NOTE TO MR. BANNERMAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 71
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: September 26, 1967
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For
26 September 1967
02/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
Here's the Congressional Record recounting the blow-
by-blow debate on the Ervin Bill.
To spare your time, I've marked with clips and red
pencil only those parts of the debate that I think are of
lasting interest to you. The whole account is fun to read,
of course, if you have an evening or a weekend free.
Two rather startling aspects of the debate stand out
in my mind:
(1) The lack of any voice in opposition to the Bill except
those hoisting the CIA-NSA problem. The administration
obviously made an exceedingly feeble effort to put its case
across because if there had not been the four votes cast on
CIA s behalf there apparently wouldn't have been a single
opposing vote!
(2) The naivete of Senator Ervin's repeated assertions
that the "only issue under S-1035 that could ever be raised
in court concerning the discharge 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." He and his fellow Senators obviously overlooked
(or deliberately obscured) the possibility that numerous
cases can get into court on the mere allegation that this
was why an employee was discharged even though there is
notcw scintilla of evidence to support such an allgation.
Approved For Release 2002/11k22 : CIA-RD079-00632A000100080003-9 STATINTL
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A0001000800088-9
I . _. A......~ Uf_
that there would be no time to be wasted on them by concerning ourselves with remote
such irrelevant and dishonest name-calling situations rather than those at hand. Nor
and buck-passing, will they be solved . by application of the
BLAMING ECONOMIC SYSTEM UNFAIRLY perverse notion that to love means only to
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-
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
ity of any society is directly related to the ' We will never create a good society, much
quality of the individuals who make it up. less a great one, until individual excellence
Therefore, let us stop referring naively to and achievement is not only respected but
creating a "great" society. It is enough at encouraged. That is why I'm for the upper-
this stage of our development to aspire to dog-the achiever-the succeeder. I'm for
create a "decent" society. And to do so our building an over better society, and this will
first task is to help each individual be decent only be done by those who take seriously
unto himself and in his relationship with their responsibility for achievement, for
other individuals. making the most of their native ability, for
A decent society cannot be created out of getting done the job at hand.
a vacuum and Imposed. It can only evolve
out of the lives of constituent members. In
this regard, our economic system has become CONCLUSION OP MORNING
the scapegoat for the failures of our educa- BUSINESS
tional, 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-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. Pres-
ident, if there is no further morning
business, I ask that morning business
be concluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
Ing business is closed,
ality in general have come In for some heavy- PROTECTING PRIVACY AND RIGHTS
handed humor and disdain. I can support OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
that criticism which focuses on arbitrary
value judgments, But we seem to be In the Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
process of developing a much more perverse ident, I move that the Senate proceed
kind of moralism-a moralism which says to the consideration of Calendar No. 519,
that since love is the one absolute virtue of
man, the one way we will solve the problems Senate bill 1035.
of poverty, crime, racial discrimination and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
the like is by forcing everyone to love every- will be stated by title.
body else--we must love the white man be- The LEGISLATIVE CLERx. A bill (S. 1035)
cause he is white, or the black man because to protect the civilian employees of the
he is black, or the poor because he is poor, executive branch of the U.S. Government
or the enemy because he is the enemy, or 'in the enjoyment of their constitutional
the perverse because he is perverse, or the
afflicted because he is afflicted[ Rather than rights and to prevent unwarranted gov-
because he Is a human being, any human ernmental invasions of their privacy.
being who just happens to be white or black, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
poor or rich, enemy or friend. tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
This Is a hideous abuse of the notion of Senator from West Virginia.
love that avoids the hard facts that love is a The motion was agreed to; and the
uniquely personal experience. Senate resumed the consideration of
If It is idle to attempt to legislate Individ-
ual morality, it Is even more idle, and even the e bill.
BYRD of West Virginia. M1', Pres-
arrogant, to attempt to force individual love. Mr. Pros-
There can be no love unless it is genuine Merit, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
and authentic, To love, or go through the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
pretense of loving, without truly feeling that will call the roll.
way is one of the lowest forms of hypocrisy. The legislative clerk proceeded to call
It is dishonesty at its worst. And the fruit the roll.
of such dishonesty, as with all forms of dis-
honesty, is distrust, degradation, chaos. We Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pros-
should respect all people so much that we ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
would not dare demean one by pretending order for the quorum call be rescinded.
to love him when we don't.... The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
We need to start being honest with our- objection, it is so ordered.
selves in more ways than one. It is too bad PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
that we have failed to heed the charge that
Polonius made to his son: "This above all, Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unan-
to thine own self be true." For were we to Inlous consent at this time that George
do so we would have to admit honestly and Autry and Marcia J. MacNaughton,
joyously that love in its very eseenco is selnsh, members of the staff of the Subcoulnlit-
Were It not so, there would be none--not tee on Constitutional Rights. be allowed
real love-only a martyred imitation. .
We have serious problems and issues fac-
ing our society at the present time. Let there in the presentation of this bill. They are
be no doubt about it. But they can be solved members of the state of the subcommit-
-over time it we will attack them directly tee which handled this bill, and their
and honestly-that is, If we' will be willing intelligent and industrious work on the
to pay the price in time and persistent per- bill has made the bill possible, Another
sonal effort, member of the staff who has made an
They will never be subject to Instant solu- important contribution is Lewis Evans, eludes not only our freedom to express
tions-to wishing It so. Nor will they be who Is also present in the Chamber. them as we please, but the freedom from
solved by blaming others for their -existence,
or by making certain segments of society the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any form of governmental coercion to
scapegoat for the general ills of society, Nor Objection? Without objection, It is so reveal them. Another aspect is the con-
will they be 89 i'8 21@Ylse91~~~/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A1 14lN0eO0 against self-In-
September 13, 1967
A SILL TO PROTECT TAE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND TO PREVENT
TJNwARaANTED INVASIONS OF THEM 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-
warranted governmental invasions of
their privacy.
The purpose of the bill Is to prohibit
Indiscriminate 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, li-.
abilities, or expenditures, or those of any
member of their families unless, in the
ease 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 compia.ints 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 its
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
 STAT Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For j2eleaae 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79'r0063*2A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENAT9
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 createa 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,
I 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-
-
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 inj 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.
AMENDMENTS
With one exception, all of the amend-
ey - c arify
Fill'e are meritorious.
possib ere i 5igui ies an nsure a the
rpose o e 1 ac
is a hollow phrase. The truth is, there is
no place for this sort of 20th century
witchcraft in a free society.
Neverth uestin the com-
m ee amendment granting a par la
e p on o the CIA and NSA heac-
c e Eec'i wit t ere o er amendments, I do
tl or two re rs
men that use of the exam-.
inat ons b the two agencies be erel
curtai a and for the first time Con res
w w thholdin is permissionAmerican citizens
around with impunity. Second, i is clear
o me that a number of the bi1Ps 55 _
resErain
wan 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 done in the
name of science which we would not allow to .
be done directly.
Unfortunately, however the Constitu-
a io a ec rl y Ascn-cy Upon a per-
sona in ng is any psy? yc iT oloogicaTte t=
mg, po ygra nancial - tional Rights Subcommittee study shows
closure is required to protect national that, in practice, the questions which our
cur the ou allow es0- "tc- - standards of fairness should not allow to
ures in ndividual cases, be asked even in personal interviews are
. Prior o a_9p of this amend MP t,_ being asked directly, and that they are
I met several times with representatives. obviously beyond the control of the lead-
- NSA:_ancT ag l mttimate ership in the executive branch.
ojcctiions_sn,,grounds of, security were Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
met. sent that excerpts from the testimony
Personally, I would not favor even th of Prof. Alan Westin before the Consti-
li e? x moron in sec~ron s I have tutional Rights Subcommittee hearings
Mated before tee SUTJCOmtfilt s s u y on S. 3779 be printed at the conclusion
o nsv` i Finfo "fie"slfli cieariy'tidlYf6n of my remarks. -
srated that such tests are both useless . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
miTii`sra ion; an -my~iesear" c--1Ttis' (See exhibit 1.)
coflvinc S?mo that p Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, in addition
are o re able f r ny purpose. If to the provisos for the Central rntelli-
th esecurity of the United States rests Bence Agency and the National Security
oil rese e`vtees, we are ncec pi r v_ Agency, and technical amendments, the
~secure. or una y it comes no for following major changes were adopted
#h FBI does node these exam na ons. in the bill and are explained in the com-
But even if It cotl7d7- be -show " mittee report.
psychological tests and Polygraphs have An exemption was made for questions
,mystical powers and can be used to pre- -concerning national origin where the in-
dict behavior or divine the truth, I would formation is needed for security pur-
still oppose their being used to probe the poses and overseas assignments.
religious beliefs, family relationships, or The section relating to prohibitions on
sexual attitudes of American citizens. A patronizing business establishments has
fundamental ingredient of liberty is the been deleted.
right to keep such matters to oneself. The criminal penalties have been de-
uacaan w+au wawc naav n+a+ nv+v
~ ?+-
Approve or Release 2002/11/12 :CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved-For Release 2002/11122 : CIA-RDP79100632A000100080001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
Provisos were added to assure that sec- 10. Amendment to section 5, page 11, ployment is a privilege, and if the indi-
tions.l (f) and 2(b) will not be construed ,line 21: Insert after the word "violation." the vidual does not like his treatment, he
to prohibit an officer of the department, following: can quit.
agency, or Civil Service Commission "The Attorney General shall defend all The Association of the Bar of the City
officers or persons sued under this section
from advising the employee or applicant who acted pursuant to an order, regulation, of New York has a reply to this. Their
of a specific charge of sexual misconduct or directive, or who, in his opinion, did not report on the bill states:
made against him and affording him an willfully violate the provisions of this Act" The Ervin bill recognizes the existence of
opportunity to refute the charge. 11. Amendment to section 6(1), page 16, some serious shortcomings in the behavior
Another amendment spells out the at line 24: Strike "sign charges and specift- of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov-
power of the Attorney General, in cer- cations under section 830 (article 30)" and ernment as an employer. There are today al-
insert in lieu thereof: "convene general- most three million persons employed by the
courts martial under Section 822 (Article Federal Government and the number can be
against whom a charge is brought. 22) " (Technical amendment.) expected to grow. It is not possible, 'there-
Section 9 was added to provide that 12. Amendment to section 6(m), page 17, fore, to deal with the problem within the
nothing shall prohibit establishment of line 14: Change subsection (j) to (k). narrow framework of an employee's option
agency and department grievance prone- (Technical amendment.) to quit his employment if the conditions are
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. Similarly, 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 than 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
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), (I),
(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
6: Employment by the Federal Government
"SEC. 6. Nothing contained in this Act shall should not be regarded as a privilege to be
be construed to prohibit an officer of the withheld or conditioned as the Government
Central Intelligence Agency or of the Na- sees fit. Indeed, there is an obligation on the
tional Security Agency from requesting any part of the Federal Government to have
civilian employee or applicant to take a more than the usual respect for rights of
polygraph test, or to take a psychological privacy.
test designed to elicit from him information It is already a late date for the Federal
concerning his personal relationship with any
person connected with him by blood or mar- Government to begin showing respect for
riage, or concerning his religious beliefs or the rights of privacy. But the Senate can
practices, or concerning his attitude or con- and must take the first step today by
duct with respect to sexual matters, or to passing S. 1035.
provide a personal financial statement, if the I ask unanimous consent to insert at
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency this point in the RECORD an excerpt from
or the Director of the National Security the Judiciary Committee report on the
Agency makes a personal finding with re-
7
534
, pages
gard to each individual to be so tested or bill-Senate Report No.
examined that such test or information is through 44. This contains the legisla-
required to protect the national security." tive history of the bill and a section-by-
14. Amendment, page 18, add new section section analysis of S. 1035.
8, and renumber following section as see- There being no objection, the excerpt
tion 9, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
"Sc. E8. Nothing contained in Sections 4 as follows:
and 5 shall be construed to prevent estab-
lishment of department and agency griev- SENATE REPORT No. 634, 90TH CONGRESS, FIRST
ance procedures to enforce this Act, but the SESSION; PROTECTING PRIVACY AND THE
existence of such procedures shall not pre- RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
elude any applicant or employee from pur- LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
suing the remedies established by this Act or Violations of rights covered by S. 1035 as
any other remedies provided by law: Pro- well as other areas of employee rights have
vided, however, That if under the procedures been the subject of intensive hearings and
established, the employee or applicant has investigation by the subcommittee for the
obtained complete protection against threat- last five Congresses.
ened violations or complete redress for vio- In addition to investigation of individual
lations, such action may be pleaded in bar cases, the Subcommittee on Constitutional
in the United States District Court or In Rights has conducted annual surveys of
proceedings before the Board on Employee agency policies on numerous aspects of Gov-
Rights: Provided further, however, That if ernment personnel practices. In 1965, pur-
an employee elects to seek a remedy under suant to Senate Resolution 43, hearings were
either section 4 or section 5, he waives his conducted on due process and improper use
right to proceed by an independent action of information acquired through psychologi-
under the remaining section." cal testing, psychiatric examinations, and
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, during the security and personnel interviews.
last few months, the Civil Service Corn- In a letter to the Chief Executive on Au-
mission has made a good faith effort to gust 3, the subcommittee chairman stated:
"For some time, the Constitutional Rights
eliminate some of the privacy-invading Subcommittee has received disturbing re-
practices of the Federal Government. ports from responsible sources concerning
Also, as a result of complaints which the violations of the rights of Federal employees.
subcommittee has sent to the Civil I have attempted to direct the attention of
Service Commission, some individual appropriate officials to these matters, and
grievances have been remedied. although replies have been uniformly cour-
teous, the subcommittee has received
But while isolated cases of Injustice satisfaction whatsoever, or even any in'
may be corrected by congressional inter- tion of awareness that any problem exists.
vention, they do not, as with judicial The invasions of privacy have reached such
decisions on the rights of criminals. es- alarming proportions and are assuming such
line 10: Change (j) to (i). - u Y~y - --a immediate and personal attention.
of all employees. . There are vast numbers
8. Amendment to section 2(b), page 0, "The misuse of privacy invading personal-
at line 6 and line 9: Change "psychiatrist" of Federal agencies with decentralized ity tests for personnel purposes has already
to "physician," personnel systems, responsive in differ- been the subject of hearings by the subcom-
0. Amendment to section 2(b), page 9, at ent ways to policy directives. In some mittee. Other matters, such as improper and
line 18: cases, they lack any control at all by insulting questioning during background
"Provided further, however, That nothing Congress, the President, the Civil Service investigations and due process guarantees in
contained in this subsection shall be con- Commission, or, in some instances, even denial of security clearances have also been
strued to prohibit an officer of the Civil Serv- by the head of the department or agency. the subject of study. Other. employee com-
ice Commission from advising any civilian They are, in effect,. beyond the reach of Plaints, fast becoming too numerous to cata-
employee or applicant of a specific charge of the law. lag, concern such diverse matters as psy-
sexual misconduct made against that per- chiatric interviews; lie detectors; race ques-
son,- and affording him an opportunity to The reply of some In the executive tionnaires; restrictions on communicating
suppDrt political
refute the charge.' Approved For ReleabiLUo271"'~%21hacfk? UU63wiX000166661603-9
 Approved"For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RBP79100632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
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
determine 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 sessfon.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, 1960,
the chairman received unanimous consent to
a request to add the names of 33 cosponsors
to the bill. On August 28, 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 Committed,
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, 1066. 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 often 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
S 12915
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 answer 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 discussion:
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 courts 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 ses-
sion."
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. 1035, it was referred
to the Judiciary Committee. The 54 cospon-
sors are Senators Fong, Burdick, Smothers,
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, Spong, 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, religion, or 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-
vest or donate.
8. A new section providing for administra-
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.
These 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 word
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
sell-identification minority status question-
naires. We have seen it In the sanctioning of
polygraphs, personality tests, 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 1s
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 pursuit
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. 8779 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 at Individuals and through
their unions, to .work together to resolve
these issues as part of their normal dis-
disciplinary action agWnst the 26 Dies ubcomu~it~~ Ii~[~gors $~ coo 1gYg 1 to eceive and con-
sional employees in pmued~lta0reh ~3Qridllllk i~fli Y &k=ft 04Yfli 2? ikl~ e9violation of
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79 00632A000100080003-9
S12916
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 13, 1967
the act, and to determine and administer
remedies and penalties. There is judicial re-
view of the decision under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act.
4. A specific exemption for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is included.
5. Exceptions to the prohibitions 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 not 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 (d) 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
h
ow
information was voluntary, complaints s
that employees arj(1~a6~Pl y@CR1~4,S41#a t ~~idgsitl c pp~,~~jlg3Qq t)@r,~l}9.v~ n t??ne case in thwhich is q an ...-
it to be wdhA kl! Itl~p diOdtU(~d 11 ~1lRf~l4 an this question:
mandato At n% e e at
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 "re-
tion. Complaints in different agencies showed cently approved regulations which will end
that employees who did not comply received the use of voluntary self-identification of
airmail letters at their homes with new race as a means of obtaining minority group
forms: or their names were placed on ad- statistics for the Federal work force." The
ministrative lists for "followup" procedures; Commission indicated its decision was based
and supervisors were advised to obtain the on the failure of the program to produce
information from delinquent employees by a meaningful statistics. In its place the Com-
certain date, mission will rely on supervisory reports based
In the view of John McCart, representing solely on observation, which would not be
the Government Employes' Council, AFL- prohibited by the bill.
CIO: As Senator Fong stated:
"When the Civil Service Commission and "It should be noted that the bill would not
the regulations note that participation by bar head counts of employee racial extrac-
the employee will be voluntary, this removes tion for statistical purposes by supervisors.
some of the onus of the encroachment on an However, the Congress has authorized the
Individual's privacy. But in an organizational merit system for the Federal service and the
operation of the size and complexity of the race, national origin or religion of the in-
Federal Government, It is just impossible to dividual or his forebears should have nothing
guarantee that each individual's right to pri- to do with his ability or qualifications to do
vacy and confldentiality.will be observed. a job,"
"In addition to that, there have been a Section 1(a) of the bill was included to
large number of complaints from all kinds of assure that employees will not again be sub-
Federal employees. In the Interest of main- jected to such unwarranted invasion of their
taming the rights of individual workers privacy. It is designed to protect the merit
against the possibility of invading those system which Congress has authorized for
rights, it would seem to us It would be better the Federal service. Its passage will reaffirm
to abandon the present approach, because the intent of Congress that a person's reli-
there are other alternatives available for de- gion, race, and national or ethnic origin or
termining whether that program is being that of his forebears have nothing to do with
carried out." his ability or qualification to perform the
The hearing record contains numerous ex- -requisite, duties of a Federal position, or to
amples of disruption of employee-manage- qualify for a promotion.
ment relations, and of employee dissatisfac- By eliminating official authority to place
tion with such official inquiries. Many told the employee In a position in which he feels
the subcommittee that they refused to com compelled to disclose this personal data, the
plete the questionnaires because the matter bill will help to eliminate the basis for such
was none of the Government's business; Complaints of invasion of privacy and. dis-
others, because of their mixed parentage, felt crilmnation as Congress has received for a
unable to state the information. number of years. It will protect Americans
Since 1963, the policy of the American Civil from the dilemma of the grandson of an
Liberties Union on the method of collecting American Indian who told the subcommittee
information about race has favored the head that he had exercised his option and did not
count wherever possible. Although the policy, complete the minority status questionnaire.
is presently under review, the subcommittee He did not know how to fill it out. Shortly
finds merit in the statement that: thereafter he received a personal memoran-
"The collection and dissemination of in- dum from his supervisor "requesting" him to
formation about race creates a conflict among complete a new questionnaire and "return it
several equally Important civil liberties: the immediately." He wrote: "I personally feel
right of free speech and free inquiry, on the that if I do not comply with this request
one hand and the rights of privacy and of (order), my job or any promotion which
equality of treatment and of opportunity, on comes up could be in jeopardy."
the other. The ACLU approves them all. But The prohibitions in section 1(a) against
at this time in human history, when the official inquiries about religion, and in sec-
-,principle of equality and nondiscrimination tion 1(e) concerning religious beliefs and
must be vigorously defended, it Is necessary practices together constitute a bulwark to
that the Union oppose collection and dis- protect the individual's right to silence con-
semination of information regarding race, eerning his religious convictions and to re-
except only where rigorous justification is frain from an indication of his religious be-
shown for such action. Where such collection liefs.
and dissemination is shown to be justified, Referring to these two sections, Lawrence
the gathering of Information should be kept Speiser, director of the Washington office of
to the most limited form, wherever possible the American Civil Liberties Union testified:
by use of the head count method, and the "These provisions would help, we hope,
be protected nature of original records should eliminate a constantly recurring problem In-
be pro as far as possible." volving those new Government employees
Former Civil ck told Service the Commission who prefer to affirm their allegiance rather
Robert Rnsie race, r athan swearing to it. All Government em-
tToonal cogiace, king appointreligion,mandents, in dn ployees must sign an appointment affidavit.
origin In making and take an oath or affirmation of office.
promotions and retention of Federal em- "A problem arises not just when new em-
opinion, contrary
no diyii .- in the to ees enter Government employment but
merit s e is, in my system. There should be
mit for or- against minority persons s in all situations where the Government re-
tion for or-
eral employment." r_Feded- quires an oath, and there is an attempt made
eras Government on the part on those who prefer to affirm.
As the hearings and complaints have dem-
g
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
"In the State of Hawaii the entire program which 'so help me God' is struck out, be-
hn this an eir amendment, and not
was cut out because it had not been done bound that
there before, and it was inadvertently in. permit
eluded in this one, and the feeling was that Pe y changes instructions to made which the forms
because of the racial composition there it at all. +?
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
S 12917
For the purposes of administering the oath, There was discussion of the United Na- of Negroes under the equal employment op-
do you believe in God?' tions-what a great thing it was--and how portunity program, and considerable progress
"It is to be hoped that the provisions of there never could be another world war. , in that regard has been made. However, the
this bill would bar practices of that kind. The person who reported this incident made emphasis of the present conference was that
The law should be clear at this time. Title this comment: our efforts in the field of equal employment
I, United States Code, section 1 has a num- "'Think of the taxpayers' money used that opportunity have not been sufficient. Under
her of rules of construction, one of which day to hear that record.' I think that speaks the leadership of President Johnson and
says that wherever the word 'oath' appears, for itself.' based on his strong statement with regard to
that Includes 'affirmation,' and wherever the . Other witnesses were in agreement with Mr. the need for direct action to cure the basic
word 'swear' appears, that includes 'affirm.' Griner's view on the need for protecting em- causes leading to discrimination, the Treas-
"This issue comes up sometimes when ployees now and In the future from any form ury Department has now issued specific in-
clerks will ask, 'Why do you want to affirm? of Indoctrination on issues unrelated to their structions requiring all supervisors and line
Do you belong to a religious group that re- work. The issue was defined at hearings on S. managers to become actively and aggressively
quires an affirmation rather than taking an 3770 In the following colloquy between the involved In the total civil rights problem,
oath?' And unless the individual gives the subcommittee chairman and Mr, Griner, "The requirements laid down by chapter
right answer, the clerks won't let him affirm. "If they are permitted to hold sessions such 713 and its appendix Include participation in
It is clear under the Torcaso case that re- as this on Government time and at Govern- such groups as the Urban League, NAACP,
liglous beliefs and lack of religious beliefs ment expense, they might then also hold ses- etc. (these are named specifically) and in-
are equally entitled to the protection of the sions as to whether or not we should be in- volvement in the total community action
first amendment." volved in the Vietnam war or whether we program, including open housing, integra-
The objection has been raised that the should not be, whether we should pull out tion of schools, etc.
prohibition against inquiries into race, re- or whether we should stay, and I think it "The policies laid down In this regula-
liglon, or national origin would hinder in- could go to any extreme under those condi- tion, as ' erbally explained by the Treasury
vestigation of discrimination complaints. In tions. representatives at the conference, go far
effect, however, it is expected to aid rather "Of course, we are concerned with it, yes. beyond any concept of employee personnel
than hinder in this area of the law, by de- But that is not a matter for the daily routine responsibility previously expressed. In es-
creasing the opportunities for discrimination of work. Bence, this regulation requires every Treas-
initially. It does not hinder acquisition of "Senator ER,vxN. Can you think of anything ury manager or supervisor to become a social
the information elsewhere; nor does it pre- which. has more direful implications for a worker, both during his official hours and
vent a person from volunteering the infor- free America than a practice by which a gov- on his own time. This was only tangentially
mation If he wishes to supply it in filing a ernment would attempt to indoctrinate any referred to In the regulation and its ap-
complaint or in the course of an Investiga- man With respect to a particular view on any pendages, but was brought out forcefully in
tion. subject other than the proper performance of verbal statements by Mr. and
CONTROL OF EMPLOYEE OPINIONS, OUTSIDE his work? Frankly, this is tremendously disturbing to
ACTIVITIES "Mr. GRINER. I think if we attempted to do me and to many of the other persons with
Reports have come to the subcommittee that we would be violating the individual's whom I have discussed the matter. We do
of infringements and threatened Infringe- constitutional rights. not deny the need for strong action in the
ments on first amendment freedoms of em- "Senator ERveN. Is there any reason what- field of civil rights, but we do sincerely
ployees: freedom to think for themselves free ever why a Federal civil service employee question the authority of our Government
of Government Indoctrination; freedom to should not have the same right to have his to lay out requirements to be met on our
choose their outside civic, social, and politi- freedom of thought on all things under the own time which are repugnant to our per-
cal activities as citizens free of official guid- sun outside of the restricted sphere of the sonal beliefs and desires.
ance; or even freedom to refuse to parties- proper performance of his work that any "The question was asked as to what dis-
pate at all without reporting to supervisors. other American enjoys? ''cipl1nary measures would be taken against
Illustrative of the climate of surveillance "Mr. GRINER, No, sir." individuals declining to participate In these
the subcommittee has found was a 13-year- With one complaint of attempted indoe. 'Community action programs. The reply was
old Navy Department directive, reportedly trination of employees at a Federal Installa- given by the equal employment officer, that
similar to those in other agencies, warning tion, a civil servant enclosed a memorandum such refusal would constitute an undesir-
employees to guard against "indiscreet re- taken from a bulletin board stating the time, able wok attitude bordering on insubordi-
marks" and to seek "Wise and mature" coun- place, and date of a lecture by a sociology nation and should at the very least be
Bel within their agencies before joining civic professor on the subject of the importance of reflected on the annual efficiency rating of
or political associations. racial integration.. Attendance was to be vol- the employee.
