this nature.
In view of the statements made to me
about their practices and their evalua-
tion of psychological testing and the
use of polygraphs, I am satisfied that the
FBI will not resort to their use in the
future.
However, I would say to the Senator
from Massachusetts that if they should
depart from that course of conduct, I
would be one of the first to offer an
amendment to the law to make the
agency comply with the terms of the
act.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
appreciate the response of the Senator.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts not only for his concern
in this matter, but also for the very fine
assistance he gave in bringing the bill to
its present state.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. HRUSKA. One of the complaints
in the political field that was quite
typical was the practice of soliciting
Government employees to buy tickets to
political testimonial dinners.
Page 5 of the bill, commencing at line
_23, makes it illegal "to require or re-
.quest, or to attempt to require or request,
any civilian employee of the United
States serving in the department or
agency to support by personal endeavor
jr contribution of money or any other
thing of value the nomination or the
1ection of any person or group of per-
sons to public office in the Government
of the United States or of any State, dis-
trict, Commonwealth, territory, or pos-
session of the United States, or to attend
any meeting held to promote or support
the activities or undertakings of any
political party of the United States or
of any State, district, Commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United
States."
Is that language broad enough to cover
letter solicitations of Government em-
ployees for the purpose of buying tickets
to testimonial dinners, or other such po-
litical activities?
Mr. ERVIN. I think there is no doubt
of that because this would prohibit re-
quiring or requesting, or attempting to
require or request any civilian employee
of the United States serving in the de-
partment or agency to support by per-
sonal endeavor or contribution of money
or any other thing of value, these po-
litical activities.
Mr. HRUSKA. However, that language
is applicable only, as line 2 on page 6
Indicates, to the "nomination or the elec-
tion of any person or group of persons."
A testimonial dinner could be held to
replenish the coffers of the Republican
Party or the Democratic Party.
Mr. ERVIN. I think it is broad enough
because the money put in the coffer of
the national committee is put there to
assist in the election of certain candi-
dates for the presidency and vice presi-
dency of the party.
Mr. HRUSKA. Even though the efforts
of the national committee are somewhat
Indirect, nevertheless, they do affect the
elections of certain persons or groups of
persons. Is it sufficiently clear that the
Intent of the section would include such
activity?
Mr. ERVIN. It is my judgment that a
proper construction of this section would
Include that.
As the Senator from Nebraska knows,
a person goes to one of these dinners and
makes a contribution far in excess of the
value of the food or entertainment he
is going to receive. The object is to have
a surplus above cost and value of those
things, to be devoted to political pur-
poses, to promote the election of the
presidential and vice-presidential candi-
date, or the election of some persotn for
some other office.
Mr. HRUSKA. My recollection is that
the matter had been discussed in the
subcommittee and in the committee; that
the language is considered sufficiently
broad for the purposes interrogated into;
and that there are other statutes apply-
ing to such situations.
Mr. ERVIN. Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA. I am satisfied that this
will be the fact. However, I thought it
would be well to develop the legislative
history and intent.
(At this point, Mr. INonez assumed
the chair.)
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at this point in this con-
text, so that ray remarks may be con-
sistent?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am de-
lighted to yield to the Senator from In-
diana, with the understanding that I do
not lose.my right to the floor.
Mr. BAY11. I Arould not want to de-
S 12941
prive the Senator of his right to the
floor. However, it might be helpful, in-
asmuch as the Senator from Nebraska
is making some important legislative his-
tory, to point out specifically an item to
which he referred, and that is the fact
that we have just passed another meas-
ure, the campaign financing measure,
which deals with Federal employees.
I thought it might be helpful to get
the opinion of the Senator, as well as the
opinion of the distinguished chairman
of the committee, that Senators were
careful, its I recall the colloquy on this
amendment, to point out that we were
talking about efforts made directly to
zero in on coercion only of Federal em-
ployees. Indeed, we would not be wise, it
seems to me, to consider in either of
these bills the establishment of a small
group or class of U.S. citizens which
could.be denied' the right to participate
in the political process. In other words,
if a person were collecting funds
throughout an entire neighborhood, and
he solicited individual Federal employees
by chance, we do not want to get our-
selves into the position where the bill
which was passed the other day or this
bill would make that a crime.
Mr. HRUSKA. It would not, and this
bill Would make it unlawful for any offi-
cer of an executive department or ex-
ecutive agency to try to levy tributes on
employees in his department, which is
another thing from an active party offi-
cial who can solicit contributions from
Government employees, but any party
official not an official in the executive
agency or department would not be in a
position to say, "Well, you are now up for
this position, but when I sent a letter for
that $100 ticket last fall, you did not
respond. I am sorry."
That is the situation we are trying to
meet here. There?would be no detriment
to engaging in politics by Government
employees under the Hatch Act.
Mr. BAYH. I agree with the Senator.
I wanted to be sure the RECORD brought
that matter into better focus.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield to the Senator from
Alaska.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE
TREATED AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, for
far too long loyal, dedicated Federal civil
servants have often been made the object
of unwarranted harrassment. These civil
servants perform a vital role in the func-
tioning of the Federal Government,
working quietly and efficiently at their
tasks.
? The least we could expect is that their
constitutional rights should be safe-
guarded and that their right to privacy
should be preserved.
Because a man or woman is employed
by the Federal Government should not
mean that he or she thereby is somehow
downgraded to second-class citizenship.
S. 1035, which would protect the pri-
vacy and rights of Federal employees, is
a highly commendable effort to clarify
the position of Federal employees and to
set an example of good employer-
employee relations in this age of the
growing use of electronic snooping de-
vices and computers.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 13 1967
Sanitized - Approved For Release ? C1/%-RDP7g-oo .r ft a7,,
I am happy to be a cospon o of S. that there is no scion-talc va 1 ation for e t one excey
pt on, ag
1035 and hope that it will go a long way
toward accomplishing its three objectives
of, first, establishing a statutory basis for
the protection and preservation of the
rights not Only of those who work for
the Federal Government now but also of
those who will be employed in the fu-
ture; second, serving as an incentive in
attracting the best brains in the country
to work for the Federal Government;
and, third, acting as a model for the
protections which should be accorded all
employees in the United States working
for State and local governments or work-
ing for private employers.
The able and distinguished senior Sen-
ator from North Carolina [Mr. EaviN]
Is to be highly commended for his lead-
ership in this very important matter and
in bringing this bill to the Senate for a
vote.
I hope that the bill will be speedily en-
acted and will be rigidly enforced so that
no person employed by the Federal Gov-
ernment will be subjected to any form
of harassment or will be considered to
have given up any of his rights by virtue
of that employment.
Mr. President, I have just recorded my
enthusiastic support for the pending bill,
' but I wish to make a reservation against
one of the amendments approved by the
committee and now incorporated in the
revised version.
In the report of the distinguished
chairman, the Senator from North Caro-
lina [Mr. Envirr], on pages 21 and 22 of
the report, is the section on polygraphs,
beginning with the first paragraph and
ending with the words "so fascinating,"
I ask unanimous consent to have it
printed in the RECORD because it gives
the reasons for the exclusion in the spon-
sor's draft of the bill of one very objec-
tionable type of harassment, but which,
regrettably, was in part restored by the
committee.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
POLYGRAPHS
Section 1(f) makes it unlawful for any
officer of any executive department or agency
or any person acting under his authority to
require or request or attempt to require or
request any civilian employee or any appli-
cant for employment to take any polygraph
test designed to elicit from him information
concerning his personal relationship with
any person connected with him by blood or
marriage, or concerning his religious beliefs,
practices or concerning his attitude or con-
duct with respect to sexual matters. While
this section does not eliminate the use of
so-called lie detectors by Government, it as-
sures that where such devices are used for
these purposes it will be only in limited
areas.
John McCart, representing the Govern-
ment Employees Council of AFL-CIO, sup-
ported this section of the bill, citing a 1965
report by a special subcommittee of the AFL-
CIO executive council that "the use of lie
detectors violates basic considerations of hu-
man dignity in that they involve the inva-
sion of privacy, self-incrimination, and the
concept of guilt until proven innocent."
Congressional investigation 1 has shown
1 Hearings and reports on the use of poly-
graphs as "lie detectors," by the Federal Gov-
ernment before a Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Government Operations,
April 1964 through 1906.
effectiveness or accuracy of lie detectors. Yet
despite this and the invasion of privacy
involved, lie detectors are being used or may
be used in various agencies of the Federal
Government for purposes of screening appli-
cants or for pursuing investigations.
This section of the bill is based on com-
plaints such as the following received by the
subcommittee:
"When I graduated from college in 1965, I
applied at NSA. I went to 2 days of testing,
Which apparently I passed because the inter-
viewer seemed pleased and he told me that
they could always find a place for someone
with my type of degree.
"About one month later, I reported for a
polygraph test at an office on Wisconsin Ave-
nue in the District or just over the District
line in Maryland. I talked with the polygraph
operator, a young man around 25 years. He
explained how the machine worked, etc. He
ran through some of the questions before
he attached the wires to me. Some of the
questions I can remember are?
"When was the first time you haci sexual
relations with a woman?
"How many time have you had sexual
intercourse?
"Have you ever engaged in homosexual
activities?
"Have you ever engaged in sexual activities
with an animal?
"When was the first time you had inter-
course with your wife? ?
"Did you have intercourse with her before
you were married? How many times? ,
He also asked questions about my parents,
Communist activities, etc. I remember that I
thought this thing was pretty outrageous,
but the operator assured me that he asked
everybody the same questions and he has
heard all the answers before, it just didn't
mean a thing to him. I wondered how he
could ever get away with asking a girl those ,
kinds of questions.
"When I was finished, I felt as though I
had been in a 15 round championship boxing
match. I felt exhausted. I made up my mind
then and there that I wouldn't take the job
even if they wanted me to take it. Also, I
concluded that I would never again apply
for a job with the Government, especially
where they make you take one of these tests."
Commenting on this complaint, the sub-
committee chairman observed:
"Certainly such practices should not be
tolerated even by agencies charged with se-
curity missions. Surely, the financial, scien-
tific, and investigative resources of the Fed-
eral Government are sufficient to determine
whether a person is a security risk, without
strapping an applicant to a machine and
subjecting him to salacious questioning. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation does not use
personality tests or polygraphs on applicants
for employment. I fail to see why the Na-
tional Security Agency finds them so fasci-
nating."
Mr. GRUENING. Section 6, which is
now in the bill, was also not favored by
the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina. He made
an eloquent statement on it, pointing out
that, although he was personally opposed
to it, he decided to accept it.
I ask unanimous consent that that
Portion of his prepared statement, be-
ginning on page 4 with the words "With
one exception" and continuing through
the words "use it with restraint," on page
5, be included in the RECORD. as a part
of my remarks. It gives his reasons for
his personal opposition to the amend-
ment and his acceptance of it because
of the committee's action.
There being no objection, the extract
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
o e endments
added in Subcommittee and Committee are
meritorious. They clarify possible ambigui-
ties and insure that the purpose of the bill
Is achieved.
The one exception is the new section 6
pertaining to the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency or the Director of the
National Security Agency. Upon a personal
finding that any psychological testing, poly-
graph testing or financial disclosure is re-
quired to protect national security, they
could allow these measures in individual
cases.
Prior to adoption of this amendment, I
met several times with representatives of
the CIA and NSA; and all legitimate objec-
tions on grounds of security were met.
Personally, I would not favor even the
limited exemption in section 6. As I have
stated before, the Subcommittee's study of
psychological testing clearly demonstrated
that such tests are both useless and offensive
as tools of personnel administration; and my
own research has convinced me that poly-
graph machines are totally unreliable for any
purpose. If the security of the United States
rests on these devices, we are indeed piti-
fully insecure. Fortunately, it does not, for
the FBI does not use these examinations.
But even if it could be shown that psycho-
logical tests and polygraphs have mystical
powers and can be used to predict behavior
or divine the truth, I would still oppose their
being used to probe the religious beliefs,
family relationships or sexual attitudes of
American citizens. A fundamental ingredient
of liberty is the right to keep such matters
to oneself. And without liberty, "national se-
curity" is a hollow phrase. The truth is, there
is no place for this sort of 20th Century
witchcraft in a free society.
Nevertheless. I am requesting the Commit-
tee amendment granting a partial exemption
to the CIA and NSA be accepted with the
other amendments. I do this for two reasons.
First, the amendment will require that use
of the examinations by the two agencies be
severely curtailed; and for the first time
Congress will be withholding its permission
for the agencies to kick American citizens
around with impunity. Second, it is clear to
me that a member of the bill's 56 co-
sponsors prefer that the CIA and NSA be
allowed this partial exemption. I trust the
Directors of the agencies will use it with
restraint.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I share
Senator ERVIN'S view that this is not a
desirable amendment. Considering its?
restraints, so that the action permitted ?
It limited to the executive directors of
the two agencies, and in view of the com-
mittee's action, we have to accept it, but
I want to say I was not one of those re-
ferred to when the distinguished sponsor
of the bill said it was clear to him that
a majority of the 55 cosponsors preferred
that the CIA and the NSA be given this
partial exemption. I am not in favor of
giving those agencies this partial exemp-
tion. I regret to see any vestige of sa-
lacious snoopery remain in the bill.
Nevertheless, the bill has so much good
In it that, with the reservation here
stated, I repeat my expression of hope
that this bill will become law.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, it is ob-
served that the Senator from Delaware
[Mr. WILLIAMS] is in the Chamber, and
he was present in the Chamber when
there was colloquy in connection with
subsection (g) , which has to do with so-
liciting political contributions from Gov-
ernment employees. I ask the Senator
from Delaware if the' colloquy between
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYIll
and the Senator from Nebraska was in
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R00G200600001-6
September
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S I 241
accord with his und,rstanding insofar as
his amendment to the elections law ap-
proved by the Senate yesterday is con-
cerned?
Mr. 'WILLIAMS of Delaware, The
amendment which was adopted yester-
day specificially prohibits any solicita-
tion of campaign contributions from
Government ernployces as Government
employees. I think we have -adequately
taken care of the situation. The
present law reads to the effect that
whoever being a Senator or Repre-
sentative or delegate or resident
commissioner to or candidate for
Congress, or an individual elected as a
Senator or Representative, and so forth,
solicits these employees would be subject
to certain penalties. But the loophole in
the existing law was that someone could
solicit employees on our behalf or on be-
half of the political party. For example,
the head of an agency would not be a
member of Congress nor would he be a
candidate for public office, yet either he
or on one of the State or national com-
mittees, could make the solicitation.
Perhaps a private citizen outside of Gov-
ernment might make the solicitation.
Thus, we amended that law in the bill
passed yesterday. In addition to con-
tinuing the same prohibitions we also de-
clared that whoever acting on behalf of
a political committee or acting on behalf
of any public official knowingly or inten-
tionally solicits Government employees,
would be subject to /liner severe crimi-
nal penalties.
I believe that the amendment adopted
yesterday to the campaign reform bill,
will adequately take care of that situa-
tion and prohibit the solicitation of
campaign contributions in any manner
whatsoever, whether through the sale of
dinner tickets or whatever, of Govern-
ment employees py anyone acting either
for or on behalf of elected officials or on
behalf of any political committee.
Mr. HRUSKA. The Senator is aware,
is he not, that section 1 of the bill, S.
1035, page 1, reads:
It shall be, unlawful for any officer of any
executive department or any executive
agency of the United States Government, or
for any person acting or purporting to act
under his authority, to do any of the fol-
lowing things:
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA. So that the bill we are
considering today is much more limited
in character in this regard than the bill
approved by the Senate yesterday; is
that not correct?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes, I
think it will take care of the situation,
coupled with the amendment adopted
yesterday. I have the feeling that Gov-
ernment employees will be fully pro-
tected against any coercion in all of
these solicitations. All that we will need
is proper enforcement.
Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator
for his enlightening information..
Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Dela-
ware would indulge me, I should like to
pursue this question one step further. I
recall, last year, when we discussed this
same amendment, the Senator and I had
an exchange as to the interpretation of
the amendment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from Indiana yield
at that point for a unanimous-consent
request?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Interpretation of the
measure, as I understand it, last year, is
different from the Interpretation the
Senator places on it this year.
