PROTECTING PRIVACY AND THE RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 29, 2006
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 15, 1970
• Content Type: REPORT

Approves ,For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
Calendar No. 876
91ST CONcIiESS 1 SENATE { REPORT
2d Session No. 91-873
PROTECTING PRIVACY AND THE RIGHTS OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES
MAY 15, 1970.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. ERVIN, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(S. 782) to protect the civilian employees of the executive branch of
the U.S. Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights
and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their rivacy,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with pamend-
ments, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass,
AMENDMENTS
1. Amendment to section 1(a), page 2, line 15 insert after the word
`origin" the words "or citizenship" and after the word "employee",
he words "or person, or of his forebears".
2. Amendment to section 1(k), page 8, line 5 after the word "re-
quests", strike the period and insert the following:
: Provided, however, That a civilian employee of the United
States serving in the Central Intelligence Agency or the
National Security Agency may be accompanied only by a
person of his choice who serves in. the agency in which the
employee serves or by counsel who has been approved by
the agency for access to the information involved
3. Amendment to section 6, page 18, lines 15 and 16 delete "or of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation".
4. Amendment to section 6, page 18, line 25 and page 19, line 1
delete "or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or his
designee". r_
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R00040Q040001-0
5. On page 19, add a new section 7 as follows:
SEC. 7. No civilian employee of the United States serving
in the Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security
Agency, and no individual or organization acting in behalf of
such employee, shall be permitted to invoke the provisions of
sections 4 and 5 without first submitting a written complaint
to the agency concerned about the threatened or actual
violation of this Act and affording such agency 120 days from
the date of such complaint to prevent tIe threatened viola-
tion or to redress the actual violation: Provided, however,
That nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any
existing authority of the Director of Central Intelligence
under 50 U.S.C. 403(c), and any authorities available to the
National Security Agency under 50 U.S.C. 833 to terminate
the employment of any employee."
6. On page 19, add a new section 8 as follows:
SEC. S. Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect
in any Nvay the authority of the Directors of the
Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency
to protect or withhold information pursuant to statute or
executive order. The personnel certification by the Director
of the agency that disclosure of any information is incon-
sistent with the provision of any statute or executive order
shall be conclusive and no such infornnation shall be admis-
sable in evidence in any interrogation tinder section 1(k) or
in any civil action under section 4 or in any proceeding or
civil action under section 5.
7. On page 19, add a new section 9 as follows:
SEc. 9. This act shall not be applicable to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
8. On page 19, at line 5, renumber "SEC. 7" as "SEC. 10" and at
line 20, renumber "SEC. 8" as "SEC. 11".
with the exception of amendments 1 through 6 set forth above,
S. 782, as reported from subcommittee, is similar to S. 1035 as unan-
imously reported by the committee in the last Congress. The report
on S. 1035 is therefore reprinted below as approved by the committee.
New language is added to explain the a.menclinents.
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit indiscriminate executive branch
requirements that employees and, in certain instances, applicants for
Government employment disclose their race, religion or national
origin; attend Gpvernznent-sponsored meetings and lectures or par-
ticipate in outside activities unrelated to their employment; report
on their outside activities or undertakings unrelated to their work;
submit to questioning about their religion, personal relationships or
sexual attitudes through interviews, psychological tests, or poly-
graphs; support political candidates or attend political meetings. The
bill would make it illegal to coerce an employee to buy bonds or make
charitable contributions. It prohibits officials from requiring him
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
3
to disclose his own personal assets, liabilities, or expenditures, or those
of any member of his family unless, in the case of certain specified
employees, such items would tend to show a conflict of interest. It
would provide a right to have a counsel or other person present, if the
employee wishes, at an interview which may lead to disciplinary
proceedings. It would accord the right to a civil action in a Federal
court for violation or threatened violation of the act, and it would
establish a Board on Employees' Rights to receive and conduct hear-
ings on complaints of violation of the act and to determine and
administer remedies and penalties.
S. 782, 91st Congress-Committee amendments
S. 782, as introduced by Senator Ervin with 54 cosponsors, was
identical to S. 1035 of the 90th Congress as passed by the Senate.