In the view of the United Federation of untary but the notice stated that a record "The principles expressed in these regu-
Postal Clerks: would be made of those attending or not lations and in this conference strike me
"Perhaps no other right Is so essential to attending. as being of highly dangerous ' potential. If
employee morale as the right to personal Concerning such a practice, one witness we, who have no connection with welfare or
freedom and the absence of Interference by commented: "If I had been a Federal em- social programs, can be required to take
the Government In the private lives and ac- ployee and I cared anything about my job, time from our full-time responsibilities In
tivities of its employees. Attempts to place I would have been at that lecture." our particular agencies and from the hours
prohibitions on the private associations of Employees of an installation in Pennsyl- normally reserved for our own refreshment
employees; mandatory reporting of social vanla complained of requirements to attend and recreation to work toward Integration
contacts with Members of Congress and the 'film lectures on issues of the cold war. of white neighborhoods, Integration of
press; attempts to "orient" or "Indoctrinate" Witnesses agreed that taking notice of at- schools by artificial means, and to train
Federal employees on subjects outside their tendandeat such meetings constituted a form Negroes who have not availed themselves of
immediate areas of professional interest; at- of coercion to attend. Section 1(b) will slim- the public schooling available, then It would
tempts to "encourage" participation in out- mate such intimidation. It leaves unaffected seem quite possible that under other lead-
side activities or discourage patronage of existing authority to use any appropriate ership, we could be required to perform other
selected business establishments and coercive means, including publicity, to provide em- actions which would actually be detrimental
campaigns for charitable donations are ployees information about meetings concern- to the interests of our Nation."
among the most noteworthy abuses of Fed- ing matters such as charity drives and bond- Testifying on the issue of reporting out-
eral employees' right to personal freedom." selling. campaigns. side activities, the American Civil Liberties
An example of improper on-the-job in- Section (c) protects a basic constitutional Union representative commented:
doctrination of-employees about sociological right of the individual employee to be free "To the extent that individuals are appre-
and political matters was cited in his testi- of official pressure on him to engage in any hensive they are going to have to, at some
mony by John Griner, president of the AFL_ civic or political activity or undertaking future time, tell the Government about what
CIO affiliated American Federation of GeV- which might involve him as a private citizen, organizations they have belonged to or been
ornment Employees: but which has no relation to his Federal associated with, that is going to inhibit them
"One instance of disregard of individual employment. It preserves his freedom of in their willingness to explore all kinds of
rights of employees as well as responsibility thought and expression, including his right ideas, their willingness to hear speakers,
to the taxpayers, which has come to my at- to keep silent, or to remain inactive. their willingness to do all kinds of things.
tention, seems to Illustrate the objectives of This section will place a statutory bar That has almost as deadening an effect on
subsections (b), (c), and (d), of section i of against the recurrence of employee com- free speech in a democracy as if the oppor-
the Ervin bill. It happened at a large field plaints such as the following received by a tunities were actually cut off,
installation under the Department of De- Member of the Senate: "The feeling of Inhibition which these-
fense. "DEAR SENATOR -: On -, 1068, kinds of questions cause is as dangerous, it
"The office chief called meetings of dlf- a group of Treasury Department adminis- seems to me, as if the Government were
ferent groups of employees throughout the ? trators were called to Miami for a conference making actual edicts."
day * * *. A recording was played while em- led by -, Treasury Personnel Officer, Witnesses gave other examples of invasion
ployees listened about 30 minutes. It Was with regard to now revisions In Chapter 713 of employees' private lives which would be
supposedly a speech made Pt a university, of the Treasury Personnel Manual. halted by passage of the bill.
which went deeply into the Importance of "Over the years the Treasury Department In the southwest a division chief d1s-
Integration of the races In this country, has placed special emphasis on the hiring patched a buck slip to his group supervisors
Approvgd For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved-For Release 2002/11122 : CIA-R@P79-- 063-2A000100080003-9
S 12918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 13, 1967
demanding: "the names ' " ? of employees was handled as if applicants for State De- physician from doing so if he has reason
* " * who are participating in any activities partment employment must subject them- to believe the employee is "suffering from
including such things as: PTA in integrated selves to the personal and intimate questions mental illness" and believes the informa-
schools, sports activities which are inter- and abdicate all claims to personal rights and tion is necessary to make a diagnosis. Such
social, and such things as Groat Books dis- privileges. a standard is stricter than the broad "fit-
cussion groups which have integrated mom- "As a result of this Improper intrusion into ness for duty" standard now generally ap-
berships." my daughter's privacy which caused all great plied by psychiatrists and physicians in the
In a Washington office of the Department mental anguish, I had her application for interviews and testing which an employee
of Defense, a branch chief by telephone asked employment withdrawn from the State Do- can be requested and required to undergo.
supervisors to obtain from employees the partment. This loss of income made her There is nothing in this section to pro-
names of any organizations they belonged to. college education that much more difficult. hibit an official from advising an individual
The purpose apparently was to obtain invita- "Upon my husband's return, we discussed of a specific charge of sexual misconduct
tions for Federal Government officials to this entire situation and felt rather than and affording him an opportunity to refute
speak before such organizations. subjecting her again to the sanctioned meth- the charge voluntarily.
I
d
t
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 come 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-
tion 1(e) of the reported bill will prohibit
the more serious Invasions of personal pri-
vacy reported. The subcommittee believes it
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 officials '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-
ry. This
have her work for private
n
us
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 i (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 sex life is satisfactory.
"I have never been In trouble because of
my sex behavior.
"Everything is turning 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 very 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 tests and constitutional
rights" and 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 hours
"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
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 investigation i 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 used 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 25
years of ago. 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
I canon allu was ueuleu any oyy~l ~uaaa ?y
to review what had been recorded in my investigators, or personnel, security and 1 Hearings and reports on the use of poly-
daughter's file. Likewise' my daughter was medical specialists from indiscriminately graphs as "lie detectors," by the Federal
denied any review of the file in order to verify requiring or requesting the individual to Government before a Subcommittee of the
-
or refute any of thy~r,~rQ au p r Wu esyg,~i a ,~~;,3 fl'>~+1U I o~~e Committee on Government Opera
dI~l:btf~n r a~arQe~wY4 bhc.:I~F66~fe~eRn~kt~b
Department inter
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79100632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
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 16 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 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 I.
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 cases of reprisals, many of which
have been investigated at the subcofnmit-
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 (i) of S. 3779 is
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 GS-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 (I) 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 bill will 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)
Title of Position -
Date of Appointmentin Present Position Organization Location (Operating Agency, Bureau Division)
PART I. EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS
List the names of all corporations, companies, firms, or other
retirement plan, shared income, or other arrangement as a
business enterprises, partnerships, nonprofit organizations,
result of any current or prior employment or business or
and educational, or other institutions: (a) with which you are
rofesslonal association; or (c) in which you have any financial
connected as an employee, officer, owner, director, member,
Interest through the ownership of stock, stock options, bonds,
trustee, partner, adviser, or consultant; or (b) In which you
securities, or other arrangements including trusts. If none,
have any continuing financial Interests, through a pension or
write None.
Some and Kind of Organization
(Use Part 1 desig)natlons
where applicable
Address
Position in Organization
(Use Part l(a) designations,
if applicable.
Nature of Financial Interest,
e.g., Stocks, Prior Income
(Use Part 1(b) & (c)
designations if applicable)
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 ApprovedFor Release 2002/11122: CIA-RBP7-9 r0063QA000100080003-9
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS-Continued
PART II. CREDITORS
List the names of your creditors other than those to whom be Indebted for current and ordinary household and living
you may be indebted by reason of a mortgage on property expenses such as household furnishings, automobile, educe-
which you occupy as a personal residence or to whom you may tion, vacation, and similar expenses. It none, write None.
List your interest in real property or rights In lands, other than property which you occupy as a personal residence. IF none, write
None.
Nature of Interest e.g., Ownership,
Mortgage, Lien, Investment Trust
Type of Property e.gg.,evResidence, Hotel,
Apartment, tndeloped Land
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 13, 1967
If any information is to be supplied by other persons e.g., requested matter involved. If none, write None.
name and address of such persons, the date upon which you
Address (If rural, give RFD or county and
State)
I certify that the statements I have made ere true, complete, and corroct to the hest of my knowledge and belief.
-----(Date)?- -
The vagueness of the standards for re-
quiring such a broad surrender of privacy
is illustrated by the Civ11 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; persona} 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-
(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 EavIN: 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, decision to make the Government my
.
career.
Having been a civil service employee for 26
years, and advanced from GE; 42 to GS-15, "Sincerely
and been cleared for top secret during World
War II, and because I currently hold a post- "DEAR SENA'tOR: I write to beg your sup-
tion that involves the, disposition of hun- port of a 'Bill of nights' to protect Federal
dreds of thousands of the taxpayers' money, employees from official snooping which was
it Is my conviction that my morality and introduced by Senator Ervin of North Caro-
trustworthiness are already a matter of rec- lina.
ord in the files of the Federal Government. "I am a veteran of two wars and have
"The requirement that my husband's orders to a third war as a ready reservist.
financial assets be reported, as well as my And I know why I serve in these wars: that
own assets and those we hold jointly, was is to prevent the forces of tyranny from
particularly offensive, since my husband is invading America. .
the head of our household and is not em- "Now, as a Federal employee I must fill
ployed by Government. out a questionnaire giving details of my
"You might also be interested in the fact financial status. This is required if I am
that it required 6 hours of after-hours work to continue working. I know that this in-
on our part to hunt up all the information formation can be made available to every
called for and prepare the report. Since the official in Washington, including those who
extent of our assets is our private business, want to regulate specific details of my life.
it was necessary that I type the material my- "Now I am no longer a free American. For
self, an added chore since I am not a typist. example, I can no longer buy stock of a for-
At our ages (84 and,58) we would be far less
deserving of respect had we -not made the
prudent provisions for our retirement which
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,
"DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am a GS-12
career employee with over 15 years service.
"The highest moral and ethical conduct'
has been my goal in each of my positions of
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 unions,
_(c) I could obtain freedom from invasion
of my private life and (d) I would be given
the opportunity to advance based solely on
an employee's immediate supervisor. The net "Our assets have been derived, in the main, eign company because that country may be
worth .statementsApprbty iFbet 4ea%tn29O22/tM2po>tAcD 1f0963i2,ANUi (y"S6dds5obthe right or left.
 Approved?,For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79r-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1.967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12921
And I cannot 'own part of America' by buy- affairs derives from recent developments in employee to defend himself early enough in
ing common stocks until an 'approved list' the law of the sixth amendment by the Su- the investigation to allow a meaningful de-
is published by my superiors. preme Court. In view of the decisions of fense.
"I can never borrow money because an Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 and Esco- The predicament of postal employees as
agent may decide that debt makes me sus- bedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, It is clear that described at the hearings reflects the situa-
ceptible to bribery by agents of any enemy any person (including Federal employees) tion in other agencies as reported in many
power. Nor do I dare own property lest some who is suspected of a crime is absolutely en- Individual cases sent to the subcommittee.
official may decide I should sell or rent to titled to counsel before being subjected to While it is undoubtedly true that in some
a person or group not of my choosing. custodial Interrogation. Accordingly, some simple questioning, counsel may not be nec-
"In short, I am no longer free to plan agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Serv- essary, in many matters where interrogation
my own financial program for the future ice, acknowledge an unqualified right to will result in disciplinary action, failure to
security of my family. In one day I was counsel for an employee suspected of crime have counsel at the first level reacts against
robbed of the freedom for which I fought but decline to do the same for coworkers the employee all the way up through the
two wars. This is a sickening feeling, you threatened with the loss of their livelihoods appeal and review. In the case of a postal
may be sure. for noncriminal reasons. In the subcommit- employee, the subcommittee was told-
"It seems plain that a deep, moral issue toe's view, this discrimination in favor of "The first level is at the working foreman's
is involved here that concerns every citizen. the criminal suspect Is both bad personnel level. He is the author of the charges; then
If this thing is allowed to continue, tomor- policy as well as bad law. It would be cor- the case proceeds to the postmaster, who ap-
row or next year every citizen may come rooted by this section of the bill. pointed the foreman and, if the individual is
under the Inquisition. The dossier on every The ultimate justification for the "right- found guilty of the charge at the first level,
citizen will be on file for the use of any to-counsel" clause, however, Is the Constitu- it is almost inevitable that this position will
person or group having enough overt or tion itself. There Is no longer any serious be supported on the second level. The third
covert power to gain access to them. doubt that Federal employees are entitled to level is the regional level, and the policy
"Sincerely, due process of law as an incident of their em- there is usually that of supporting the local
ployment relation. Once, of course, the courts postmaster. A dleinterested party is never
In August 1966 Federal employees who felt otherwise, holding that absent explicit -reached. The fourth level is the Appeals
were retired from the armed services were statutory limitation, the power of the execri- Board, composed of officials appointed by the
told to complete and return within 7 days, tive to deal wih employees was virtually Postmaster General. In some cases, the region
with their social security numbers, a 15-page unfettered. will overrule the postmaster, but certainly
questionnaire, asking, among other things: The doctrinal underpinning of this rule the Individual does not have what one could
"Flow much did you earn in 1965 in wages, was the 19th-century notion that the em- style an Impartial appeals procedure."
salary, commissions, or tips from all jobs? ployment relation is not tangible "property." Employees charged with no crime have
"How much did you earn in 1965 in profits Both the rule and its underpinning have been subjected to intensive Interrogations
or fees from working in your own business, now been reexamined. The Supreme Court by Defense Department investigators who
professional practice, partnership, or farm? in recent years has emphasized the necessity ask Intimate questions, make sweeping al-
"How much did you receive in 1965 from of providing procedural due process where legations, and threaten dire consequences
social security, pensions (non-military), rent a man is deprived of his job or livelihood by unless consent is given to polygraph tests.
(minus expenses), 'interests or dividends, governmental action. Employees have been ordered to confess oral-
unemployment Insurance, welfare payments, While the courts have as yet had no 00- ly or to write and sign statements. Such in-
or from any other source not already entered? casion to articulate a specific right to counsel terviews have been conducted after denial
"How much did other members of your in the employment relationship, there can of the employee's request for presence of
family earn in 1965 in wages, salary, com- obviously be no doubt that the right to coup- supervisor, counsel, or friend, and in several
missions or tips? (Before any deductions,) eel is of such a fundamental character that it instances the interrogations have resulted
(For this question, a family consists of two is among the essential ingredients of due in revocation of a security clearance, or
or more persons in the same household who process. What is at stake for an employee in denial of access to classified information by
are related to each other by blood, marriage, a discharge proceeding-often including per- transfer or reassignment with the resulting
or adoption.) If the exact amount Is riot sonal humiliation, obloquy and penury-is loss of promotion opportunities.
known, give your best estimate, just as serious as that involved in a criminal Witnesses testified that employees have no
"How much did other members of your trial. This is not to suggest that all the recourse against the consequences of formal
family earn in 1965 in profits or fees from incidents of bur civilized standard of a fair charges based on information and state-
working In their own business, professional trial can or should be imported into Federal ments acquired during a preliminary inves-
practices, partnership, or farm? - discharge proceedings. But If we are to have tigation. This renders meaningless the dis-
"How much did any other member of your fair play for Federal employees, the right of tinction urged by the Civil Service Commis-
family receive in 1965 from social security, counsel is a sine qua non. It is of a piece sion between formal and informal proceed-
pensions, rent (minus expenses), interest or with the highest traditions, the fairest laws, Inge. EXCEPTIONS
dividends, unemployment insurance, welfare and the soundest policy that this country
payments; or from any other source not al- has produced. And, in the judgment of this The bill, under section 7, does not apply to
ready entered?" - subcommittee, the clear affirmation of this the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Fur-
RIGHT To COUNSEL basic right is very long overdue. thermore, section 6 provides that nothing
Section 1(k) of the bill guarantees to Fed- The need for such protection was confirmed in the act will prohibit an official of the Gen-
eral workers the opportunity of asking the at the hearings by all representatives of tral Intelligence Agency and the National
presence of legal counsel, of a friend or other - Government employee organizations and Security Agency from requesting any em
unions. ployeo or applicant to take a polygraph test
on when undergoing an official to the The president of the National Association or a psychological test, or to provide a per-
person
or Investigation
loss o their jobs orthat could lead to the sonal financial statement, designed to elicit
The per-
loss of ths jobs to disciplinary
manifold; action. not of "It is sr tt a Carriers practice testified: In the postal inspection the personal Information protected under
i
least least of merits which of is this that clause a uniformity and order' service, when an employee is called in for subsections 1(e), (f), (I), and (j). In such
cases, the Director of the Agency must make
it will bring to the present crazy quilt prat-' questioning by the inspectors on a strictly a personal finding with regard to each in-
right of the various agencies concerning the postal matter that does not involve a felony, dividual to be tested or examined that such
right to counsel for employees facing disci- to deny the right of counsel. The inspectors test or information Is required to protect the
plinary investigations or possible loss of so- interrogate the employee at length and, at national security.
curity clearances tantamount to loss of em- the completion of the interrogation, one of ENFORCEMENT
ployment. The Civil Service Commission the Inspectors writes out a statement and
regulations are silent on this critical Issue. pressures the employee to sign it before he Enforcement of the rights guaranteed In
In the absence of any Commission initiative leaves the room. We have frequently asked sections 1 and 2 of the bill is lodged in the
or standard, therefore, the employing agen- the postal inspection service to permit these administrative and civil remedies and sanc-
cies_ are pursuing widely disparate practices. employees to have counsel present at the tions of sections 3, 4, and 5. Crucial to en-
To judge from the questionnaires and other time of the interrogation. The right for such forcement of the act is the creation of an
evidence before the subcommittee, a few counsel has been denied in all except a few independent Board on Employee Rights to
agencies appear to afford a legitimate right cases. If the employee is charged with a determine the need for disciplinary action
to counsel, probably many more do not, and felony, then, of course, the law takes over against civilian and military offenders under
still others prescribe a "right" on paper but and the right for counsel is clearly estab- the act and to provide relief from violations.
hedge it in such a fashion as to discourage lished but in other investigations and in- Testimony at the hearings as well as sn-
its exercise. Some apparently do not set any terrogations no counsel is permitted." vestigation of complaints have demonstrated
regulatory standard, but handle the problem , Several agencies contest that right to coon- that in the area of employee rights, a right is
on an ad hoc basis. sel is now granted in formal adverse action only as secure as its enforcement. There is
on a matter as critical as this, such a proceedings and that appeals Procedures, overwhelming evidence that employees have
pointless diversity of practice is poor policy. make this section unnecessary for informal heretofore frequently lacked appropriate
So far as job-protection rights are concerned, questioning. Testimony and complaints from remedies either in the courts or the Civil
all Federal employees should be equal. employees indicate that this machinery does Service Commission gfocrr 1purssuing rights
A second anomaly IAIPID1'lovel Is,tl1'ORLIi6Stit2oo2",F/22 ?. A- P 0d~b "I~dbW any
 Approved-For Release 2002/11122 : CIA-RDP79100632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 1067
Under the remedies afforded by sections 3, ment, would be authorized to make rulings mation resulting from activities and opera
4, and 5 of the bill, an employee who believes on these matters in the first instance. It tions of the proposed act."
his rights are violated under the act has sev- would make a ruling on action in a particular Sanctions
eral courses of action: agency or department that is an alleged vio- The need for sanctions against offending
(1) He may pursue a remedy through the lation of the provisions of the bill, with au- officials has been evident throughout the
agency procedures established to enforce the thority either on the part of the agency or subcommittee's investigation of flagrant dis-
act, but the fact that he does not choose to the part of the individual or on the part of regard of basic rights and unpunished
avail himself of these does not preclude exer- the union to take an appeal from the ruling flaunting of administrative guidelines and
cise of his right to seek other remedies. of this independent agency to the Federal prohibitions. It was for this reason that S.
(2) He may register his complaint with court for judicial review." 3779 of the 89th Congress and S. 1035, as
the Board on Employee Rights and obtain a Throughout its study the subcommittee introduced, contained criminal penalties for
hearing. If he loses there, he may appeal to found that a major area of concern is the offenders and afforded broad civil remedies
the district court, which has the power to tendency In the review process in the courts and penalties.
examine the record as a whole and to affirm, or agencies to do no more than examine the Reporting on the experiences of the Amer-
modify, or set aside any determination or lawfulness of the action or decision about ican Civil Liberties Union in such employee
order, or to require the Board to take any which the employee has complained. For pur- cases, Lawrence Speiser testified:
action it was authorized to take under the poses of enforcing the act, sections 3, 4, and 5 "In filing complaints with agencies, in-
act. assure adequate machinery for processing eluding the Civil Service Commission, the
(3) He may, instead of going directly to complaints and for prompt and impartial de- Army and the Navy, as I have during the
the Board, institute a civil action in Federal termination of the fairness and constitution- period of time I have worked here in Wash-
district court to prevent the threatened vio- ality of general policies and practices initi- period I have never been informed of any
lation, or obtain complete redress against ated at the highest agency levels or by the disciplinary action taken against any any
the consequences of the violation. I Civil Service Commission or by Executive vestigator or ctiong aken ag questions, in-
He does not need to exhaust any adminis- order. engaging io improper improper tech-
trative remedies but If he elects to pursue his Finding no effective recourse against ad- nfor barring ? counsel when a person
civil remedies in the court under section 4. ? ministrative actions and policies which they had niques, 86 right to have counsel, or fora violation
he may not seek redress through the Board. believed unfair or in violation of their rghts, of any number of things that you have in
Similarly, If he initiates action before the ndivdual employees and thcr families turned this bill. Maybe some was taken, but I cer-
Board under section 5, he may not also seek to Congress for redress. Opening the hearings tainly couldn't get that information out of
relief from the court. under section 4. on invasions of privacy, Senator Ervin stated: the agencies, after making the complaints. I
The bill does not affect any authority, "Never to the history of the Subcommittee would suggest that the bill also encompass
right or privilege accorded under Executive on Constitutional Rights have we been so provision for disciplinary action that would
Order 10988, governing employee-manage- overwhelmed with personal complaints; be taken against Federal employees who vio-
ment cooperation in the Federal Service. TO phone calls, letters, telegrams, and office vis- late any of these rights that you have set
the extent that there is any overlapping of its. In all of our Investigations, I have never out in the bill."
subject matter, the bill simply provides an seen anything to equal the outrage and in- Other witnesses also pointed to the need
additional remedy. dignation from Government employees, their for the disciplinary measures afforded by the
THE BOARD ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS families, and their friends. It is obvious that powers of an independent Board to determine
As a result of hearings on S. 3779, the sec- appropriate remedies are not to be found in the need for corrective action and punish-
tion creating a Board on Employee Rights the executive branch. merit, and felt they would be more effective
was added to the bill for introduction as "The complaints of privacy o the bill fcriminal have
view of difficulty S. 1035. . multiplied so rapidly of late that it Is beyond In view of the difficulty of filing criminal
the resources of Congress and its staff to re-
Employeeehcomplained that adminis- pel effectively each individual official en- charges and obtaining prosecution and con-
trativo grieva nve nce procedures have often croachment. Each new program brings a new viction of executive branch officials which
proved ineffective because they are cumber- wave of protest." might render the criminal enforcement pro-
some, time-consuming, and weighted on the prof. Alan Westin, director of the Science vision meaningless for employees, a subcom-
of management, Not only do those who and Law Committee of the Bar Association of mitten amendment has deleted the criminal break the rules go unpunished many times, the City of New York, testified that these penalties in section 4 from the bill as re-
but the fearful tenor of letters and telephone complaints "have been triggered by the fact ported.
the Civil Service Commission and
calls from throughout the country indicate that we do not yet have the kind of execu-
that employees fear reprisals for noncom- the executive agencies have advocated plac-
tivo branch mechanism by which employees
the
oficom with improper requests . Oral or for
and writ- filing can lodge their sense of discomfort with per- civil ing such service grievance administrative remedies and appeals within system,
complaints and grievances. have sonnel practices in the Federal Government ten directives of warning to this effect havo the subcommittee believes that the key to
been verified by the subcommittee. Section and feel that they will get a fair hearing, effective enforcement of the unique rights
1(e) of the bill, therefore, prevents reprisals that they will secure what could be called recognized by this act lies in the employee's
for exercise of rights granted under the act 'employment due process." recourse to an independent body.
and in such event accords the individual To meet this problem, Professor Westin "The theory of our Government," Profes-
cause for complaint before the Board or the proposed an independent board subject to ju- sor Westin testified, "is that there should be
court. dicial review, and with enforcement power somewhere within the executive branch
Concerning the original bill in the 89th over a broad statutory standard governing all where this kind of malpractice is corrected
Congress, which did not provide for a board, invasion of privacy. Although it is continu- and that good administration ought to pro-
representatives of the 14th department of ing to study this proposal, the subcommit- vide for control of supervision or other prac-
the American Federation of Government tee has temporarily rejected this approach tices that are not proper. But the sheer size
Employees commented that the remedies are in the interest of achieving immediate en- of the Federal Establishment, the ambiguity
the most important aspects of such a bill forcement o fthe act and providing adminis- of the relationship of the Civil Service Com-
because "unless due process procedures are trative remedies for its violation. For this mission to employees, and the many different
explicitly provided, the remaining provisions reason it supports the creation of a limited interests that the Civil Service Commission
of the bill may be easily ignored or circum- Board of Employee Rights. has to bear in its role in the Federal Govern-
vented by Federal personnel management. As Perhaps one of the most important sec- merit, suggest that it is not an effective in-
a matter of fact, we believe, the reason em- tions of the bill, if not the most Important strument for this kind of complaint proce-
ployees' rights have been eroded so rapidly section, according to the United Federation dure."
and so devastatingly in the last few years of Postal Clerks, is the provision establishing
is the absence of efficient, expeditious, uni- the Board. The subcommittee was told- SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
form, and legislatively well defined pro- "It would appear absolutely essential that SECTION 1
cedures of due process In the executive de- any final legislation enacted into law must
partments of the Federal Government." necessarily include such a provision. We can Section 1 (a) makes it unlawful for a Fed-
An independent and nonpartisan Board offer no suggestions for improvement of this eral official of any department or agency to
is assured by congressional participation in section. As presently constituted the section require or request, or to attempt to require
its selection and by the fact that no member is easily understood; and the most excellent or request, any civilian employee of the
is to be a government employee. Provision is and inclusive definition of the proposed United States serving in the department or
made for congressional monitoring through 'Board on Employees' Rights' which could agency or any person seeking employment to
detailed reports. - possibly be enacted into law. It defines the disclose his race, religion, or national origin,
Senator 'Ervin explained the function of right of employees to challenge violatloris of or the race, religion, or national origin of any
the Board established by section 5 as follows: the proposed act; defines the procedures In- of his forebears.