In colloquy before passage of the bill
last year, as I recall?and I would be the
last one to want to put any words in the
mouth of my distinguished colleague?
the effort was directed at, any solicitation
of Federal employees, whereas this year
the Senator makes clear the fact that the
effort is to prohibit direct zeroing in on
Federal employees, by organizations,
parties, or candidates canvassing an
entire neighborhood in which resides
Federal employees, that they would be
treated exactly as citizens; namely, that
they would have the right to refuse or
agree to make a contribution. .
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I do not
believe there is any difference in the
amendment offered last year and the one
of yesterday. That question was raised
both times. I checked with legislative
counsel, who made it clear that the
amendment as it was drawn both times
was directed to solicitation of Federal
employees as such, and would not have
covered a situation, for example, of a
party making a wholesale mailing list
solicitation. For example, if they sent
a form letter to all boxholders in the
city of Washington and some of them
happened to be Government employees
they would have no way of distinguish-
ing that. That was not intended to be
covered. The amendment makes it clear
that if solicitation were intentional and
knowingly or willfully done it would be
a violation of the law. It does stop the
abuse which all of us know .did exist;
namely, that employees were being solic-
ited on a more or less free-will offering
as it was called, yet, at the same time,
they knew they were going to be checked
up on, either by their bosses or someone
' else, who would note whether they were
present. On occasions they would invite
the employees to stop by the bosses' house
for a reception before the dinner, which
made it easier to cheek up on those who
were actually going, and at the same time
it presented an opportunity to gently re-
mind them of the dinner or the fund
drive.
But all of those subtle approaches to
coerce employees would be specifically
abolished under the amendment ap-
proved yesterday. In my opinion the bill
now before us carries out the same
Intent.
Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from
Delaware for his information.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on that
question, we had evidence?and placed
an article in the record of the hearings
on page 455?that the Democratic Na-
tional Committee solicited the sale of
$100 tickets to an affair in Washington
and had the invitations sent out through
the agency in such a way as to chill the
\
employees who received them, because
their grade number was written in Ink
on a corner of the invitation.
The article further stated they took
that as an indication that if they wanted
to rise to a higher grade, they had better
buy a ticket. This, I think, is a very
subtle form of coercion.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I think
it is, too. That was one of the specific
examples in mind when the amendment
was approved yesterday, and that would
definitely be a violation of the law.
? Mr. ERVIN. This bill covers only
supervisors of employees and makes it
illegal for any officer of any executive
department or agency even to request
any political contribution. We put in the
word "request" there, along with, the
words "or require" advisedly. Wheh we
discussed the bill with the Chairman of
the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Macy,
he said that some of the things Federal
employees were asked to do which are
outlawed in this bill, were just requests
and not requirements.
I told him that when I served in Cie
Army and was studying the infantry drill
regulations, one little sentence imbedded
itself indelibly in my mind; namely, that
the request of a superior is equivalent to
a command.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes.
Mr. ERVIN. That is the reason why we
used those words advisedly. I think this
provision of the bill supplements the bill
passed yesterday and also the provisions
Of the Hatch Act, in that it provides se-
curity from such coercive practices
against Federal employees.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I think it
does. We recognized that occasionally the
head of an agency or an official may turn
over a list of names to someone entirely
outside the Government who might act
on behalf of these people. I think we have
this fully airtight now, and the measure
before us will supplement it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The bill is
open to further amendment.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, in the judg-
ment of the junior Senator from Indiana,
this bill, protecting the privacy and
rights of Federal employees, could be
called a monument to the determination
and dedication of the distinguished Sen-
ator from North Carolina [Mr. Erning] ;
in particular, to his continuing dedication
to the principles and spirit of the Con-
stitution of the United States, for which
he is so well known in this body.
We often hear in our Nation today the
fear expressed that Government, un-
reined and unchecked, could become the
f'big brother" portrayed in the frighten-
ing Orwell novel. We have taken great
and unprecedented strides throughout
our history as a nation to guarantee to
every individual American his sacred
right to privacy; his right to be left
alone; to have within his own home and
In his own mind his own thoughts and
hopes and dreams that could be his alone,
inviolable by any power except that of
the Almighty.
Like freedom itself, the right to pri-
vacy is a blessing which must be pre-
served through constant vigilance in
every generation.
There have been chapters in our his-
tory that tend to darken the otherwise
Sanitized, - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Se_ptember 13, i967
Appci?vpd For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R00020-0600001-6
shining lighb er y at t e n tea and testing of prospective employees, in exist in human beings today, if they feel
States of America has provided for the
world?from the witch hunts in Salem
to the witch hunts of the 1950's; from
the panic over suspected Jacobins after
the French Revolution to the panic over
Americans of Japanese ancestry after
Pearl Harbor.
But always, after that beacon of free-
dom had flickered so slightly, it burned
back strong and true, as we remembered
that ours is a government of laws and
not of men, of inalienable rights and not
of momentary emotions.
Ours has grown into a vast, compli-
cated and interactive society in a com-
plex and sometimes chaotic world?and
the Government has, of necessity, grown
apace.
We search for the most talented among
us to devote at least a portion of their
lives to Government service so that the
difficult and often gravely important
tasks of Government may be performed
in a manner acceptable to and beneficial
for the people, which is and must always
remain the master of Government.
It seems, therefore, logical fitting, and
supremely just that Government itself,
in relation to its employees, should be
the first and strongest guardian of all
individual rights?not the least of which
Is the right to privacy.
This bill, S. 1035, upon which we will
act today, was developed with the con-
cept that Government employees?vast
numbers of whom work for less than
they could demand in private industry,
and do so because they have a desire
to serve their fellow Americans?should
not be treated as second-class citizens;
that they should not be subjected to in-
dignities of prying, snooping, and in-
quisition that no other group of Ameri-
can workers would ever be subjected to,
much less tolerate.
It is a straightforward proposal that
does much to clarify and solidify the
implicit and explicit guarantees con-
tained in our fundamental law regarding
an American's right to privacy.
I must admit that, if it were left to
me alone, I would have preferred, as the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina knows, to have exempted from the
provisions of this bill two agencies of
Government?the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security
Agency.
Just as the Senator from Alaska, as
one of the cosponsors of the bill, re-
ported that he was not one of those who
supported the amendment contained in
section 6, I did support it. I would like to
point out that these two agencies, the
CIA and the NSA, as most Members of
this body know, deal every hour of every
day with matters of the most urgent na-
tional security; and it is no exaggera-
tion to say that much of the highly classi-
? fied material that passes through these
agencies is occasionally available to many
individuals, ranging from the Director to
a courier, to the person in the lowest
echelon.
These agencies are so specialized in
their work, and their work is of such a
sensitive nature, it seemed to me that
practices which I would not condone
elsewhere in Government would be per-
missible, in regard to the interrogation
these two agencies, because, in my judg-
ment, the interrogation might very well
be necessary to protect the security of
our country. It is an unfortunate fact of
life that Communists and others who
would wish to subvert our Government
have made and will continue to make
vigorous efforts to infiltrate these agent-
' cies or to find weaknesses among agency
employees that could be viciously ex-
ploited at the expense of national se-
curity.
I would like to once again say that, in
my judgment, the Senator from North
Carolina has earned another star in his
crown, which is already resplendent with
many which have preceded this new one,
because he has long championed this
effort, over a period of 3 or 4 years. I
trust that in the near future he will see
the success of his efforts in this body and
ultimately in the other body.
In my opinion the aspects of the bill
as he described them are meritorious. I
for one firmly believe that those who
work for the Federal Government are
dedicated persons and that we owe them
deep gratitude for their service; many
of them receive far less compensation
than they could in private industry. The
Government needs the best people it can
get.
However, in my judgment?and I am
sure the Senator from North Carolina
agrees with me hi this statement, al-
though he disagrees on the import of the
exclusion of these two agencies?I be-
lieve no one has a right to seek Federal
employment if he would be a security
risk to our country. It seems to me no one
can argue that question. The place where
we have disagreed is in the means, the
extent to which we should go to try to
find, before a person is employed,
whether one is a security risk who might
endanger our Government.
This is not a milk and honey world. It
is not entirely a rosy world. There are
those who would try to take our free-
doms away from us, and who would use
tactics of the worst magnitude to do so.
It seems to me it is important that the
Nation have someone who is willing, if
necessary, to fight fire with fire. I know
the agencies involved have been sub-
jected to a tremendous amount of criti-
cism. I suppose it is not popular for one
to stand on the floor of the Senate and
say there is a need for a CIA or a Na-
tional Security Agency. As long as there
are those who would threaten our secur-
ity, we need someone who can deal with
, them on-a fight-fire-with-fire basis.
There are certain aspects of this meas-
ure which clearly should be applied to the
National Security Agency and the CIA.
For example, I do not think anyone
should compel any of their employees to
participate in political activities. I do
? not think anyone should compel them to
contribute to political functions. I do
not think they should be compelled to
contribute to the Red Cross, meritorious
as that sounds. I do not think they should
be compelled to attend political meetings.
But if the directors of these agencies
feel that it is important to use certain
of these tests to try to ferret out weak-
nesses of character which sometimes
that that is better than having the fact
disclosed by a breach in our security,
then I, for one, think those agencies
should be excluded from the bill, and be
given the opportunity to use such tech-
niques.
The work and efforts of the Senator
from North Carolina?as, let me say, I
am sure he knows?will cause the direc-
tors and the interrogators of these agen-
cies to pay much closer attention to the
questions that are asked and the means
that are pursued to guarantee our secu-
rity. But I would be somewhat less than
honest with myself, being a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary, to sit
here and watch this measure pass, and
vote for it?which I intend to do?with-
out pointing out that in my judgment
It contains one or two weaknesses about
which I would feel much better were they
not there.
Mr. President, I have no further com-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
ed to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The bill is open to amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I should
like to make just a few observations in
response to the remarks of my good
friend, the distinguished Senator from
Indiana.
I thank him, first, for his most gracious
remarks.
Mr. President, there is nothing in this
bill which will handicap the Central In-
telligence Agency or the National Se-
curity. Agency in protecting America
against her enemies. All this bM does
is try to make these agencies and every
other Federal agency respect the right
to privacy of their employees, and the
constitutional rights of their employees.
Personally, I have no faith in the
polygraph test. I have no faith in psy-
chological tests which put such a ques-
tion as this to applicants for Govern-
ment employment:
When telling a person a deliberate lie, do
you have to look away, being ashamed to look
him in the eye?
I have no respect for polygraph or
personality tests that require the indi-
vidual applying for employment to
evaluate what kind of parents he has.
I have no respect for the validity of
psychological tests and polygraph tests
which require an individual to reply to
such questions as this:
Have you ever committed a serious un-
detected crime? Have you ever suffered from
a serious mental or nervous disorder? Have
you taken part in any homosexual activity
during your adult life? Have you engaged
In any unethical practices? Have you been
involved in any way with illegal drugs or
narcotics? Have, you done anything else of
a similarly serious nature?
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September /9,stagized witmeistremaztektoggliSJARRRT?-00149R00020060Wp21-A
If they depend on the inlividuals to
confess those things themselves, I do not
think they are properly guarding the se-
curity of this country. I think they could
better find out about those things by
making inquiries about the individual
involved, and conducting the thorough
background investigations they should
be making.
When I had the privilege to serve as a
superior court judge in North Caro-
lina, I was confronted with the problem
of whether or not I would receive in-evi-
dence a polygraph test in a homicide
case.
At that time, I made a serious study of
the polygraph, and I have continued the .
study ever since. I have found that the
polygraph test merely measures physical
reactions such as respiration, tempera-
ture, blood pressure, pulse rate, and heart
beat.
I found that the polygraph test is not
admissible in any court in the United
States, because of its unreliability. I
came to the conclusion that you can give
a polygraph test to a man, and if he is a
brazen liar, he can pass it without diffi-
culty. If he is a nervous man or an agi-
tated person, or a person who resents
Insults, no matter how honest he might
be, he would flunk the polygraph test'. It
Is a totally unreliable test, and has been
outlawed by statute in at least five
States, including the State of Hawaii,
whose able and distinguished junior
Senator now occupies the chair.
I have done a little CIA-ing for myself,
and I can tell you the number of poly-
graph tests that the CIA and the NSA
administered to applicants for employ-
ment and to their employees during a
recent year. I am not going to do it, but
every Member of the Senate would be
astounded to know how many thousands
of people were required to take those
tests.
I might say, incidentally, that the two
employees of NSA who betrayed the
United States and defected to Russia,
Vernon F. Mitchell and William H.
Martin, both passed polygraph tests.
Furthermore, Mr. President, it is my
belief that a man who will believe in the
polygraph will believe in witchcraft.
I hate to think that the security of the
United States is dependent upon persons
who want to have polygraph tests admin-
istered to those who seek employment in
the U.S. Government.
Here is a complaint received by the
subcommittee, which I cited in my re-
marks on August 29 when the bill was?
postponed. A man who applied for a Job
with the NSA was given a polygraph test
in their installation in Maryland. Here
is what he said about it:
When I graduated from college in 1965,
I applied al; NSA. I went to 2 days of testing,
which apparently I passed because the in-
terviewer seemed pleased and he told me that
they could always find a place for someone
with my type of degree.
About one month later, I reported for a
polygraph test at an office on Wisconsin Ave-
nue in the District or just over the district
line in Maryland. I talked with the poly-
graph operator, a young man around 26
years of age. He explained how the machine
worked, etc. He ran through some of the
questions before he attached the wires to me.,
Some of the questions I can remember are? '
When was the first time you had sexual
relations with a woman?
How many times have you had sexual
Intercourse?
Have you ever engaged in
activities?
Have you ever engaged in sexual activities
with an animal?
When was the first time you had inter-
course with your wife?
Did you have intercourse with her before
you were married? How many times?
He also asked questions about my parents,
Conununist activities, etc. I remember that
I thought this thing was pretty outrageous,
but the operator assured me that he asked
everybody the same questions and he has
heard all the answers before, it just didn't
mean a thing to him. I wondered how he
could ever get away with asking a girl those
kind of questions.
When I was finished, I felt as though I had
been in a 15 round championship boxing
match. I felt exhausted. I made up my mind
then and there that I wouldn't take the job
even if they wanted me to take it. Also,
I concluded that I would never again apply
for a job with the Government, especially
where they-make you take one of these tests,
If I were legislating all by myself, I
would outlaw every polygraph test. The
courts have found them totally unreli-
able; and, as I say, five States have out-
lawed them. However, this bill, as intro-
duced, allows any official in the CIA or
In the NSA to ask any kind of question
during any polygraph test except ques-
tions about a man's religion, his personal
'relationship to his immediate relatives,
and his sexual attitudes and practices.
And even under the amendment which
my good friend, the Senator from In-
diana [Mr. BAY1-1], offered and persuaded
a majority of the members of the Judi-
ciary Committee to accept, the Director
of the CIA or the Director of the NSA
can even ask questions of that type if
he deems it necessary to the national
security. I do not know what more the
CIA or the NSA could want. They could
ask all other questions at any time but
with respect to these three restricted
types, they could only ask them if it is
directed by the Director himself.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
under the provision that the distin-
guished Senator referred to, would it be
possible for the Director of the CIA in
his discretion to decide that he would ask
everybody those questions?
Mr. ERVIN. It would not be.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Does the Director
have to have a good reason to ask .that
kind of question?
Mr. ERVIN. It has to be on the indi-
vidual basis. And it has to be based on a
personal Ending by the Director that the
examination of each individual to be so
tested or examined is required to protect
the national security.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Is it not a fact
also that the results of polygraph tests
can often be determined by the ex-
aminer?
Mr. ERVIN. The polygraph test does
not interpret itself. All the polygraph
machine does is to note a record of vari-
ous physical reactions such as blbod
pressure, respiration, temperature, and
heart beat.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. And is it not a
homosexual
fact that a person who has taken the
polygraph test a number of times can
so conduct himself that the examiner
cannot learn anything from the test?
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator is correct. I
stated a moment ago that if a man is a
brazen liar and cannot be insulted by
Insulting questions, he can pass the test
with flying colors. However, a man such
as myself who is concerned about the
rights of individuals could not pass the
test. I could not pass the test because if
I happened to think about the outra-
geous conduct of the CIA and the NSA
with respect to their employees, it would
certainly make my blood pressure shoot
up high.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I congratulate
the distinguished Senator for his leader-
ship.on this bill. I think he is fighting for
the liberty and rights of the people of the
United States.