The Subcommittee met in executive session on July 22, 1969, to
receive testimony from Richard Helms, Director of the Central In-
telligence Agency and other agency representatives. On the basis of
this. testimony and after a number of meetings of subcommittee mem-
bers with officials of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National
Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the lan-
guage contained in the committee amendments was drafted and meets
with the approval of the Directors of those agencies.
The subcommittee has found a threefold need for this legislation.
The first is the immediate need to establish a statutory basis for the
preservation of certain rights and liberties of those who work for
government now and those who will work for it in the future. The bill,
therefore, not only remedies problems of today but looks to the future,
in recognition of the almost certain enlargement of the scope of
Federal activity and the continuing rise in the number of Americans
employed by their Federal Government or serving it in some capacity.
Second, the bill meets the Federal Government's need to attract
the best qualified employees and to retain them. As the former Chair-
man of the Civil Service Commission, Robert Ramspeck, testified:
Today, the Federal Government affects the lives of every
human being in the United States. Therefore, we need better
people today, better qualified people, more dedicated people,
in Federal service than we ever needed before. And we cannot
get them if you are going to deal with them on the basis of
suspicion, and delve into their private lives, because if there is
anything the average American cherishes, it is his right of
freedom of action, and his right to privacy. So I think this
bill is hitting at an evil that has, grown up, maybe not
intended, but which is hurting the ability of the Federal
Government to acquire the type of personnel that we must
have in the career service.
Third is the growing need for the beneficial influence which such a
statute would provide in view of the present impact of Federal policies,
regulations and practices on those of State and local government and
of private business and industry. An example of the interest demon-
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
strated by governmental and private employers is the following com-
ment by Allan 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 Govern-
ment service, including some years in a fairly high mana-
gerial capacity, that your bill, if enacted into law, will be a
major step to stem the tide of "Big Brotherism," which con-
stitutes 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 inclusion of several of the concepts of your bill
into the rules and regulations of the city civil service com-
mission.
Passage of the bill will signif congressional recognition of the
threats to individual privacy posed by an advanced technology and by
increasingly more complex organizations. Illustrating these trends is
the greatly expanded use of computers and governmental and private
development of vast systems for the efficient gathering of information
and for data storage and retrieval. While Government enjoys the bene-
fit of these developments, there is at the same time an urgent need for
defining the areas of individual liberty and privacy which should be
exempt from the unwarranted intrusions facilitated by scientific
technic~ties.
As Prof. Charles Reich of Yale Law School has stated, this bill
"would be a significant step forward in defining the right of privacy
today."
"One of the most important tasks which faces the Congress and
State legislatures in the next decade is the protection of the citizen
against invasion of privacy," states Prof. Stanley Anderson of the
University of California, Santa Barbara. "No citizens," in his opinion,
"are in more immediate danger of incursion into private affairs than
Government employees. When enacted the bill will provide a bulwark
of protection against such incursions."
The bill is lased on several premises which the subcommittee
investigation has proved valid for purposes of eiiactin this legislation.
The first is that civil servants (to not surrender the basic rights and
liberties which are their due as citizens under the Constitution of the
United States by their action in accepting Government employment.
Chief among these constitutional protections is the first amendment,
which protects the employee to privacy in his thoughts, beliefs and
attitudes, to silence in his action and participation or his inaction and
nonparticipation in community life and civic affairs. This principle is
the essence of constitutional liberty in a free society.
The constitutional focus of the bill wits emphasized by Senator
Ervin in the following terms when he introduced S. 1035 on February
21, 1967:
If this bill is to have any meaning for those it affects, or
serve as a precedent for those who seek guidance in these
matters, it purpose must be phrased in consitutional terms.
Otherwise its goals -,vill be lost.
We must have as our point of reference the constitutional
principles which guide every official act of our Federal Gov-
ernment. I believe that the ( institution, as it was drafted
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
5
and as it has been implemented, embodies a view of the citi-
zen as possessed of an inherent dignity and as enjoying cer-
tain basic liberties. Many current practices of Government
affecting employees are unconstitutional; they violate not
only the letter but the very spirit of the Constitution.