"The bill sets up a new independent Fed- volved, as well as the authority of the Board, This section does not prohibit inquiry con-
oral agency with authority to receive com- penalties for violation of the act, as well as corning citizenship of such individual if his
plaints and make rulings on complaints- establishing the right of judicial review for citizenship is a statutory condition of his
complaints of individual employees or unions ~ an aggrieved party, and finally provides for obtaining or retaining his employment. Nor
representing employees. This Independent congressional review, and in effect, an an- does it preclude inquiry of the individual
agency, which wo@~~t}pj g en such inquiry
L -h
way to the executl~UnZ'lf 2ff"t ee e i U d yi} r i '+?~'?Cc! 51 6~~Ak ht~" _ ? Ibkl %able in order to
 Approved-For Release 2002/11122 : CIA-RDP79700631A000100080003-9
S 12924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE \ September 13, 1967
Section 1(1) lation of the act by granting an applicant
r cause. s This make section 1 (1) makes it unlawful or employee the right to bring a civil action
ment or , to donations to any in obligations institution o
dona does stitution officials from of department or for g agency t in the Federal district court for a court order
Ing m, does not prohibit other prom riate discharge, official s any e, do , deny yny enoy o promo- to halt the violation, or to obtain complete
ng on to for taking any appropriate discharge, discipline, de or otherwise impair r redress against the consequences of the vio-
acti to afford employees the opportunity tion, relocate, reassign, ions ot lation. The action may be brought in his
voluntarily to invest his earnings in bonds existing terms or conditons of employment own behalf or in behalf of himself and others
or other obligations or voluntarily to make of any employee, or threaten to commit any similarly situated, and the action may be
donations to any institution or cause. Ap- such acts, because the employee has refused against the offending officer or person
might ate action, in the committee's view, or failed to comply with any action made filed in the Federal district court for the district
might include publicity and other forms of unlawful by this act or exercised any right in which the violation occurs or is threatened,
persuasion short of job-related pressures, granted by the act. or in the district in which the offending of-
types, and "blacklists" reprisals of hrouggh against ainst anysecrohibits because he refuses sto ficer or person is found, or in the District
publicize Court for the District of Columbia.
types, employee's agency through
the one mpl's office or agency to comply act with e illegal order order of as a legal defined right ht The court hearing the case shall have juris-
his noncompliance. this or takes advantage to adjudicate the civil action with-
out regard embodied ambodied in the act. out regard to the actuality or amount of
Section 1(i)'makes It illegal for an official SECTION 2 pecuniary Injury done or threatened. More-
to require or request any civilian employee Section 2(a) makes it unlawful for any over, the suit may be maintained without
in the department or agency to disclose any officer of the U.S. Civil Service Commission regard to whether or not the aggrieved party
items of his property, income, or other as- or any person acting or purporting to act has exhausted available administrative reme-
sets, source of income, or liabilities, or his under his authority to require or request, or dies. If the individual complainant has pur-
personal or domestic expenditures or those of attempt to require or request, any executive sued his relief through administrative reme-
any member of his family. Exempted from department or any executive agency of the dies established for enforcement of the act
coverage under this provision Is any civilian U.S. Government, or any officer or employee and has obtained complete protection against
employee who has authority to make any serving in such department or agency, to threatened violations or complete redress for
final determination with respect to the tax violate any of the provisions of section 1 of violations, this relief may be'pleaded in bar
or other liability to the United States of this act. the suit. The broad court is empowered to pro-
any person, corporation, or other legal entity, Specifically, this section is intended to vide
lief it whatever
may deem necessary to afford full pre-
or with respect to claims which require ex- ensure that the Civil Service Commission,
penditure of Federal mono s. Section 6 pro- acting as the coordinating policymaking tection to the aggrieved party; such relief
vides certain exemptions for two security body in the area of Federal civilian employ- may include restraining orders, interlocutory
agencies. ment shall be subject to the same strictures, injunctions, permanent injunctions, manda-
Neither the Department of the Treasury as the individual departments or agencies. tory injunctions, or such other judgments or
nor any other executive department or Section 2(b) makes it unlawful for any decrees as may be necessary under the cir-
agency is prohibited under this section from officer of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, cumstances.
requiring any civilian employee to make such or any person acting or purporting to not Another provision of section 4 would per-
reports as may be necessary or appropriate under his authority, to require or request, mit an aggrieved person to give written con-
for the determination of his liability for or attempt to require or request, any person sent to any employee organization to bring a
taxes, tariffs, custom duties, or other obliga- seeking to establish civil service status or civil action on his behalf, or to intervene in
tions imposed by law. This proviso is to eligibility for civilian employment,,. or any Such action. "Employee organizations" as
assure that Federal employees may be sub- person applying for employment, or any used in this section includes any brother-
ject to any reporting or disclosure require- civilian employee of the United States serv- hood, council, federation, organization, union,
ments demanded by any law applicable to ing in any department or agency, to submit or professional association made up in whole
all persons in certain circumstances. to any interrogation or examination or to or in part of Federal civilian employees, and
Section 1(1) take any psychological test which is designed which deals with departments, agencies, com-
to elicit from him information concerning missions, and independent agencies regarding
Section 1(j) makes it illegal to require or his personal relationship with any person employee matters,
request any civilian employee exempted from connected with him by blood or marriage, or A committee amendment provides that the
application of section 3(1) under the first concerning his religious beliefs or practices, Attorney General shall defend officers or per-
proviso of that section, to disclose any items or concerning his attitude or conduct with sons who acted pursuant to an order, regula-
of his property, income, or other assets, respect to sexual matters. tion, or directive, or who, in his opinion, did
source of income, or liabilities, -or his personal This section is intended to assure that the not willfully violate the provisions of the act.
or domestic expenditure or those of any Civil Service Commission shall be subject SECTION 5
member specific his family or household other to the same prohibitions to which depart-
than
than s ecific Items tending to indicate a are subject in sections Section 5 establishes an independent Board
conflict of interest in respect to the perform- meets and agencies provisos contained in sec- on Employees' Rights, to provide employees
ante of any of the official duties to which he 1 etion) and 1(e) (f). are The restated here to assure that with an alternative means of obtaining ad
Is or may be assigned. nothing in this section is to be construed ministrative relief from violations of the act,
This section is designed to abolish and pro- to prohibit a physician from acquiring such short of recourse to the judicial system.
hibit broad general inquiries which em- Section 6(a) provides for a Board composed
data to determine mental illness, or an e- of three members, appointed by the President
ployees have likened to "fishing expeditions" cial from informing an individual of a spe-
and to confine any disclosure requirements rifle charge of sexual misconduct and afford- with the consent of the Senate. No member
imposed on an employee to reasonable in- ing him an opportunity to refute the charge. shall be an employee of the U.S. Government
quiries about job-related financial interests. and no more than two members may be of the
Section 2(c) makes it unlawful for any same political party. The President shall des-
This doe, ing in ins not al cases therefore, question- officer of the U.S. Civil Service Commission ignate one member as Chairman. d
w to believes theemploy eh has t a er conflict of to require or request any person seeking to Section 5(b) defines the term of office for
interest with his official duties. establish civil service status or eligibility for members of the Board, providing that one
employment, or any person applying for em- member of the initial Board shall serve for
Section 1(k) ployment in the executive branch of the 5 years, one for 3 years, and one for 1 year
Section 1(k) makes it unlawful for a Fed- U.S. Government, or any civilian employee from the date of enactment; any member
eral official of any department or agency serving in any department or agency to take appointed to fill a vacancy in one of these
to require or request, or attempt to require any polygraph test designed to elicit from terms shall be appointed for the remainder
or request, a civilian employee who is under him information concerning his personal re of the term. Thereafter, each member shall
investigation for misconduct, to submit to latlonships with any person connected with' be appointed for 5 years.
interrogation which could lead to disciplinary him by blood or marriage, or concerning his Section 5(c) establishes the compensation
action without the presence of counsel or religious beliefs or practices, or concerning for Board members at $76 for each day spent
other person of his choice, if he wishes. his attitude or conduct with respect to sexual working in the work of the Board, plus ac-
This section is intended to rectify a long- matters. tual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of
standing denial of due process by which This section applies the provisions of sec- subsistence expenses when away from their
agency investigators and other officials pro- tion 1(f) to the Civil Service Commission usual places of residence.
hibit or discourage presence of counsel or a in instances where is has authority over Section 5(d) provides that two members
friend. This provision is directed at any in- agency personnel practices or in cases in of the Board shall constitute a quorum for
terrogation which could lead to loss of job, which, its officials request information from the transaction of business.
pay, security clearance, or denial of promo- the applicant or employee.' Section 5(e) provides that the Board may
tfon rights. SECTION 3 appoint and fix the compensation of neces-
This right inures to the employee at the This section applies the act to military sary employees, and make such expenditures
inception of the investigation, and the sec- supervisors by making violations of the not necessary to carry out the functions of the
tion does not require that the employee be
accused formally of any wrongdoing before also violations of the Uniform Code of Mill- Board.
he may request presence of counsel or friend. tary Justice. Section 5(f) authorizes the Board to make
U3u}5tlonS to carry out
The section doe kppraaf as lease 2Q02/1~ilcfil~i~T~- r c~ ~ i0A~132 t b z
department to furnish counsel. Sec ion 4 e9 r ie o PUP J
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12925
Section 5(g) provides that the Board shall ceived, the person designated shall inure- stance, he waives his-right under section 4
have the authority and duty to receive and diately dispose of the matter under the pro- to take his case directly to the district court.
investigate written complaints from or on visions of chapter 47 of title 10 of the United SECTION 9
behalf of any person claiming to be affected States Code. Section 0 is a statement of the standard
or aggrieved by any violation or threatened Section 5(m) provides that when any party severability clause. In the event that any
violation of this act, and to conduct a hear' disagrees with an order or final determine- provision in this act is held invalid, the
ing on each such complaint. Moreover, with- tion of the Board, he may institute a civil remaining parts of the act are not to be af-
in 10 days after the receipt of such a com- action for judicial review in the Federal dis- fected by its invalidity.
plaint, the Board must furnish notice of trict court for the district wherein the viola-
time, place, and nature of the hearing to tion or threatened violation occurred, or in Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
all interested parties, and within 30 days the District Court for the District of Co- unanimous Consent that various articles
after concluding the hearing, it must render lumbia. and editorials reporting the purposes of
its final decision regarding any complaint. The court has jurisdiction to (1) affirm, the bill be printed at the conclusion of
Section 5(h) provides that officers or rep- modify, or set aside any determination or my remarks.
resentatives of any employee organization order made by the Board, or (2) require The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
in any degree concerned with employment Of the Board to make any determination or objection, it is so ordered.
the category in which the violation or threat order which it is authorized to make under (See exhibit 2.)
occurs, shall be given an opportunity to section 5(k) but which it has refused to
participate in the hearing through submis- make. In considering the record as a whole, Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
sion of written data, views, or arguments. In the court is to set aside any finding, con- unanimous consent that the committee
the discretion of the Board they are to be 'elusion, determination, or order of the Board amendments to the bill be agreed to en
afforded an opportunity for oral presenta- unsupported by substantial evidence. bloc, and that the bill, as amended, be
tier. This section further' provides that Gov- The type of review envisioned here is simi- considered as original text for the pur-
ernment employees called upon by any party lar to that obtained under the Administra- pose of further amendment.
or by any Federal employee organization to Live Procedure Act in such cases but this The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
participate in any phase of any administra-
tive section affords a somewhat enlarged scope objection, it is so ordered.
or judicial proceeding under this section for consideration of his case than is now gen-
shall be free to do so without incurring travel erally accorded on appeal of employee cases. EXHIBIT 1
cost or loss in leave or pay. They shall be The court here has more discretion for action EXCERPT Faoas TESTIMONY of PROF. ALAN
free from restraint, coercion, interference, in on its own initiative. To the extent that they WESTIN Barons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
timidation, or reprisal in or because of their are consistent with this section, the provi- SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS ON S. 3779
participation. Any periods of time spent by sions for judicial review in title 5 of the There is a wealth of evidence, including
Government employees during such proceed- United States Code would apply. hearings and reports of this subcommittee,
ings shall be held to be Federal employment Section 6(n) provides for congressional re- that show the seriousness of the problem
for all purposes. view by directing the Board to submit to of Federal prdctices in the areas that are
Section 5(1) applies to the Board hearings the Senate and to the House of Representa- being examined in these hearings. First of
the provisions of the Administrative Proce- tives an annual report which must include a all, personnel selection and periodic em-
dure Act relating to notice and conduct of statement concerning the nature of all com- ployee checking by means such as polygraphs
hearings insofar as consistent with the pur- plaints filed with it, the determinations and and personality testings have been used by
pose of this section. orders resulting from hearings, and the a wide variety of Federal agencies, and are
Section 5(j) requires the Board, If it deter- names of all officers or employees against still used today, often in situations where
mines after a hearing that this act has not whom any penalties have been imposed under there is no real need to resort to such tech-
been violated, to state such determination this section. niques of psychological- surveillance and
and notify all interested parties of the find- Section 5(o) provides an appropriation of when other methods that intrude far less
ings. This determination shall constitute a $100,000 for the Board on Employee Rights. Into personal privacy are available to serve
final decision of the Board for purposes of SECTION G the legitimate needs of Federal agencies.
judicial review. If I can give one example of this-in the
Section 5(k) specifies the action to be Section 6 is a committee amendment general field of personality testing the main
taken by the Board if, after a hearing, it which provides that nothing in the act shall argument that is made for the need to_use
determines that any violation of this act has be construed to prohibit an officer of the personality testing, either to select among
been committed or threatened. In such case, Central Intelligence Agency or of the Na- employees or to screen employees for promo-
the Board shall immediately issue any cause tional Security Agency, under specific con- tion purposes, is that other techniques of
to be served on the offending officer or em- ditlons, from requesting an applicant or em- assessing them are not as profound or not
ployee an order requiring him to cease and ploycc to submit a personal financial state- as penetrating as the personality tests. This
desist from the unlawful practice or act. The meet of the type defined in subsections 1 is a premise which has never been proved _
Board is to endeavor to eliminate the unlaw- (i) and (j) or to take any polygraph or in the psychological literature. More than
ful act or practice by informal methods of psychological test designed to elicit the per- that, there are other techniques such as the
conference, conciliation, and persuasion. sonal information protected ender subsec- careful interview, record analysis of a per-
Within its discretion, the Board may, in tion 1(c) or 1(f). son's performance in jobs in the past, apti-
the case of a first offense, issue an official In these Agencies, such information may tude tests that will allow you to form a
reprimand against the offending officer or be required from the employee or applicant judgment on the individual's capacity to
employee, or order the employee suspended by such methods only if the Director of the perform the kind of job that he is being
from his position without pay for a period Agency makes a personal finding with regard 'considered for, and simulated exercises which
not exceeding 15 days. In the case of a to each individual that such test or informa- will present the kinds of problems an indi-
second or subsequent offense, the Board may tion is required to protect the national se- vidual will be called on to deal with on the
order the offending officer or employee sus- curity. job. This is illustrated by the in-basket exec-
pended without pay for a period not exceed- SECTION 7 utive technique, which gives a person a set
ing 30 days, or may order his removal from Section 7 provides that the. Federal Bu- of descriptions of a company, and calls on
office. reau of Investigation shall be excluded from him to write certain memos and react to
Officers appointed by the President, by and the provisions of this act. certain problems.
with the advice and consent of the Senate, SECTION s Another kind of important test which gets
are specifically excluded from the a plica- at things Important in making personnel de-
Section 8 is a subcommittee amendment. cisions, but does not invade privacy im-
tion of these disciplinary measures; but the it provides that nothing contained in sec- properly are tests to gage whether a pro-
section provides that, in the case of a viola- tions 4 or 5 shall be construed to prevent s
tion of this act by such individuals, the the establishment of department and agency he is gooing to employee play in the understands the organization. that
Board may transmit a report concerning such he is going This
Y g grievance procedures to enforce this act. The calls for individuals to be able to describe
violation to the President and the Congress. section makes it clear, however, that the a
Section 6(1) provides for Board action what kind of qualities are desirable in
n
when any officer of the Armed Forces of the existence of such procedures are not to pre- going to for Sears, Roebuck or a person
clude any applicant or employee from pur- going be a farm rm agent for the Department
United person under suing ug any other available remedies. d by However, Agriculture. e. be
able describe date
his the Board authority States or shall (1) violates any the submit act. a In acting report such to event, the if under the procedures established by an n in in a way way of Insuring that t the candidate
"resident, the Congress, and to the Secro- agency, the complainant has obtained com- comprehends the social role he is being
tary of the military department concerned, pieta protection against threatened viola- called on to play, but does not try to find
(2) endeavor to eliminate any unlawful act bons, or complete redress for violations, such out whether he really is such a person deep
or practice through informal methods of con- relief may be pleaded in bar in the U.B. dis- down in his private self.
tract court or in proceedings before the Board This is not an invasion of privacy because
feronce, conciliation, and persuasion, and (3) on Employee Rights,
refer its determination and the record In the it does not use questions about sex, religion,
case to any person authorized to convene Furthermore, an employee may not seek ideology, and personal life to try to get an
general courts-martial under section 822 his remedy through both the Board and the individual to reveal what lee really is inside,
(article 22) of title 10, nited Stat ode. court. If he elects to ursue his remedies but rather you ask him to project himself
When this determined aQVAU sQr-Releasetl20 Jai 11~j~ sec -R?P7,9-@0632AGOfl,4,W8 sidered for
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
S 12926 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
in an agency, and thus you are able to ask EXHIBIT 2 pleasure was worth-snooping into the pri-
a person: "Do you understand what Is ex- [From the Columbus (Ohio) Sunday Dis- vats lives of government employes.
petted of you? Can you play the game that patch, July 30, 1967] The Library of Congress, for example, de"
is expected of you as a corporate executive manded from. workers a complete description
employee of the Government?" ERVIN BILL SEEIx To CuRTAiL Nosy ACTIONS of their sexual habits. The U.S. Air Force,
or as an o, BIG BROTHER which was often portrayed by actor James
While some might argue that this still Richard Wilson) calls on him to say things that are an indi- (By Stewart as a swinging, liberal outfit, pro-
cation of his capacity to be like all others in Big Brother has been putting in overtime hibited employes from visiting the person-
the organization, it Is not an invasion of watching his good and faithful servants and nel office without first explaining to their
privacy. ' ` * reporting to the computers when and how superiors why they wanted to visit the per-
It is often said that an interview is often long they go to the rest room, how many sonnel office. The Federal Aviation Agency
more of an invasion of privacy than the are pregnant, how they like their sex, and had a rule which threatened reprisals
administration of personality tests. This is how many savings bonds they buy. against employes who wrote letters of corn-
not an effective argument because there is a Five -large filing cabinets in the offices of plaint to congressmen. The Defense Depart-
saving human quality in the oral interview, the Constitutional Rights subcommittee of ment twisted a few arms when it came to
People cannot be as aggressive or as decep- the Senate Judiciary Committee are bulging promoting saving bonds sales among mili-
tive in interviews as on the personality tests with the complaints of the good and faith- tary personnel-and the Civil Service Com-
because American society has built up a set ful servants who resent, not to say detest, mission frowned on employes who were not
of social conventions about what is fair Big Brother's nosiness. part of a "Be a Booster" group.
interviewing. Thus you cannot ask a person Anyone who wishes to understand what These invasions of personal privilege and
face to face many of the questions that are intrusion of privacy really means can find privacy have now gone by the board, not
written down in personality tests for the in- out by getting a government job. because the agencies no longer relish snoop-
dividual to fill in or answer. The range of the intrusion runs to psychia- ing but because Sen. Ervin is threatening
Also, if you ask someone a question di- trio interviews, psychological testing, prob- them with his "Bill of Rights" for govern-
rectly, he knows about it, it becomes com- ing interrogations about religious, family, ment workers. More than 50 senators have
mon knowledge in that agency, its use is re- and sexual matters, coercion to buy bonds signed this bill and chances are that it will
ported to hearings such as this subcommittee and support political parties, filling out race be passed in the 90th Congress. And just
is conducting or to the press. The questions and national origin forms, disclosure of per- the threat of such legislation has been
are there for the public to judge and to sonal finances and creditors, pressure to take enough to scaro federal officials into abolish-
assess. If an employer asks a candidate di- part in community activities having nothing ing some of the more absurd regulations.
rectly, "Do you believe in the second coming to do with an employe's job, and the imposi- Sen. Ervin means many things to many
of Christ?" this would probably be regarded tion of general behavior patterns conform- people. But his efforts to free federal em-
by the agency itself as an improper question log to those approved by a supervisor. ployes from bureaucratic pressures shows
for an interview, and society would decide A majority of the United States Senate, that his fight for individual choice is not
very quickly that this Is not the kind of 55 members, has joined in sponsoring legis- strictly limited to restaurant owners en-
question it wants in an oral interview for the lation proposed by Sen. Sam J. Ervin, D-N.C., gaged in interstate commerce. When Sen.
selection of someone for the Peace Corps. giving federal employes and their families, Ervin says that the individual citizen must.
But, because it is wrapped in the mantle of some 10 million people, a little more privacy. be absolutely protected from conformist
science, and there is supposed to be some But Senator Ervin's bill means more than government pressures, he Isn't just whis-
kind of unproved scientific verification of that. It means that the federal government tling Dixie-and this connotes an honesty
this question being relevant in some way to will set an example for many millions more often lacking among those southern con-
the person's emotional stability, we have of state and local employes, and for the still gressmen who, unlike Ervin, refuse to apply
crept into the practice of allowing that ques- many more millions in the computerized their "freedom of choice" doctrine to non-
tion to be asked indirectly, through a per- world of private employment. southerners.
sonality test, in a way that we would never What is most astonishing about Senator
tolerate that question being asked directly In Ervin's bill is that it must be stated in statu- [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
an interview with that person when he ap- tory form that executives of the government June 20, 1967]
plied for selection or evaluation within an shall not order the federal employe to patron- QUIET VICTORY FOR SENATOR ERVIN
agency. ize any business establishment, shall not The Civil Service Commission has moved
I use these as examples of the fact that make him reveal "his attitude or conduct to reduce the number of federal employes
we have allowed ourselves to let polygraph- with respect to sexual matters," shall not required to file statements on their personal
ing and personality testing expand the scope make him take a lie detector test, shall not finances. The announcement indicates this
questioning in a way that our law and our require him to buy savings bonds, shall not will affect a substantial segment of govern-
of practice has rejected for di- make him disclose his personal and domestic ment workers, and it strikes us as a wise if
governmental
rect oral questioning or written interroga- expenditures, shall not make him buy tickets overdue move by the Commission.