I agree with the Senator. I wish that
the restrictions on people who give the
polygraph tests were tougher. They run
around and when they give the test they
ask about all the girl friends a man has
ever had. I am suspicious of that type
of test. Psychology teaches us to be
suspicious of people that have that kind
of matter on their minds all the time.
Mr. ERVIN. There is a very interesting
article in the Science Newsletter of
August 14, 1965, concerning an experi-
ment being made in the development of a
lie-detecting machine by means of which
a person can be tested without his know-
ing it. It is a very interesting article.
The machinery referred to in the
article is called the "wiggle seat." The
device looks like an ordinary office chair.
At least, that is what it is supposed to
look like. A person sits in this office chair,
which is really a "wiggle seat," and is
gi.',en a lie detector test without his
knowing anything about it.
I have been informed by reliable
sources that the CIA has been engaged
in research on the project.
So, if the Senator has any contact
with the CIA, he had better be careful
of where he sits. I do not know if they
have it in operation yet, but They have
contemplated it.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. A person does
not generally come into one's office and
say: "I am representing the CIA." We
may have all seen representatives of the
CIA without ever knowing it.
Mr. ERVIN. It grieves me to think that
the security of the United States is in the
hands of men who place their faith in the
polygraph machine and the "wiggle
seat."
The CIA has a most important job to
do, and 'the NSA has a very important
job to do. It is their duty to guard the
security of the United States. I think
they would do a far better job of it if
they would spend less time kicking their
employees around and abandoned their
fascination with the polygraph machine
and the "wiggle seat."
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I agree. I think
they would win more of the confidence
of the American people if they were to
use a more ethical type of examination,
pursue more ethical methods, and ask
more ethical questions.
I do not believe that they can win the,
cOnfidence of the American people with
Sanitized - Approved For Release': CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12946 Sanitized - App~g6PIPMeitsitg.c011151;R-DFIRSIOCE149ROCapangp0A-,61967
some of the tactics that the distinguished
senior Senator from North Carolina has
uncovered in the course of the hearings
had on the pending bill.
Mr. ERVIN. The statement just read by
me of the young man who applied for a
job with the NSA shows that these meth-
ods are driving away from Government
some of our most able young people.
They are being driven away because they
do not want to be insulted by the type
of questions asked in the course of a
polygraph test.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I congratulate
the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Texas
is one of the cosponsors of the pending
bill, as is, indeed, my good friend, the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], who
has contributed much to bringing the
bill in its present state.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I wish to
ask my friend, the Senator from North
Carolina, some questions in order to
explore the matter a little further for the
RECORD.
How many complaints has the Sena-
tor received from applicants for posi-
titins, such as the young man whose sen-
sitivity was shocked so greatly? I be-
lieve what the Senator from North
Carolina and the Senator from Texas
have said is very true?that the person
who administers the polygraph can in-
deed, if he improperly administers it, get
a wrong answer.
I, for one, believe that those charged
with administering NSA and CIA?Gen-
eral Carter and Director Helms?have
one primary objective: They both want
to protect the security of the country.
They do not want to embarrass young
men and women newly graduated from
school. They want to take the steps they
believe are necessary for this purpose.
If they have an unreliable or incom-
petent administrator, I believe they
would be as anxious as the Senator or I
would be to dismiss him, at least as far
as polygraph tests are concerned.
Is there substantial evidence demon-
strating that this particular series of
questions is the series of questions that
is asked repeatedly?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes.
Frankly, employees of these agencies
come in and talk with staff members
individually. They telephone, and in a
few cases they have committed their
complaints to writing.
I am informed by the general counsel
of the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights that 10 of them have called with-
in the past week.
Mr. BAYH. Ten of them?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes; the majority Of them
telephone.
Mr. BAYH. How many people are em-
ployed at CIA and NSA?
Mr. ERVIN. I asked them that ques-
tion. They said it is top secret informa-
tion, But I can tell the Senator how many
polygraph tests they have conducted.
Mr. BAYH. If we could clear the
Chamber, I could tell the Senator how
many people have been apprehended who
have passed every other scrutiny, every
other test that was given; yet, they were
not discovered to be a weak link, in the
judgment of the CIA, until these tests
were given.
Perhaps it is unpopular to champion
the CIA. I do not know. But I believe
the Senator recognizes, as do I, that the
country needs both the CIA and the NSA.
It is rather foolish to say we need these
agencies and then not give ?them the
proper tools to make them as effective
as possible.
Mr. ERVIN. I agree with the Senator.
I would have them concentrate their at-
tention on counterintelligence and pres-
ervation of our national security instead
of devoting their time to these matters.
This is what one young lady informed
the committee she was asked by the
CIA:
When did your mother stop buying your
clothes?
When did your great grandparents die, and
where are they burled?
What diseases did the' have?
What does that have to do with pro-
tecting the security of this country?
Mr. BAYH. That is a good question,
and I should like to take 5 minutes or
so to state what, in my judgment, they
may have to do with security.
I am not an expert polygrapher or a
psychological tester. In fact, I hesitate
to say what might be learned if I were
asked to interpret an ink blot. But let me
reiterate that I do not believe that those
in charge of these programs are asking
questions just for spite, or because they
like to make people sit on the "wiggle
seat." Those who are charged with re-
sponsibility at CIA and NSA do not sit
on the "wiggle seat"?they sit on the
"hot seat." All of ns recognize that this
is a tough job.
Although I agree with the Senator
from North Carolina in many respects,
I do not agree with his statement that
anyone who thought there was a place
for polygraphs or psychological testing
believed in witchcraft. I do not believe
in witchcraft.
Mr. ERVIN. I say that, in my judg-
ment, faith in polygraph testing is 'simi-
lar to belief in witchcraft.
Mr. BAYH. I am sure we have such
respect for each other that, although the
Senator from North Carolina might in
all fairness think it is witchcraft, he
would not attribute that to his friend
from Indiana. I do not think it is witch-
craft. In fact, I would be the first to say
that even if applicants were given all
sorts of tests, even if they were subjected
to bodily torture?which no one in this
Chamber would be in favor of?there is
no perfect way of guaranteeing that a
human being would not crack under some
of the circumstances to which he might
be subjected in some of the perilous posts
where he would be asked to serve.
Mr. ERVIN. I would say that I think
that a man who would not crack under
the type of tests I read awhile ago is
unfit to be trusted with employment with
the Government.
Mr. BAYH. The Senator from Noith
Carolina recited accuratey some of the
interrogatories that are asked. He
doubted whether there was any reason
to ask particular questions concerning
whether a person had been previously
convicted of a crime, whether he had any
previous mental disorder, whether he
was subject to the use of drugs, whether
he had participated in homosexual
activities, whether he had become in-
volved in or ever practiced unethical
conduct. It seems to me that those are
very real matters of concern, not only so
far as the NSA and the CIA are con-
cerned, but also, frankly, so far as mem-
bership in this body is concerned. I be-
lieve those are proper questions for real
concern.
The question that the Senator is driv-
ing at, it seems to me, is how do we find
out whether the individuals involved are
participating or have participated in this
type of activity.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the -
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from
Indiana agree with the Senator from
North Cazolin: that the FBI engages in
Investigations comparable intelligence
work within the borders of the United
States?
Mr. BAYH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ERVIN. The FBI does not use the
polygraph machine or psychological
testing. Why is it necessary for the NSA
and the CIA to use a method of investi-
gation which the FBI repudiates as being
worthless?
Mr. BAYH. Let me suggest to the
Senator that the FBI and the CIA are
playing in a somewhat different league.
The FBI is known to employ, perhaps,
the highest-trained, highest-caliber in-
dividuals of any agency in the Govern-
ment. The Senator from North Carolina,
as a distinguished member of the bar,
and I, as a relative neophyte member of
the bar, know the extent to which the
FBI will go in trying to get this caliber
of individual. They ferret out persons
accused of crimes and those who might
be enemies of this country in every way
possible, within the continental United
States; and they are to be complimented
for their jobs.
However, let me point out that the very
nature of a CIA agent means that some
individuals must be employed who will
be able to associate with individuals of
their type, with persons who are not col-
lege honor graduates, who are willing to
work in a country that does not have the
safeguards?the police at his tele-
phone?that are available in this coun-
try. Some of these people have to go into
the jungles of Communist countries and
live with rather sordid and suspicious
characters. If they cannot do that, they
will not be successful agents.
For example, one of the subjects that
has been a matter of some concern is
whether an applicant should be asked
what his race is. As the Senator from
South Carolina knows, I have been one
of the main supporters of some of the
Civil Rights Acts. In fact, perhaps it is
only in that area that we have differed,
because we usually fight elbow to elbow
for or against some of the most impor-
tant issues; today I find myself in the
unique circumstance of opposing the
Senator on a matter of constitutional
right such as this. But why should some-
one be asked what his race is? Is not
that a violation of his constitutional
rights? How in the world can a CIA
agent be effective in one of the countries
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000260600001-6
September 13,Sanitized - AirprOXeStWillektkseNICIARRT?-00149R00020060C992147
of darkest Africa, where everybody's
skin is dark colored, if his own skin is
not likewise so colored?- So, the CIA Di-
rector must know whether the agent's
skin is dark colored.
Mr. ERVIN. Could not the CIA Direc-
tor tell by looking at the agent's skin,
without subjecting him to a polygraph
test? [Laughter.]
Mr: :BAYH. The Senator is absolutely
correct; but when we talk about such a
person being effective, it is then that the
polygraph test becomes useful.
Another question sometimes asked
concerns a man's religion or his ethnic
background. It would be rather question-
able wisdom to send a person into an
Arab country today, if he were of Jewish
background. I think there are reasons
why it is often necessary to seek such
information.
Let me discuss the practice that is fol-
lowed. The Senator from North Carolina
Is absolutely correct in saying that if the
only thing to be done is to bring pros-
pective job applicants through the front
door and immediately subject them to
being wired for sound. That is the wrong
way to approach the problem.
A complete check of prospective em-
ployees is made by the CIA. They are
carefully investigated and interviewed.
All procedures known to man, short of
psychological and polygraphic testing,
are used by the CIA in determining
which persons it thinks are acceptable.
It is only at that stage, when the ex-
amination reaches the place where the
CIA or NSA want and need to make the
final check, that applicants have been
subjected to tests that I wish, frankly,
were not necessary. I wish that we lived
in a world where it was not necessary to
subject anyone who seeks -Federal em-
ployment to a polygraphic test or a psy-
chological test. But that is not the kind
of world we live in.
In examining the procedure that is
followed, it must be understood that
neither the Director of NSA or CIA ask
these questions. I doubt that either of
these gentlemen is a qualified psychol-
ogist or polygraph operator. These
agencies must rely on eminent psychol-
ogists for their purpose. If they are try-
ing to find a flaw in someone's character,
or determine whether someone partici-
pates in homosexual activity, or learn
whether a person would crack under
strain, what are the questions that are
going to be asked? I could not say what
those questions should be?a qualified
psychologist must draw up those ques-
tions. Leeway must be allowed to ask
those questions which will bring out the
answers. For instance, it may be neces-
sary to know whether an individual will./
crack when he is subjected to great
strain or severe stress.
The Senator from North Carolina ac-
quitted himself with honor and distinc-
tion in pursuing this measure to provide
safeguards for Federal employees, but
I wish to reiterate that no one in my
opinion has a vested interest in seeking
r mployrnent or being granted employ-
ment if his very presence might provide
a security risk. To be sure, one cannot
be perfect, but if I am going to err on
matters of national security I , would
rather err on the side of safety rather
than leniency.
(At this point, Mr. Homaxas assumed
the chair.)
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. I think the Senator can
answer this question without difficulty.
Is there anything in the bill that would
prevent the Director of CIA from asking
a person any question whatever by way
of a psychological test or by way of a
polygraph test?
Mr. BAYH. Shall we place section 6 in
the RECORD at this time? I think the Sen-
ator from North Carolina, as a good
lawyer, knows the answer before he asks
the question. There is nothing in the
bill to prohibit the Director of CIA from
making a personal finding with regard to
each individual to be so tested or ex-
amined.
That means that if the CIA agent in
charge of an area in Eastern Europe
feels we need an agent selected in one of
the Communist countries, he cannot'
make a test or decision; no determina-
tion can be made in this area unless the
Director himself makes it.
? It seems to me if we are going to re-
quire the Director of CIA to determine all
of these questions or make the test, we
are going to give him a burden which
would make him ineffective as the
Director.
Mr. ERVIN. The President of the
United States, a rather busy man, has
to sign every commission of a regular
military officer and each of the hundreds
of bills passed by Congress; is that cor-
rect?
Mr. BAYH. The Senator is correct. The
President does not ask questions about
polygraph and psychological testing.
Mr. ERVIN. And there is nothing in
the bill which would prevent the CIA
or the NSA from asking any question
they wish to ask on a psychological test
or on a polygraph machine test. A per-
son can be asked any question on a
polygraph test or psychological test by
any department or agency of the Gov-
ernment with the exception of three
types of questions: First, questions
which relate to his personal relationship
to his relatives; second, questions which
relate to his religion; and, third, ques-
tions relating to his attitude on matters
of sex. With the exception of those three
questions, any department or agency
can ask the questions during a psycho-
logical test or a polygraph test.
Under the amendment of my distin-
guished friend from Indiana, which was
adopted by the Committee on the Judi-
ciary, and which I have asked with re-
luctance be included in this bill, and
which has been approved, the Director
of the CIA or the Director of NSA can
ask questions even in those three for-
bidden fields if he makes a personal
finding that it is necessary to the na-
tional security. '
Mr. BAYH. That is correct. I wish to
explain. I do appreciate the Willingness
of the Senator from North Carolina to
hear me on this matter. He is the author
of this bill and has worked on it for
many years. I know that he feels very
-strongly about it and he is a fighter. He
does not think this should be in the bill
at all.
Mr. ERVIN. I do not.
? Mr. BAYH. This amendment is a
great concession from him and I appre-
ciate it. However, I would like to explain
that as far as I am concerned and as
far as the Directors of these Agencies
are concerned this is a very small salve
for a very deep wound. The problem is
that a personal finding means, literally,
a personal finding.
This means that a man who is sup-
posed to be the director of an interna-
tional intelligence agency will have to
make a personal finding that an exami-
nation should be made using polygraph
machines or psychological testing, which
seems to me to be poor administrative
practice.
Mr. ERVIN. All that means is that the
Director has to make the decision in-
stead of the agency charwoman.
Mr. BAYH. I think the Senator from
North Carolina is correct. I do not want
the charwoman or a half-baked psy-
chologist making the determination. We
want a psychologist who is thoroughly
trained and competent. "
I think the insistence of the Senator
from North Carolina is going to make
these two agencies more careful in apply-
ing the tests. Let me answer the question
about the weakness I see in section 6.
If we are talking about a personal find-
ing, it seems to me that this means if
an administrator is to abide by the law,
and there is no need to put it in there
unless he does so, he is going to have to
accumulate a significant amount of evi-
dence. By the time he can accumulate
this evidence, in my opinion, it means
the man could already be employed and
already be in a position where he could
damage the country. By the time the ?
director could make a personal finding
to fire him or not hire him, there would
be no longer the need to make that
finding.
Mr. ERVIN. I disagree with that
interpretation.
Mr. BAYH. I know the Senator dis-
agrees with the interpretation.
Mr. ERVIN. If the Director wanted to
send an undercover agent to Poland or
Czechoslovakia he could say, "I find it is
necessary for him to have a polygraph
test or take a psychological test in the
interest of national security."
The very nature of the job assigned to
him would fully justify making that find-
ing.
Mr. BAYH. I explored this procedure
in my mind, and I think that the Senator
from North Carolina is judicious in his
thoughts on this?at least we have both
thought about it, so it must be judicious?
but I have reached a different conclu-
sion. Very frankly the National Security
Agency, on occasion, has refused to in-
form the Congress of sensitive activities
in which they are engaged until some
public disclosure has necessitated replies
to congressional inquiries. The CIA pur-
chases land out in the country and at-
tempts to secure it so that no one could
shoot a laser beam off a window and read
the sound vibrations inside to find out
what the CIA is doing. If we are talking
about security activities to protect the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12948
Sanitized - A p PolV1.8?Wi-SkiithaitC.TIL-1115Pit-trb149RObt161146150/011 -d967
upon the Director of the CIA. With one
sweep of the pen, so to speak, it would
limit the main thrust of the power which
in 1947 was considered necessary for the
Director of the CIA to have?and time
has proved that that power was
necessary.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield at that
point?