I introduced this bill originally because I believe that, to
the extent it has permitted or authorized unwarranted inva-
sion of employee privacy and unreasonable restrictions on
their liberty, the Federal Government has neglected its
constitutional duty where its own employees are concerned,
and it has failed in its role as the model employer for the
Nation.
Second, although it is a question of some dispute, I hold
that Congress has a duty under the Constitution not only to
consider the constitutionality of the laws it enacts, but to
assure as far as possible that those in the executive branch
responsible for administering the laws adhere to constitutional
standards in their programs, policies, and administrative
techniques.
The committee believes that it is time for Congress to forsake its
reluctance to tell the executive branch how to treat its employees.
When so many American citizens are subject to unfair treatment, to
being unreasonably coerced or required without warrant to surrender
their liberty, their privacy, or their freedom to act or not to act, 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. It has a duty to remind the executive branch that
even, though it might have to expend a little more time and effort to
obtain some favored policy goal, the techniques and tools must be
reasonable and fair.
Each section of the bill is based on evidence from many hundreds
of cases and complaints sho wing that generally in the Federal service,
as in any similar organizational situation, a request from a superior
is equivalent 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
voluntarism may be open to serious doubt. For this reason the bill
makes it illegal for officials to "request" as well as to "require" an
employee to submit to certain inquiries or practices or to take certain
actions.
Each section of the bill reflects a balancing of the interests involved:
The interest of the Government in attracting the best qualified
individuals to its service; and its interest in pursuing laudable goals
such as protecting the national security, promoting equal employ-
ment opportunities, assuring mental health, or conducting successful
bond-selling campaigns. There is, however, also the interest of the
individual in protection of his rights and liberties as a private citizen.
When he becomes an employee of his Government, he has a right to
expect that the policies and practices applicable to him will reflect
the best values of his society.
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
6
The balance of interests achieved assures him this right. While it
places no absolute prohibition on Government inquiries, the bill does
assure that restrictions on his rights and liberties as a Government
employee are reasonable ones.
As Senator Bible stated:
There is a line between what is Federal business and what
is personal business, and Congress must draw that line. The
rig~it of privacy must be spelled out.
The weight of evidence, as Senator Fong has said: "points to the
fact that the invasions of privacy under threats and coercion and
economic intimidation are rampant in our Federal civil service system
today. The degree of privacy in the lives of our civil servants is small
enough as it is, and it is still shrinking with further advances in tech-
nical know-hog;-. That these citizens are being forced by economic
coercion to surrender this precious liberty in order to obtain and hold
jobs is tin invasion of privacy which should disturb every American.
therefore, strongly believe that congressional action to protect our
civil servants is long overdue."
The national president of the National Association of Internal
Revenue Employees, Vincent Connery, told the subcommittee of this
proposal in the 69th Congress:
Senate bill 3779 is soundly conceived and perfectly timed.
It appears on the legislative scene during a season of public
employee unrest, and a period of rapidly accelerating demand
among Federal employees for truly first-class citizenship.
For the first time within my memory, at least, a proposed bill
holds out the serious hope of attaining such citizenship.
S. 3779, therefore, amply deserves the fullest support of all
employee organizations, both public and private, federation
affiliated, and independent alike.
Similar statements endorsing the broad purpose of the bill were
made by many others, including the following witnesses:
John F. Griner, national president, American Federation of Gov-
ernment. Employees.
E. C. Hallbeek, national president, United Federation of Postal
Clerks.
Jerome Keating, president, National Association of Letter Carriers.
Kenneth T. Lyons, national president, National Association of
Government Employees.
John A. McCart, operations director, Government Employees
Council of AFI, (110.
Hon. Robert Ramspeck, former Chairman, Civil Service Com-
mission.
Vincent Jay, executive vice president, Federal Professional Asso-
ciation.
Francis J. S}peh, president, 14th District Department, American
Federation of Government Employees.
Lawrence Speiser, director, Washington office, American Civil
Liberties Union.
Nathan Wolkomir, national president, National Federation of
Federal Employees.