Lion of individuals. to testimonial dinners, and so on. Until now employes In lower grades, with
And Senator Ervin's subcommittee could little or no influence in making policy, had
This is one of the key problems of science agree to a bill on employe rights only after been obliged to submit detailed information
and privacy-that things are being done In eliminating criminal penalties for officials about their financial interests and those of
the name of science which we would not al- violating the act. The bill originally pro- their immediate families. The regulation was
low to be done directly. It is at this point vided for a fine of $300 or 30 days in jail. a blunderbuss, aimed at hundreds of thou-
that scientists who support these techniques This indicated that. a majority of the sands of persons who were not in a position
must justify their case, and do so In a way committee members had something less to conduct conflict-of-Interest shenanigans,
that persons who defend the personality test than strong convictions about the work- even if they had the desire.
have never been able to justify in any public ability of the bill. The development demonstrates that pro-
hearing-before the Congress or in their own An independent board on employes rights posed legislation doesn't necessarily have to
literature nor has this been done in terms of would be set up and an employe could also be signed into law to?achieve results. Sena-
the ethical issue of the role a psychologist is make his complaint to a local federal judge. tor Ervin of North Carolina has been press-
supposed to play In his relationship to the As'weak as these provisions are, they are ing for financial disclosure changes and in-
individual who trusts him and reveals him- at least a beginning in the war against the eluded them in his "bill of rights" for fed-
self for purposes of other kinds of occasions, computerization of mankind. eral employes introduced last year.
such as helping an individual who is men- A dozen million white collar workers So far the Senate Constitutional Rights
tally disturbed or who seeks counseling for ought to be grateful for this small beginning Subcommittee hasn't acted on the Ervin bill,
vocational choice. Trading on this kind of and write their congressmen about intru- but the CSC apparently has made this and
reputation for confidence the psychologist lions of privacy in private as well as public other changes in response to reforms pro-
has allowed himself to become an agent of employment. posed in his legislation. The Commission
extraction for institutional employers- Either that, or he prepared for the day has stopped federal agencies from requiring
corporations and government. when all their behavior patterns and be- employes to state their race, for example. It
I would suggest that, despite some on- liefs, private as well as public, have to be also has taken action to bar unwarranted in-
going work by special committees that have approved in advance by self-automated su- vasions of privacy, such as medical question-
been set up by the executive branch, the pervisors and bosses activated by the holes noires which ask intimate sex questions.
Federal executive branch has not established in IBM cards. The Ervin bill faces a long and difficult
road before it can reach the President's desk. oc- clear and sensitive rules governing the Even there the possibility of a veto exists
casions on which techniques Such as poly- - [From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Twin City because of objections to the harsh penalties
graphs and personality testing might be Sentinel, July 3, 1967] provided for administrators who violate em-
used, and surely has not yet established ERVIN AND WrIE SNOOPERS ployes' rights.
careful procedures for conducting such in- Before Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. came along, But if the effects of the bill on the Com-
terrogations in any of the limited areas In some federal agency chiefs evidently derived mission continue at the present rate, it
which it might be justified. a great deal of pleasure-for what such won't be many months before the Senator
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved.-For Release 2002/11122 : CIA-RDP79-00632?A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE
S 12927 -
will have achieved most of his worthy ends result in an agreement with Senator Ervin nam, deserve your support. When you pur-
in a bloodless battle, on the contents of his bill. chase Savings Bonds regularly, you show men
The present moves constitute a clear ad- of the 1st Brigade you're with them."
[From the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News, mission that the abuses pointed out by Ervin Commenting on the letters from service-
July 5, 1967] do In fact exist. 'men, the Chairman stated: "I deeply believe
PRIVACY FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES It is unfortunate that the commission had that the fighting men in Vietnam deserve the
Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. continues his praise- to wait to be pushed by Ervin before taking support of all Americans. However, on the
worthy efforts to insure that federal em- action. same day that I read this advertisement, I
y - - ts will not have their private rights also road a letter from Vietnam signed by
threatened e thrby the government they serve. [From the Indianapolis (Ind.) Star, April 23, over 30 enlisted men expressing support for
From an original attempt to protect the 1967] the Subcommittee's efforts to end coercion
national security by assembling personal THE BOND BUSINESS of these same fighting men. I can only en-
data files for key workers, some federal United States savings bonds are an excel- dense the plea of the airman who wrote:
agencies have gone on to sweeping person- lent investment. They represent a share in Aren't we doing enough for our fellow man
nel policies that include financial investiga- the United States and are about as secure an as it is?' "
During March, complaints Included the fol-
lion, psychological testing, crude sleuthing investment as this nation is itself. lowing: A private at Fort Hood, Texas, was
and "confidential" interviews that border But the persons who purchase these bonds called a Communist and threatened with de-
on institutional voyeurism. should have the right to decide for them- nial of promotion because he refused to par-
Perhaps less insidious but equally an- solves if they wish to buy them. ticl ate. Another private wrote that he and
noying are directives for after-hours con- In stories emanating from Vietnam are his comrades were threatened with K.P. on
duct, discriminatory record-keeping, and tales of American fighting men being badg weekends if they didn't buy bonds. Eventu-
group pressures for certain contributions eyed by their superiors to buy U.S. savings s Commander was presented
With the his Battalion Commander
and "loyalty" demonstrations. bonds. The reports are so prevalent that one any,
Minuteman flag for obtaining
Senator Ervin was not the first to notice is forced to believe the reports are true, which 100% participation. A private writing from
and deplore all of this, but he is leading a leads to the belief that the superiors doing pleiku, Vietnam, reported that non-buyers
strong attempt to stop It. the badgering are doing so on orders. had boon threatened with extra work and loss
The senator's methods are varied. He has The situation is serious enough that Sena- tpasses. Another soldier wrote
written a "bill of rights" for government for Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina has of Of three-day
Germany, "It is the policy of this Bat-
employees, and has persuaded more than introduced a bill to prohibit coercion of sere- tfrom ery that In order to get promoted, one must
half of the U.S. Senate to sign it. He is icemen to buy bonds or contribute to charity have a savings bond." A private wrote that
pushing for full congressional considera- fund drives. Senator Ervin said he was "dis- sergeant had trumped up a minor disci-
tion of the bill and Is hoping it can become gusted" with stories of forced sale of bonds his his ser ser charge and then offered a choice-
Using to servicemen flowing into his office. taplinal-y ke the punishment or take a band. He took
Using the bill and growing public senti- These stories included one from a private a bond.
ment for its guarantees, Sen. Ervin is ap- who reported that men refusing to buy sav- it
plying pressure on many federal agencies ings bonds had been threatened with extra Letters of have been support for S. received 1036 from to prohibit
to change "invasion of privacy" policies to- duty and told it would "go hard" on anyone coercion emen. According to a Lt. Coles
ward their employees. The threat of con- who did not subscribe to a bond plan. well as "the enlisted
charity-abuse bill will protect not
gressional action already has had some We agree with the Army enlisted man who wel the men, but the commanders them-
Commission, nolaudable effects. complained that his unit's savings bond offi- only oly selves who suffer fantastic pressures from
The Civil Service for ex- cur had threatened to continue savings bond post commanders and high-level commanders
ample, has reduced its widespread require- "pep rallies" until every soldier had signed who want commanders
participation. If the sers
merits for financial disclosures and has up. wh wh think 10they 0% are being pressured th they
stopped insisting on race listings on per- "I ani here to do a job," the soldier wrote. diers
should attend a commanders' 'kick-off' meet
sonnel forms. The Library of Congress has "I ask little more than to be left alone to do i at about the time the local communit-
discarded inquiries about sex habits. The that job. With commanders perpetually 'on chest drive begins."
Federal Aviation Agency no longer discour- one's back' It does not create a very good Captain in Massachusetts stated that
ages its employees from complaining to their atmosphere for completing a mission." A Ca
unior pfficers are expected to display theft
congressmen. The Defense Department and The pay of our fighting men in Vietnam Is junior ability t by getting d spla 1h o
its branches have reduced pressures on serv- the highest of any Army In the world. But military officers
0
from their units." This officer
icemen to buy savings bonds and have we submit that those fighting men are privi- participation "leadership ea said tafter 7 years of such pressure he
withdrawn directives concerning off-duty leged to spend their money in whatever way finally adopted the practice of contribut-
associations. they see fit. By being in the service they are had that
his own d money l th pof s cover those of his men
Obviously, he
Obviously, Sen.. Ervin is not the only per- being asked to put their lives on the line for wing ho did not wish to participate. In that way
son working to protect the privacy. of gov- their country. They should not, in addition, can meet the goals set for me and wiy
ernment workers; other officials and many be expected to finance their own service un- live with meet the goals for me wrote.
agency leaders realize that their personnel less they choose, of their own free will, with- live with my conscience," the officer rr Ervin
oSenator Ervin
policies have gone too far. The reported out coercion, to do so. stated: Commenting these letters,
results are encouraging, but the protection she'leadership long ability' senior r officers
junior easure
needs to be consistent among the agencies [From the Dothan (Ala.) Eagle, to this way, all the fine-sounding directives
and guaranteed for all employees. Apr. 24, 1967] fi rom the Pentagon expressing support for
In a recent letter to constituents Sen. THEY HAVE RIGHTS, Too 'voluntarism' will not end this coercion.
Ervin noted that "the need for the (pri- Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D.-NC) is chair- These military techniques are by no means
vacy) bill is still great, because regulations man of the Senate's Subcommittee on Con- limited to servicemen, but apply with equal
by government agencies are subject to stitutional Rights and, as such, is concerned force to civilian employees of the Defense
change according to the whim and caprice with the rights of all people--not merely Department. Clear and unequivocal legisla-
of the administrators." Well said. those of loud, pushy and pampered minors- tive prohibitions such as S. 1035 and S. 1036
The senator's immdetate concern is to ties. In fact, he Is exploring reports that are urgently needed. "
protect employees of the federal govern- rights of men in service have been abused
ment, and surely that is the most spore- and this is something all Americans will [WSPD editorial, April 27, 1967]
priate starting point. But no less compelling applaud. CONGRESS SHOULD PROTECT THE GI AGAINST
is the need to end invasions of employee Furthermore, Senator Ervin Is letting the HIGH PRESSURE PROMOTERS
privacy
enormous task, and industry. For t public in on what he finds as his search - We imagine that it's a rare ex-serviceman
hnrmou, Sen. Ervin n will l need the e goes along. His latest accounting, which fol- who does not recall having his arm twisted
help a great lows, should be of Interest not only to mem- by some superior to contribute to a particular
people e have have a right many to others bbe left loft who alone. believe that bers of the Armed Forces but to their fami- charity or to buy savings bonds.
[From the Federal Times, May 17, 1967] lies, friends and the public as well: In the past, the long-suffering G.I. would
BACH DOOR RIGHTS In the past two weeks numerous additional simply continue to submit in silence. He
The bill of rights proposed by Senator Sam complaints about coercion to buy savings would contribute rather than balk and be
Ervin may never become law. But, it already bonds have been received from servicemen marked for some kind of subtle retalla-
has had a good effect on government policy. stationed In many parts of the world, 1n- tion . such as being picked for extra k.p.
The Civil Service Commission now is act- eluding Vietnam. duty, or missing a pass or liberty.
ing to put into operation measures to curb In connection with these cases, the Sub- Apparently, today's serviceman is getting
'buses cited in the Ervin proposal. committee's attention was directed to a re- the same kind of pressures to sign up, but
tear rules are being drafted on the con- cent advertisement which appeared in Sun- he's not keeping mum about it.
-d charity drives. Ahead are restrictions day news supplements on March 26 showing According to Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., of
e of lie detector tests and the re- men in battle uniform being presented a North Carolina, letters from men in Viet Nam
it for financial statements. Minute Man flag for having over 90% par- are flowing into his office. The letters com-
questions on ap ications are b ng tics ation in pa roll Savings plans. The ad plain of coercion being used to make the
;:ed. Approved Por i asee2( la 1~9 325~1~01~00~UD 3-1Jnds and
:nt action by the commission may do" and continues: 'These men, now et- car es.
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79700632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
One letter from a father was followed by a Citizens who oppose such bureaucratic
second which gave permission to use his coercion of individuals should offer their _
name, since his son had been killed in action wholehearted support of Ervin in his fight
and was beyond any retaliation for coin- to gain approval of his proposal which would
plaiuing, prohibit coercion of servicemen and civilians
Expressing disgust at the whole sorry spec- who are on the government payroll.
tacle of men being squeezed for money while
they're risking life and limb, Senator Ervin [From the Southern Pines (N.C.) Pilot,
has introduced a bill to prohibit any and all Apr. 12, 1967]
high-pressure fund-raising. , MINOR FREEDOMS, Too, ARE IMPORTANT
Here's one proposal that should have been A "civilian employee privacy bill," to pro-
could be tect Federal workers from unwarranted in-
more books m ware ago. Nothing an n eager-beaver
In-
leaning contemptible specious vasions of their constitutional rights, was in-
leaning his subordinates meet et troduced recently in the U.S. Senate by Sen.
quotas that make a a mockery of voluntary Sam J Ervin and 52 other Senators who are
giving.
There's nothing wrong with servicemen
being 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 by 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. savings
bonds and participate in other such fund
c]rives 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 Is?" 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.
Fifty-two Senators, including Sam Ervin
of North Carolina, have set 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
Brotheriem.
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Mar. 21, 1967]
IMPROPER QUESTIONS
Certain tests and questionnaires used by
the federal government threaten an unjusti-
fled 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."
111 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-
sulted 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-
form of his country is obligated to obey marches and give adverse efficiency reports to
orders; he would be a poor citizen if he military personnel simply because they are
didn't. But there are some limits to what unwilling to spend their small paycheck as
he should be required to do. What he does the Government dictates."
with his meager pay is his own affair; the There is, of course, a great deal of senti-
government has no right to force him to buy mental nonsense spoken and written about
bonds or participate in any other charity the evils of "big government" and its dom-
fund drive. That should be solely a matter ination of "private business"-and the like.
for the Individual to decide personally, with- In a huge nation, with a complicated ccon-
out coercion. omy and numerous areas of life In which "pri-
One soldier wrote: "I am hero to do a job. vato" efforts are necessarily inadequate to
I aslc to do that job. With commanders per- meet people's needs, the government must
petua?Ily on one's back, it does not create a be given and must exercise power.
very good atmosphere for completing a nits- However, the areas of rights and privileges
Sion." and dignities which Senator Ervin's pro-
From Plelku, South Vietnam, a private re- posals would protect are a different matter
ported that men refusing to buy savings and irrelevant to the main concerns of gov-
bonds had been threatened with extra work ernment.
and loss of three-day passes. Some 34 GIs Indeed, an old truth is revived here: the
wrote to thank Ervin for his bill. They called, petty annoyances of minor bureaucrats can
arm-twisting to buy bonds "a problem which Inake life more miserable than legitimate
has troubled members of the military for major invasions of personal privacy such as
quite some time," the Income tax, social security and the draft.
Senator Ervin and his colleagues are on the
A private first-class strain in Vietnam right track In their attempts to protect what
now recalled that during training at Ft. Gor- might be called the minor freedoms that
don his company commander would an- all citizens, but most particularly govern-
nounee, "there goes a cheapskate," when ment employees, should enjoy.
spotting non-bond-buying soldiers.
Ervin's files turned up oneletter from a .) Record, Mar. 16,
father in California who reported his son was _ [From the Columbia 19 (S (S..C
fighting in Vietnam, despite the family's con-
viction that the war was unjust. 'This is CONTROLLING BIG BROTHER
insult enough without his also being forced'. Big Brother has breathed too long down
to buy savings bonds which he does not want, the necks of Federal employees, intruding
1 fora overnment to spend warrant into the privacy of their
r er
k
it
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-
ea
e
o ma
money on a war we are ashamed of." lives and unduly interfering with their con- ment.
The man's son A-PpIOVedi F - te#eas+h 002/ 122 : CIA-RDP79-00632A1''OOU 8fyO tloth Congress and
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12929
an organization dedicated to the preserva- The Ervin bill would create an independ- already spreading throughout the bureauc-
tion of civil liberties have seen fit to look ent Board on Employe Rights. This would racy to lay off, lest some new scandal propel
into the matter. It deserves continuing sur- give employes a place to make complaints the Ervin measure through Congress.
veillance. without fear or reprisal. Fortunately, the bureaucracy seems to have
The legislation would prohibit indiscrimi- moved too late. Last year, the Johnson ad-
[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal, nate requirements that employes submit to ministration successfully fought off a similar
Mar. 8, 19671 questioning about their religion, personal measure, also introduced by Senator Ervin,
ERVIN'S PRIVACY CAMPAIGN relationships or sexual attitudes through but the bureaucrats learned little from the
Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. has summoned the interviews, psychological tests or lie detector experience of a close shave. The old ways
tests. were resumed once the bill was beaten. This
him in crux means most of ent to
and jfoin Federal employes would not be required year 1s different. Senator Ervin has persuaded
him n a crusade files rid government that to report to their bosses on outside activities 60 of his colleagues--a majority-to co-spon-
dustry infrin n personnel of i unrelated to their business, nor would they sor the measure. If the House will go along,
nfrges o on n Ind d ividudual privacy. thamation privacy. have to attend political meetings. They the temptation for the government to manip-
We axe. with him, right down to the last couldn't be coerced into buying bonds. They ulate the private lives of its workers will be
cartridge. would have the right to counsel or other greatly reduced.
It is preposterous, silly, idiotic and maybe representation at an interview which could
orarean a inntrifle dus dustr ial personnel ral parianistfor a director r to have to have lead-to disciplinary proceedings. They Also [From the Wilmington (N.C.) Morning Star,
could bring civil action for violation of the Feb. 23, 19671
In hand the most intimate Information act. MATTER of PRIVACY
about an employee. Senator Ervin thinks federal employes are
Who do you love more-your father or being "smothered by tons of big brotherism." The bugging with hidden microphones
your mother? Congress has the responsibility, he believes, and the tapping of telephones are far from
Do you ever dream of fire? "to assure as far as possible that those in the only ways of depriving us of our personal
Do you seek extra-marital relations? the executive branch responsible for admin- privacy in this age which has become Orwel-
Have you ever had an impuse to murder Ilan before its forecast 1984 time.
another person? standards istering the in laws their adhere to programs, policies and constitutional Nearly every government questionnaire re-
Would you rather go hunting with a group administrative techniques." quired to be filled out requests information
of mate friends or take your wife on a second We agree with Senator Ervin and hope that is not only pertinent to the subject and
honeymoon? legislation gets favorable attention at immediate usage, but gives away such per-
These and thousands of other similarly this this session of Congress. sonal matters as religion, living standards,
goofy questions appear on dozens of "per- politics, family relationships and like man-
sonnel questionnaires" across the land, Sen. [From the Charleston (S.C.) Evening Post, nor of data most of us have long held as priv-
Ervin dislikes the compilation of such in- March 1, 19671 ileged and private.
formation-and seeks to put an end to it. In the tracking down of income tax infor-
The defenders of such questionnaires and SAM ERVsN's RIGHTS BILL mation, for further, instance, the federal
dossiers and lie-detector tests are numerous Son. Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina re- government employs informers to come up
and powerft}l; and they rationalize their en- cently Introduced a civil rights bill that all with income dossiers on private citizens and
thusiasm for this peek-a-boo nonsense by good and reasonable men can support. If taxpayers-for a fee, of course; a percentage
solemnly intoning the need to find out what his bill passes, federal employes will get back of whatever additional taxable sums are un-
"motivates" a potential employe. Their argu- those rights of citizenship that our heavy- earthed.
meats rarely touch on the efficiency or dedi- handed bureaucrats have robbed them of. As Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., North Carolina's
cation of such employees; what they are in- Moreover, any future robberies could land the senior U.S. Senator charged Tuesday "a very
terested in primarily is his private thoughts, offending bureaucrats in jail. large segment of oui? population is being
dreams and frustrations. It has long been the practice in many fed- smothered by tons of big-brotherism."
But what may win this war for those oral agencies to recruit political ambassadors Sen. Ervin has introduced a bill, with 50.
Americans who believe individual privacy from the ranks of civil service. Sometimes other senators as co-patrons, to protect the
to be as important as the constitutional bar this has taken the form of requiring gov- privacy of public workers. His bill would pro-
to self-incrimination is the fact that those ernment workers to further, in their off hibit indiscriminate requirements that em-
officials who demand such questionnaires are hours, various community projects of which ployes and applicants disclose their race, re-
not serious men at all. They are voyeurs- Big Brother approves. A case that recently ligion or national origin. It would also free
sophisticated versions of those poor souls came to light involved an agency directive these from having to report on much of their
who derive pleasure from peeking into other commanding civil servants to enlist in local activity which is normally considered per-
people's windows at night. projects aimed at promoting "open housing" sonal.
Sen. Ervin believes they can be curbed; laws. This is only one example. Such com- The Ervin bill would also protect service-
and the American people have a greater stake pulsion is commonplace. men from coercion in savings bond cam-
than most of us realize in the success of his In election years, the machinery of bureau- paigns and in charity drives.
efforts to do just that. cracy operates in such a way as to enrich In this day of increasing person-to-person
the political warchest of the ruling party. prying, Sen. Ervin's bill should be comfort-
[From the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, Donations are solicited on the sly, and a ing to all those in public employment.
Mar. 5, 1967] variety of subterfuges are resorted to in an The bill, or an enlarging amendment to
BILL OF RIGHTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYES effort to escape the prohibitions of the Hatch it, would be universally acclaimed if it could
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was Act. Government workers have even been help restore a measure of privacy to private
accused recently of having threatened to known to get the word from above that out- citizens.
forge psychiatric records in an effort to dip- right campaigning is expected of them.
credit an officer of the National Student Invasions of privacy are likewise a common [From the Richmond News Leader,
Association (NSA). occurrence. In the famous case of Otto Feb. 23, 1967]
Whether this charge is true or not, there Otepka, to cite a single example, employes THE PROPOSAL OF SENATOR ERVIN
is reason to believe that officials in some spied on a fellow worker, bugged his office
federal agencies have accused employes of phone, rifled his trash basket and even broke Senator Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina
being mentally Ill as a method of forcing into his confidential files-all on orders from was in fine form Wednesday night in his
them to retire. Robert G. Sherrill made this higher up in an attempt to get evidence in address here to the Virginia Sons of the
charge in an afticle in The Nation magazine no way related to furthering national Revolution and, needless to say, he was
on Civil Service Commission practices. More security. In many other less celebrated cases, among friends. Senator Ervin's benignity, his
than 13,000 civil service employes left gov- bureaucratic muckety-mucks have also tram- judicial background and his shrewd balance
ernment employment between 1955 and 1962 pled with impunity on the private rights of have made him a formidable Southern
for what was labeled mental or nervous their underlings. tribune in Washington. All this was in evi-
disorders--half of them under protest. If Senator Ervin's bill is enacted into law, deuce as he spoke in behalf of a remedy that
An employe may be told he needs attention all this will change. His bill outlaws such would restrain the U.S. Supreme Court from
and ordered to go to a Civil Service psychia- practices altogether. Furthermore, it estab- acting as legislature and redeem it as an
trist. If he refuses, he can be discharged for lishes a three-member Board of Employe interpreter of the Constitution as written.
violating orders. Usually the employe does Rights to investigate individual complaints, Yet Senator Ervin, for all the light he cast
not get the opportunity to go to a private conduct hearings and fix penalties. No mem- upon the subject and the force of his indict-
psychiatrist. There Is no hearing before or her of the board may be otherwise employed meat of the court as a power pirate, did not
after the psychiatric examination, by the federal government, and the penalties convince all his listeners that he had indeed
Senator Sam Ervin (Dem., N.C.) 'is again it could impose are substantial: fines of up perfected the remedy.
pushing for action at this session on legis- to $300 for each offense and jail terms up to Senator Ervin proposed a constitutional
lation to protect federal employees against 30 days. amendment altering the fashion in which
such treatment. Interest in the proposed Any federal supervisor who tampered with justices of the court are appointed. He would
"bill of rights" for federal employes has in- the rights or personal lives of his subordi- provide that the chief justice of the highest
creased as a result of disclosures of spying, nates would be subject to punishment, and State appellate courts recommend a small
coercion and invaslonA Af iv*c d For Releases' /1P` / 'ol .iAtr P791006521A000100080003-91e President
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
would make a selection; the Senate would be This, and other efforts by government
called upon to confirm. agencies to intimidate their employees and
The fact Is, the 1787 constitutional pro- pry into their privacy resulted during the
visions concerning the U.S. Supreme Court last session of Congress in a series of hear-
and its powers represented an unfinished ings by Senator Ervin's Subcommittee on
symphony. No qualifications for the justices Constitutional Rights.
were established (until this day a justice John F. Griner, president of the 220,000-
need not be a lawyer and a non-lawyer has member American Federation of Government
served) and it required the genius, not to Employees, spent nearly three hours before
mention Inventiveness, of John Marshall to this committee telling of pressure, propagan-
establish something so basic as Judicial dizing, and intimidation, and of "secret
Revue. dossiers" kept on government workers, In
The thrust of Senator Ervin's proposal for addition to the snooping, pressure to buy
insuring the appointment of fit justices is savings bonds, and similar coercion, Griner
by no means new and is found In the 1787 said that some Federal installations have
debates within the Constitutional Conven- held sessions with employees to mold their
tion. There was a strong disposition not to attitudes on civil rights, the United Nations,
endow the President with exclusive appoint- and other public issues.