Mr. STENNIS. I should like to com-
plete my brief remarks first. I do not
have a prepared text. I have not made a
special study in this particular field; if
It is agreeable to the Senator from North
Carolina, I should like to complete my
statement first, before yielding to him.
Mr. President, this is no inconsequen-
tial matter. We are dealing with many
thousands of , employees all over the
world, working under all kinds of con-
ditions. We are dealing with activities of
the CIA and the National Security
Agency?my remarks apply to both?
with many thousands of employees and
an annual cost of many millions of dol-
lars. Those exact figures are all classi-
fied. The budget is known by Congress
but is not public knowledge.
I emphasize that now in stating that
we are dealing with no small matter in
just dollars and cents. Yet the bill, in an
indirect way, would partly handicap and
make ineffective the operation of these
agencies.
I am convinced in my mind that these
agencies should be totally excepted from
the operations of the pending bill, that
there is far more good on the side of their
exclusion than there is on the other, and
that this partial exception which the bill
,would provide, in making it possible for
the Director to make a personal finding,
and thereby limit the application of
some restrictions, would be impracti-
cal and burdensome. It would require the
Director to devote disproportionate time
to one aspect of his responsibility. Just
as every Senator cannot personally
answer every letter, compose every para-
graph, or read every line of every report
placed before him, as a pracitcal matter,
this would be an impossible chore to
place upon the Director.
I would rather this provision be in the
bill than to leave it out entirely. I am
not critical of the amendment so far as
It goes, but, nevertheless, it would leave
the Director of the CIA in a position
where it would be difficult for him to
operate.
In order to justify such changes at this
bill makes in these basic laws, they de-
serve and should have the utmost con-
sideration and the most minute exami-
nation by men who are highly versed
In the field. I think they should be
brought here and this question should
be considered only in executive session,
and explained to every Member of this
body.
I warn now that if this bill becomes a
law, it is going to be cited as an instance
where the legislative branch of the 'Gov-
ernment stepped in and said, "We will
assume full responsibility; we take it
away from the executive agency, where
It properly belongs. We assume the re-
sponsibility for the subject matter of
this bill, so far as the employment of
people is concerned."
health, safety, and welfare of the coun-
try, then anyone, even a chauffeur or a
courier could hide in the bushes and, by
using the latest scientific technology
available, acquire secrets which are im-
portant to the United States.
This may be an exaggeration, but we
are living in a tough world. I know that
the Senator from North Carolina is sin-
cere in his thought, and I know that he
shares my concern. As previously men-
tioned, I am going to support the bill, but
I am obliged by my deep concern about
this matter to speak out.
We live in a hard world in which ward
bribery, and espionage are common in-
telligence tools. Frankly, I do not like
polygraph tests or psychological tests.
But, in this kind of world, these things
do exist. The other side will use them.
There will be occasions when we will have
no alternative but to use the same un-
scrupulous methods in order to protect
the freedom of this country.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the pro-
visions of the pending bill that have been
discussed by the Senator from North
Carolina and the Senator from Indiana
for the past several minutes are the sub-
ject to which I should like to address my-
self, if I may speak to the Senate on this
subject as one of the members of the CIA
Subcommittee of the Armed Services
Committee?there is also a subcommit-
tee on the CIA from the Appropriations
Committee?and we sit and operate to-
gether.
Mr. President, the application of the
bill to the CIA and the National Security
Agency is a serious and far-reaching
matter. These Agencies present some of
the most sensitive questions and prob-
lems that we have to deal with and they
are difficult to operate.
In 1947, Congress passed the National '
Security Act. It provided for our enter-
ing a field that most of us wished we did
not have to go into. Intelligence gather-
ing had aspects and activities which our
Government had never been in before,
and our people still do not like.
Events of the past 20 years have cer-
tainly proved the wisdom of the enact-
ment of this act in 1947, since which time
we have had this worldwide activity, con-
tending with revolutions, the changes,
the unrest, and uncertainties all: over
the world, of systematized, organized,
smart, diligent, effective intelligence or-
ganization on the other side pitted
against us in the free West. As a whole,
being novices in that field, we have made
our share of mistakes, but we have also
accomplished some very effective and
far-reaching work, much of which will
not be known.
The National Security Act provided
that the Director of the CIA should have
unrestricted authority to terminate the
employment of any officer or employee of
the Agency, whenever he determined
that such termination was necessary or
advisable in the interests of the United
States. That power was thought to be
necessary and it was far reaching as
language could make it.
I speak with all deference to the
author of this bill and the members of
the committee who reported it, but the
pending bill would make serious impinge-
ments on and would throw handicaps
We know that, if there is any kind of
flaw in a person's character, the secret,
highly organized, and effective agencies
of the other side move in on it, whether
it be financial distress, homosexuality,
something about a relative, or anything
else. That is why it is necessary to have
the most exhaustive screening.
Mr. President, I am authorized' to
speak for the chairman of the CIA Sub-
committee and the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee [Mr. Rus-
SELL]. I am authorized to say that from
the beginning he has thought, and still
thinks, there ought to be a total exemp-
tion from this bill for the CIA and the
NSA. He has thought that from the first,
and he thinks it now; and if he can be
present for the vote, he is going to vote
against this bill on that account. That
shows how serious this matter is?that
from a man who I think knows more
about the operation of the CIA than any
man in the Congress, and I speak with
all deference to others.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
EaviNl asked that I yield to him. I yield
to the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. I would like the Senator
from Mississippi to point out any provi-
sion in the bill which affects in any way
the right of the CIA to discharge any of
its employees, with or without any rea-
son at all. There is not a thing in this bill
in conflict with that right.
Mr. STENNIS. The main thing I am
concerned about, frankly, is not about
somebody being discharged. It is about
getting .the wrong kind of person in to
begin with, who is a security risk, and,
before anyone knows anything about it,
the dirty work has already been done.
To just discharge him then would be an
act of futility, almost. That is where the
rub is, the sore spot?the bringing in of
these people. This was the problem. That
Is where the issue is.
Mr. ERVIN. With all due regard to the
Senator's views, certainly the Senator
from Mississippi could not say that the
CIA should be exempted Iron). the pro-
visions of the bill which prevent em-
ployees from being forced to lobby open
housing ordinances, engage in political
activities, or join the NAACP.
Mr. STENNIS. One could make an
argument like that about those provi-
sions, but that does not go to the very
gist of our concern. I de not think any-
body on this particular committee sup-
ports everything the CIA has to do. I
know almost none of the employees ex-
cept some of those now carrying on some
of the major responsibilities. The real
problem is getting the wrong man or
woman to start with so the devilment
can be done and the security of this
Nation imperiled.
Mr. ERVIN. I do not see how any pro-
vision of this bill would prevent the CIA
from asking any question whatever.
Mr. STENNIS. Well, I have already
covered the point. The limited exemption
could be invoked only by the personal
certification of the Director. That is just
an impractical, inadequate authority for
him to have. Even for a discharge?and
I do not think that is so important?get
a hearing. I stand on the danger of get-
ting the wrong man in to start with.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - tp14:$
September 13, 1967
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. I should like to asso-
ciate myself with the able remarks of
the ranking member of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee and the CIA watchdog
subcommittee, on which I also have the
honor to serve.
I also wish to associate myself with
the able remarks of the Senator from
Indiana. I think there are provisions of
the bill in which the CIA should be in-
cluded, namely, those stipulating that
employees do not necessarily have to at-
tend certain meetings and participate
In bond drives, and so on. But I think the
able Senator from Mississippi has pointed
out one of the key problems, which is
related to preventing people from get-
ting in the CIA who should not, in the
first instance, be in.
Last year over 100 security risks were
stopped by the polygrap).*. tests. All other
means of security jnquir , all other means
of testing failed. The polygraph does not
necessarily establish truth or untruth. I
have real questions about the polygraph
as a general proposition, but it can be a
valuable aid in providing investigative
leads. I want to point out that last year
the CIA was able to stop over 100 people
who would have been definite security
risks had it not been for the investiga-
tive leads given through the polygraph.
Some of us who have been in the Sen-
ate and the House over a period of many
years remember that period not too long
ago when the executive branch of Gov-
ernment was charged with being lax in
personnel .matters. There were charges
about all kinds of security risks in the
Government.
I think it would be most unwise to
turn around now and unduly, tie the
hands of the Central Intelligence Agency
and the National Security Agency, deal-
ing as they do with the most sensitive
matters in the Government.
I mention this because Congress,
month in and month out, year in and
year out, is taking after the executive
branch for failing to do the job of root-
ing out security risks who should have
been rooted out, and to stop security
risks from getting in who should have
been stopped from getting into the Fed-
eral Government.
What we are doing here, as I read the
bill, is that if we are going to maintain
the authority that the Director of the
CIA or the Director of the National Se-
curity Agency has had heretofore, he
would have to personally certify that
these questions of a sensitive nature and
of a highly personal nature must be
asked. He could not even delegate that
authority under the present provisions
of this bill.
If the Director has to personally cer-
tify, when thousands of people are inter-
viewed each year for jobs, what kind of
certification will that be? It seems to me
it is completely Unrealistic. ?
As I have pointed out, 100 security
risks have been stopped in 1 year because
of investigative leads provided by the
polygraph.
I can see what the Senate and the
House would be doing if those risks had
gotten into Government. Congress would
roved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
GRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 12949
be jumping down the throat of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and asking,
"Why did you not do something about
that? Why did you permit this person to
get in?" Some of the most notorious de-
fectors, people who have walked away
with secrets vital to our country, have
been sexual deviates.
I think the Senate should understand
what it is doing in connection with the
pending proposal. I say that every Mem-
ber of the Senate has a solemn obliga-
tion to understand what is really in-
volved as far as the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security
Agency are concerned, with the provi-
sions of the bill as they now stand.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much for his timely remarks.
I yield now to the Senator from North
Dakota [Mr. Your's], who is a very valu-
able member of the Appropriations
Committee and of the subcommittee
concerned.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I thank
the Senator from Mississippi. I wish to
associate myself with his comments.
All three of the Republican members
of the Appropriations Committee deal-
ing with the CIA take the same position,
that thp CIA should be exempted. There
certainly is far more reason for the CIA
to be exempted from the provisions of
this bill than for the FBI. It deals with
highly sensitive information from all
over the world. Even the smallest coun-
tries now have intelligence agencies.
To cite one example, the CIA would
have to know at all times what contact
one of its agents might have with for-
eigners, one of whom might be, for ex-
ample, a member of the Russian KGB.
Therefore, they must have more author-
ity over their employees than the Gov-
ernment has over the average employee.
The information it would be necessary
to have concerning a CIA agent is a far
cry from that required on a postal clerk
In my hometown.
He can make any kind of speech he
wants to. His private life might be thor-
oughly reprehensible, and may not hurt
the GoVernment.
But the CIA does have to know as
much as it possibly can about its agents,
because they deal with highly sensitive
information gathered all over the world,
and not only on the main streets, but
they have to go into the back alleys along
with all the other intelligence agents
of the world.
I think it would be a serious mistake
if the CIA, the National Security Agency,
and the Defense Intelligence Agency
were not exempted from the provisions
of the bill. As one of its cosponsors, I
am very proud of its other provisions;
but if those agencies are not exempted
from the provisions of the bill, I shall
be compelled to vote against it, although
I am a cosponsor.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Maine, who is also a member of
the subcommittee.
Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, I share
the concern of My able- and distinguished
colleagues, the Senator from Mississippi
and the Senator from North Dakota.
I want Government employees to be
protected but our national security must
not be impaired. I find there is a poten-
tial conflict between national security
and some individual employees employed
by the CIA and the FBI.
I feel obliged to vote for the bill but I
would hope that the conflict would be re-
solved in the House committee or in
conference.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, to reit-
erate a point I have already made: I am
convinced, from what I know about the
problems involved in getting the right
kind of recruits from among so many
different types of people in so many dif-
ferent circumstances, that this bill, as
now written, puts too many far-reaching
restrictions upon the CIA, and that we
would thereby greatly impair our capac-
ity to protect our security.
I think further that this matter about
the possibility of some employee being
unjustly discharged is purely a second-
ary matter.. It is serious and important
to the person involved, I do not discount
that. But certainly it is secondary to the
security of the Nation.
To have to go through a hearing in a
regular court, and have a proceiding
there that could be used to harass the
agency and its director with endless liti-
gation, would in itself impair our na-
tional security. Certainly there would
be exposure. If we act here without hav-
ing a chance to make a full study of the
bill, I venture to say that once it be-
comes the law and these restrictions do
apply, we are going to have a different
reaction, a different attitude toward the
CIA as an entity; and the same applies
to the National Security Agency.
This organization being so vital and
necessary, its activities should not be re-
stricted, and certainly should not be re-
stricted without the most minute inquiry
and weighing of the language, and the
points involved, and also submission of
this matter to the Senate in executive
session, where so many more of the ac-
tual facts that pertain to the problem
could be fully aired, and thereby fully
weighed by each Senator. Every Mem-
ber of this body, before passing on these
Important matters, should have before
him all the facts involved, and that is
simply impossible to achieve in an open
session, and at the same time protect the
security of our country.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Would
not the CIA find themselves in much the
same position we are in today, if they
wound up in court over firing an em-
ployee? They are charged by Congress
with protecting their sources of intelli-
gence, no matter where they get them.
We are charged with the same responsi-
bility.
If we could have an executive session,
and explain all the reasons why these
agencies should be exempt, it would be a
different matter. But we cannot do so
publicly without divulging matters which
should be kept secret.
Mr. STENNIS. That is a good point. I
wish to point out again a point made by
the Senator from Indiana: We exempt
from the provisions of this bill the FBI,
and very properly So. The FBI is an orga-
nization nearly all of the employees of
Sanitized -'Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
:S 1.2950 Sanitized - ApciehANFAEFFdPRelfealikCOCIA-RDIN7/6100149Roopkoosimool .7067
which, I assume, are of the very highest
character. They always seek to employ
people of a high order of. character and
intelligence.
The CIA, without going into detail, has
to employ for some missions persons who
are not of the very top quality, and not
the very finest characters. In producing
intelligence information, we , must at
times use persons that would not be suit-
able as regular, full-time employees. But
these agencies must go into every con-
ceivable possibility or circumstance un-
der which the man may operate, and
what his reaction under given circum-
stances might be.
Furthermore?and I say this with em-
phasis?those with whom they have to
deal, the agencies representing the So-
viets and any others that are against us
are always trying to pick and find flaws
in the people we have, not only in the
key spots but in the lower spots as well;
and it is nearly always through that
avenue that they are attempting to pene-
trate, achieve a sell-out, lead us down
a blind alley, and get our secrets.
So we are dealing here with two of
the most sensitive and important agen-
cies of our Government; and with all
due deference, I submit that we are going
Into it without sufficient knowledge and
information.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MON-
TOYA in the chair) . The bill is open to
amendment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed the bill (S. 1862) to
amend the authorizing legislation of the
Small Business Administration, and for
other purposes, with an amendment, in
which it requested the concurrence of
the Senate.
The message also announced that the
House insisted upon its amendment to
the bill (S. 1872) to amend further the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes, dis-
agreed to by the Senate; agreed to the
conference asked by the Senate on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon, and that Mr. MORGAN, Mr. ZA-
SLOCKL, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HAYS, Mr. ADAIR,
Mr. MAIT.LIARD, and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN
were appointed managers on the part,of
the House at the conference.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask that the Chair lay before
the Senate a message from the House
on S. 1862, with the amendment of the
House thereto.
AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION AU-
THORIZING THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the bill (S. 1862) to
amend the authorizing legislation of the
Small Business Administration, and for
other purposes which was, to strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert:
TITLE I
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the
"Small Business Act Amendments of 1967".
SEC. 102. Paragraph (4) of section 4(c) of
the Small Business Act is amended?
