OFFICE OF SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: August 29, 1967
• Content Type: PREL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 29. 1967
OFFICE OF SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE
Comments by Senator Ervin; "Why the CIA and NSA Should Not be
Excluded from the Provisions of S. 1035, the Bill to protect.
employee rights."
have asked that the guaranties in S. 1035 not be extended to their #e npioyse.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security, Agency
or to citizens who apply for employment with those agencies.
I see no practical or policy reasons for granting. this
and find no constitutional grounds for it. It is neither necessaryinor-
to the actions of Government. The guaranties of the amendments hammered
The men who drafted the Constitution envisioned a government, of
laws, not of men. They meant that wherever our national boundaries
should reach, and the controls established in the.Constitution should, apply
reasonable.
out in the State Constitutional Conventions and in the: meetings of thw First
Congress had no limitations. They were meant to apply to ally Americans;
not to all Americans with the exception of those employed by the CIA-,
and the NSA.
Approve
v, -- - - -- - - --- -- -. _ _._ _ k or elea 2002/11,22: CIA-RbP7240061A000100080020-0. _ bi
__Approved ForRelea_s,.2 '2/11/22. r,itIA-RDP O 4 hO-10
 Approved For Release 2002/11/x2 : CIA-RDP063241000-100-08002-0-0
My research has revealed no language in our Constitution
which envision enclaves in Washington. Langley, or Fort Meade where
no law governs the rights of citizens except that of the Director of an
agency. No have I found any decision of the highest court in the land
to support such a proposition.
Why then do these agencies want to be exempt from this bill?
Is it that, unbeknown to Congress their mission is such that they
must be able to order their employees to go out and lobby in their committees
for open housing legislation or take part in Great Society poverty programs?
Must they order them to go out and support organizations, mend
fences, and hand out grass seeds and then to come back and tell their
supervisors what they did with their spare time and with their weekends.
Do they have occasion to require their employees to go out and
work for the nomination or election of candidates for public office? Must
they order them to attend meetings and fund raising dinners for political
parties in the U. S. ?
Do they not know how to evaluate a secretary for employment
without asking her how her bowels are, if she has diarrhea, if she loved
her mother, if she goes to church each week. if she believes in God, if
she believes in the second coming of Christ, if her sex life is satisfactory.
if she has to urinate more often than other people, what she dreams about
Approved For Release 2002/11/22: CIA-RDP7 -OO61*000`I0d
--
 _ ApprovecJor Release 2002/11122: CIA-RRP79t006 A000100080020-0
and many other extraneous matters?
Why do these two agencies want the license to coerce their
employees to contribute to charity and buy bonds? The Subcommittee
has received fearful telephone calls from employees stating that they
were told their security clearances would be in jeopardy if they were not
buying bonds, because it was an indication of their lack of patriotism.
Why should Congress grant these agencies the right to spend
thousands of dollars to go around the country recruiting on college
campuses and the right to strap young applicants to.machines and ask thgm
questions about their family, and personal lives such as:
"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 activities with an animal?
" When was the first time you had intercourse with your wife?
" Did you have intercourse with her before you were married?
" How many times?"
What an introduction to American government for these young
people !
Approved For Release, 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-0063.2A00Qa00080020-0
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
u
The Subcommittee has also received comments from a number
of professors indicating the concern on their faculties that their students
are being subjected to such practices.
That we are losing the talent of many qualified people who would
otherwise choose to serve their Government is illustrated by the following
letter which was received by Representative Cornelius Gallagher, Chairman
of the Special House Government Operations Committee investigations of
invasion of privacy:
"I am now a Foreign Service Officer with the State Department
and have been most favorably impressed with the Department's
security measures.
"However, some years ago I was considered for employment
by CIA and in this connection had to take a polygraph test. I have
never experienced a more humiliating situation, nor one which so
totally violated both the legal and moral rights of the individual. In
particular, I objected to the manner in which the person administering
the test posed questions, drew suggestive inferences and put my own
it
moral beliefs up for justification. Suffice/to say that after a
short time I was not a "cooperative" subject, and the administrator
said he couldn't make any sense from the polygraph and called in
his superior, the Deputy Chief.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
V-J l
:he Deputy Chief began in patronizing, reassuring tones
to co; ?ince me that all he wanted was that I tell the truth. I
then made statement to the effect that I had gone to a Quaker
school in Philadelphia, that I had been brought up at home and
at school with certain moral beliefs and principles, that I had come
to Washington from my university at the invitation of the CIA to
apply for a position, not to have my statements of a personal and
serious nature questioned not only as to their truth but by
implications as to their correctness, and that I strongly objected
to the way this test was being administered.
"The Deputy Chief gave me a wise smile and leaning forward
said, 'Would you prefer that we use the thumb screws? I
"I was shocked at this type of reasoning and responded that I
hardly thought it was a question of either polygraph or the thumb
screws.
"This incident almost ended the deep desire I had for service
in the American government, but fortunately I turned to the Foreign
Service. But if it had happened to me, it must have happened and
did happen to hundreds of other applicants for various Federal
positions. "
* * * *
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
On the subject of polygraphs, the AFL-CIO in 1965 stated:
"The AFL-CIO executive council deplores the use of
so-called "lie detectors" in public and private employment.
We object to the use of these devices not only because their
claims to reliability are dubious but because they infringe
on the fundamental rights of American citizens to personal
privacy. Neither the Government nor private employers
should be permitted to engage in this sort of police state
surveillance of the lives of individual citizens. "
Legislators in five States and several cities have already outlawed
these devices, and many unions have forced their elimination through
collective bargaining.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has said they are unreliable
for personal purposes.
Why should Congress take a step backward by specifically
authorizing their continued use on American citizens in these two agencies
to ask about their sex lives, their religion and their family relationships?
Bear in mind that, reprehensible as these lie detectors are, the
bill only limits their use in certain areas, and the Director may still authorize
their use if he thinks it necessary to protect the national security. Personally,
I fear for the national security if its protection depends on the use of such
devices.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080020-0
wi V
S. ilarly the question may be asked why should these agencies
force their employees to disclose all of their and their families' assets,
creditors, personal and real property, unless they are responsible for
handling money? Nevertheless, under the bill, the CIA and NSA have
been granted the exemption they wish, to require their employees to
disclose such information if the Director says it is necessary to protect
the national security. What more do they want?
Apparently, what they want is to stand above the law.
Taken altogether their arguments for complete exemption
suggest only one conclusion -- that they want the unmitigated right to
kick Federal employees around, deny them respect for individual privacy,
and the basic rights which belong to every American regardless of the
mission of his agency.
The idea that any Government agency is entitled to the "total man"
and to knowledge and control of all the details of his personal and community
life unrelated to his employment or to law enforcement is more appropriate
for totalitarian countries than for a society of free men. The basic
promise of S. 1035 is that a man works for the Federal Government,
sells his services, not his soul.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-006300100080020-Q