Ive power, though this disposition was over- He told of a case at a Defense Department
come. The genius of Benjamin Franklin had field Installation where groups of employees
to have its horse laugh along with a seventh- were assembled to hear a thirty minute re-
inning stretch and, in the debate on Ervin- corded speech on the "Importance of integra-
like proposals, he pointed to the custom in tion" and the "greatness" of the United Na-
Scotland. There, Franklin said, the judges tions. The AFL-CIO leader pointed out that
were nominated by the lawyers, and the if this continues an Administration with a
lawyers happily selected the ablest of their different attitude might hold employee in-
brethren "in order to get rid of him and doctrination sessions on the "Evils of the
share in his practice among themselves." United Nations" or on whether or not we
This sally launched James Madison on an should be involved in the Vietnam war.
alternate mode of selection in which the Government questionnaires ask employees
power of appointment would have been con- to identify themselves as "American Indian,
fided to the Senate. Negro, Spanish American, none of these."
For much of the life of this Republic, the George B. Autry, a Committee staff aide,
Supreme Court has been abominated by one- noted that preliminary reports indicate "that
half of the citizenry and cherished by the ' there are an awful lot of American Indians
other half. It has been packed and unpacked. in the State Department which we didn't
It has bent to the political winds and has know about."
been flatly defied by Presidents such as Employees have often refused to fill out
Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, not such forms, believing that the government
to mention some of the States. All in all we was meant to be "color blind" in its rela-
wonder that Senator Ervin has not given tionship with its employees, as with all citi-
more thought to the election of the kind of zens. It seems a clear double standard, for
President who could be depended upon to example, to have a national Civil Rights Act
appoint fit justices to the exclusion of leg- barring discrimination in private employ-islative justices. The means is there, only the ment and have a federal government policy of
will Is missing. . keeping employee records on the basis of race.
Senator Ervin attacked the government
[From Roll Call (D.C.), Feb. 2, 19671 questionnaires, which he said are supposed
RIGHT TO PRIVACY-GOVERNMENT IS BIG to be confidential but aren't, on the racial
BROTHER TO ITS EMPLOYEES backgrounds of employees and their outside
financial Interests. He said that he "saw no
(By Allan C. Brownfeld) need" for the racial questionnaires which
The Founding Fathers did not specifically the government says it uses to check on equal
write a "right of privacy" into the Constitu- employment opportunities, "unless the gov-
tion. They felt that this was understood by ernment is interested in establishing a sys-
civilized men, but history has shown us that tem of racial quotas."
this was not the case. In fact, Mr. Justice Union leader Griner also accused the In-
Brandeis felt the need in Olmstead vs. United ternal Revenue Service of being especially
States in 1928 to clearly state that "The right hard on employees. He said it has bugged
to be alone-the most comprehensive of telephones and fired employees accused of,
rights, and the right most valued by civilized but not proven guilty of, taking bribes. He
men" was one guaranteed by our laws. said that the IRS is an "outstanding example
This week Senator Sam Ervin of North of an agency that believes every one of Its
Carolina will. Introduce in the Senate a bill employees is dishonest until proven honest."
which he calls a "bill of rights" for fed- In Huntsville, Alabama, the union leader
oral employees, protecting them from what said, Army investigators were questioning a
his committee's hearings have found to be man about some alleged thefts from a candy
clear invasion of their privacy, coercion, and machine. During the long grilling session,
often forced indoctrination. they repeatedly asked "if he knew his wife
Senator Ervin's committee found that far was running around with a fellow employee?"
from creating a "welfare state" which the In another instance a security investigator
good of each employee is considered of over-
:riding importance,, the government had ere asked neighbors of a government employee
sated for its own employees e system which whether or not he and his wife treated their
they felt deprived them of their own freedom, adopted children in a proper manner. Until
and unfairly pried into their private lives. that time, no one in the community knew
The examples have been numerous. When that the children had been adopted. Gov-
President Johnson sought to increase the ernment prying led to this unfortunate cir-
purchase of United States Savings Bonds the cumstance.
request that government employees step up Senator Ervin's proposed bill is meant to
their buying was often put in terms which put an end to pressure from higher up on
left little to the imagination. At the National civilian and military people voluntarily to
Science Foundation employees were asked join in charity or bond drives which have
if they had been "prudent and intelligent" pro-set quotas or dollar amounts for all the
and signed up for the program, or "are you volunteers. The bill may provide criminal
a rebel without a cause who wants a little and/or administrative penalties for supervi-
attention?" A marine general sent repro- sors, who join in the pressure exercise, or
sentatives Into Vietnam foxholes and "kept otherwise invade the privacy of their workers.
track of the patrols so that every indt- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
vidulal had an opportunity to hear how he spelled out in graphic detail the full extent
September 100, 1967
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 York 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 alms 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-
could Invest his money in a worthwhile of this whole trend. He said: "We are rap- lar cause. It grows out of the well-founded
program." Approved For Release 2 e1%12Gr CIKT1RD~79r0063~A00010008000'i1geS sometimes
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
perform their assigned duties with more Federal employees' access to personnel offices.'
promotable efficiency. Like: In either case, as "a whole or in its separate
Social Security numbers-Well, lots of parts, this directive, certainly well enough
people have them don't they? . Intentioned by CSC, is an unwitting but
Home phone number-In ease of serious nevertheless shocking indictment of condi-
on-base traffic accident. - tions prevailing in too many Federal agencies.
Office phone-Ditto. "It reflects how far the Federal Govern-
Grade and pay-To guide the arresting ment has yet to go to improve and bring its
officer In issuing on-base traffic tickets. employee relations fully into the third quar-
National origin, whether white, Negro, ter of the twentieth century.
American Indian, Spanish-American, or "In this directive the CSC is asking Fed-
other-for same purpose as above. eral departments and agencies to take only
FinancCal assets of employe and family- the most elementary of steps ... only to ae-
as above. cord Federal employees rights which are the
Blood type-In case the on-base accident most basic ... only to be sure that the door
requires a transfusion. Is not kept locked or slammed in the ern-
Religion-In case it threatens to be fatal. ployeo's face.
Name and phone number of pastor-ditto. "It is scarcely to be wondered that the
SVCIcLES issuance of this revelatory directive has not
b Fed-
areer
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
priate," that may be.
On guard, good citizensl on
[From the Washington (D.C.)
July 3, 1967]
guard I
Daily News,
FTS CALLED SAD-SACK OPERATION
(By John Cramer)
Here's more about that sad-sack operation,
the Federal Telecommunications System
(FTS).
FTS 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.
SITING 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-
loyes have free access to agency personnel
been greeted with loud huz..as y c
edal employes."
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Juno 13, 1967]
SHE SPORE 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 employes 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
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 cemnrlssion particularly dislikes:
The proposed Independent Board of Rights.
Criminal penalties for violators.
Direct access to the Courts.
On all of these 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 grievance procedures.
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
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, Son. Ervin can be nothing but
right when he proposes some form of appeal
In such cases.
I
eff [From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Tes. Also-and it's understood Sen. Ervin is
The order was 14 sued after the Senate's June 5, 1967] insistent on this--employes, once their ad-
Ervin Constitutional Rights Sub-committee CoMPnoMIsE IN "BILL OF RIGHTS" FOR minietrative remedies were exhausted, would
turned up numerous instances in which EMPLOYES be permitted to take their cases to Court
c;cncies had made it difficult or impossible (By John Cramer) "de novo."
f-r employees to consult personnel people. In legal parlance, that means their cases
Says the NFFE: Both sides are cagey-but there's at least p"Does it not seem ironical ... does it not reason to hope that the Administration may would be considered by the courts as new ...
';hike any unbiased observer as a graphic be nearing essential compromises with Sen. not confined by Executive Branch interpreta-
Innrentary on the unhappy state of em- Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), the Constitutional tion of the law . in no way affected by
3I.-wee-management relations in the Federal Rights Subcommittee, chairman, on his pro- decisions reached as they exercised their
arviec . that in this day and time the posed "bill of rights" for Federal employes. administrative remedies.
CSC should find it necessary to issue, be- The Civil Service Commission, speaking There's no assurance these Compromises
1 '.tedly, an order on such a basic matter? for the Administration, has backed somewhat will be worked out. As of now, they're discus-
"Consider this directive in all of its impli- oh' its original position that there's no need sion points-on both sides.
cations ... or consider only the single state- whatsoever for the Ervin bill. It's promising, however, that both sides
ment that Federal p y~ ~p p eay b I/ I cs ~Ie_O l ft-66 ~ NY 0080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
June 1, 19671
YOU CAN, Too, BEEP 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
hie roll erns for wanting to see a personnel
units of the Office recently were moved under "On April 5, I was interrupted at my Gov-
circumstances shrouded in unusual secrecy. ernment job by two military police and a
MAIN OBJECTION county police sergeant, who had papers stat-
AWOL I told them he
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 t15 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
garage; 2. Boycott of all Crystal Plaza fa-
cilities; 3. Boycott of both.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
ing my husband was .
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
at a congested hour.
"At my home, they looked at the letters
and still were not convinced. Therefore, I
had to call Ft. Carson to satisfy them. When
they had been assured that my husband
YOU COULD BE WRONG, MR. M! was indeed there, they said it must have been
(By John Cramer) a name mixup.
Civil Service Commission Chairman John "After all this humiliation, I asked them
Macy continues to insist there's :absolutely to call my boss and explain.
no need for the "bill of rights" sponsored by "They refused."
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.) and 54 other Sena- Just one day's mail, Mr. Macy, from Fed-
tors to protect Federal employes against oral employes who know just how badly they
privacy invasions by bureaucrats and mill- need a "bill of rights".
trots. the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
He should read my mall! Yesterday's, for [From Apr. 13, 1967]
instance.
There was a note from an employe at An- KOOK HAS A PREGNANT QUESTION I
drews Air Force Base- (By John Cramer)
"Base regulations say we must have auto Today, I crown a new Government privacy
insurance in order to qualify for registra- invading champion-A Pennsylvania-type
tion stickers entitling us to drive and park kook, who richly deserves .to be Immortalized
on the Base. among the most officious of all Federal bu-
"If you utilize the parking facilities at reaucrats.
Air Force Systems Command and are a GS-7 He succeeds to the throne briefly held by
or higher, all that is required is a verbal that Omaha, Neb., Air Force major, who, in
statement that you have adequate e instu?- an official order, now countermanded by top
ante. Pentagon brass, presumed to tell his sub-
"However, if you are a GS-6 or lower or an ordinates exactly how far they could drive
enlisted person, you are required to submit their private cars on week-end trips.
the actual insurance policy to the Air Police. My new champion Is a minor wheel-clearly
"This surely shows that the old military of the two-bit variety-in Social Security
adage, 'RHP (Rank has its privileges), is Administration's Philadelphia Award Proces-
practiced at Andrews here with a vengeance." sing Branch.
Here, Your Government Reporter inter- LETTER
rupts with two questions:- '
r.. r tted as if is by Am rem? la- According to a letter to Sen. Sam Ervin
officer or other management official. lions, 1s IT really tine proper uuauwa~ u~ ~.,c Rights Subcommittee, from Lawrence B.
Victory No. 2-involved a 1954 (McCarthy Andrews milicrats to check employe insur-
era) Defense Department regulation, which: ance? James, president of Lodge 2006 of the AFL-
Do they honestly believe that GS-6s are CIO American Federation of Government
Warned employes against "indiscreet re- less trustworthy that believe Employee:
marks; unwise hip in of friends n hose The letter writer then goes on to say that, "On March 30, female employes of the
t:ue ; objectives are in ce organization whose altho Andrews brass is real super-efficient Award Processing Branch, both married and
true innocuoous s title concealed behind a popu- about the insurance thing, it can't manage single, were asked by their supervisors
far or r innocuous such a simple matter as soap for women's whether or not they were pregnantI
Advised them "to study and seek wise and restrooms. "We have signed statements from the em-
mature counsel prior to association with per- "There has been none for the last 2 or ployes who suffered this -injustice."
sons or organizations of any political or civic 3 weeks. We're told there will he none until On the phone, Mr. James told me:
nature, no matter what their apparent mo- the first of the fiscal year-July 1. No money That the Branch has about 200 female
tives may be . :' appropriated for soap?! I" employes.
A companion directive ordered key offi- By way of Sen. Ervin's Constitutional That the signed statements number 20.
cials to provide the "wise and mature coun- Rights sub-committee came a letter from a That all eight supervisors in the Branch
sel." - GS-9 employe at a military installation- were asked to conduct the pregnancy poll.
Under pressure from the Ervin Sub-con- "Recently, my military supervisor called me That four, however, had the good sense to
mittee, both recently were canceled. into his office, and told me to join the Of- refuse. -
In addition, however, the Commission has ficers' Club or face the loss of my job. That it's his understanding that Branch
"It seems the commander of our installer -
ordered all agencies to re-examine their own tion was dissatisfied with the response of management justified the poll on "safety"
ing sim la to make sure they contain moth- civilian employes in attending his cocktail grounds, saying it planned special consid-
ing e Commission parties (to which he invites many non-pay-? eration for the pregnant gals in fire drills.
ll- ing guests for his personal gain). REPORT ASKED
Th being "concerned the Sub-commit-
as being "concerned with a general c- "Dues at the Club are $7.50 per month for Sen. Ervin wrote Social Security Commis-
mate of fear and coercion revealed by em- civilians with no voting rights or say in the sioner Robert M. Ball, April 5, requesting a
ploye letters to the Sub-committee, and with management of the club. The rate is the full report.
the implications of a Government-wide poi- same for military officers, who can vote and So far, he has no reply.
icy of surveillance of citizens, especially em- manage the club! When he gets one, I'll relay the word.
lAOycs." "Needless to say, civilians are 'second-
It said it "shares this concern." class' members who are tolerated only be- In the circumstances, I'd think Mr. Ball
Chief officers of the Patent Office Profes- cause the club wants and needs the dues would want to convey his own apologies to
slonal Association, have recommended that money." the embarrassed employes.
PO employes undertake a boycott of mer- And finally, a letter from a serviceman's Invading sharp reprimand to my new privacy
chants at Crystal Plaza, Va.. to which major wife in Indianapolis- ding champ.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
S 12934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, by the President and confirmed by the Sen- interference or threat of reprisal" to visit
Feb. 22, 1967] ate. personnel offices and make formal com-
BILL of RIGHTS GETS BIG BACKING The Board would have the power to investi- plaints, appeals, and grievance claims under
(By John Cramer) gate and conduct hearings on alleged viola- existing personnel regulations.
Lions, and issue cease-and-desist orders.
Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), chairman of the In the case of first violations by civilian [From the Washington Post, June 8, 1967]
Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, yester- officials, it could issue official reprimands and CSC LAUNCHES EMPLOYE STUDY
day re-introduced his proposed "bill of suspensions up to 15 days. For subsequent (By Jerry Kluttz)
rights" for Federal employes, with impres- violations, it could suspend up to 30 days, or
sive backing from 52 other Senators who order the official's dismissal. A broad review of the Government's col-
signed as co-sponsors. Military violators would be reported to the lection and use of data on Its nearly 2.9 mil-
That means the bill now has the support president, the Congress and the heads of lion civilian employes has been undertaken
i
of a clear majority of the Senate-a con- their services, and would be subject to Code
senses which will bring no joy to Adminis- of Military Justice procedures.
tration spokesmen who were alone in op- Both officials and employes would have
posing it at Sub-committee hearings last the right to ask Federal District Courts to re-
year. view Board decisions.
In 1966, co-sponsors totalled 35. A Ervin bill introduced yesterday would
GUARD outlaw coercion of military personnel in
The "bill of rights" is designed to protect Savings Bond and charity campaigns.
Federal workers against growing invasions of [From the G(N.C.) Daily News,
their privacy by their agencies-invasion at- Junb Greensboro, 28, o 1967]
tested in a remarkable outpouring of thou-
Sands of letters to the Sub-committee. ERVIN BILL BRINGS FEDERAL WORKERS PER-
In re-introducing it yesterday, In slightly- SONAL PRIVACY
revised form, Sen. Ervin told the Senate: (By Roy Parker, Jr.)
"It Is time for Congress to forsake its out- WASHINGTON.-Employes of the Library of
dated reluctance to tell the Executive branch Congress no longer must fill out medical
how to treat its employes. forms describing their sexual habits.
"When so many American citizens for so The Air Force has called oil a directive for-
many years are subject to unfair treatment, bidding most employes from telephoning or
to being unreasonably coerced or required visiting their personnel office without ex-
without warrant to surrender their liberty, plalning to their immediate boss.
their privacy, or their freedom to act or not The Federal Aviation Agency has quietly
to act, or to reveal or not to reveal informs.- buried a personnel rule which threatened
tion about themselves and their private reprisals against employes who wrote conl-
thoughts and actions, then Congress has a plalning letters to their congressman.
duty to call a statutory halt to such prac- The Civil Service Commission has reversed
tices, and to penalize their resumption. a policy order which encouraged government
"The reams of regulations, guidelines, and workers to take part in off-duty "community
questionnaires issued for applicants, em- activities."
ployes and their families to promote various These and other reversals of policy have
causes make it clear that a very large seg- flowed from North Carolina Sen. Sam Ervin's
ment of our population is being smothered pressure on the federal bureaucracy to stop
by tons of big-brotherism." what he calls "invasions of privacy" of the
The bill would prohibit these agency prac- army of government workers.
tices, among others: The Tar Heel senator has authored a "Bill
Requiring or pressuring employees to dis- of Rights" for government workers that has
close their race, religion, or national origin. been signed by more than half the 100 mem-
Requiring or pressuring them to attend hers of the Senate.
meetings or participate in other outside Ervin this week listed some of the changes
activities not connected with their duties. that have been wrought by the mere threat
Forbidding them to patronize specified of the legislation.
business establishments. While he negotiates with executive branch
Requiring them to submit to psychological officials for even further shifts in policy,
or lie detector tests which include questions Ervin said he would continue to push for
about their relationships with relatives, re- Senate consideration of his bill. He did not
ligious beliefs, or sex attitudes and conduct. rule out the possibility that the original ver-
An exception to the general ban on psycho- sion might be watered down somewhat in
logical tests would be made for Individual view of the policy changes.
employes being examined for possible mental However, said Ervin in a newsletter to con-
illness. stitucnts, "the need for the bill is still great,
Requiring or pressuring employes to attend because regulations by government agencies
political fund-raising functions. are subject to change according to the whim
Coercing employes to purchase U.S. Bonds, and caprice of the administrators."
or contribute to charity campaigns. How- One of the most significant results of Er-
ever, reasonable, noncoercive solicitation vin's pressure was a Civil Service Commis-
would continue to be permitted. Sion order reducing the requirement that
Requiring employes to disclose financial thousands of federal workers file financial
assets and those of their relatives. The Ervin disclosure information in a program designed
bill would restrict such disclosure to em- to head off infiucnce-peddling and conflict
ployes in potential conflict-of-interest situa- of interest.
tions-and only to such portion of their The commission has also called off its race-
assets as might occasion a conflict, count program under which government
Requiring employes undergoing criminal workers were encouraged to list their race on
investigation to submit to questions without personnel forms. Instead, government man-
benefit of counsel. alters will keep such statistics through an
informal "head count" method.
The bill's- prohibitions would apply-fn some of the "be a booster" programs which
slightly different manner-to both civilian were borrowed from private industry and
and military supervisors of civilian em- business.
on-
by the Civil Service ornrniss
Cha.innan 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, GSC 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
both civilian and military personnel.
[Front 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 rectrooms 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
It would give employes the right to bring its promotional nrcthcds for savings bond
civil actions in Federal District courts to en- sales among military personnel. It has also organizations is as intimidating as to tell him
join threatened violations-or redress actual withdrawn a directive telling employes to to go out and lobby for legislation, or to take
violations. "seek wise and mature counsel" concerning part in beautification projects when he would
And it would make "willful" violation a friendships, associations, and civic activities. rather go fishing. Yet the Government does
misdemeanor, punishable by up to $300 fine To head off Ervin's call for an independent both.
or 30 days in prison. personnel grievance council, the Civil Service "To' coerce him to contribute a given
In addition, the giu,sy~W~l,ggi] t~i me aCjW'}~F~Q~1il~"1/1Ziosr ~F i~'?+ ,i9k 61 1 un 16~c0ha~r0 Or to buy savings bonds
member Board of rLF!>TjS1cS ~'Rq~itCs, a o 9~i~ll~fsfg/ 6teu ~9 ; ~A ion of employ_
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S129005
i'nent is equally repr hensible. Yet Federal The CSC Chairman echoed the words of has the signatures of 54 colleagues in the
officials do this. Savings Bond Chairman Lawrence F. O'Brien, Senate-or a comfortable majority.
"These practices affect not only the right who earlier told his keyrnen not to lean on Prior to his address, Ervin told a news
to speak and act according to the dictates people to buy bonds. conference he will vote for the censure of
of his conscience; they invade also his right Macy's directive said that agencies are to Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut as rec-
not to speak at all, not to act at all, and not make it plain that the fund drive and bond ommended by the Senate Committee on
to participate at all. In today's society programs are voluntary, and if people can't Standards and Conduct.
this may be the most precious right enjoyed or won't give, they should be left alone. He also criticized members of Congress
by civilized man." Agencies may continue to use the "fair who have voiced opposition to an address
Voting Block: Nine Civil Service Commis- share" guides, which indicate what donations by Gen. William Westmoreland, commander
sion investigators have been restrained from people might make according to their salary. of American forces in Vietnam.
compiling eligible voter lists in the Louisiana "But there may be no requirement that in- "I'm a great believer in free speech. The
eech
parishes of Desoto, Caddo, and Bossier, The dividual employe contributions meet such people n they opposing him believe in free speech
temporary order was issued by Federal Dis- guides," Macy warned.
are trict Judge Ben Dawkins of Shreveport. In addition, donations and bond purchases newsmen.
Dawkins concluded that Attorney General are supposed to be kept confidential this Expressing vigorous opposition to a bill
Ramsey Clark who had ordered CSC invests- year. They were supposed to be confidential that would allow taxpayers to deduct from
gators into the three parlshas, had said last year, but some overzealous supervisors- their annual income taxes $1 for a presiden-
earlier that there was no voter discrimina- military and civilian-posted the names of tial campaign fund. Ervin offered his own
tion in them. The Government will appeal nonglvers or- "cheapskates" on bulletin program for contributions.
the case. boards, or accused them publicly of being He suggested that each taxpayer be al-
Meantime, CSC will continue to list voters un-American. Macy said CSC would issue lowed a "reasonable deduction"-he men-
in five other Louisiana parishes that weren't instruction soon to advise employes of griev- tinned $50-for contributions to the party
affected by the ruling. Under the Voting ance procedures, if they are being pressured or candidates of his choice.
Rights Act the Attorney General has the au- to give.
thority to order CSC investigators into Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.) has gotten [From the Washington (D.C.), Evening Star,
counties where believes voter discrImina_ snooping would and protect
invasions RU, LES EASED ON EMPLOYE 19671
FILING OF DETAILED
and tion is practiced to police voter registration p o P Yes from pressure,
voting. of privacy. Fifty-five other Senators are CO- FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
sponsoring Ervin's bill, which would provide
(From the Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution, stiff enforcement penalties for supervisors
acted
May 20, 19671 found guilty of invading employe privacy. The Civil Service Commission today
But Ervin says that CSC doesn't want any to "significantly reduce" the number of fed-
PROTECTING GOVERNMENT WORKERS criminal penalties for arm-twisting officials, oral workers who must file detailed finan-
There has been considerable continent that that it feels the situation can be met with cial statements on behalf of themselves and
college graduates find no challenge in work- administrative proclamations." their families.
ing for private enterprie and that they Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Consti- The CSC modified its regulations on the
would rather work for some branch of gov- tutional Rights Subcommittee, will meet ethics and conduct of government employe,
ernment. It is therefore interesting to read with CSC officials Friday, when he hopes after the Senate Constitutional Rights sub-
an article in the March, 1967, 'Engineer in agreement can be reached on his bill. committee headed by Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C.,
Government Newsletter," published month- had sharply criticized the system. Hereto-
ly by the National Society of Professional [From the Durham (NC.) Herald, fore hundreds of thousands of federal em-
Engineers. April 29, 19671 ployes, many of them in lower grades and
It says that Sen. Sam J. Ervin of North in non-policy jobs, had been required to file
Carolina is sponsoring a federal employe ERVIN OUTLINES BATTLE TACTICS IN ALL-OUT
these statements.