(1) by striking out "$1,400,000,000" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "$1,900,000,000";
(2) by striking out "6400,000,000" and in-
serting in lieu therof "6450,000,000";
(3) by striking out "$200,000,000" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "$300,000,000"; and
(4) by striking out "$100,000,000" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "$200,000,000".
SEC. 103. Paragraph (4) of section 7(a) is
amended by striking out "except that a loan
made for the purpose of constructing facil-
ities may have a maturity of ten years" and
inserting in lieu thereof "except that such
portion of a loan made for the purpose of
constructing facilities may have a maturity
of fifteen years".
SEC. 104. The subsection added to section
7 of the Small Business Act by the Disaster
Relief Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-769), and
designated thereby as subsection (e), is re-
designated as subseetion (f).
SEC. 105. Subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(1) of section 8(b) of the Small Business Act
is amended to read as follows;
"(B) in the case of any individual or group
of persons cooperating with it in furtherance
of the purposes of subparagraph (A), (i) to
allow such an individual or group such use
of the Administration's office facilities and
related materials and servicesas the Admin-
istration deems appropriate; and (ii) to pay
the transportation expenses and a per diem
allowance in accordance with section 5703 of
title 5, United States Code, to any such indi-
vidual for travel and subsistence expenses
incurred at the request of the Administra-
tion in connection with travel to a point more
than fifty miles distant from the home of
that individual in providing gratuitous serv-
ices to small businessmen in furtherance of
the purposes of subparagraph (A) or in
connection with attendance at meetings
sponsored by the Administration;".
SEC. 106. Paragraph (13) of section 8(b)
of the Small Business Act is amended to read
as follows:
"(13) to establish such advisory boards
and committees as may be necessary to
achieve the purposes of this Act and of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958; to
call meetings of such boards and commit-
tees from time to time; and to rent tempo-
rarily, within the District of Columbia or
elsewhere, such hotel or other accommoda-
tions as are needed t9 facilitate the conduct
of such meetings; and".
SEC. 107. The subsection added to section
402 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
by section 405 of the Economic Opportunity
Amendments of 1966 (Public Law 89-794),
and designated thereby as subsection (b), is
redesignated as subsection (c).
TITLE II
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the
"Small Business Investment .Act Amend-
ments of 1967".
SEC. 202. (a) Title III of the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1958 is amended by
inserting immediately after section 306 the
following new section:
"REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
"SEC. 306A. (a) In the case of any small
business investment company licensed prior
to October 1, 1966, under the provisions of
this Act, which has received the approval of
the Administration prior to that date of its
articles of incorporation or investment pol-
icy, and which by the terms and provisions of
the approved articles of incorporation or in-
vestment policy is empowered to invest in
(whether through loans or equity secUrities)
real estate development oriented enterprises
and activities, the Administration shall not
impose any limitation, formally or informally
by regulation, order, advice, or otherwise, in
respect of the company's investments in real
estate oriented enterprises and activities
which is more restrictive than, or otherwise
at variance with, the company's articles of in-
corporation or approved investment policy.
"(b) No application to the Administration
from any licensee referred to in subsection
(a) of this section for participation in any of
the programs, benefits, activities, or services
available to licensees under the provisions of
this Act shall be denied, or participation in
any program limited or withheld by the Ad-
ministration for the sole reason that in-
vestments of the applicarrq in real estate de-
velopment oriented enterprises and activities
exceed a percentage of the applicant's total
investment portfolio, unless such invest-
ments exceed the percentage allowable under
the applicant's articles of incorporation or
approved investment policy."
(b) The table of contents at the begin-
ning of that Act is amended by inserting
"Sec. 306A. Real estate development."
immediately after
"Sec. 306. Aggregate limitations."
SEC. 203. Section 301(c) of the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1958 is amended to
read as follows:
"(c) The articles of incorporation and
amendments thereto shall be forwarded to
the Administration for consideration and
approval or disapproval. In determining
whether to approve such a company's arti-
cles of incorporation and permit it to operate
under the provisions of this Act, the Admin-
istration shall give due regard, among other
things, to the need and availability for the
financing of small business concerns in the
geographic area in which the proposed com-
pany is to commence business, the general
business reputation and character of the
proposed owners and management of the
company, and the probability of successful
operations of such company including ade-
quate profitability and financial soundness.
After consideration of all relevant factors, if
it approves the company's articles of incor-
poration, the Administration may in its dis-
cretion approve the company to operate
under the provisions of this Act and issue
the company a license for such operation."
SEC. 204. The second sentence of section
302(a) of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958 is amended by changing "$700,000"
to read "$4,000,000".
SEC. 205. Section 302(b) of the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1958 is amended by
striking "except that in no event shall any
such bank hold shares in small business in-
vestment companies in an amount aggre-
gating more than 2 percent of its capital
and surplus." and inserting "except that in
no event may any such bank acquire shares
in any small business investment company
If, upon the making of that acquisition,
"(1) the aggregate amount of shares In
small business investment companies then
held by the bank would exceed
"(A) 5 percent of its capital and surplus,
or
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 12951
"(B) $1,000,000
whichever is less, or
"(2) the bank would hold 50 percent or
more of any class of equity securities issued
by that investment company and having
actual or potential voting rights."
SEC. 206. Section 303(b) (1) of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 is amended
by changing "$1,000,000" to read "$6,000,000".
SEC. 207. Section 103 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 is amended?
(1) by striking "and" at the end of para-
graph (6) ;
(2) by changing the period 'at the end of
paragraph (7) to read "; and"; and
(3) by adding the following new para-
graph at the end:
"(6) the term 'venture capital' means
capital Supplied by the purchase of common
or preferred stock or subordinated deben-
tures as to which there is no amortization
or sinking fund requirement for at least
five years after issuance."
SEC. 208. Section 310(b) of the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1958 is amended by
adding after the first sentence thereof the
following new sentence: "Each such com-
pany shall be examined at least once each
year."
SEC. 209. The first sentence of section 401
(a) of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958 is amended by striking out "that
are (1) eligible for loans under section
7(b) (3) of the Small Business Act, or (2)
eligible for loans under title IV of the Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act of 1964,".
SEC. 210. Section 308(g) of the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1058 is amended (1)
by inserting the paragraph designation
" (1) " after "(g)", and (2) by adding the
following new subparagraph:
"(2) In its annual report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1967, and in each suc-
ceeding annual report, the Administration
- shall include in its annual report, made pur-
suant to section 10(a) of the Small Busi-
ness Act, full and detailed accounts relative
to the following matters:
"(A) The Administration's recommenda-
tions with respect to the feasibility and or-
ganization of a small business capital bank to
encourage private financing of small business
investment companies to replace Govern-
ment financing of such companies.
"(B) The Administration's plans to insure
the provision of small business investment
company financing to all areas of the coun-
try and to all eligible small business con-
cerns including steps taken to accomplish
same.
"(C) Steps taken by the Administration to
maximize recoupment of Government funds
incident to the inauguration and administra-
tion of the small business investment com-
pany program and to insure compliance with
statutory and regulatory standards relating
thereto.
"(D) An. accounting by the Bureau of the
Budget with respect to Federal expenditures
to business by executive agencies, specifying
the proportion of said expenditures going to
business concerns falling above and below
small business size standards applicable to
small business investment companies.
"(E) An accounting by the Treasury De-
partment with respect to tax revenues ac-
cruing to the Government from business
concerns, incorporated and unincorporated,
specifying the source of such revenues by
concerns falling above and below the small
business size standards applicable to small
business investment companies.
"(r) An accounting by the Treasury De-
partment with respect to both tax losses and
Increased tax revenues related to small busi-
ness investment company financing of both
Individual and corporate business taxpayers.
"(G) Recommendations of the Treasury
Department with respect to additional tax
incentives to Improve and facilitate the op-
erations of small business investment com-
panies and to encourage the use of their
financing facilities by eligible small business
concerns.
"(H) A report from the Securities and
Exchange Commission enumerating actions
undertaken by that agency to simplify and
minimize the regulatory requirements gov-
erning small business investment companies
under the Federal securities laws and to
eliminate overlapping regulation and juris-
diction as between the Securities and Ex-
change Commission, the Administration, and
other agencies of the executive branch. _
"(I) A report from the Securities and Ex-
change Corrunission with respect to actions
taken to facilitate and stabilize the access
of small business concerns to the securities
markets.
"(J) Actions undertaken by the Securities
and Exchange Commission to simplify com-
pliance by small business investment com-
panies with the requirements of the Invest-
ment Company Act of 1940 and to facilitate
the election to be taxed as regulated invest-
ment companies pursuant to section 851 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954."
SEC. 211. The effective date of this title
shall be ninety days after enactment.
TITLE III
Sac. 301. This title may be cited as the
"Small Business Protection Act of 1967".
SEC. 302. The Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall conduct a
special study of the impact on small busi-
ness concerns of robbery, burglary, shop-
lifting, vandalism, anti other criminal ac-
tivities, with a view to determining ways in
which such concerns may best protect them-
selves against such activities.
SEC. 303. The Administrator shall report
to the President and to the Congress the
results of the study conducted pursuant to
this title, including such recommendations
as he may deem appropriate for administra-
tive and legislative action, within one year
after the date of enactment of this title.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, on behalf of the Senator from Ala-
bama [Mr. SPARKMAN] I move that the
Senate disagree with the amendment of
the House and request a conference with
the House thereon, and that the Chair be
authorized to appoint the conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. SPARK-
MAN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr.
PERCY, and Mr. TOWER conferees on the
part of the Senate.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I move that the Senate stand in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion was agreed to; and (at
3 o'clock and 1 minute p.m.) the Senate
took a recess subject to the call of the
Chair.
The Senate reassembled at 3:05 p.m.,
when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. MONTOYA in the chair).
PROTECTING PRIVACY AND RIGHTS
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1035) to protect the civilian
employees of the executive branch of the
U.S. Government in the enjoyment of
their constitutional rights and to prevent
unwarranted governmental invasions of
their privacy.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING atoviCER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoi.-
tams in the chair). Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS obtained the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator from
North Carolina desire that I yield to him?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me briefly? .
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may yield to
the Senator from North Carolina without'
losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I cannot
modify the bill without unanimous con-
sent, because the yeas and nays have been
ordered. Therefore I ask unanimous
consent that I may modify the bill on
page 19 in the following respects:
On line 16, page 19 between the word
"Agency" and the word "or" I would
modify the bill so as to insert these three
words "or his designee", arid on line 17,
page 19 between the word "Agency" and
the word "makes" I would modify the bill
by unanimous consent by inserting the
words "or his designee", so that the bill
would provide that the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the National Security
Agency could ask the three forbidden
types of questions if the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency or his desig-
nee, or the Director of the National Secu-
rity Agency or his designee "makes a
personal finding with regard to each
individual to be so tested or examined
that such test or information is required
to protect the national security."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that I may modify the bill by those
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
Is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may I
say to the Senator from North Carolina
and to the Senate that in our opinion
that meets, in part, some of the objec-
tions that several of us have felt to the
bill.
If I may ask the Senator now, I raise
the point with him about the court pro-
cedure that the bill before the Senate
now contemplates on the part of an em-
ployee, particularly with reference to
employees discharged from either one of
the agencies.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12952
Sanitized - Apicgiktrei9Melagigtilkit10116-16149R0602t00110006-6967
Let me extend my question further not
only to the matter of the discharge of an
employee but also to the violation of any
provisions of the National Security Act
or the national security law. If the Sen-
ator would express himself on that, so
far as security is concerned, because
questions might arise in open court, I
shall appreciate it.
Mr. ERVIN. In my judgment, this bill
does not undertake to regulate in any
way the tenure of a person's employment.
It does not undertake to change any law
relating to the tenure of any employ-
ment. It merely attempts to regulate the
relationship between a department or
agency and its employees as long as the
employment relationship exists.
The statute relating to the CIA is.
found in title 50, section 403, subsection 3
of the United States Code, which pro-
vides that "notwithstanding the pro-
visions of sectior 652 of title 5, on the
provisions of any other law, the Director
of the CIA may, in his discretion, ter-
minate employment of any officer or em-
ployee of an agency whenever he shall
deem such termination necessary or adi-
visable in the interest of the United
States."
There is a similar statute applicable
to the National Security Agency.
There is not a thing in the bill which
would alter those statutes, because the
bill does not affect what summaxy dis-
missal powers they have.
The only question, as I see it, that
could possibly come up before a court or
the Board of Employees' Rights created
by this bill would be whether the CIA or
the National Security Agency had vio-
lated provisions of this act and had at-
tempted to make an employee do some-
thing which the act forbids them to
make him do. I cannot imagine any con-
troversy arising pursuant to the bill in
which any secret matter would be rele-
vant in a hearing before a court or be-
fore the Board. I think that there is no
danger there.
Mr. STENNIS. Let me interrupt the
Senator there. I believe, as I understood
it, he used the words "secret matter."
The Senator was referring, was he not,
to secret matters concerning the security
of the country?
Mr. ERVIN. That is right. In other
words, the sole question that would be
relevant in any proceeding, either before
a court or a board, under this act, would
be whether the agency had violated the
rights of employees as spelled out in the
act.
Thus, I cannot imagine any circum-
stances under which any matter of na-
, tonal security would ever become ger-
mane or relevant to the suit. Besides, in
my judgment, we have the rule of evi-
dence which forbids disclosure of State
secrets in litigation. I think that would
exclude security information, if it were
offered. That is my judgment.
Mr. STENNIS. On that last point, the
Senator does not contend and does not
believe that this proposed law we are
passing on now changes that rule; is that
correct?
Mr. ERVIN. That is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Indiana. Does he not
want me to yield to him at this point?
Mr. BAYH. Yes. I thank my colleague.
I should like to restate a point which
the Senator touched upon earlier. That
the Senator from North Carolina would
not desire to take away any rights deal-
ing with the protection of Government
employees, or to remove the common law
executive privilege of refusing to disclose
Information in the interest of national?
security of the country. This is an age-
old tradition which we have had for a
number of years. I think that the Sena-
tor from North Carolina, if I understood
him correctly, conies out four square that
that is not the intention of this act.
Mr. ERVIN. I do not think the statute
would be relevant.
Mr. STENNIS. Would the Senator
speak a little louder, please.
Mr. ERVIN. I said that I do not think
any decision concerning disclosure of
matters relating to national security
would have any relevance to a case'
brought pursuant to the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. STENNIS. It would not be admis-
sible if deemed relevant.
Mr. ERVIN. There are a number of
statutes dealing with this subject. I have
here a letter from Mr. Lawrence Speiser,
director of the Washington office of the
American Civil Liberties 'Union, under
date of August 29, 1967. He represents
an organization very much concerned
with the rights of individuals. He sug-
gests that we should go further and
change the statutes which give these or-
ganizations the right to discharge their
employees without cause.
Frankly, I sometimes think that my-
self; but I am not attempting that now.
Mr. BAYH. If I might ask just one
question?
Mr. ERVIN. Since CIA officials have
leaked so much material to the press in
recent days, I should think it would be
all right for me to do a little leaking,
too. They would like to be exempted from
all responsibility and accountability to
law, and everything else on earth, in the
heavens above, and the waters beneath
them. I think that is asking a little too
much. The CIA?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator might be
surprised to know how little the CIA
has talked to me about this matter?
virtually none. I certainly do not repre-
sent them, as the Senator knows.
Mr. ERVIN. I have suggested that per-
haps the CIA could be brought into court
for violating the statute which forbids
lobbying at public expense, but I do not
propose to ask for a prosecution at this
time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
further to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. I must say that I have in-
deed talked to both members of the CIA
and the National Security Agency in an
effort to try to secure more information
about the impact of this legislation. The
way the National Security Agency is
structured, those who are serving on the
committee to which it is directly re-
sponsible, are the only ones will) really
can tell us the impact of this particular
legislation. Those who are on the Judi-
ciary Committee have been forced to try
to find out as best we could by talking to
members of the agency involved?the
Director and his staff.
Let me make this one last statement'
because my position on the Judiciary
Committee has put me at least on the
committee that is discharging this meas-
ure. As I see it, the Senator from North
Carolina, by accepting the modification
of the bill which he himself has pro-
posed, and by the colloquy which we are
proceeding with here, is dealing with
two points that are the most sensitive.
First, which the Senator from Mis-
sissippi brought into the colloquy here,
that the agencies are concerned about
be brought into court and being com-
pelled to disclose secrets of vital in-
terest to the national defense and the
security of this country. From the state-
ment just made by the Senator from
North Carolina, that is not his intention,
nor the intention of the Senate.
