ERVIN BILL - S. 782

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030036-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 3, 2006
• Sequence Number: 36
• Publication Date: July 8, 1969
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006/08/09: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030036-3
UGC 69-1283
()Lcr 9-C O/
8 July 1969
ORANDUM FOR. Acting Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT:
Ervin Bill - S. 782
1. This memorandum is for information.
2. Attached is a description of the key points we find
objectionable in the Ervin bill, which is designed to protect
Government employees, their constitutional rights, and to
prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 describe the most worrisome aspects.
3. The bill passed the Senate last year 79 to 4 and
probably will get a large majority again, although conceivably
an exception for the FBI, CIA, and NSA would not be disagree-
able to many Senators. The House does not favor this bill at
the moment, and Chairman Henderson of the House Committee
has prepared a different version.
4. In the Executive Branch the Civil Service Commission
opposes the bill in toto. Justice, Defense, and State agree to
one degree or another with our position, as does Ken BeLieu on
the White House legislative staff, but no one wants to tackle
Senator Ervin in a head-on battle except the Agency, and we
have gotten nowhere.
a/
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
Attachment
cc; Executive Director MORI/CDF
,,Legislative Counsel
Approved For Release 2006/08/09: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030036-3
 Approved For Release 2006/08/09: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030036-3
S.782
The objectives of S. 782 we would all agree are laudable in attempting to assure against
unreasonable actions with regard to Government employees. However, as phrased, a number
of provisions would have an adverse and disruptive effect on procedures and practices of
CIA which have been developed over the years to screen out disloyal or unsuitable employees.
The bill would:
1. Preclude the Agency from taking notice of any employee's attendance at a meeting
held by a subversive group or organization. [Sec. 1(b) and Sec. 1(d)]
2. Give any employee the right to counsel or other person of his choice if he is asked.
to submit to interrogation which could lead to disciplinary action. Such interrogation can
involve most sensitive information, particularly as to intelligence sources and methods, and
this would permit the presence of uncleared and possibly hostile counsel at the earliest stages.
[Sec. l(k) ]
3. Would require a personal finding by the Director, or his designee, in each case
with respect to certain key questions in polygraph or psychological tests. [Sec. 6] CIA asks
these questions of all applicants because it has been determined that they are required to
protect national security. It is a fact that literally hundreds of homosexual cases have been
uncovered during polygraph interviews where prior full-field investigations had failed to
uncover the true situation. The requirement for individual determinations would impose an
arbitrary and unnecessary impediment to an otherwise orderly and systematic procedure.
4. Permit an employee or applicant, who alleges that he is affected or aggrieved by
any violation or threatened violation of any provision of the act, immediate access to the U.
district court without regard to whether such employee or applicant shall have exhausted any
ac.m.inistrative remedies which may be provided by law. Communists, or other subversives
Ming on their own or on instructions from foreign agents, could file suits for the sole
purpose of harassment based on allegations of improper questioning during recruitment
.nterviews. There is little doubt that such groups would be quick to recognize and exploit
he weapon provided by this Section. The mere filing of such complaints let alone a hearing on
the merits would involve almost inevitably classified information concerning the Agency and
its activities. [Sec. 4] Moreover, a campaign of leftist inspired harassing litigation would
seriously burden Agency administrative resources and might virtually paralyze our recruitment
program.
5. Establish a Board of Employees' Rights which would have the authority and duty to
receive and investigate written complaints from or on behalf of any employee or applicant
claiming to be affected or aggrieved by any violation or threatened violation of any provision o_'
the act. This would permit airing before this Board situations which might again involve
information which would be detrimental to the national security. In a CIA case it might well be
that a defendant employee had been ordered by the Director not to provide information on a
matter since it.was highly classified; thus, we would have a conflict between the Board's
authorities and the Director's responsibility for protection of intelligence sources and method
[Sec. 5]
These provisions are, we believe, in clear conflict with the statutory responsibilities
of the Director of Central Intelligence and are unnecessary, since adequate machinery is
provided for any employee or applicant for employment who might consider himself aggrieve: T
Approved For Release 2006/08/09: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030036-3