"Bill of Rights" which would guarantee em- WAR ON SNOOPING The CSC said the revised program will be
ployes legal protection from snooping and A U.S. Senator who has waged an all-out limited "to those in positions in which the
coercion by federal agency officials. war against government snooping outlined possibility of conflict-of-interest involvement
Ervin's bill "would . . . outlaw the prac- his battle tactics at the Duke University is clear."
tice of coercing employes to make political Law School Friday. RECOMMENDED DIVISIONS
l
or charitable contributions, and would Sen. Sam. J. Ervin Jr. denounced invasion of all
employes former above grade GS mandatory y15 and all inclusion hof a
greatly restrict the conditions under which of privacy on the part of federal administra- The
an agency could require the submission of tors and predicted Congress will enact adds- aminers has been eliminated. Statements g
information concerning an employe's finan- tional legislation this year to protect em- ?x ex employe's outside employment and
financial employe's including those employment
cial or other private affairs . . . make it ployes and job applicants. an
unlawful to: Require employes or applicants Sen. Ervin said his experience as chairman boas of an tmpst s immediate se ofly, will
to take tests asking questions about their of the Senate Constitutional Rights Sub- be required only who arc employes I for making
or taking acrresponsible
ps regard for to kin-
about religion or sexual matters. . . . For- most important thing a man has is his right 13 and
bid employes to patronize any business; re- to privacy and to individual dignity." decisions ion procurement, grant or subsidy ad-
quire, employes under investigation to an- The senator charged the federal govern- trail i g, eg anon-federal enter-
swer questions without the presence of coun- ment has been bent on setting itself up as prise, or another activity hafing an eco-
from request or require employes to refrain the "Great Protector" of personal habits, pool, impact another a non-federal enterprise.
from participating in outside activities un- thoughts, actions and emotions of its vast mi employe who merely recommends a
less related to official duties, or to state that work force. decision or action will no longer he required
notice will be taken of attendance or lack of "This over-protectiveness and big brother- to file a financial statement. An employe
attendance at non-job related meetings." ism of government has led it to devise in- below grade GS-13 will be required to file
Other coercive practices are objected to genious means to rob employes of the Ameri- only if his employing agency justifies to the
by the engineers. Working under such re- can dream of freedom," he asserted. CSC that his filing is essential.
strictions would seem to be depressant rather Questions addressed to an individual's sex To further assure that the filing require-
than a challenge to an energetic and am- habits, religion, and family relationships ment extends only to employes whose posi-
bitious individual with forward-looking were attacked by Ervin in his appearance tions make it essential for the government
ideas. before the Duke law students. He denounced to have the information sought, the CSC
them as "an unwarranted and substantial has authorized agencies to exclude any em-
[From the Washington Post, May 11, 1967] Invasion of privacy." ploys whose duties sake the likelihood of
PRESSURE HIT IN FUND DRIVES Ervin said his investigation led to the un- his involvement in a conflict-of-interest sit-
(By Mike Causcy) covering of abusive uses of financial ques- uation remote.
Memo to fund-drive keymen and Savings tionnaires required of employes as far clown Also, an agency may exclude employes
the Civil Service scale as the raisin inspec- from the reporting requirement when the
Bond salesmen. tors in the Department of Agriculture. agency has an alternative procedure that
Subject: Arne-twisting. He acknowledged that conflict-of-interest the CSC has approved.
W: Macy Service Commission Chairman scandals provided the use of financial dis- The new regulations also specify that noJr. Rema
Jo arksM: acy Don't do itl closures to apprehend a few corrupt question may be used in an agency's form
Re is the message individuals. on employment and financial interests un-
Tt at, in effect, is oread Macy has less it is one included on the CSC's stand-
fo nil for all agencies to reand not "Still it seems unwarranted to require and form or has the. CSC's approval.
forrgeget t. , countless thou ands to reveal personal bust- M:.cy doesn't want to put a damper on any ness and financial affairs," he added. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
of the programs. But he wants to head off Ervin said he is proud to be a sponsor of Also, each employe must be informed that
any intimidation or setting individual goals, the administration's current bill to restrict his agency's grievance procedure is available
which have been common in many agencies wiretapping. And he announced that his to settle any complaint against being re-
duri;:ng the last couple o bill ref of ti a uired to file a statement. Also, agencies may
A615i~bved For F2e~ease ~'~ /11 n' 2 . dTi A5 '9 V0632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE I September 13, 1967
excuse an employe from reporting an interest ones who got us our pay raises each year!
too remote or inconsequential to affect the HUSBAND (suddenly contrite). I guess we
Integrity of his work. are a little harsh on him.
The former requirement that employes file WIFE. As if all this isn't bad enough, you're
quarterly supplements to their statements even afraid for us to join the Parent Teachers
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
nual statement will be required from those says about that. (He moves over to the tele-
who must file. vision set and takes from the top of the set
Other changes will provide better assur- the Defense directive. He looks for a partic-
ance of the confidentiality of financial state- tiler passage.) -
ments by requiring agencies to designate Here, I found it. (Ile reads aloud) . .. "A
which employes are authorized to review the number of our citizens unwittingly expose
statements and by making these employes re- themselves to unfavorable or suspicious ap-
sponsible for restricting the use of informa- praisal which they can and should avoid.
tion contained to that necessary in carrying This may take the form of an indiscreet
out the purpose of the ethics regulations. remark. an unwise selection of friends and
The new regulations also incorporate a re- associates, membership in an organization
cent -decision by the Comptroller General whose true objectives are concealed behind
that federal officials and employes are not a popular and innocuous title. .
to accept non-government reimbursement Therefore, it is advisable to seek wise and
(such as from industry) for travel on Bill- mature counsel prior to association with per-
cial business. sons or organizations of any political or civic
--- nature. .
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, WIFE (interrupting). That's enough. You've
Apr. 21, 1967] read that to me 50 times.
VOIDING OF "BIG BROTHER" DIRECTIVE MAY HUSBAND. But that's why I'm hesitant
HAVE STARTED IN HOME DRAMA about us joining the PTA or Junior joining
(By Joseph Young) the Boy Scouts. The way things are happen
ing these days, these groups could be fronts
From the Federal Spotlight Column, Even- for hippies, topless something or others or
ing Star, April 18: Ervin subcommittee dis- heaven knows what.
closes Defense directive cautioning civilian WIFE (starting to cry), But what's left for
employes against joining any organization, us. What kind of a life are we destined to
political or civic or forming friendships, with- lead.
out first getting the "mature advice" of their HUSBAND (suddenly brightening). Well
supervisors. Employes also admonished about who knows. Maybe one of the television net-,
use of "indiscreet" remarks. works will reschedule our favorite program
AP Story, Evening Star, April 20. Defense and we can "Sing Along with Mitch" again.
cancels directive. _
The Defense Department's decision to can- [From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Apr. 18,
cel Its Big Brother directive could have 1967]
stemmed from Its employes getting into - SOME WORKERS CAN'T BLOW NOSES WITHOUT
sticky situations like the one described below. ENTRY IN PERSONNEL FILE
Scene:-the living room of a Navy civilian
employe. The employe is seated, reading (By Joseph Young)
"Alone" by Adm. Richard Byrd, while his wife Such is the rapid encroachment of Big
stands over him and glares. Brother in government that some employes
Were, I'm sick and tired of our boring literally can't even blow their noses without
existence. No friends, not even neighbors that it being noted in their records.
we can talk to . no place to go. The Senate Constitutional Rights subcom-
HUSBAND (sighing) . I know what you mean. mittee discloses that eagle-eyed methods en-
But I'm a loyal Navy employe. And you know ginecrs in one Navy unit sit in front of the
what that means. room monitoring all actions of employes.
WIFS. I think you're a Casper Milquetoast. When an employe blows his nose, this is
Why can't you at least make friends with noted on his "personal" card, the subcommit-
some of our neighbors? We've lived here for tco said.
a month now, but we're not on speaking In another Navy office, methods engineers
terms with anyone. monitor the women's restrooms to see how
HUSBAND. But you know what the directive much time each female employe spend there.
said . . . It . . . Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., chairman of the
WIFE (interrupting). The hell with the Senate unit, describes these indignities as
directive! ranging from the "ludicrous to the pathetic."
HUSBAND. Careful! You know what it says While Ervin feels such actions are definitely
about indiscreet language. symptomatic of an increasing Invasion of
Were. (her face flushed with anger). I never employes' rights to privacy, he is even more
was so humiliated in my life as I was the day concerned over a recent Navy directive to em-
we moved in. Mr. Jones, our next door neigh- ployes.
bor came over to say hello and introduced The directive instructs employes not to join
himself . and what did you do! any organization, political or civil, or strike
HUSBAND. Well, I was sorry to have to ignore up new friendships without first securing
his outstretched hand. And I really felt very "mature counsel" as to the wisdom of these
bad about slamming the door in his face moves.
without replying to his greeting. But what Presumably the "mature counsel" is the
could I do? I'm not allowed to make any employe's supervisor who will advise in this
friendships without the mature advice of my sort of thing.
supervisor. Employes also are cautioned to be careful
WIFE. Well, why don't you clear it with at all times of their conversation, "An in-
your supervisor? discreet remark" could backfire on an em-
HUSBAND. I'm afraid to. He's a misanthrope, ploye, the Navy directive warns.
He hates everyone, and I'm sure he would John Macy, chairman of the Civil Service
b1a.ckball our neighbor. Commission, in response to Ervin's query as
WIFE (Ignoring his explanation). And why to what he thought of the directive, said he
did we have to hide and pretend we weren't felt Navy "had gone too far."
home when the Welcome Wagon lady came to "It goes beyond the bounds of reasonable
our door with those little gifts.
HUSBAND. Simply following instructions security precautions," he said.
not to strike up new acquaintances or Meanwhile, Ervin predicts early action by
friendships. - his subcommittee on his "bill of rights" for
The subcommittee is expected to approve it
shortly after that.
Fifty-four senators-a majority of the Sen-
ate-have joined Ervin in sponsoring the
measure.
[From the Omaha World-Herald, Apr. 8,
1967]
U.S. EMPLOYEES SAY RIGHTS INVADED
The chairman of the Senate Constitutional
Rights subcommittee has asked Defense De-
partment opinion of a series of policy let-
ters issued by an Omaha Army officer, which
the Senator suggests are "misguided .. .
paternalistic."
Senator Sam J. Ervin's (Dem., N.C.) letter
to Secretary of Defense McNamara, which are
tied to his long-continuing legislative battle
to prevent unwarranted Invasion into the
private lives of military and civilian em-
ployees of the Government, deals with policy
letters issued in January over the signature
of Maj. Edward M. Corson, commander of
the Armed Forces Examining and Entrance
Station in Omaha.
Since the subcommittee began its investi-
gation several years ago, it has received
thousands of complaints from all the states
from Federal employees contending that
their rights have been invaded.
Mr. Ervin is the author of two pending
bills, one relating to civilian employees and
another to military personnel.
They are designed to prohibit coercion in
solicitation of charitable contributions or
the purchase of United States Savings
Bonds-a frequent complaint-as well as re-
quests for disclosure of race, religion and na-
tional origin, or pressure to attend func-
tions, or reports on their outside activities
unrelated to their work.
In one of his policy letters, Major Corson
wrote that the President had urged Gov-
ernment personnel to buy Savings Bonds,
and he said:
"All personnel of this station will aid this
program by participation In the Army Sav-
ings Bond program."
Of this, Senator Ervin told Secretary Me-
Namara:
"Major Corson's enthusiasm on behalf of
the savings bond drive appears to be mis-
guided."
A memorandum issued by the Pentagon
last December 21 says "The choice of whether
to buy or not to buy a United States Savings
Bond i5 one that is up to the individual con-
cerned. He has a perfect right to refuse to
buy and to offer no reasons for that refusal."
in another policy letter, relating to mili-
tary personnel, Major Corson wrote:
"Several functions and activities are
planned and sponsored by this station during
the course of the year. All personnel will at-
tend such events unless excused by the com-
mander becau$e of extenuating circum-
stances, such as financial hardship, physical
indisposure, leave, etc."
In.another policy letter, the major said all
-personnel "are required to have at least two
front seat belts in their privately owned ve-
hicles." He said also that maximum travel
in a privately owned vehicle on a two-day
week end is 250 miles, for a three-day week
end, 350 miles.
A number of Nebraska employes of the Fed-
eral Housing Administration protested PHA
practices, particularly what they said was
a requirement that questionnaires regarding
outside employment include information on
an employe's family and outside jobs held
by them.
There was criticism of it regulation said to
require information on either the sale or
purchase of a residence even when FHA is
not involved.
MAJOR CORSON: NO STATEMENT
WIFE (continuing to vent her indignation). government employes. Contacted in Omaha Friday, Major Corson
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 Approvedt pForrRe'~ease 200 /11"I/ 2ir 6f At ~Pt~i~s-1~632ru~ l~ $ 1 ~4ti~g to ? of the Nebraska
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12937
FHA, was asked for comment. He said his in California that tells anyone who Is in- oral "personality tests" administered to job
office follows the regulations of the Civil terested.) applicants. They include queries about sex
Service Commission and the Federal Employ- Senator Ervin suggests "a massive nation- life, belief in the second coming of Christ,
meat Manual. wide clean-up campaign to cleanse present and love of parents. Mr. Ervin says such
These include rules to avoid conflict of in- files of improperly acquired, irrelevant per. questions, whatever the source, are invasions
terest, he said, which is why questions are sonal information." He is proposing legisla- of privacy. We agree. And that such questions
asked about outside employment and prop- tion to protect federal employees from psy- have been asked for a long time makes even
erty purchases. chologists, snoops and Orwellian nuts work- more pertinent not only a purge of such in-
Ing in conspiracy with computers. formation from present files, but a revision
[From Newsday, Garden City, Long Island Like everyone who gets serious about com- of business and government estimates of the
(N.Y.) 1967] puters, Ervin knows that mankind must take nature and relevancy of information de-
Tim ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWORTHY IDIOT the blame for what the machines do, As Dr. minded from employes.
Charles DeCarlo, P. computer expert, told him, The spreading use of computers-which
(By Charles McDowell, Jr.) "A computer is an absolutely trustworthy can instantly produce potentially damaging
WASHINGTON.-A reporter was talking on idiot," information without the applicant's having
the telephone the other evening to an official And the villainy of small-minded men in an opportunity to explain, modify, or chal-
of the International Monetary Fund who all this reminds Sam Ervin of a line from lenge answers that might have been given
was working overtime in his office at the William Faulkner: "Men ain't evil; they jest under stress years before-heightens the
agency's fancy new building here. Suddenly ain't got no sense." urgency for regulation. Mr. Ervin's assess-
the official said, "Oops, pardon me. The com- ment of the threat as coming not from the
puter just turned off my lights." [From the Boston (Mass.) Christian Science computer as a machine but from its abuse
There was the sound of the telephone be- Monitor, Mar. 21, 1967] by political executives, managers, and tech-
ing laid on the desk, followed by the sound IMPROPER QUESTIONS niclans is correct. His call for a "code of
of the official 'stumbling over his waste- Certain tests and questionnaires used by ethics" involving "self-regulation and self-
basket in the dark. Then he returned to the the federal government threaten an unjustt- restraints," however, seems insufficient.
telephone after switching on the lights. The need,is for a re-establishment of the
The poor fellow explained that the agen- fled invasion of the privacy of government Fourth Amendment, for Congressional ac-
employees. For several years, Sen. Sam J. tion to extend its guarantee of privacy to
cy's computer turned o8 the lights in all Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional
the offices at 6:30 p.m. every day. This offi- kept a sharp eye open to detect cope with the insidious erosion produced
cious mhings e'9 regular job involved, of of rights liberties, by man's amazing technology. Unnecessary
course, things like calculating interest rates possible has The subcommittee infringement of extensively individual probed the probing into private lives by whatever means,
in Peru, car-loading in Zambia, and the po- psychological testing of federal gand necessity exists only in national security
tential export market for Australian wpm- It estingd to the use government r some cases, must cease if the Bill of Rights is to
bats. employees. which include what mane win the race with electronics-and the po-
In its spare time, however, the computer testing forms litical executives, managers, and technicians.
handled a variety of economical housekeep- would consider objectionable questions re-
ing chores like turning off a man's lights lating to religion, sex, and other personal [From the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, May
and causing him to trip over his waste- matters. 7, 19671
basket. From one test, the following, for example,
were to be answered "true" or "false": ERVIN HITS PRIVACY INVASION-NATIONAL
This soW h rton. on computers
govern- is "Christ performed miracles." DRIVE URGED BY SENATOR
sweeping ,600computers attended by 71,000 u The federal goe"I pray several times a week." NEw YoRn.-Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-
krepers. cAccording to re u, the "I like to talk about sex." N.C., called Monday for a massive nation-
computers eecrare saving the Budget Bureau, the "I am a special agent of God." wide campaign to rid government and in-
ey track are space money satellites, and right More recently, the subcommittee found dustry personnel files of data that jeopard-
Security space , issue Social that various government agencies were using izes privacy.
eculiey checks, shuffle census figures, order r a "report of Medical History" which includes Ervin told the American Management As-
knows whaatle duties es f f st or and the CIA. perform heaven questions of an extremely personal nature, sociation that business and management
knows some of which have no apparent bearing on must place immediate restraints on the type
getting ithe individual's physical fitness. of information they force employes to give
Solana, Sam J. the computers a puters Democrat
out to of n hand and thinks ohs computers are After the subcommittee and the American about themselves.
of something ought to be done Civil Liberties Union pressed the matter with "They must launch a massive nationwide
about them before it is too late. the United States Civil Service Commission, clean-up campaign to cleanse their present
He is worried but he is not stuffy about it. the commission dropped the form for all files of improperly acquired, irrelevant per-
Ervin says, for instance, 'The day may civilian employees and job applicants. But renal information," Ervin added.
comp when we will from replace
cmp ce politicians with the Defense Department continues to use Ervin said if these steps are not taken be-some of son fig of s. Judging from
seen over sea- it for military personnel. fore proposed personnel data computer cen-
pno politicians ians l I've seen logic years, e A "false or dishonest answer" to this ques- ters are set up, the public will demand strict
I know I would sooner same ttonnaire is punishable by fine or Imprison- congressional controls.
computer. The machine ine may take stiffer the ffer to the sa mont. It was by no means clear that access "Government appropriations for research
lack of intelligence as some politicians, but to these forms would be strictly limited to and development will be denied and the
at least there is consistency in its idiocy." medical staff. If they were made available to computer will become the villain of our
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee personnel or security officers, answers irrele- society," Ervin said.
on
concerned about the Information e nfvin Is that ratcom- vant to physical fitness might well have re- Ervin, chairman of a Senate Judiciary
puters about storing on 3,000,000 o civilian in exclusion from government service. subcommittee on constitutional rights, ad-
employees federal government. must, of course, obtain certain dressed the association's annual conference
every est and the tervie these. With With about applicants in order to se- on electronic data processing.
every teed abeing interview these the people ever lent able, conscientious, and reliable em- He said the subcommittee has a huge
submitted ees available
the d danger push of ployees. But there are some personal matters dossier of complaints by federal employes
a button, Ervin sees ger r of wholesale which government has no right to extract about computerized questionnaires and even
invasions of privacy. from an individual as a condition of eanploy- lie-detector interviews that probe into their
Various government agencies give so-called ment. private affairs.
eersonaliey tests when screening people for We are encouraged that both Congress and If such information is consolidated into
employment and promotion. Ervin computers s frankkly an organization dedicated to the preserva- a central computer center it will make pos-
appalle record d of to know individual that citizeeesns' ' reactions keep a tion of civil liberties have seen fit to look Into sable a massive invasion on the privacy of
record to the matter. It deserves continuing surveil- millions of persons, Ervin said.
such test propositions troubled by these: constipationlance. "Decisions affecting a person's job, retire-
I At t very seldom like swearing. . ment benefits, security clearance, credit rat-
I not I feel tell the truth[Front the Norfolk (Va.) Virginian Pilot, ing or many other rights may be made with-
I not always e. Mar. 8, 1067] out benefit of a hearing or confrontation
My I believe
mother In a was life a hereafter.
gwoman. THOSE QUESTIONS-AGAIN of the evidence," he said.
good "The computer reduces his opportunity
Many of my dreams are about sex matters. Senator Ervin of North Carolina, long a to talk back to the bureaucrats, prom said.
It is hardly reassuring to Ervin to know champion of the right to privacy, has re- "It raises the specter of a possible program
that mighty machines can remember forever newed, and broadened, his crusade. In a of routine denial of due process,"
anyone's responses to such nosiness, co-ordi- speech before the American Management As-
Hate it with even more personal information sociation's annual conference on electronic [From the Washington Post, Sept. 3, 1967]
gathered in lie-detector tests, cross-file it data processing, he called for the govern-
with job histories, credit checks and random ment and private employers "to cleanse OUTSIDE THE LAW
gossip, and regurgitate it all instantly for a present files of improperly acquired, irrele- The Central Intelligence Agency has not
button-pusher. (Today a computer tricks a vant personal Information." shown any valid reason for its demands for
man into falling over his wastebasket; to- As examples of such information, the exemption from a bill designed to protect
morrow it blabs his private life to a 0 put r enator cited uestions being asked in Fed- the privacy of Federal employes. Senator
Approved rorr2elease 200L/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
S.125"
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
Ervin h. 'verstated the case when he This is not just a collision between basic
asserted o agency was seeking an "un- rights of individual workers and the prac-
mitigatc,- nt to kick Federal employes ticed abuses of an overbearing employer. The
around." 'I.,,s "right" is sought, of course, in CIA does Indeed operate above the law, as
the name of national security; and there is most of us understand that phrase. It 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 Qf 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 doubt-
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."
[From 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
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-
oral 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 re-
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.
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.
Son. 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.
[From 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-
the Boston (Mass.) Morning Globe,
[From committee, it now has asked to state its
Aug. 29, 1967] case before the full Judiciary Committee.
FOOT-IN-MOUTH DISEASE This poses an unusual dilemma for Sen.
The Central Intelligence Agency, backed James O. Eastland (D) of Mississippi, Its
by the National Security Agency, has been chairman. Senator Ervin has consented to
naught with its foot in its mouth again. This the unprecedented request-but only if the
any
and c
e -
d
n
k
h
ositi
.
.
lo
e
as wor
e
Senator Ervin
-
fully to shape this, bill. It deserves-almost but it is twice to be deplored in the case of a strict rule of speaking "off the record" and
certainly it will gain-passage in both the agencies which could play a vital role in behind closed doors.
House and the Senate. Perhaps it should ap- the international cloak-and-dagger market Thus Senator Eastland must decide whose
ply equally to protect workers within the if they were run judiciously. wish to grant; the CIA's or a close Southern
Central Intelligence Agency and the National Their latest affront to the democratic ally's. Senator Ervin holds two aces which
Security Agency. But doubts about that, par- process is the successful maneuver, un- could sway his chairman's thinking.
titularly from CIA officials, have resulted in covered by The Christian Science Monitor, to A committee amendment already gives the
postponement of Senate action and the pro- remove from the U.S. Senate calendar a directors of the CIA and the National Se-
yoking of Senator Ervin's anger. Some excop- scheduled debate on a bill designed to pro- curity Agency (its counterpart in the De-
tions are written into the bill to meet CIA tect Federal employees from police-state in- fense Department) the authority to use poly-
objections, he Insists, and the measure ou ht trusion. It is the so-called "Right to Privacy graph tests in individual cases when they
not to be delayed pgaaioved For F eleftlg 2 1 2: 0tA1RDP -(M63_11'O ?IO S~B~I~ r demands it.
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12939
The, Federal Bureau of Investigation does [From the New York Times, Aug. 30, 1967] or policy endeavor or any poat!onl party by personal
of o
not rely on such tests in hiring its staff or CIA WINS DELAY IN BrLL To RESTRICT U.S. oend a o value."
overseeing its conduct. Nor does it regard JOB INQUIRIES The C.LA., which has been accused on oc-
them as foolproof in sifting truth from (By Fred P. Graham) casion of dabbling in foreign political af-
faBehind. WASHINGTON, August 29.-The Senate fairs, was reportedly responsible for an
Behind the closed doors the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Ervin had opposed any granted today an 11th-hour plea by the Con- amendment that changed this section to ap-
moves to grant the CIA and NSA special tral Intelligence Agency for a delay in con- ply only to elections within the United
"right to pry" privileges. The limited-testing sidering a bill designed to protect Federal States.
amendment proposed by Sons. Birch Bayh employees from being asked personal ques-
(D) of Indiana and Edward M. Kennedy (D) tions. [From the Winston-Salem Journal, Aug. 30,
of Massachusetts, gained a majority anyway. The action evoked an angry outburst from 1967]
the bill's author, Sam J. Ervin Jr., Democrat SENATOR ERVIN PROTESTS BILL'S DELAY QUMT AGENCIES STAY ahave of North Carolina, who said the C.I.A. was (By Bill Connelly)
Despite this amendment, the he agencies seeking a complete exception from the bill
sought a hearing In hope of recommitting the to give it the "unmitigated right to kick WASHINGTON.-Seri. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. of
Ervin bill. In a letter to Judiciary Commit- Federal employees around." North Carolina protested angrily yesterday
tee members dated Aug. 25 Senator Ervin A spokesman said the agency would make when the Senate postponed action at the
fought back. no comment on Senator Ervin's charges. request of the Central Intelligence Agency,
"These agencies are apparently lobbying for However, It was learned that the C.I.A. has on a bill to protect the private rights of gov-
complete exemption on the Senate floor from complained that the bill might undermine ernment employes.
all provisions of the bill, an action which I its ability to protect itself from penetration In a 30-minute floor speech, Ervin said it
consider both unwise and unconstitutional," by enemy agents, was unprecedented for such an agency to
h Id u - the Senate's business. He said the
0
he wrote.
The Senator reminded his colleagues that
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover found the poly-
graph unreliable. Even if it were dependable,
he said, geustions 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-
bl
siraes
circles. and that permit employes to bring suits In
"The other big issue is the 'right to dry' Federal court to enforce their rights.
the source said. "These agencies are in the e Both security agencies are also said to
prying business. They have to ask some of resent the fact that the Federal Bureau of
these questions-no matter who they offend. Investigation has been exempted entirely
"They have to recruit some drug addicts from the bill.
and sex deviates to contact others like them A spokesman for Senator Ervin said today
in London, Paris, or hippy circles wherever that this was done to give the F.B.I. a free
to find out what the agencies need to know." hand in investigating employes of other
in this way, the source maintained, the agencies.