The second point we discussed would
require the Directors of these two agen-
cies to assume a tremendous burden of
personally validating the authenticity
or the necessity of using these two liar-
ticular kinds of tests, or asking the ,three
kinds of questions.
By permitting the DirectorS to appoint
a designee, the modification would shift
the burden from their shoulders to the
shoulders of a subordinate who would
serve as a watchdog to prevent the prac-
tices which we are trying to prohibit.
This would allow the maximum degree
of protection insofar as security risks
in these agencies are concerned. This
would be going a long way toward cor-
recting the weaknesses.
I thank the Senator from North Caro-
lina for his contribution.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. I
think he has made a contribution in the
debate as well as in the committee.
I yield now to the Senator from Ne-
braska.
Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator for
his courtesy.
Concern has been expressed that there
are serious impingements on the author-
ity of CIA inherent in this bill and that
they would particularly bear on the right
of the CIA to separate employees from
their staffs.
Is it not a fact that in any appearance
in court which would be entered by an
employee or an applicant for employ-
ment with the CIA, they would have very
limited recourse and the court would
have its jurisdiction limited very highly
in any such proceeding? At page 12 of
the bill, starting with line 17, we have
the language:
Such United States district court shall
have jurisdiction?
Skipping to line 22?
to issue such restraining order, interlocutory
injunction, permanent injunction, or man-
datory injunction, or enter sup other judg-
ment or decree as may be necessary or ap-
propriate to prevent the threatened viola-
tion, or to afford the plaintiff and others
similarly situated complete relief against
the consequences of the violation.
Mr. ERVIN. Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA. I ask the Senator if it
Is not true that the only questions in-
volved in such a lawsuit would be wheth-
er there had been a violation of the pro-
hibitions of psychological tests and poly-
graphs and questionings, and that only
the question of the mechanics of those
violations would be raised in the lawsuit,
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75.-00149R000200600001-6
September 131 gltized -(AiblifaresSetirkliateaSaDUMWM5-00149R0002oo6oNg5?
to the exclusion of any substance with
regard to the disclosure of material
which would be harmful to the national
security.
Mr. ERVIN. That is true, because the
controversies which would arise under
the bill would relate only to the question
of whether or not the agency was vio-
lating this act. T'..:s act has nothing to
do with the collection of security
Information.
Mr. HRUSKA. Violation of the act
with reference to the procedures used
in employment practices, but not its
substance?
, Mr. ERVIN. Only as related to the
rights enumerated in the bill.
Mr. HRUSKA. But only the proce-
dural matter, the fashion in which it was
done, not as to substance?
Mr. ERVIN. The right to discharge
employees would remain unhampered,
except the agency could not discharge an
employee because he refused to comply
with a request or requirement which is
Illegal under the act.
Mr. HRUSKA. So there would not be
any serious impingement on the statu-
tory power of the CIA to discharge if it
saw fit, and this act would have no effect
on that authority?
Mr. ERVIN. Except in the situation
where the employee refused to agree to
a violation of the act. ,
Mr. HRUSKA. That is what the act is
for. It provides that the agency shall not
use such procedures.
Mr. ERVIN. It would not affect the
right of the agency to discharge em-
ployees on any other ground at all.
Mr. HRUSKA. That is my understand-
ing. I am grateful to the Senator for his
explanation.
The Senator from North Carolina and
I have had long discussions on this sub-
ject. If there were any intimation, if
there were any suggestion, that there
would be an adverse effect upon the na-
tional security by 'this bill, I would not
be for it and would not be urging the
Senate to enact the bill into law.
Mr. ERVIN. As a matter of fact, I
think the bill would promote the na-
tional security and would increase the
value of the personnel of the CIA and
NSA if the agencies would abandon this
20th century witchcraft, and ascertain
Information about their employees from
other sources.
Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ERVIN. I think they are driving
away from employment some of the best
brains in this country?people who do
not like to be humiliated by the ques-
tions put to them under the polygraph
procedures.
?Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am
going to yield to the Senator from Mary-
land [Mr. TYDINGS], but may I make
this statement. Several Senators have
inquired about this. As far as the Sena-
tor from Mississippi knows, there will be
no further amendment offered to the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I may
offer an amendment to strike out lines
20 and 21, on page 19, which exempt the
FBI. I do not know why the PSI should
not be Included.
Mr. STENNIS. I beg the Senator's
pardon. I had not been informed about
that.
I yield now to the Senator from Mary-
land [Mr. TYDINGS].
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I wish
to take this opportunity to commend the
Senator from North Carolina on the
splendid public services he has per-
formed in the draftsmanship of this leg-
islation for the protection of civil service
employees. As he knows, I have worked
with him in committee and worked on
the language of one of the amendments
which was adopted.
For the purpose of the legislative rec-
ord of this debate, I would like to make
clear what I already understand to be
the Senator's position and the meaning
of certain parts of the legislation. I am
particularly concerned with those sec-
tions which have to do with the right of
counsel by the employee and the right
to judicial review. It is my understand-
ing that the rights intended here are not
intended to be used in such a way as to
violate the national security.
The issue which I can see arising is
on the discharge of an employee on the
grounds of national security, with refer-
ence to the section on the right of counsel
in taking the case into court or the right
of judicial review, and in court the 'Gov-
ernment having the option of either try-
ing to prove that it is a national security
case and disclosing matters which might
be vital to the national security or dis-
missing the prosecution. The situation
arose in 1964 in the Buturko case in New
Jersey. The Government had the option
of disclosing the nature of the evidence
and going ahead with the dismissal pro-
ceeding?I think it was an espionage
case?or dropping the proceedings and
not disclosing the evidence.
I wanted to get the Senator's view on
this particular problem as it could possi-
bly or theoretically arise.
Mr. ERVIN. Under the statute I read
a moment ago, the CIA has absolute au-
thority to discharge an employee for any
reason or no reason whatever, and there
is no remedy for the employee.
Then, under Public Law 88-290, similar
authority is given the Secretary of De-
fense to fire any employee of the Na-
tional Security Agency. The only due
process given the employee is the arbi-
trary decision that his dismissal is in the
interest of the United States.
The only issue under S. 1035 that could
ever be raised in court concerning a dis-
charge of an employee would be whether
he was discharged because he refused to
violate the act or refused to accede to an
action made illegal by the act. I repeat,
that is the only limitation. I do not see
how other matters could ever get into
court under the act. The employee could
be fired for any other reason on the face
of the earth, or for no reason, and there
could be no recourse. The only point that
could be relevant would be whether the
agency had violated the act.
? Mr. TYDINGS. So the provisions of
subsection (k), which have to do with
the right to counsel, and also the pro-
visions which the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina read having to do
with judicial review, would not be in-,
tended to circumscribe the right or the
power of either of the intelligence agen-
cies to discharge an employee without the
disclosure of national security data.
Mr. ERVIN. That is true.
Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ERVIN. I believe that under the
statutes any matters sought to be admit-
ted but affecting national security would
be held to be incompetent, even if they
were relevant; and I do not see how they,
could be relevant.
I wish to thank the Senator from
Maryland for his gracious remarks and to
say that he has been instrumental in
bringing the bill to its present state. As
a member of the Committee on the Ju-
diciary, he made a number of helpful
suggestions.
Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the distin-
guished Senator.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I do not
expect to continue to hold the floor for
more than a few minutes. I should like ?
to ask a. question of the distinguished
Senator from Nebraska, who is an emi-
nent lawyer and devoted much time and
work to the bill.
Do I correctly assume that the Senator
from Nebraska heard the responses of
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Eavni] about the point that was raised
concerning court proceedings, especially
the response that any matter concerning
the security of the Nation or the States
would not be admissible in evidence?
Mr. HRUSKA. I am sure that is true.
Mr. STENNIS. Could I get the Sena-
tor's opinion on that point?
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I did
hear the colloquy between the Senator
from Mississippi and the Senator from
North Carolina, and I fully subscribe to
the interpretation that was placed upon
this entire situation by the Senator from
North Carolina.
The bill as drafted would not be the
basis for permission to get into the sub-
stance in any manner whatsoever. If pro-
cedural matters which are prohibited in
this bill have been violated, and the pro-
hibitions have not been abided by, then
a court action would lie. I have already
read into the RECORD the language as to
the jurisdiction of the district court in
the matter; but I shall do so again, for
purposes of emphasis. The jurisdiction of
the-court, after the evidence is in, would
be "to issue such restraining order, inter-
locutory injunction, permanent injunc-
tion, or mandatory injunction, or enter
such other judgment or decree as may
be necessary or appropriate to prevent
the threatened violation, or to afford the
plaintiff and others similarly situated
complete relief against the consequences
of the violation."
So there would be no room under this
bill, if it became law, to get into the
substance of any of the records of the
CIA or the NSA.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
I value his opinion.
Mr. President, I propose to conclude
my remarks, now, with this thought: I
think the modification made by, the Sen-
ator from North Carolina, adding at the
proper place the words "or his designee,"
has met, in part at least, the objection '
to that provision of the proposed act.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12954 Sanitized - AppF6Wif6011kWas$E.COPRDffiltAkfl
In the second place, our colloquy with
reference to the courts, while I do not
suggest that Senators in debate can
change the law or control the courts,
as far as they go, with the Senators'
statements of their ideas about the sub-
ject matter I think are a contribution
to the debate and to the record of the
legislative history.
Mr. President, under all the circum-
stances controlling here, I still have..-lme
very serious questions and very strong
doubts in my mind about the applica-
bility , of this proposed act to the CIA
and to the NSA; and for that reason I
shall not vote for the bill, but will op-
pose it.
However, under all the circumstances,
as far as I am concerned, I shall not offer
any amendment; but I do wish to re-
serve the right, if the bill comes back,
after it goes to the House of Representa-
tives, with provisions in it that I think
are seriously objectionable, to be free
to oppose it at that time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I should
like to make just one comment. This bill
would make only one limitation on firing
employees. They can still be fired for any
cause, or without any cause, except for
the cause that they refused to violate the
act or give up any of their rights under
the act. That would be the only thing
relevant to the inquiry.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I send to the desk an amend-
ment, and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The
amendment will be stated.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The
Senator from North Dakota [Mr.
Yourro] proposes an amendment, as
follows:
On,page 19, strike out sections 6 and 7,
lines 6 through 21, and insert:
"SEC. 6. Nothing contained in this Act shall
be construed to prohibit an officer of the
Central Intelligence Agency or of the Na-
tional Security Agency or of the FBI from
requesting any civilian employee or applicant
to take a polygraph test, or to take a psycho-
logical test, designed to elicit from him in-
formation concerning his personal relation-
ship with any person connected with him by
blood or marriage, or concerning his religious
beliefs or practices, or concerning his atti-
tude or conduct with respect to sexual mat-
ters, or to provide a personal financial state-
ment, if the Director of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency or his designee, or the Director
or the National Security Agency or his desig-
nee, makes a personal finding with regard
to each individual to be so tested or exam-
ined that such test or information is re-
quired to protect the national security."
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, all this amendment would do
would be to put the FBI in exactly the
same category as the CIA and the NSA.
I do not know why that should not be
done. To single out these two Agen-
cies?the CIA and NSA?would certainly
give them a bad name throughout the
world. All three are intelligence-gather-
ing agencies, and why one should be ex-
pected and not the others, I cannot
understand.
I hope that the author of the bill will
accept the amendment.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. Is the Senator aware
that in the reading of the amendment,
In that portion which is now at lines 16
and 17, the Director of the FBI or his
designee is omitted?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. No; I
am not. ?
Mr. ALLOTT. It was omitted.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I ask to modify my amend-
ment to include it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator may modify his amendment.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
Mr. ALLOTT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. I see that in the amend-
ment, as sent to the desk, the FBI is in-
cluded at that point, although it was
omitted when the amendment was read.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The amend-
ment as proposed by Mr. YOUNG of North
Dakota was as follows:
On page 19, strike out sections 6 and 7,
lines 6 through 21, and insert:
"SEc., 6. Nothing contained in this Act
shall be construed to prohibit an officer of
the Central Intelligence Agency or of the
National Security Agency or of the FBI from
requesting any civilian employee or appli-
cant to take a polygraph test, or to take a
psychological test, designed to elicit from
hitn information concerning his personal
relationship with any person connected with
him by blood or marriage, or concerning his
religious beliefs or practices, or concerning
his attitude or conduct with respect to
sexual matters, or to provide a personal fi-
nancial statement, if the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency or his designee
or the Director of the National Security
Agency or his designee or the Director of
the FBI or his designee makes a personal
finding with regard to each individual to be
so tested or examined that such test or in-
formation is required to protect the national
security."
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I would hope that the Senator
from North Carolina, who is handling
this bill, would be able to accept this
amendment. If not, I shall ask for the
yeas and nays.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I feel loan-
not accept the amendment, because my
committee, having voted on the question
of whether the FBI should be included
in the bill, voted to exempt it.
I can answer my good friend from
North Dakota as to the reason for the
exemption. If all of the departments and
agencies of the Government had con-
ducted their relationships with their em-
ployees in the same manner in which
the FBI has conducted its relationships
with its employees, this bill would not
have been introduced. There would have
been no occasion whatever for it.
I do not see much use in putting re-
strictions on use by the FBI of polygraph
tests or psychological tests, because it
does not use either of them. The other
two security agencies to which the re-
striction has been applied use them all
the time. They use ,themdaily, and they
?
49R00591#06/6000/13-61967
are driving away from Government em-
ployment some of the best brains that
come to them, because of the insults they
heap on their applicants in these poly-
graph, tests. That is the distinction.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. In ef-
fect, what we are doing then is legislating
to exonerate one official and condemn
another.
The Director of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency has been changed three
times since I have been a member of that
committee. I do not know which particu-
lar Director the legislation is directed at.
If it is not directed at any particular
one, why should we not put them all in
the same category?
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MONTOYA in the chair). The question is
on agreeing_ to the amendment of the
Senator from North Dakota.
The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in view
of the fact that the yeas and nays have
been ordered on the amendment of the
distinguished Senator from North Da-
kota [Mr. YOUNG], the Senator from
New Hampshire wants to make it plain
before the roll is called that he is per-
fectly willing to vote for, and will vote
for, the amendment. He sees no reason
why the very meritorious bill of the dis-
tinguished Senator from North.Carolina
should not be universally applied. How-
ever, in voting for the amendment, the
Senator from New Hampshire wants it
distinctly understood he recognizes the
fact that insofar as he knows and has
ever heard in the years he has been here,
the FBI has not been guilty of any con-
' duct that would require this legislation,
and that this amndment is to be agreed
to merely in the interest of uniformity.
Mr. President, the Senator from New
Hampshire recognizes the undoubted
service that the CIA has rendered in the
interest of national security. It is very
rare that the Senator from New Hamp-
shire finds himself somewhat in dis-
agreement with some of the distinguished
Senators who have so seriously defended
the CIA. He certainly wants its func-
tions in preserving national security to
be unhampered and thoroughly pre-
served.
However, although he is perhaps re-
garded as a conservative and not too pop-
ular with many of the organizations who
hold themselves out as being the cham-
pions of individual rights, the Senator
from New Hampshire wants to say that
from his experience in the Senate, he is
reluctantly compelled to observe that the
CIA has been in many instances a very
arrogant and very powerful agency of
our Government.
The Senator from New Hampshire
does not question the motives of patriot-
ism or the diligence of any of the execu-
tives of that Agency, but all of the ene-
mies of our country are not necessarily
foreign enemies. I do not imply that we
have any enemies in the CIA as individ-
uals. However, the Senator from New
Hampshire for a number of years has
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September is,SPhlifized PrEmaltsisfaXikiftffe8 ..cIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
? sENATE S 12955
viewed with some degree of apprehen-
sion the growth of power and secrecy of
.this particular organization, as he views
with apprehension any department of
the Government that can operate with
such secrecy and so much power, be-
cause there is always danger of the in-
vasion of our country's liberties when we
create within the Government any kind
of a Frankenstein monster that enjoys
- particular privileges of secrecy and exer-
cises those privileges to such degree.