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
7
Violations of rights covered by the bill as well as other areas of
employee rights have been the subject of intensive hearings and in-
vestigation by the subcommittee for the last five Congresses.'
In addition to investigation of individual cases, the Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights has conducted annual surveys of agency
policies on numerous aspects of Government personnel practices. In
1965, pursuant to Senate Resolution 43, hearings were conducted on
due process and improper use of information acquired through psy-
chological testing, psychiatric examinations, and security and per-
sonnel interviews.
In a letter to the Chief Executive on August 3, 1966 the subcom-
mittee chairman stated:
For some time, the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee
has received disturbing reports from responsible sources
concerning violations of the rights of Federal employees. I
have attempted to direct the attention of appropriate officials
to these matters, and although replies have been uniformly
courteous, the subcommittee has received no satisfaction
whatsoever, or even any indication of awareness that any
problem exists. The invasions of privacy have reached such
alarming proportions and are assuming such varied forms that
the matter demands your immediate and personal attention.
The misuse of privacy-invading personality tests for per-
sonnel purposes has already been the subject of hearings by
the subcommittee. Other matters, such as improper and in-
sulting questioning during background investigations and due
process guarantees in denial of security clearances have also
been the subject of study. Other employee complaints, fast
becoming too numerous to catalog, concern such diverse
matters as psychiatric interviews; lie detectors; race ques-
tionnaires; restrictions on communicating with Congress;
pressure to support political parties yet restrictions on
political activities; coercion to buy savings bonds; extensive
limitations on outside activities yet administrative influence
to participate in agency-approved functions; rules for writing,
speaking and even thinking; and requirements to disclose per-
sonal 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 problems, Senator Ervin commented:
Many of the practices now in extensive use have little or
nothing to do with an individual's ability or his qualification
to perform a job. The Civil Service Commission has estab-
lished rules and examinations to determine the qualifications
of applicants. Apparently, the Civil Service Commission
and the agencies are failing in their assignment to operate
a merit system for our Federal civil service.
It would seem in the interest of the administration to make
an immediate review of these practices and questionnaires
to determine whether the scope of the programs is not ex-
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
8
ceeding your original intent and whether the violations of
employee rights are not more harmful to your long-range
goals than tie personnel shortcuts involved.
s
Following this letter and others addressed to the Chairman of the
Civil Service Conunission and the Secretaries of other departments,
1e slation to protect employee rights was introduced in the Senate.
S. 1035 was preceded by S. 3703 and S. 3779 in the second session
of the 89th Congress. S. 3703 was introduced by the chairman on
August 9, 1966, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On
August 25, 1966, the chairman received unanimous consent to a
request to add the names of 33 cosponsors to the bill. On August 26,
1966, he introduced a bill similar to S. 3703, containing an amendment
reducing the criminal penalties provided in section 2. This bill,
S. 3779, was also referred to the Judiciary Committee, and both
S. 3703 and S. 3779 were then referred to the Subcommittee on
Constitutional R~,ghts.
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, 1967.1
Hearings on S. 3779 were conducted before the subcommittee on
September 23, 29, 30, and October 3, 4, and 5, 1966. Reporting to
the Senate on these hearings, the subcommittee chairman made the
following statement:
The recent hearings on S. 37741 showed that every major
employee organization and union, thousands of individual
employees to have written Congress, law professors, the
American Civil Liberties union, and a number of bar asso-
ciations 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 intimidation, of threats of loss of job or
security clearance were brought to our attention in connec-
tion with bond sales, and Government charity drives.
Case after case was cited of pprivacy invasion and denial of
due process in connection with the new financial disclosure
requirements. A typical case is the attorney threatened with
disciplina action or loss of his job because he is both unable
and unwilling to list all gifts, including Christmas presents
from his family, which he had received in the past year.
He felt this had nothing to do with his job. There was the
supervisory engineer who was told by the personnel officer
that he would have to take disciplinary action against the 25
professional employees in his division who resented being
forced to disclose the creditors and financial interests of them-
selves and members of their families. Yet there are no pro-
cedures for appealing the decisions of supervisors and person-
nel officers who are acting under the Commission's directive.