CIA and NASA seek to justify their curiosity gSenator Ervin appeared particularly miffed
in the "total man: Senator Ervin con- .today because the C.I.A., after declining twice
tended during hearings that the questioning in the last two years to testify publicly about
process disgusts many applicants and sours the bill, asked for a delay only hours before
some against taking any federal job, the final Senate vote was scheduled to be
"Surely," he said, "the financial, scicntifc, held.
and investigativo resources of the federal Ile said such a request by a Federal agen-
government 'are sufficient to determine cy was "without precedent."
whether a person is a security risk, without Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield said
strapping an applicant to a machine and sub- in an Interview that he had "never hoard of
jetting him to salacious questioning:" such a request" before, but that he granted
SENATOR UNMOVED it to give the agency time to explain Its case
aders before the vote was taken.
l
e
The CIA-NSA arguments obviously leave to Senate
Senator Ervin unmoved. Mr. Mansfield announced later from the I found any decision of the (supreme
"They want the unmitigated right," he Senate floor that the bill would be taken up C our vit) W n said support isuch
hcaiprepe that the CIA
told other members , to kick federal em- on Sept. 19.
ployees around, deny them respect for in- In his speech, Senator Ervin said the and NSA could be hampered by provisions
dividual privacy and the basic rights which C.I.A. had given its objections to the bill in of the biting bill. The would-in laddition to
belong to every American regardless of the a 10-page letter stamped "secret," and In psi- prohand pspereosobil nalcal estion , lie detector
mission of his agency." vale meetings with his stair. tests The administratloll has opposed the Ervin He said the agency's objections were so from narking employes buy bonds, lobby for
bill from the begin thig. Its spokesman, tiro ",specious" that he inr.lr.ted that any C.I.A. legIslatlan, support political c:uulidal,es or
clairmnan of [,lie civil Scn?vice Gtnnminslou, it'sIJuuuty bo given pumbi ply. The liAelligence take part in activities unrelated I.e their
John Macy, testified that any grievances can agency has agreed only to private hearings. work.
be resolved without a law through federal It is known that a number of changes have Do the CIA and NSA, Ervin asked, want to
employee unions. been made in the original bill to make it make their employes do these things?
"Is (their mission) such that they must
s this more palatable to the agency.
But a majority the Senftte-including
at least 36 Democrats--disagrees. . It It is this One significant C.I.A. -inspired amend- be able to order their employes to go out
support which Senator Ervin looks to as a ment modified a section that, in the original and lobby in their communities for open
showdown with the se unit a one ra version, forbade any agency to ask its em- housing legislation or take part in Great
near. /~ippyi^o~ec' for 2e se"DO249/22~`R;1 RaP79U066?3 A If 4 6,111b
11
Under the bill, which had been scheduled
has been under study for a year.
to be debated and possibly voted upon today, bill
He hunder study the CIA, year.
seek
Federal agencies would be prohibited from questioned
which forbids delay, has violated a federal
asking their employes about their finances, Ing the
religion, sex activities or family relation- ides excessive lobbying
ships. It would also forbid questions about ties aw implied fo b federal CIA employes need
employes' outside activities, unrelated to He b employes that CIoil servants
their work, and their race, religion or na- more also m protection than supervisors most m and lle-detects
tional origin. In addition the bill would pr'o- from snoopy habit pressure tactics aimed at coercing Fed- tests.
HAS CLEARED COMMITTEE
oral workers to buy bonds or support political
candidates. Ervin introduced the bill, which prohibits
The bill contains an exemption that would federal departments from questioning em-
permit the C.I.A. and the National Security ployes on personal matters and from asking
Agency to ask its employes about their fi- them to take lie detector tests and psycho-
nances, sex attitudes, religion and family logical tests.
affairs if necessary in specific cases to pro- The measure has cleared the Senate Ju-
tect the national security. diciary Committee. It includes a partial ex-
FEAR OF DISCLOSURES emption for the CIA and the National Se-
However, these agencies would be covered curity Agency. But the CIA is said to want
total freedom in its personnel policies.
C. the other to fear that provisions of the law, and the The bill was scheduled for floor action
C. pose t s said suits fear could the embarrass law would the yesterday, but was postponed at the request
i ages y disclose cthat some e of its secrets. . the of minority leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill.,
agency and who said the CIA had asked him to seek the
Among the provisions that reportedly delay.
worry the C.I.A. are those that give employes Dirksen later told an informal news con-
the right to have legal counsel present dui- faience 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 bill. "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 Intelilgcuce
Agency and the National Security Agency.
"My research has revealed 110 language In
our Constitution which envisions enclaves
in Washington, Langley or Fort Meade, where
no law governs the rights of citizens except
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 13, 1967
"Must they order them to go out and extreme cases, he has been stripped of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
support organizations, paint fences, and his dignity. All of this has been done in been operated, there would be no neces-'
handout grass seeds ...?" the name of high ideals. sity for a bill of this character. That is
comrv tteeidofhwhich hetisllchairman,shas We all recognize that procedures are one of the reasons for the exemption of
found ample evidence of very personal ques- required to insure that capable employees the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
tioning of government employes and pros- perform governmental duties. We recog- The other reason for the exemption
pective employes. One of the worst offenders, nize that, in some cases, the security of of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
he said, is the CIA. the Nation depends on the integrity and from the coverage of the bill is the feel-
He said "some of the brightest young stability of these employees. This bill ing among many of the cosponsors of the
people in this country" are refusing employ- does not restrict control over the quali- bill that the Bureau should not be in-
,nent with the CIA because of its "deplorable flcations of Federal employees, eluded for the reason I have stated, and
jobs in sonnel this practices."
and d other r age agencies s had d applicants been for What is prohibited is indiscriminate for the further reason that it must con-
asked asked intimate questions about sex, family probing, snooping, direction, and control. duct investigations in respect to viola-
relationships and personal finances. Overzealous officials and well meaning tions of law and should not be handi-
Nevertheless, he said, the privacy bill as supervisors are restrained. But with all capped in so doing by any of the pro-
now written allows the directors of the CIA the resources aria resourcefulness of our visions of the bill.
and NSA to waive the restrictions when they Federal Government, security risks can In addition to this specific provision
feel employes must be questioned in specific. be detected, criminal conduct can be dis- exempting the FBI from the coverage of
cases involving national security. Ervin op- covered, and charitable fund drives can the bill, certain exemptions are written
posed even this exemption, which he said
was unnecessary. succeed. The ligitimate activities of Gov- into the bill to meet objections voiced
"what more do they want?" Ervin asked. ernment can continue; hampered only by by various departments and agencies,
"Apparently, what they want is to stand the constitutional requirements of due principally the Central Intelligence
above the law." process and equal protection. Agency and the National Security
It was earlier reported that both the CIA Mr. President, I wish to take this oc- Agency.
and NSA were attempting to have Ervin's casion once again to commend the senior Most of the exemptions for certain
bill returned to committee. Ervin said yes- Senator from North Carolina for his very activities otherwise covered by the bill
terday, however, that only the CIA appears
to be e trying ing to to hold up action. . It is uncertain steadfast and persistent efforts. I hope were included in order to meet objec-
now whether there will be an attempt to and trust that the Senate will approve tions voiced by those agencies, for which
return it to committee or whether an amend- this measure. I believed there might be some reason-
ment will be offered on the Senate floor. Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from able basis.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Nebraska for his very gracious remarks. I believe that in its present form the
Senator yield? I should like to reiterate my statement bill meets all legitimate objections that
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I gladly that if it had not been for the diligence can be raised to the bill by any agency
yield to one of the cosponsors, the able and the dedication of the Senator from or department of the Government. It also
and distinguished Senator from Neb- Nebraska, this measure would not be provides employees of the Federal Gov-
raska, who has done a tremendous here in its present state. ernment a minimum of protection in
amount of work in bringing the bill to Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr, having their constitutional rights ob-
its present state. President, will the Senator yield? served and their rights to privacy re-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. ERVIN. I yield. spected.
ator from Nebraska is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I I should also like to say that the dis-
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I thank should like to join with the Senator from tinguished senior Senator from Mass-
the Senator from North Carolina. Nebraska and the other Members of the achusetts, as a member of the commit-
Mr. President, prior to the Labor Day Senate in congratulating the Senator tee which considered and reported this
recess, I spoke in favor of the Constitu- from North Carolina for the work he has bill, has done a great service in assisting
tional Rights Subcommittee's 'bill which done in the preparation. and the develop- In bringing the bill to its present state.
had been approved by the full Judiciary ment of this measure. It is a tribute to Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I ap-
Committee. S. 1035 is designed to protect his own sense of fairness and his con- preciate the comments of the Senator
Government employees as to personnel scientiousness, and his efforts to provide from North Carolina, and also the ex-
and employment practices, and it has my legislation which would protect Federal planation that he has given with regard
wholehearted approval. employees, that S. 1035 is before us to the exemptions.
This bill is long overdue. Case after today. I, too, share the understanding of the
case of flagrant violation of basic rights I have had an opportunity to review Senator from North Carolina with -re-
has been reported to and reported by the the Senator's statement, and I am re- spect to the fine record of the Federal
subcommittee. These documented inci- minded that on page 3 the Senator said: Bureau of Investigation in conducting
dents compel this Congress to draw the I confess that sere I legislating alone, I investigations and in recruiting their
line, to decide how much of his dignity a would rather see fewer compromises and ex- personnel. My understanding is similar
man must surrender to become a Gov- ceptions than are now contained in the bill. to that of tha Senator from North Caro-
ernment employee. I see no necessity for any of the practices lina, that they have not, particularly re-
This Government was the first to pro- prohibited in S. 1035. cently, engaged in polygraph tests and
claim in a Constitution the first amend- Since I believe this is important, I am the other kinds of tests w,.ich are pro-
ment freedoms, the fifth amendment wondering if the Senator, recognizing scribed in the pending measure.
freedoms, the concepts of due process that his own personal views may differ, Mr. ERVIN. That is my understand-
and equal protection of the laws. Our could review for the Senate and for the ing. I have been assured by the FBI that
courts vigorously defend these constitu- record the pra.cipal reasons asserted it does not use psychological tests or
tional restrictions. Government agencies for the exemptions in the bill and the polygraph tests in its personnel work.
espouse the principles. And yet the Gov- nerd for such exemptions. I should also Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is
ernment is a flagrant violator of those appreciate being apprised of the Sena- the Senator satisfied, and has he received
rights. tor's own attitude toward this Smatter. assurances from people within the
Subcommittee hearings over the last Mr. ERVIN. There is an exception of Bureau who have the principal respon-
three Congresses have documented the a special type, and that is one which sibilities in this connection, that in the
need to protect the employee. However exempts the Federal Bureau of Investi- future these rights will continue to be
well intentioned the Civil Service Com- gation entirely from the provisions of respected?
mission, however voluntary the study, the bill. That exemption was made for ' Mr. ERVIN. I have been assured by the
however beneficial the goal of surveys two reasons. In the first place, the Fed- FBI that it does not regard psychological
and fund drives, the fact remains that eral Bureau of Investigation has been testing or polygraph testing as a reliable
the individual has been coerced into re- operated in such a way that it has not method of determining the capacity and
vealing personal information, forced to been charged with any substantial viola- the loyalty of employees. I have been as-
account for his off duty hours, and com- tions of any of the provisions of this sured by the FBI that it considers other
pelled to donate his time and money to bill. On the contrary, if alle}th~e11~ gagencies -metthodspof determining these qualities that
projects and d~ ge`a'sSrN life a all r2 ik~ew th Ic Q6 zll4 3 Q Q131MeOW _ 4ely to mooe han
been questioned hAl~
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
by any other branches of the Govern-
nient-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
departments 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,
.- ray civilian employee of the United
States serving in the department or
agency to support by personal endeavor
or cone?lbution of money or any other
thing o. ,aluc the nomination or the
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 anotherlncas-
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, as 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 DE
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-
ieetiai. of any person or group of ner- Mr. BAYH. I would not want to de- vices and computers.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
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, thew 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 person 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. Iirouvs assumed
the chair.)
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at this point in this con-
text, so that my 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
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
S 12942 CONGRESS:CNAL RECORD - SENATE Segue-- l,ar, 1 1967
I am happy to be a cosponsor of S.
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. ERVIN]
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 Government 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. ERVIN], 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 1966
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's has shown
s 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 1966.
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 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-
nuo 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 had sexual
relations with a woman?
"How many tines 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 matte 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:
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 ft security risk, without
strapping an applicant to it machine and
subjecting him to salacious questioning. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation does not use
personality tests or polygraphs on applicants
for employment. I fall 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:
With one exception, all of the amendments
added In Subcommittee arid Committee are
meritorious. They clarify possible amblgui-
ties and Insure that the purpose of the bill
is achieved.
The one exception Is the new section G
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 pit, f-
fully insecure. Fortunately, it does not, for
the FBI does not use these e :aminations.
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 Comn',it-
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 Government employees. I ask the Senator
from Delaware If the colloquy between
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYII]
and the Senator from Nebraska was in
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
Septenbe, - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
accord with his und_ret.,nding insofar as dent, will the Senator from Indiana yield employees who received them, because
his amendment to the elections law ap- at that point for a unanimous-consent their grade number was written in ink
proved by the Senate yesterday is con- request? on a corner of the invitation.
cerned? Mr. BAYH. I yield. The article further stated they took
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- that as an indication that if they wanted
amendment which was adopted yester- dent, I ask for the yeas and nays on final to rise to a higher grade, they had better
day specificially prohibits any solicita- passage. buy a ticket. This, I think, is a very
tiori of campaign contributions from The yeas and nays were ordered. subtle form of coercion.
Government employees as Govern rent Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I think
employees. I think we have adequately the Senator from Indiana. it is, too. That was one of the specific
taken care of the situation. The Mr. BAYH. Interpretation of the examples in mind when the amendment
present law reads to the effect that measure, as I understand it, last year, is was approved yesterday, and that would
whoever being a Senator or Repre- different from the interpretation the definitely be a violation of the law.
sentative or delegate or resident Senator places on it this year. Mr. ERVIN. This bill covers only
commissioner to or candidate for In colloquy before passage of the bill supervisors of employees and makes it
Congress, or an individua', elected as a last year, as I recall-and I would be the illegal for any officer of any executive
Senator or Representative, and so forth, last one to want to put any words in the department or agency even to request
solicits these employees would be subject mouth of my distinguished colleague- any political contribution. We put in the
to certain penalties. But the loophole in the effort was directed at any solicitation word "request" there, along with the
the existing law was that someone could of Federal employees, whereas this year words "or require" advisedly. When we
solicit employees on our behalf or on be- the Senator makes clear the fact that the discussed the bill with the Chairman of
half of the political party. For example, effort is to prohibit direct zeroing in on the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Macy,
the head of an agency would not be a Federal employees, by organizations, he said that some of the things Federal
member of Congress nor would he be a parties, or candidates canvassing an employees were asked to do which are
candidate for public office, yet either he entire neighborhood in which resides outlawed in this bill, were just requests
or on one of the State or national com- Federal employees, that they would be and not requirements.
mittees, could make the solicitation. treated exactly as citizens; namely, that I told him that when I served in t'_e
Perhaps a private citizen outside of Gov- they would have the right to refuse or Army and was studying the infantry drill
ernment might make. the solicitation- agree to make a contribution. regulations, one little sentence imbedded
Thus, we amended that law in the bill Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I do not itself indelibly in my mind; namely, that
passed yesterday. In addition to con- believe there is any difference in the the request of a superior is equivalent to
tinuing the same prohibitions we also de- amendment offered last year and the one a command.
clared that whoever acting on behalf of of yesterday. That question was raised Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes.
a political committee-or acting on behalf both times. I checked with legislative Mr. ERVIN. That is the reason why we
of any public official knowingly or inten- counsel, who made it clear that the used those words advisedly. I think this
tionally solicits Government employees, amendment as it was drawn both times provision of the bill supplements the bill
would be subject to rather severe crimi- was directed to solicitation of Federal passed yesterday and also the provisions
nal penalties. employees as such, and would not have of the Hatch Act, in that it provides se-
I believe that the amendment adopted covered a situation, for example, of a curity from such coercive practices
yesterday to the campaign reform bill, party making a wholesale mailing list against Federal employees.
will adequately take care of that situa- solicitation. For example, if they sent Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I think it
tion and prohibit the solicitation of a form letter to all boxholders in the does. We recognized that occasionally the
campaign contributions in any manner city of Washington and some of them head of an agency or an official may turn
whatsoever, whether through the sale of happened to be Government employees over a list of names to someone entirely
dinner tickets or whatever, of Govern- they would have no way of distinguish- outside the Government who might act
ment employees by anyone acting either ing that. That was not intended to be on behalf of these people. I think we have
for or on behalf of elected officials or on covered. The amendment makes it clear this fully airtight now, and the measure
behalf of any political committee. that if solicitation were intentional and before us will supplement it.
Mr. HRUSKA. The Senator is aware, knowingly or willfully done it would be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is
is he not, that section 1 of the bill, S. a violation of the law. It does stop the open to further amendment.
1035, page 1, reads: abuse which all of us know did exist; Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, in the judg-
It shall be unlawful for any officer of any namely, that employees were being solic- ment of the junior Senator from Indiana,
executive department or any executive ited on a more or less free-will offering this bill, protecting the privacy and
agency of the United States Government, or as it was called, yet, at the same time, rights of Federal employees, could be
for any person acting or purporting to act they knew they were going to be checked called a monument to the determination
under his authority, to do any of the fol- up on, either by their bosses or someone and dedication of the distinguished Sell-
lowing things: else, who would note whether they were ator from North Carolina [Mr. EaviN] ;
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes. present. On occasions they would invite in particular, to his continuing dedication
Mr. HRUSKA. So that the bill we are the employees to stop by the bosses' house to the principles and.spirit of the Con-
considering today is much more limited for a reception before the dinner, which stitution of the United States, for which
in character in this regard than the bill made it easier to check up on those who he is so well known in this body.
approved by the Senate yesterday; is were actually going, and at the same time We often hear in our Nation today the
that not correct? it presented an opportunity to gently re- fear expressed that Government, un-
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes, I mind them of the dinner or the fund reined and unchecked, could become the
think it will take care of the situation, drive. "big brother" portrayed in the frighten-
coupled with the amendment adopted But all of those subtle approaches to ing Orwell novel. We have taken great
yesterday. I have the feeling that Gov- coerce employees would be specifically and unprecedented strides throughout
ernment employees will be fully pro- abolished under the amendment ap- our history as a nation to guarantee to
tested against any coercion in all of proved yesterday. In my opinion the bill every individual American his sacred
these solicitations. All that we will need now before us carries out the same right to privacy; his right to be left
is proper enforcement. intent. alone; to have within his own home and
Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from in his own mind his own thoughts and
for his enlightening information. . Delaware for his information. hopes and dreams that could he his alone,
Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Dela- Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on that inviolable by any power except that of
ware would indulge me, I should like to question, we had evidence-and placed the Almighty.
pursue this question one step further. I an article in the record of the hearings Like freedom itself, the right to pri-
recall, last year, when we discussed this on page 455-that. the Democratic Na- vacy is a blessing which must be pre-
saane amendment, the Senator and I had tional Committer; solicited the sale of served through constant vigilance in
an e ha a e as to the interpretation of $100 tickets to an affair in Washington every generation.
to . a. re.recent. and had the invitation: sent out through There have been chapters in our, his-
B'!-,:,D ,1.) of West Virginia. Mr. Press- the agency in suuL a way as to chill the tory that tend to darken the other so
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
S 1294
CONGRESSIONAL RECO_kD - SENATE September 13, 1967
shining light of liberty that the United and testing of prospective employees, in exist in human beings today, if they feel
States of America has provided for the these two agencies, because, in my judg- that that is better than having the fact
world-from the witch hunts in Salem ment, the interrogation might very well disclosed by a breach in our security,
to the witch hunts of the 1950's; from be necessary to protect the security of then I, for one, think those agencies
the panic over suspected Jacobins after our country. It is an unfortunate fact of should be excluded from the bill, and be
the French Revolution to the panic over life that Communists and others who given the opportunity to use such tech-
Americans of Japanese ancestry after would wish to subvert our Government niques.
Pearl Harbor. have made and will continue to make The work and efforts of the Senator
But always, after that beacon of free- vigorous efforts to infiltrate these agen- from North Carolina-as, let me say, I
dam had flickered so slightly, it burned cies or to find weaknesses among agency am sure he knows-will cause the direc-
back strong and true, as we remembered employees that could be viciously ex- tors and the interrogators of these agen-
that ours is a government of laws and ploited at the expense of national se- cies to pay much closer attention to the
not of then, of inalienable rights and not curity. questions that are asked and the means
of momentary emotions. I would like to once again say that, in that are pursued to guarantee our secu-
Ours has grown into a vast, compli- my judgment, the Senator from North rity. But I would be somewhat less than
sated and interactive society in, a com- Carolina has earned another star in his honest with myself, being a member of
plex and sometimes chaotic world-and crown, which is already resplendent with the Ccjmmittee on the Judiciary, to sit
the Government has, of necessity, grown many which have preceded this new one, here and watch this measure pass, and
apace. because he has long championed this vote for it-which I intend to do-with-
We search for the most talented among effort, over a period of 3 or 4 years. I out pointing out that in my judgment
us to devote at least a portion of their mist that in the near future he will see it contains one or two weaknesses about
lives to Government service so that the the success of his efforts in this body and which I would feel much better were they
difficult and often gravely important ultimately in the other body. not there.
tasks of Government may be performed in my opinion the aspects of the bill Mr. President, I have no further com-
ir.i a manner acceptable to and beneficial as he described them are meritorious. I ment.
for the people, which is and must always for one firmly believe that those who The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
remain the master of Government. work for the Federal Government are is open to amendment. If there be no
it seems, therefore, logical fitting, and dedicated persons and that we owe them amendment to be proposed-
supremely just that Government itself, deep gratitude for their service; many Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
in relation to its employees, should be of them receive far less compensation dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
the first and strongest guardian of all than they could in private industry. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
individual rights-not the least of which Government needs the best people it can will call the roll.
is the right to privacy. get. The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
This bill, S. 1035, upon which we will however, in my judgment-and I am cd to call the roll.
act today, was developed with the con- sure the Senator from North Carolina Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Prc d-
cept that Government employees-vast a rees with me in this statement, al- dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
numbers of whom work for less than though he disagrees on the import of the order for the quorum ca11 be rescinded.
they could demand in private industry, exclusion of these two agencies-I be- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
and do so because they have a desire lieve no one has a right to seek Federal objection, it is so ordered.
to serve their fellow Americans-should employment if lie would be a security The bill is open to amendment.
not be treated as second-class citizens; risk to our country. It seems to me no one Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I should
that they should not be subjected to in- can argue that question. The place where like to make just a few observations in
dignities of prying, snooping, and in- we have disagreed is in the means, the response to the remarks of my good
quiition that no other group of Ameri- extent to which we should go to try to friend, the distinguished Senator from
can workers would ever be subjected to, find, before a person is employed, Indiana.
much less tolerate. whether one is a security risk who might I thank him, first, for his most gracious
It is a straightforward proposal that endanger our Government. remarks.
does much to clarify and solidify the This is not a milk and honey world. It Mr. President, there is nothing in this
implicit and explicit guarantees con- is not entirely a rosy world. There are bill which will handicap the Central In-
tained in our fundamental law regarding those who would try to take our free- telligence Agency or the National Se-
an American's right to privacy. doms away from us, and who would use curity Agency in protecting America
I must admit that, if it were left to tactics of the worst magnitude to do so. against her enemies. All this bill does
me alone, I would have preferred, as the It seems to me it is important that the is try to make these agencies and every
distinguished Senator from North Caro- Nation have someone who is willing, if other Federal agency respect the right
lina knows, to have exempted from the necessary, to fight fire with fire. I know to privacy of their employees, and the
provisions of this bill two agencies of the agencies involved have been sub- constitutional rights of their employees.
Government=the Central Intelligence jetted to a tremendous amount of criti- Personally, I have no faith in the
Agency and the National Security cism. I suppose it is not popular for one polygraph test. I have no faith in psy-
Agency. to stand on the floor of the Senate and chological tests which put such a ques-
Just as the Senator from Alaska, as say there is a need for a CIA or a Na- tion as this to applicants for Govern-
one of the cosponsors of the bill, re- tional Security Agency. As long as there ment employment:
ported that he was not one of those who are those who would threaten our secur- When telling a person a deliberate lie, do
supported the amendment contained in ity, we need someone who can deal with you have to look away, being ashamed to look
section 6, I did support it. I would like to them on a fight-fire-with-fire basis. him in the eye?
point out that these two agencies, the Th
CI as are certain aspects of this meas- I have no respect for polygraph or
this and the NSA, most Members
very y ure which clearly should be applied to the personality tests that require the indi-body d y with kntte `deal l evem ho 'urgent of every v na- National Security Agency and the CIA. vidual applying for employment to
day with matters the most uFor example, I do not think anyone evaluate what kind of parents he has.
tional to sayuhat and much it the n i hly classcgera- should compel any of their employees to I have no respect for the validity of
fled matepsychological tests. and polygraph tests
fled material at that passes through hthese participate In political activities. I do
agencies is occasionally available to many not think anyone should compel them to which require an individual to reply to
individuals, ranging from the Director to contribute to political functions. I do such questions as this:
a courier, to the person in the lowest not think they should be compelled to Have you ever committed a serious un-
echelon. contribute to the Red Cross, meritorious detected crime? Have you ever suffered from
These agencies are so specialized in as that sounds. I do not think they should a serious mental or nervous disorder? Have
their work, and their work is of such a be compelled to attend political meetings. you taken part in any homosexual activity
during your adult life? Have you engaged
sensitive nature, it seemed to me that But if the directors of these agencies in any unethical practices? Have you been
practices which I would not condone feel that it is important to use certain Involved In any way with illegal drugs or,
elsewhere in Government would be per- of these tests to try to ferret out weak- narcotics? Have, you done anything else of
missible, in. regard to the ixr rroggti1n nesses of character which sometimes a similarly serious nature?