Certainly, no one wants any of our
agents endangered by the disclosure of
information. It has been the experience
of this Senator, however, that even as a
member of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, he has not only found it impossible
to get certain information about the ex-
penditures of money and about the gen-
eral policies of the CIA, but he has also
actually had the experience of going to
his colleagues in the Senate who serve
on committees and who are possessed of
that information, and those colleagues
have been compelled to tell him that they
cannot even disclose the information to
him because the nature of the informa-
tion is so secret that it can be known
only to a few Members of Congress who
serve on certain committees.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COTTON. I yield.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Does
this same situation not apply to other
classified'. information? We get highly
classified information on military af-
fairs, and oftentimes I do not feel that
I should tell a colleague what I was told
in committee.
The same thing applies with regard to
the Atomic Energy Commission. I have
never been able to get much information
there. '
Mr. COTTON. The Senator from New
Hampshire specifically referred to the
expenditure of money. I do not have and
do not want military secrets, but at the
-same time I have no difficulty in de-
termining how our military appropria-
tions are being spent. I do not want to
know secrets of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, but again I have had no trouble
in finding out how its money is being
spent. This is not true of expenditures
made by CIA.
I think? however, that every Member
of the U.S. Senate is entitled to a rea-
sonable amount of information, par-
ticularly if he serves Jn the Appropria-
tions Committee, as to how money is
being expended. And I doubt if it is
necessary to divulge dangerous secrets
to do sci.
This is not said with hostility toward
the CIA. It may sound so. It is said
merely because I did not want the debate
to close without indicating the appre-
hension at least one Senator feels about
the creation of this or any other blue-
ribbon agency within the structure of the
U.S. Government.
I think the Senator from- North Caro-
lina is to be commende.- for his bill.
? I, of course, refrained from impeding
the progress of the Senate by objecting
to his request for unanimous cement to
revise and accept an amendment. I will
be honest and say that I regreted the
acceptance of that amendment. I felt
that it unnecessarily weakened his bill
and that it practically meant that the
Director of the CIA could delegate to
anybody, or to a different person every
day, the authority to do the acts that the
bill was intended to curb.
I shall vote for the amendment of-
lered by the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota. That vote, however, is not
to be construed as a reflection on the
FBI, an agency for which I have the
greatest respect. It merely reflects the
belief of this Senator that every depart-
ment and agency should be subject to
the provisions of the very meritorious
bill presented by the Senator from North
Carolina and his colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I shall
vote for the amendment of the distin-
guished Senator from North Dakota, but
for a different reason. from any that have
been suggested.
If Senators will note the title of the
bill, they will note that it reads:
To protect the civilian employees of the
executive branch of the United States Gov-
ernment in the enjoyment of their &Institu-
tional rights and to prevent unwarranted
governmental invasions of their privacy.
I would not like to see the Senate take
action Nthich would make it appear that
we are less interested in protecting the
employees of the FBI than we are in
protecting the employees of any other
Government agency from any action of
the type that is protected against.
My own feeling is that there is no real
justification for the section that excludes
the FBI?that is section 7?and that un-
less there is some justification about
which I have not yet heard, we shall all
desire to give similar treatment and sim-
ilar protection to all employees of the
executive agencies, which I surely be-
lieve we should give. For that reason, I
shall support the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, if the Senate is ready to vote,
I ask unanimous consent to rescind the
order for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BYRD of Virginia in the chair). Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from North Dakota? The Chair hears
none, and the order for the yeas and
nays is rescinded.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from North
Dakota.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in view
of the fact that the remarks just made
by the Senator from New Hampshire were
made simply because of the yeas and nays
having been ordered, the Senator from
New Hampshire now asks unanimous
consent that his remarks be stricken
from the RECORD, although he meant
every word. But there was no need for
his remarks unless there was to be a roll-
call vote on including the FBI.
The PRESIDING Or'FiCER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from New Hampshire? The Chair hears
none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the Senator
from New Hampshire was so eloquent
that I am inclined to object to his request.
I am inclined to object, especially since
he paid me a nice compliment in his re-
marks. In order that I not be put in the
position of making such objection, I ask
the Senator from New Hampshire to
withdraw his request that his remarks be
stricken from the RECORD. [Laughter.]
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am will-
ing to yield to the Senator's request. I
now ask unanimous consent that my re-
marks remain in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, every Amer-
ican is aware of the fact that under our
republican form of government, the' will
of the people is accorded primacy. Our
Government is responsive to this will,
for it is a gpvernment of laws?ad-
ministered by men whose decisions re-
flect the value judgments of the gov-
erned.
Whenever administrative decisions
have not reflected those values, the elec-
torate usually responded by electing to
office men whose xiews are in tune with
public sentiment.
By statute, the representatives of the
people have implemented many of the
protections guaranteed under our Con-
stitution: These laws have provided ex-
tensive protection for the rights of cit-
izens against arbitrary administration.
In recent years, Federal activities have
expanded at a breathtaking rate. With
this expansion and with the rapid es-
calation of technological dvelopments,
departures from constitutional liberties
once deeply cherished have become in-
creasingly evident.
This has been particularly true in the
case of one large and vitally important
segment of our population?the thous-
ands of employees and private citizen-
advisers who serve the Government.
It seems to me rather ironic that Gov-
ernment employees, so necessary in the
carrying on of the functions of Govern-
ment, do not theinselves reap the har-
vest of liberty, but rather are more and
more subject to harassment and intru-
sions into their private lives.
For some time now, the Judiciary Sub-
committee on Constitutional Rights, of
which I am a member, has received dis-
turbing reports from responsible sources
concerning violations of the rights of
Federal employees. The invasions of pri-
vacy have apparently reached such
alarming proportions and are assuming
such varied forms, that the matter now
demands immediate corrective measures.
The misuse of privacy-invading per-
sonality tests for personnel purposes has
been the subject of extensive subcommit-
tee hearings. Other matters, such as im-
proper and insulting questioning during
background investigations and abridg-
ment of due process guarantees in denial
of security clearances have also been the
subject of study.
Other employees complaints, fast be-
coming too numerous to catalog, con-
cern such diverse matters as psychiatric
interviews; lie detectors; restrictions on
communicating with Members of Con-
gress; pressure to support political 'par-
ties, and yet, restrictions on political
activities; coercion to buy 'savings bonds;
extensive limitations on Outside activi-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12956 Sanitized - AppcoitesiemaideflattcOltbaDAWAW149RONAM091;6/967
ties, and yet, administrative influence
to participate in agency-approved func-
tions; rules for writing, speaking, and
even thinking; and requirements to dis-
close personal information concerning
finances, property and creditors of em-
ployees and members of their families.
Many of the practices now in extensive
use have little or nothing to do with an
individual's ability or qualification to
perform a job.
The subcommittee has sought by
hearings and investigation to remedy
these problems on a case-by-case,
agency-by-agency basis. Although re-
sponse has been uniformly courteous, it
has brought no satisfaction. Corrective
legislation is clearly required.
The bill now before the Senate, S.
1035, introduced by the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina and chair-
man of the subcommittee [Mr, Eavm]
is designed to halt many of the practices
of which Federal employees have com-
plained and to protect them from further
, incursions into their privacy.
This measure is intenaed to be_a bill
of rights for government employees. The
bill contains provisions for administra-
tive remedies and penalties, to be admin-
istered through an independent Board
of Employees' Rights, which the proposal
would create.
Creation of this Board will assure that
employees have a place to lodge their
complaints of violations of the act with-
out fear of reprisal and with the knowl-
edge that the issues will be considered
free of administrative and executive
interference.
The bill would ?make it unlawful for
an officer of any department or agency to
require or request, or attempt .to require
or request, any employee or applicant
for employment to disclose his race, reli-
gion, or national origin. It should be
noted that the bill would not bar head
counts of employee racial extractions, for
statistical purposes, by supervisors,
However, Mr. President, the Congress
has authorized a merit system for the
Federal service?and the race, national
origin, or religion of an individual or his
forebears should have nothing to do with
his ability or qualification to do a job.
An inquiry as to citizenship, where it is
a statutory condition of employment,
would be allowed.
The bill prohibits requiring or request-
ing employees to participate in any func-
tion or activity not within the scope of
official activities.
Reports have come to the subcommit-
tee, for instance, that some agencies have
either prohibited flatly or required em-
ployees to report all contacts, social or
otherwise, with Members of Congress or
congressional staff members.
The prohibitions of the bill regarding
attendance at outside meetings, reports
on personal activities, and participation
in outside activities do not apply to the
performance of official duties or to the
development of skill, knowledge, and
abilities which qualify the person for his
duties, or to participation in professional
groups or associations.
Under the bill, officers may not forbid
or attempt to forbid any employee of the
department or agency to patronize any
business establishment offering goods
and services to the public. This provision
Is designed to meet complaints that some
agencies tell the employees where they
can eat, shop, or do business.
The bill would forbid the Government
to submit its employees or any applicant
for employment to any interrogation,
examination, or psychological or poly-
graph test which is designed to elicit
from him information concerning his re-
lationship to any person related to him
by blood or marriage, or concerning his
religious beliefs and practices, or his at-
titude or experience in sexual matters.
Testimony received by the subeommit-
tee, as well as other committees of Con-
gress, show that the instruments testing
response to questions about such per-
sonal areas of an individual's life, habits,
and private thoughts are of questionable
validity.
The invasion of personal privacy by
use of such techniques has no place in
the Government's relationship with its
employees or applicants for employment.
Nor do interview techniques used on job
applicants in some agencies.
Scandalous cases have been reported
to the subcommittee involving high
school graduates, college students, and
professional people seeking Government
employment who have been subjected to
harrowing sessions with security investi-
gators or psychologists. They probe the
relationships of the a'pplicant with
friends and members of their families
regarding religious and sexual experi-
ences. Surely, these practices can only
seriously damage the image of our Fed-
eral civil service, increase the turnover
in good people, and jeopardize recruit-
ment.
Exceptions to these privacy-invading
practices are provided upon psychiatric
determination that the information is
necessary in the diagnosis and treatment
of mental illness in individual cases.
Such personal questions, however, may
not be a part of a general practice or
regulation governing the examination of
employees or applicants on the basis of
grade, job, or agency.
Under the bill employees may not be
required or requested to support any
candidate, program, or policy of any po-
litical party or to support any political
party by Personal effort or contribution
of money or other thing of value. These
activities are prohibited, whether they
are designed to support the election or
the nomination of persons to public
office.
A major area of complaint received by
the subcommittee has related to outright
coercion and intimidation of employees
to buy everything from savings bonds to
electric light bulbs for playgrounds.
While the bill would prevent coercion
to invest in Government bonds or other
securities, or make donations for any
cause, it would not prevent calling meet-
ings or taking any action appropriate to
afford employees the opportunity to in-
vest or donate voluntarily.
This bill, with a few limited excep-
tions, would prohibit requiring disclosure
of an employee's assets or liabilities, or
his personal or domestic expenditures or
those of any member of his family.
Only persons with final authority in
certain areas may be subject to disclosure
requirements.
The massive disclosure requirements
issued by many Federal agencies pursu-
ant to Executive Order No. 11222 go far
beyond the proper concern with the pre-
vention of conflict of interest and cor-
ruption in Government. At the time of
the issuance of the Presidential directive,
White House and civil service spokesmen
said that it would affect but 2,600 politi-
cal appointees. Now, as agency after
agency issues regulations to implement
the order?with the imprimatur of the
Civil Service Commission?not only has
a big brother counseling system been es-
tablished in each agency, but thousands
of regular employees and private sector
advisers and consultants are being re-
quired without option to fill out such
questionnaires periodically.
Aside from the invasion of privacy, and
the fact that the Federal Government is
made to look foolish, the expense of these
programs to the taxpayers is simply so
much money poured down the drain.
Moreover, it has become evident that
the cost in terms of civil service morale
Is already being reflected in frustration
and indignation by many of our civil
servants.
An individual's economic liberty and
his right to privacy are so important,
that an employee suspected of miscon-
duct should not be required to submit to
interrogation which could lead to disci-
plinary action, without the presence of
counsel or other person of his choice. The
bill would give him this right.
The Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights has been studying this matter for
some time, investigating numerous seri-
ous complaints. It found that there were
widely divergent Practices among the
regulations of agencies involving this
fundamental right.
Our system of justice affords every, ac-
cused facing criminal charges the right
to counsel, even in preliminary interro-
gations. Certainly, we can do no less for
civil servants facing severe economic
penalties in the loss of jobs or loss of
clearance for sensitive positions in Gov-
ernment and private defense industry.
The bill would make it unlawful to
discharge, discipline, or deny promotion
to an employee who refuses or fails to
submit to any of the requirements, re-
quests or actions described in the bill.
Penalties are established for any officer
who willfully violates the act.
The bill would thus enable the em-
ployee or applicant to look to the Fed-
eral district could at any point in the
administrative process to halt privacy
invasions. He may ask for an order, in-
junction or other judgment, and for
complete relief, against the consequences
of the violation.
The bill rightly takes into account na-
tional security considerations. Specifi-
cally exempted from all provisions of the
bill is the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion. In addition, nothing in the bill
would prohibit an official of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National
Security Agency from requesting any em-
ployee or applicant to take a polygraph
test ova psychological test, or to provide
Sanitized- Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, itized caRgiavgaFt-Ame : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
D ? SENATE S 12957
a personal financial statement designed
to elicit the personal information pro-
teed under other provisions of the bill.
In these cases, the Director of the Agency
must make a personal finding with re-
gard to each individual to be tested or
examined that such test or information
- is required to protect the national se-
curity.
Mr. President, when this bill was ini-
tially scheduled for Senate debate more
than 2 weeks ago, consideration of the
proposal was postponed because of ob-
jections raised by the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the National Security
Agency. These Agencies felt that they
should be completely exempted from the
requirements of the bill.
I do not believe they should be ex-
empted.
The subcommittee has been giving this
matter our most careful study and anal-
ysis during the past 3 years, when we
first started investigation of the broader
aspects of the problem.
The distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee [Mr. Eavm] , who has been
in the forefront of efforts to protect the
constitutional rights of Federal em-
ployees, has been in almost constant
touch with all the agencies of our Gov-
ernment having to do with national se-
curity questions.
After a most exhaustive analysis of
the whole picture, the subcommittee
adopted amendments to the bill exempt-
ing the FBI, and granting a partial ex-
emption to the CIA and NSA, as I ex-
plained earlier.
I strongly agree with my good friend,
the distinguished senior Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Eavm], that all
Federal employees should be accorded
the protection of their privacy and basic
rights, regardless of the mission of the
agency for which they happen to work.
The CIA and NSA have had ample op-
portunity to present their views and dis-
cuss their problems with the subcom-
mittee over these, last 3 years. By raising
objections to the bill at the 11th hour is
to me only an attempt to kill the legis-
lation.
Mr. President, the invasions of privacy
under threats and coercion and economic
intimidation are widespread in our Fed-
eral civil service system today. They rep-
resent tyranny of the worst kind. In
their effect on individuals and in their
impact on society as a whole, they sur-
pass any privacy invasions and illegal
searches and seizures to which arbitrary
rulers and administrators attempted to
subject our forefathers.
They constitute an admission by the
Civil Service Commission and the agen-
cies that they are having great difficulty
in operating the merit system, despite all
the tests and, rules for determining the
qualifications of applicants and em-
ployees, and making a selection on the
basis of merit..
The degree of privacy in the lives of
cur civil servants is small enough as it is,
:And is still shrinking with further ad-
vances in technical know-how. That
these citizens are being forced by eco-
nomic coercion to surrender this pre-
zious liberty in order to obtain and hold
jobs is a form of tyranny which ' should
greatly disturb every American.
S. 1035 is a good, strong measure,
which at the same time effectively bal-
ances the interests involved, first, on one
hand, the interest of the Government in
attracting the best qualified individuals
to its service, in protecting the national
security, promoting equal employment
opportunities, assuring mental health,
and conducting successful bond-selling
campaigns; and, second, on the other
hand, the interest of the individual in
protecting his rights and liberties as a
private citizen.
The balance of these interests achieved
by S. 1035 assures our Government em-
ployees constitutional rights long con-
sidered minimal in our democracy.
Congressional action on this legisla-
tion to protect the constitutional rights
of our citizens who are also employees
of Government is long overdue. I urge
the Senate to adopt the bill S.,1035.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I rise
to congratulate my distinguished col-
league from North Carolina, Senator
SAM ERVIN, for his initiative, foresight-
edness, and determination in making it
possible for us to be considering here
in the 'U.S. Senate today, a most essen-
tial measure designed to safeguard the
right of privacy of Federal employees.
I am indeed pleased to be one of the co-
sponsors of this measure.
S. 1035 is long overdue. The establish-
ment and enforcement of minimum
standards in this area is essential if our
cherished American concept of personal
freedom is to be vital and meaningful.
Safeguarding constitutional? guaran-
tees and civil liberties of our Federal
employees must come high on our list of
musts, without which there can be no
individual freedom for any of us. Gov-
ernment and the people it serves suffer
when such workers are not protected
from the overzealous or overly curious
investigator. Unwarranted snooping or
coercion of any kind must stop now, not
later.
The provisions of this bill are of spe-
cial significance in this moment in his-
tory when science and technology are
busy producing a multitude of new pro-
cedures and devices which, although
they have great potential usefulness for
mankind, might also, unless their use is
carefully regulated and controlled, re-
sult in great personal damage or hard-
ship to the individual, either in or out
of Government service.
The provisions of S. 1035 have been
spelled out for us here today. I believe
that each of us are familiar with and
know of the very practices which it is
designed to protect against. The corri-
dors of Government are being stalked
by the specter of the lie detector test,
the unwarranted psychological and so-
called sanity test, enforced buying of
bonds and probing questions asked on
religious beliefs and sexual attitudes.
Too often do we hear of a Federal
employee being, in effect, forced into
attending Government-sponsored meet-
ings and lectures out of fear of losing
their jobs or not receiving that long-ex-
pected promotion. Too often do we hear '
of Federal employees being forced to
participate in outside activities or un-
dertakings unrelated to their work.
Government employees have had
their constitutional guarantees eroded
or abrogated outright, and have been
inhibited in their behavior, if not out-
rightly coerced to a frightening extent.
How can our Government function and
serve our people with this type of re-
pressive atmosphere anywhere within
its confines?
We must put a stop to these practices
now and S. 1035 will provide the neces-
sary machinery.
I do not wish to leave the impression
that these practices are the rule rather
than the exception. I am confident the
great majority of Federal supervisors do
not resort to such practices. But it is im-
portant that the rights of the employee
be protected from the unwise or preju-
dicial actions of the few who are less
scrupulous or conscientious.
Rightly so, section 1 not only makes it
unlawful to do any of the acts pro-
hibited by the bill but it also makes it
unlawful to persuade or attempt tO Per-
suade others to take such prohibited
actions. Thus a supervisor cannot sub-
ject his subordinates to performing any
of the acts or submit to any of the re-
quirements made unlawful by this
measure.
Significantly, the bill cannot be char-
acterized as an exercise in wishful
thinking. The bill before us has teeth in
It.
Under section 4, the injured Federal
employee or the applicant for Federal
employment, may bring a civil action for
violation. We can anticipate, however,
that the more usual enforcement pro-
cedure will be through the Board of -
Employees' Rights which the bill estab-
lishes under section 5.
The Board of Employees' Rights shall
have the authority and duty to receive
and investigate written complaints from
or on behalf of any person claiming to be
affected or aggrieved by any violation or
threatened violation of this measure and
to conduct a hearing on each such com-
plaint. After a fair and impartial hear-
ing if the Board determines that there
has been a violation of this act, the act
provides for appropriate remedies and
punishment.
The Board in and of itself represents
a significant advance. Many of the com-
plaints that can be expected to be han-
dled under this act will inevitably be of
the kind that in the past were handled
under the existing grievance procedures.
Professional people have been complain-
ing for a long time that these procedures
were seriously inadequate, particularly
in that the department or agency con-
cerned acted simultaneously in incon-
sistent capacities.
So far as its own actions are con-
cerned, the very actions about which
the employee was complaining, the de-
fendant department or agency acted as
both judge and jury. The aggrieved em-
ployee was never able to present his case
before an impartial tribunal, and the ?
result has been that employees generally
lost faith in the system and did so to
such an extent that it has come to be
used relatively little.
The establishment of this Board will
surely represent a long step forward in '
correcting this ?situation. If the?bill did
nothing more than this?although it
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
S 12958 Sanitized - AppmegdillsisiliteteiasitnothstEROBITI5201:1149ROORRO64000/13;61967
does do mudh more?it would still be
worth enacting.
Finally, if these procedures do not
prove, in any given case, to be efficacious,
the aggrieved employee is specifically au-
thorized to file suit in the U.S. District
Court.
This bill is a most essential one and
it is a most timely one. In this period of
extraordinary unrest and discontent,
groups of all sorts are organizing and
demanding rights which, in the past, they
never realized they had. It seems to me
that this proposed legislation reflects a
degree of foresight and statesmanship
on the part of the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, SAM Eavm, and he
should be greatly commended for his
initiative.
By enacting this bill, the Congress will
be recognizing at least by implication,
what mistakes have been made in this
area in the past; but by taking steps to
prevent their repetition in the future, it
will be reinforcing the procedures of law
and order, and above all it will be pro-
tecting the rights of the individual.
I urge this body to give this measure
prompt and final approval and I call
upon our colleagues in the House of Rep-
resentatives to join us in the immediate
future in our action here today.
Once again, my congratulations to
Senator SAM ERVIN for proposing this
landmark bill and my thanks to him for
permitting me the opportunity to become
a cosponsor of the measure.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
there are certain individual rights which
must be considered fundamental to our
social and political framework, and as
such, the protective mechanisms which
we erect about them must always remain
impregnable. Those imaginative and per-
ceptive gentlemen who gathered in Phil-
adelphia in the spring of 1787 were well
versed on the subject of individual rights,
and the fruit of their labors is above all
an affirmation of the inherent dignity
and inalienable liberty of the individual
citizen.
Of all individual rights, that of per-
sonal privacy is most basic in our sys-
tem. The very First Congress submitted
and the requisite States subsequently
ratified the first amendment to the Con-
stitution, the spirit of which protects the
citizen's private thoughts, beliefs, atti-
tudes, and actions. This principle is the
essence of constitutional liberty in our
free society. It has long been affirmed
and has been continually extended by
the courts of the land.
Yet it is nonetheless a fact that there
are today an intolerable number of cases
involving Federal ?employees where even
minimal bounds of privacy have been in-
vaded. Much has been written of the
progressiveness of the Federal Govern-
ment as employer, but these blatant vio-
lations blight the record and cannot be
ignored. Thus it is that I joined with
scores of my colleagues in the Senate to
cosponsor S. 1035, a bill to protect the
civilian employees of the executive
branch of the U.S. Government in the
enjoyment of their constitutional rights
and to prevent unwarranted govern-
mental invasions of their privacy. I take
this opportunity to commend especially
the distinguished gentleman from. North
Carolina [Senator EaviN] for his spon-
sorship of this urgently needed measure,
and for the leadership that he has pro-
vided throughout its legislative history.
A civil servant relinquishes no consti-
tutional rights by seeking a public career,
and he cannot be considered less a citizen
for having made this choice. The public
employee remains a private man, and
Congress has a moral and legal obliga-
tion to maintain a rigid separation be-
tween the restrictions of the former and
the liberties of the latter.
In a society that includes a rampantly
developing technology, a propensity for
centralized organization, and an appe-
tite for the mass produced, there is a
vital need for leaders to look beyond
efficiency and take care that individual
liberty and privacy are protected from
unwarranted intrusions. S. 1035 takes
this long look. Mr. President, for the
benefits that it would provide our Fed-
eral employees today and for the prom-
ises that it holds for tomorrow, I have co-
sponsored, will actively support, and rec-
ommend passage of this Federal em-
ployee rights bill.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I am
pleased to support S. 1035, which I co-
sponsor. The bill is designed to protect
the constitutional rights of Federal em-
ployees and prevents unwarranted inva-
sion of their privacy.
This is one more step in the historical
defense of American privilege, liberty,
and of our inherited rights.
S. 1035 prohibits indiscriminate re-
quirements that employees and appli-
cants for Government employment dis-
close their race, religion, or national
?origin, prevents unwarranted invasion
into or control over personal attitudes,
opinion, and activities unrelated to their
employment.
It makes it illegal to coerce an em-
ployee to buy bonds or make contribu-
tions; or to require him to disclose his
personal assets, liabilities, or expendi-
tures or those of any member of his
family except where conflict of interest
is possible.
Under S. 1035, an employee is given
the right to have counsel present at
any interview which could lead to dis-
ciplinary proceedings, accords the right
to civil action in a Federal court for
violation or threatened violation of the
act, establishes a Board on Employees'
Rights to receive and conduct hearings
on complaints of violation of the act,
and to determine and administer rem-
edies and penalties.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask '
for the third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be pro-
posed, the question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Nevada
[Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. HARRIS], the Senator from Michi-
gan [Mr. HART], the. Senator from Mon-
tana [Mr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from
Maine [Mr. Musxm], and the Senator
from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] are
absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Sena-
tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK],
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
JORDAN], the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washing-
ton [Mr. IVIAmusoil], the Senator from
Montana [Mr. METCALF], and the Sena-
tor from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Nevada [Mr.
BIBLE], the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Okla-
homa [Mr. HARRIS], the Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. JORDAN], the Sena-
tor from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Sena-
tor from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON],
and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss]
would each vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Domarreld
and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. FAN-
NIN] are absent on official business.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
JAvas] is also necessarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Dommex], the
Senator from Arizona Mr. [FAIN],
and the Senator from New York [Mr.
JAviTs] would each vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 79,
nays 4, as follows:
[No. 248 Leg.]
YEAS-79
Aiken Gruening Morton
Allott Hansen Mundt
Baker
HartkeMurphy
Bartlett Hatfield Nelson
Bayh Hayden Pastore
Bennett Hickenlooper Pearson
Boggs
Hill Pell
Brewster Holland Percy
Brooke
Burdick ouisi yk ea Prouty
Proxmire
Byrd, Va. Jackson Randolph
Byrd, W. Va. Jordan, Idaho Ribicoff
Cannon Kennedy, Mass. Scott
Carlson Kennedy, N.Y. Smith
Case Kuchel Sparkman
Church Lausche Spong
Cooper Long Mo. Talmadge
Cotton McCarthy
Curtis McClellan,
Dirksen McGee
Dodd
McGovern
Ellender
McIntyre
Ervin Miller
Fong Mondale
Fulbright Monroney
Gore Montoya
Griffin Morse
Eastland
Hollings
Anderson
Bible
Clark
Dominick
Fannin
Harris .
Thurmond
Tower
Tydings
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dalt.
Young, Ohio
NAYS--4
Russell Stennis
NOT VOTING-17
Hart
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
Metcalf
Moss
Muskle
Smathers
Symington
So the bill (S. 1035) was passed.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. HOLLAND. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized to
make all necessary technical corrections
in the engrossment of the bill which has
just been passed by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, even
though I am a cosponsor, I voted against
the bill because it weakens the security
of our Nation by hamstringing the CIA,
the NSA, and other intelligence agencies
In their work.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I would
like to ask the distinguished acting ma-
jority leader about the program for the
remainder of the day, and also what he
foresees for tomorrow and possibly the
rest of the week.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, it is my understanding that
the distinguished junior Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] will proceed
immediately to bring before the Senate
the Defense appropriation conference
report. In discussing this report with the
Senator from Mississippi, I am led to be-
lieve there will be no rollcall vote on this
conference report. That being the case,
there will be no more votes today.
It is anticipated that the Senate will
adjourn until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow
when it completes its business today.
Before adjourning, in will be the in-
tention of the leadership to lay before
the Senate as the pending business for
tomorrow, S. 1985, a bill to amend the
Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me on that point?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator mentioned
the conference report. Even though I
shall not ask for a rollcall vote, as I see
it, there are matters of interest to many
Senators that will doubtless come up for.
discussion and other Senators may ask
for the yeas and nays.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. Will the matter of the
House insistence on the denial of the
opportunity for the British to bid on the
seven minesweepers in the bill come' up?
Is this going to be a matter of contro-
versy?
Mr. STENNIS. I would like to make a
statement on that point in a few minutes,
If the Senator will permit the leader-
ship to finish the statement.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Following
action by the Senate on S. 1985, the Fed-
eral Flood Insurance Act of 1956, it is
the intention of the leadership to bring
before the Senate S. 798, a bill to pro-
vide compensation to survivors of local
law enforcement officer killed while ap-
prehending persons for committing Fed-
eral crimes, which is a bill by the Sena-
tor from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN] and
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
SCOTT].
That is all the leadership can foresee
at the moment. If the Senate completes
Its business on those three measures this-
afternoon and tomorrow, it is anticipated
that the Senate, on the completion of
business tomorrow will go over until
Monday next.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. I was hoping to have a
rollcall vote on the conference report,
and I do not want to do anything to in-
convenience my colleagues, but as I
understand it, there will not be a long
discussion on it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator is not precluded by anything I have
said from asking for a rollcall vote. I
merely stated that it was the feeling of
the Senator from Mississippi that he did
not intend to ask for a rollcall vote and
he did not foresee any.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want
to make it clear that the reason why we
were not going to ask for a rollcall vote,
so far as the conferees were concerned,
was that the bill we bring back has some-
what less money than the Senate bill,
and less than the House bill. It is under
last year's budget appropriation. It is
under the budget estimate by $1.6 billion.
, There are two amendments in which
we are interested, which I shall explain.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I should
like to ask for the yeas and nays on the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
informs the Senator that the conference
report is not yet before the Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1968?CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate
to the bill (H.R.-10738) making appropri-
ations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and
for other purposes. I ask unanimous con-
sent for the present consideration of the
report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of August 23, 1967, pp. H11092-
H11093, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Let me state that I do
not object to the yeas and nays on the
conference report, but since the bill is
less than that voted on by the Senate
previously, when we did have a rollcall
vote, I thought it was agreeable to omit a
S 12959
rollcall. However, I have no objection
to one.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STENNIS, Mr. President, the com-
mittee of conference on this bill spent
approximately 5 hours in considering
the Senate amendments and have
reached agreements on all of them with
the exception of No. 18, pertaining to the
construction of naval vessels in foreign
shipyards. This matter is in actual dis-
agreement, and I will discuss it in detail
in a few minutes.
The conferees agreed on appropria-
tions totaling $69,936,620,000, which is
under the Senate bill, $195,700,000; under
the House bill, $358,580,000; under the
budget estimates, $1,647,380,000; and
under appropriations for fiscal year 1967,
$293,002,000.
As is usual in conferences on appro-
priation bills, there were compromises on
most of the Senate increases and de-
creases, and I will be glad to respond to
any questions with respect to any specific
item that Members may have.
Mr. President, I invite the attention of
the Senate to the fact that the amount
agreed to is under the budget. In large
measure, that? is due to the very careful
analysis and rewriting of the bill by the
distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], who makes us all very happy
by being in the 'Chamber this afternoon.
He is the architect of the bill, together
with the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG]. They did
their usual fine piece of work?in fact, it
is an extraordinarily fine piece of work.
Mr. President, compromises were
made, particularly with reference to the
appropriation amounts, as is always true
in a conference of this kind, for the
House had also given the utmost study
to the bill. It was a harmonious confer-
ence, even though there was one matter
In complete disagreement.
The committee of conference devoted
considerable time to the Navy's F-111B
aircraft program and finally agreed on
an appropriation of $147,900,000, which
is an increase of $32,900,000 over the
Senate allowance for this aircraft pro-
gram. The program agreed upon by the
conference committee differs in only one
respect from the program approved by
the Senate; namely, the Senate provided
for the procurement of six aircraft to
continue the Navy's research and devel-
onment program, and the conference
committee has agreed upon the procure-
ment of eight aircraft for this purpose.
The Senate program also included ap-
proximately $10 million for the advance
procurement of P-12 aircraft engines to
support a possible future buy of this air-
craft. No funds were included in the
Senate program for the advance pro-
curement of long leadtime components
other than these engines. The commit-
tee of conference did not change this
advance procurement program. Thus, es-
sentially, it was just an increase of two
airplanes, and that was the essential
difference.
Mr. President, I' ask unanimous con-
sent that the two paragraphs appearing
on page 6 of the statement of the man-
Sanitized - Approved-For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600001-6