Approved or Ft el ease 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
September 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
if they depend on the individuals 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 mi ht
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.
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 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
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 lob with the Government, especially
where they make you take one of these tests.
awed them. However, this bill, as intro of matter on their minds all the time.
any aph c El 'ex e _oi = August 14, 1965, concerning an experi-
ions abou a man's re igion, his uersonal ment being made in the development of a
relationship to his immediate relatives, lie-detecting machine by means of which
n_c -h'f5'BERit a i u es an practices a person can be tested without his know-
And-even under the am men which ing it. It is a very interesting article.
y goo I-rien , e Senator from-- na The machinery referred to in the
alana r. 13AYI-1 , o sere ann persua ed article is called the "wiggle seat," The
riiaJt3iiLy`~i -members ot e u device'looks like an ordinary office chair.
ciary omzm ee o e' r c At least, that is what it is supposed to
of-MM-5---m- or ne hector of the NSA look like. A person sits in this office chair,
can even as i Hues cons of that type if. which is really a "wiggle seat," and is
IrZr-dt~P,Y~ i~necee s io Lne na> renal gi?"en a lie detector test without his
secur ~4 not kn w wh t more e knowing anything about it.
IA o eol,1 0
Approved it ~i~p #a h~ 111 -RDPr7 ~ [32A0001 ~, flfl fl 1,;, I.67
(loos do much -Wore-it
worth cnactiie .
the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina [Senator ERVIN] 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
clnnloyment.
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 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, LMr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from
Maine [Mr. Musxie], and the Senator
from Missouri [Mr. SYIoING'ro_;] 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 I Mr.
JonnAr:l, the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Loxc1, the Senator from Washing-
ton [Mr. MAGNUSON], 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 ,11r. Moss]
would each vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL, I announce that the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoaIImcx]
and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. FAN-
NIN] are absent on official business.
The Senator from New York [11MIr.
JAVITS] is also necessarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Do?:IINICK], the
Senator from Arizona Mr. [FANNIN],
and the Senator from New York [Mr.
JAVITS] would each vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 79,
nays 4, as follows:
1 inally, if t:i.ese procedures do not
prove, in any case, to be efficacious,
the aggrievcd dnpioyee is specifically au-
thorized to file suit in the U.S. District
Court.
This bill is : 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 t}iry had. It seems to me
that this propo;cd legislation reflects a
degree of foresight and statesmanship
on the part of the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, SAM E^.vIN, and he
should be r reat'y commended for his
initiative.
B:; enacting this bill, the Congress will
be z?;:cof,nirin,; at least by implication,
whai: have been made in this
area. li t s past; but by taking steps to
pre.;?.a their repetition in the future, it
will be :einfo_cli,,; the procedures of law
any. cider, and a dove all it will be pro-
tecti;ig 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 anti ray thanks to him for
permitting me flag opportunity to become
a cosponsor of the measure.
Mr. YAPBOROUGH. 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-
ceptivp gentlemen who gathered in Phil-
adelphia in the spring of 1787 were well
versed on the subject of individual rights,
and the it sit of their labors is above all
an affirms 4.ioo of the inherent dignity
and inal-__i2t le 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 rc;_uisite 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
pro ressiveii ss of the Federal Govern-
ment as E:1pioyer, but these blatant vio-
lations blight the record and cannot be
ignored. '.1l.s it is that I joined with
scores of my colleagues in the Senate to
cosponsor S. 1035, a bill to protect the
civilian em;;.oyees 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
[No. 248 Leg.]
YEAS-79
Aiken
Gruening
Morton
Allott -
Hansen
Mundt
Baker
Hartko
Murphy
Bartlett
Hatfield
Nelson
Bayh
Hayden
Pastore
Bennett
Hickenlooper
Pearson
Boggs
hill
Pell
Brewster
Holland
Percy
Brooke
Hruska
Prouty
Burdick
Inouye
Proxmire
Byrd, Va.
Jackson
Randoloh
Byrd, W. Va.
Jordan, Idaho
Ribicofl
Cannon
Kennedy, Mass. Scott
Carlson
x^nnedy, N.Y.
Smith
Case
Kuchel
Sparkman
Church
Lausche
Spong
Cooper
Long, Mo.
Talmadge
Cotton
McCarthy
Thurmond
Curtis
McClellan
Tower
Dirksen
McGee
Tydings
Dodd
McGovern
Williams, N.J.
Ellender
McIntyre
Williams, Del.
Ervin
Miller
Yarborough
Fong
Mondale
Young, N. Dak.
Fulbright
Monroney
Young, Ohio
Gore
Montoya
Griffin
Morse
NAYS-4
The bill was ordered to be engrossed Eastland
for a third reading and was read the Hollings
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
Anderson
Hart
Metcalf
Bible
Javits
Moss
Clark
Jordan, N.C.
Muskic
Dominick
Long, La.
Smathers
Fannin
Magnuson
Symington
Harris
Mansfield
this opportunity to commend especially the roll. So the bill (S. 1035) was passed.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
` ~epLe~azhei' 1-, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL :C?~CORD - SENATE
l a't.VIN. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
pee..,: d.
ivir. ITOLLAND. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to,
Ir. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
S eeretary of the Senate be authorized to
in,--he 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. rHOLLINGS. 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 n_sk the distinguished acting ma-
ovity 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
will be no more votes today.
is icipated 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 rollcail 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 officers killed while ap-
prehending persons for committing Fed-
cm), 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 rollcail 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. 1111092-
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
S12959
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. You aGi. 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-
opment 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-
Approyed For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-db 32'A000iQM080003-9
90T1 CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
AN ACT
To protect the civilian employees of the executive branch of the
United States Government in the enjoyment of their con-
stitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental
invasions of their privacy.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Iepresenta=
2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any officer of any
S. 1.035
IN TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 14-,1967
Referred lo the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
executive department or any executive agency of the United
5 States Government, or for any person acting or purporting
6 to act under his authority, to do any of the following things :
7 (a) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
8 request, any civilian employee of the United States serving
9 in the department or agency, or any person seeking employ-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
2
1 ment in the executive branch of the United States Govern-
2 went, to disclose his race, religion, or national origin, or
3 the race, religion, or national origin of any of his fore-
4 bears : Provided, however, That nothing contained in this
5 subsection shall be construed to prohibit inquiry concerning
6 the citizenship of any such employee or person if his citizen-
7 ship is a statutory condition of his obtaining or retaining his
8 employment: Provided, further, That nothing contained in
9 this subsection shall be construed to prohibit inquiry concern-
10 ing the national origin of any such employee when such in-
11 quiry is deemed necessary or advisable to determine suit-
12 ability for assignment to activities or undertakings related to
13 the national security within the United States or to activities
14 or undertakings of any nature outside the United States.
15 (b) To state or :intimate, or to attempt to state or inti-
16 mate, to any civilian employee of the United States serving
17, in the department or agency that any notice will be taken of
18 his attendance or lack of attendance at any assemblage, dis-
19. c.ssion, or lecture held or called by any officer of the execu-
20 tine branch of the United States Government, or by any per-
21 son acting or purporting to act under his authority, or by any
22 outside parties or organizations to advise, instruct, or in-
23 doctrinate any civilian employee of the United States serving
24 in the department or agency in respect to any matter or
25 subject other than the perfo:mnance of official duties to which
Approtd1oRl&se ZOaijAtkbP7 -~b632i00$r10%g003-9i
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
3
1 the development of skills, knowledge, or abilities which
2 qualify him for the performance of such duties : Provided,
3 however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be
4 construed to prohibit taking notice of the participation of , a
5 civilian employee in the activities of any professional group
6 or association.
7 (c) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
8 request, any civilian employee of the United States serving
9 in the department or agency to participate in any way in
10 any activities or undertakings unless such activities or under-
11 takings are related to the performance of official duties to
12 which he is or may be assigned in the department or agency,
13 or to the development of skills, knowledge, or abilities which
14 qualify him for the performance of such duties.
15 (d) To require or request, or to attempt to require
16 or request, any civilian employee of the United States serv-
17 ing in the department or agency -to make any report con-
18 cerning any of his activities or undertakings unless such
19 activities or undertakings are related to the performance of
20 official duties to which he is or may be assigned in the
21 department or agency, or to the development of skills, knowvl-
22 edge, or abilities which qualify him for the performance of
23 such duties, or unless there is reason to believe that the
24 civilian employee is engaged in outside activities. or employ-
25 ment in conflict with his official duties.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
1 (e) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
2 request, any civilian employee of the United States serving
3 in the department or agency, or any person applying for
4 employment as a civilian employee in the executive branch
5 of the United States Government, to submit to any interroga-
6 tion or examination or to take any psychological test which
7 is designed to elicit from him info:rmation concerning his
8 personal relationship with any person connected with him
9 by blood or marriage, or concerning his religious beliefs
10 or practices, or concerning his attitude or conduct with re-
11 spect to sexual matters : Provided, however, That nothing
12 contained in this subsection shall be construed to prevent
13 a physician from eliciting such information or authorizing
14 such tests in the diagnosis or treatment of any civilian
employee or applicant where such physician deems such
information necessary to enable him to determine whether
17 or not such individual is suFfering from mental illness: Pro-
18 vided further, however, That this determination shall be made
19 in individual cases and not pursuant to general practice or
20 regulation governing the examination of employees or appli-
23
cants according to grade, agency, or duties : Provided further,
however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be
construed to prohibit an. officer of the department or agency
from advising any civilian employee or applicant of a specific
charge of sexual misconduct made against that person, and
Appro ~&A Re SgeldgP') "6&-kbi; '91 06 A6" 8866080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
2
5
(f) To require or request, or attempt to require or
request, any civilian employee of the United States serving
in the department or agency, or any person applying for
employment as a civilian employee in the executive branch
of the United States Government, 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 or
practices, or concerning his attitude or conduct with respect
to sexual matters.
(g) To require or request, 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
or contribution of money or any other thing of value the
nomination or the election of any person or group of persons
to public office in the Government of the United States or of
any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or possession
of the United States, or to attend any meeting held to pro-
10 mote or support the activities of undertakings of any political
20 party of the United States or of any State, district, Common-
21 wealth, territory, or possession of the United States.-
22 (h) To coerce or attempt to coerce any civilian
23 employee of the United States serving in the, department or
agency to invest his earnings in bonds or other obligations
or securities issued by the, United States or any of its depart-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
ments or agencies, or to. make donations to any institution
or cause of any kind : Provided, however, That nothing con-
tained in this; subsection shall be construed to prohibit any
4 officer of any executive department or any executive agency
5 of the United States Government, or any person acting or
6 purporting to act under his authority, from calling meetings
7 and taking any action appropriate to afford any civilian em-
8 ployee of the United States the opportunity voluntarily to
9 invest his earnings in bonds: or other obligations or securities
10 issued by the United States or any of its departments or
11 agencies, or voluntarily to make donations to any institution
12 or cause.
13 (i) To require or request, or to attempt to require
14 or request, any civilian employee of the United States
15 serving in the department or agency to disclose any items
16 of his property, income, or other assets, source of income,
17 or liabilities, or his personal or domestic expenditures or
18 those of any member of his family or household: Provided,
19 however, That this subsection shall not apply to any civilian
20 employee who has authority to make any final determination
21 with respect to the tax or other liability of any person, cor-
22 poration, or other legal entity to the United States, or
23 claims which require expenditure of moneys of the United
24 States: Provided further, however, That nothing contained
25 in this subsection shall prohibit the Department of the
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
1 Treasury or any other executive department or, lageiicy of
2 the United States Government from requiring any civilian
3 employee of the United States to. make such reports! as may
4 be necessary or appropriate for the determination of his
5 liability for taxes, tariffs, custom duties, or other' ?obliga-
s.,
6 tions imposed bylaw.
7 (j) To require or request, or to attempt to require
8 or request, any civilian employee of the United States
9 embraced within the terms of the proviso yin subsection
10 (i) to disclose any items of his property, income, `ar
11 other assets, source of income, or liabilities, or .his personal
12 or domestic expenditures or those of:. any, member of his
13 family or household other than specific' items tending to
14 indicate a conflict of interest in respect to the perform.-
15 ance of any of the official duties to which he is or may be
16 assigned.
17 (k) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
18 request, any civilian employee of the United States serving
19 in the department or agency, who is under investigation fo'r
20 misconduct, to submit to interrogation which could `lead`to
21 disciplinary action without the presence of counsel or 'other
22 person of his choice, if he so requests.
23 (1) To discharge, discipline, demote, deny prom:o-
24 tion to, relocate, reassign, or otherwise : discriminate in
25 regard to any. term or condition of employment of, ,any'civil-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
8
1 ian employee of the United States serving in the department
2 or agency,. ,or to threaten to commit any of such acts, by
reason of the refusal or failure of such employee to submit
4 to or comply with any requirement, request, or action made
..5 tjnlawfW by this Act, or by reason of the exercise by such
6 civilian employee of any right granted or secured by this
Act.
8 : SEC., 2. It shall be unlawful for any officer of the United
States Civil : Service Commission, or for any person acting
10 or purporting to act under his authority, to do any of the
11 following things :
12 (a) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
13 request, any executive department or any executive agency
14 of the United States Government, or any officer or employee
15 serving in such department or agency, to violate any of the
provisions of section 1 of this Act.
17 (b) To require or request, or to attempt to require or
18 request, any person seeking to establish civil service status
19 or eligibility for employment in the executive branch of the
20: United States Government, or any person applying for em-
21 ,ployment in the executive branch of the United States Gov-
22 ernment, or any civilian employee of the United States
23 serving in any department or agency of the United States
24 . Government, to submit to any interrogation or examination
25 ; or; to take any psychological test which is designed to elicit
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
9
1 from him information concerning his personal reiationship
2 with any person connected with him by blood or marriage,
3 or concerning his religious beliefs or practices, or concerning
4 his attitude or conduct with respect to sexual matters : Pro-
5 vided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection
6 shall be construed to prevent a physician from eliciting such
7 information or authorizing such tests in the diagnosis or
8 treatment of any civilian employee or applicant where such
9 physician deems such information necessary to enable him
10 to determine whether or not such individual is suffering
11 from mental illness: Provided further, however, That this
12 determination shall be made in individual cases and not pur-
13 suant to general practice or regulation governing the exami-
14 nation of employees or applicants according to grade, agency,
15 or duties : Provided further, however, That nothing contained
16 in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an officer of
17 the Civil Service Commission from advising any civilian
18 employee or applicant of a. specific charge of sexual miscon-
19 duct made against that person, and affording him an oppor-
20 tunity to refute the charge.
21 (c) To require or request, or to attempt to require
or request, any person seeking to establish civil service
status or eligibility for employment in the executive branch
of the United States Government, or any person applying
S. 1035 2
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
,10
1 for employment in the executive branch of the United States
2 Government, or any civilian employee of the United States
3 serving in any department or agency of the United States
4 Government, to take any polygraph test designed to elicit.
5 from him information concerning his personal relationship
6 with any person connected with him by blood or marriage,
7 or concerning his religious beliefs or practices, or concerning
8 his attitude or conduct with respect to sexual matters.
9 SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any commissioned officer,
10 as defined. in section 101 of title 10, United States Code, or
11 any member of the Armed. Forces acting or purporting to
12 act under his authority, to require or request, or to attempt
13 to require or request, any civilian employee of the executive
14 branch of the United States Government under his authority
15 or subject to his supervision to perform any of the acts or
16 submit to any of the requirements made unlawful by section
17 1 of this Act.
18 SEC. 4. Whenever any officer of any executive depart-
19 ment or any executive agency of the United States Gov-
20 ernment, or any person acting or purporting to act under his
21 authority, or any commissioned officer as defined in section
22 101 of title 10, United States Code, or any member of the
23 Armed Forces acting or purporting to act under his author-
24 ity, violates or threatens to violate any of the. provisions of
25 section 1, 2, or 3 of this Act, any civilian employee of the
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
ii
1 United States serving in any department or agency of the
2 United States Government, or any person applying for em-
3 ployment in the executive branch of the United States Gov-
4 ernment, or any person seeking to establish civil service
5 status or eligibility for employment in the executive branch
6 of the United States Government, affected or aggrieved by
7 the violation or threatened violation, may bring a civil action
8 in his own behalf or in behalf of himself and, others simi-
9 larly situated, against the offending officer or person in the
10 United States district court for the district in which the viola-
11 tion occurs or is threatened, or the district in which the
12 offending officer or person is found, or in. the United States
13 District Court for the District of Columbia, to prevent the
14 threatened violation or to obtain redress against the conse-
15 quences of the violation. The Attorney General shall
16 defend all officers or persons sued under this section
17 who acted pursuant to an order, regulation, or directive,
18 or who, in his opinion, did not willfully violate the
19 provisions of this Act. Such United States district court
20 shall have jurisdiction to try and determine such civil action
21 irrespective of the actuality or amount of pecuniary injury
22 done or threatened, and without regard to whether the
23 aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative
24 remedies that may be provided by law, and to issue such
25 restraining order, interlocutory injunction, permanent in-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
12
J
1 junction, or mandatory injunction, or enter such other judg-
2 ment or decree as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent
3 the threatened violation, or to afford the plaintiff and others
4 similarly situated complete relief against the consequences of
5 the violation. With the written consent of any person
6 affected or aggrieved by a violation or threatened violation
7 of section 1, 2, or 3 of this Act, any employee organization
8 may bring such action on behalf of such person, or may
9 intervene in such action. For the purposes of this section,
10 employee organizations shall be construed to include any
11 brotherhood, council, federation, organization, union, or pro-
12 fessional association made up in whole or in part of civilian
13 employees of the United States and which has as one of its
14 purposes dealing with departments, agencies, commissions,
15 and independent agencies of the United States concerning
16 the condition and terms of employment of such employees.
17 'SEC. 5. (a) There is hereby established a Board on
18 Employees' Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Board")
19 The Board shall be composed of three members, appointed
20 by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
21 Senate. The President shall designate one member as chair-
22 man. No more than two members of the Board may be of
23 the same political party. No member of the Board shall be
24 an officer or employee of the United States Government.
25 (b) The term of office of each member of the Board
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
13
1 shall be five years, except that (1) of those members first
2 appointed, one shall serve for. five years, one for three years,
3 and one for one year, respectively, from the date of enact-
4 ment of this Act, and (2) any member appointed to fill
5 a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
6 which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for
7 the remainder of such term.
8 (c) Members of the Board shall be compensated at the
9 rate of $75 a day for each day spent in the work of the
10 Board, and shall be paid actual travel expenses and per
11 diem in lieu of subsistence expenses when away from their
12 usual places of residence, as authorized by section 5703 of
13 title 5, United States Code.
14 (d) Two members shall constitute a quorum for the
15 transaction of business.
16 (e) The Board may appoint and fix the compensation
17 of such officers, attorneys, and employees, and make such
18 expenditures, as may be necessary to carry out its functions.
19 (f) The Board shall make such rules and regulations
20 . as shall be necessary and proper to carry out its functions.
21 (g) The Board shall have the authority and duty to
23
25
receive and investigate written complaints from or on be-
half of any person claiming to be affected or aggrieved by
any violation or threatened violation of this Act and to con-
duct a hearing on each such complaint. Within ten days
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
1.4
1 after the receipt of any such complaint, the Board shall
2. furnish notice of the time, place, arid nature of the hearing
3 thereon. to all interested parties. The Board shall render
4 its final. decision with respect to any complaint within thirty
5 days after the conclusion of its hearing thereon.
6 (h) Officers or representatives of any Federal employee
7 organization in any degree concerned with employment of
8 the category in which 'any alleged violation of this Act
9 occurred or is threatened shall be given. an opportunity to
10 participate in each hearing conducted under this section,
11 through submission of written data, views, or arguments,
12 and in the discretion of the Board, with opportunity for oral
13 presentation. Government employees called upon by any
14 party or by any Federal employee organization to participate
15 in any phase of any administrative or judicial proceeding
16 under this section shall be free to do so without incurring
17 travel cost or suffering loss in leave or pay; and all such em-
18 ployees shall be free from restraint, coercion, interference,
19 intimidation, or reprisal in or because of their participation.
20 Any periods of time spent by Government employees during
21 such participation shall be held and considered to be Federal
22 employment for all purposes.
24
25
(i) Insofar as consistent with the purposes of this see-
tion, the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to the furnishing of notice and
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
15
1 manner of conducting agency hearings, shall be applicable
2 to hearings conducted by the Board under this section.
3 (j) If the Board shall determine after hearing that a
4 violation of this Act has not occurred or is not threatened,
5 the Board shall state its determination and notify all inter-
6 ested parties of such determination. Each such determina-
7 tion shall constitute a final decision of the Board for pur-
8 poses of judicial review.
9 (k) If the Board shall determine that any violation
10 of this Act has been committed or threatened by any civil-
11 ian officer or employee of the United States, the Board shall
12 immediately (1) issue and cause to be served on such of-
13 ficer or employee an order requiring such officer or employee
14 to cease and desist from the unlawful act or practice which
15 constitutes a violation, (2) endeavor to eliminate any such
16 unlawful act or practice by informal methods of conference,
17 conciliation, and persuasion; and (3) may-
18 (A) (i) in the case of the first offense by. any
19 civilian officer or employee of the United States, other
20 than any officer appointed by the President, by and with
21 the advice and consent of the Senate, issue an official
22 reprimand against such officer or employee or order the
23 suspension without pay of such officer or employee from
24 the position or office held by him for a period of not to
25 exceed fifteen days, and (ii) in the case of a second
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
16
1 or subsequent offense by any such officer or employee,
2 order the suspension without pay of such officer or em-
3 ployee from the position or office held by him for a
4 period of not to exceed. thirty days or order the removal
5 of such officer or employee from such position or office;
6 and
7 (B) in the case of any offense by any officer ap-
8 pointed by the President by and with the advice and
9 consent of the Senate, transmit a report concerning such
10 violation to the President and the Congress.
11 (1) If the Board shall determine that any violation
12 of this Act has been committed or threatened by any officer
13 of any of the Armed Forces of the United States, or any
14 person purporting to act under authority conferred by such
15 officer, the Board shall (1) submit. a report thereon to the
16 President, the Congress, and the Secretary of the military
17 department concerned, (2) endeavor to eliminate any un-
18 -lawful act or practice which constitutes such a violation ? by
20
21
22
-24
25
informal :methods of conference, 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. Thereupon such person shall take immediate steps
to dispose of the matter under chapter 47 of title 10, United
States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
17
(m) Any party aggrieved by any final determination
or order of the Board may institute, in the district court of
3 the United States for the judicial district wherein the viola-
4 tion or threatened violation of this Act occurred, or in the
5 United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
6 a civil action for the review of such determination or order.
7 In any such action, the court shall have jurisdiction to (1)
8 affirm, modify, or set aside any determination or order made
9 by the Board which is under review, or (2) require the
10 Board to make any determination or order which it is author-
11 ized to make under subsection (k) , but which it has refused
12 to make. The reviewing court shall set aside any finding,
13 conclusion, determination, or order of the Board as to which
14 complaint is made which is unsupported by substantial evi-
15 dence on the record considered as a whole.
16 (n) The Board shall submit, not later than March 31
17 of each year, to the Senate and House of Representatives,
18 respectively, a report on its activities under this section dur-
19 ing the immediately preceding calendar year, including a
20 statement concerning the nature of all complaints filed with
21 it, its determinations and orders resulting from hearings
22 thereon, and the names of all officers or employees of the
23 United States with respect to whom any penalties have been
24 imposed under this section.
(o) There are authorized to be appropriated sums nec-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
18
1 essary, not in excess of $100,000, to carry out the provisions
2 of this section.
3 SEC. 6. Nothing contained in ,this Act shall be construed
4 to prohibit an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency or
5 of the National Security Agency or of the Federal
6 Bureau of Investigation from requesting any civilian em-
17
18
19
20
ployee 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 con-
nected 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 per-
sonal financial 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation or his designee makes
a personal finding with regard to each individual to be
so tested, or examined that such test or information is re-
quired to protect the national security.
SEC. 7. Nothing contained in sections 4 and 5 shall be
construed to prevent establishment of department and
agency grievance procedures to enforce this, Act, but the
existence of such procedures shall not preclude any appli-
cant or employee from pursuing the remedies established
by this Act or any other remedies provided by law : Pro-
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
19
1 vided, however, That if under the procedures established,
2 the employee or applicant has obtained complete protection
3 against threatened violations or complete redress for vio-
4 lations, such action may be pleaded in bar in the United
5 States District Court or in proceedings before the Board on
6 Employee Rights : Provided further, however, That if an
7 employee elects to seek a remedy under either section 4 or
8 section 5, he waives his right to proceed by an independent
9 action under the remaining section.
10 SEc. 8. If any provision of this Act or the application
11 of any provision to any person or circumstance shall be held
12 invalid, the remainder of this Act or the application of such
13 provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to
14 which it is held invalid, shall not be affected.
Passed the Senate September 13, 1967.
Attest: FRANCIS B. VALEO,
Secretary.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
 Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP79-00632A000100080003-9