These are not isolated instances; rather, they represent a
pattern of privacy invasion reported from almost every State.
The subcoininittee was told that supervisors are ordered
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
9
to supply names of employees who attend PTA meetings and
engage in Great Books discussions. Under one department's
regulations, employees are requested to participate in specific
community activities promoting local and Federal anti-
poverty, beautification, and equal employment 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
project, and to paint other people's houses. When these
regulations were brought to the subcommittee's attention
several 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 failure to participate
would indicate an uncooperative attitude and would be
reflected in their efficiency records.
The subcommittee hearings have produced ample evidence
of the outright intimidation, 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 operation of the bond sale campaign, the drives for
charitable contributions, and the use of self-identification
minority' status questionnaires. 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 unions, it seems those who
endorse these techniques for mind probing and thought
control 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
silent 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 employee 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 adminis-
trative action taken to attempt to ameliorate them. Despite
congressional concern, administrative officials have failed to
discern patterns of practice in denial of rights. They seem to
think that if they can belatedly remedy one case which is
brought to the attention of the Congress, the public and the
press, that this is enough-that the "heat" will subside.
With glittering generalities, qualified until they mean nothing
in substance, they have sought to throw Congress off the
track in its 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. 3779. would
prohibit.
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
10
The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission 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 em-
ployees as individuals and through their unions, to work
together to resolve these issues as part of their normal
discourse."
It is quite clear from the fearful tenor of the letters and
telephone calls received by the subcommittee and Meinbers
of Congress that there is no discourse and is not likely to be
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, lie 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 objectively the reasonable-
ness and constitutionality of their own policies? This is the
role of Congress, and in my o pinion, Congress has waited too
long as it is to provide the guidance that is desperately needed
in these matters.
S. 1035, 00th Congress
On the basis of the subcommittee hearings, agency reports, and the
suggestions of many experts, the bill was amended to meet legitimate
objections to the scope and language raised by administrative wit-
nesses 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 introduced in the Senate by
the chairman on February 21, 1967, as S. 1035 with 54 cosponsors.
It was considered by the Constitutional Ritrhts Subcommittee and
unanimously reported with amendments, by tie Judiciary Committee
on August 21, 1967. [S. Rcpt. No. 534, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.) The pro-
posal was considered by the Senate on September 13, 1967, and
approved, with floor amendments, by a 79 to 4 vote. After absentee
approvals were recorded, the record showed a total of 90 Members
supported passage of the bill. The amendments adopted on the
Senate floor deleted a complete exemption which the committee
bill provided for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; instead, it
was provided that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should be
accorded the same limited exemptions provided for the Central
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
11
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. A provision
was added to allow the three Directors to delegate the power to make
certain personal findings required by section 6 of the bill.
Committee amendments to S. 1085, 90th Congress
1. Amendment to section 1(a) page 2, line 13:
Provided further, That nothing contained in this subsection
shall be construed to prohibit inquiry concerning the national
origin of any such employee when such inquiry is deemed
necessary or advisable to determine suitability for assign-
ment to activities or undertakings related to the national
security within the United States or to activities or under-
takings of any nature outside the United States.
2. Amendment to section 1(b), page 2, line 25 strike "to" (techni-
cal amendment.)
3. Delete section 1(e), page 4, lines 1-4 (prohibitions on patron-
izing business establishments,) and renumber following sections as,
sections 1(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (1), respectively.
4. Delete section 4, page 10, lines 12-23 (criminal penalties) and
renumber following sections as sections 4 and 5, respectively.
5. Amendment to section 1(f), page 4, line 25:
Provided further, however, That nothing contained in this sub-
section shall be construed 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 person, and affording him an opportunity to
refute the charge.
6. Amendments to section 1(f), page 4, at lines 17 and 19 change
"psychiatrist" to "physician."
7. Amendment to section 1(k), page 7, at line 10 change (j) to (i).
8. Amendment to section 2(b), page 9, at line 6 and line 9 change
"psychiatrist" to "physician."
9. Amendment to section 2(b), page 9, at line 15:
Provided further, however, That nothing contained in this sub-
section shall be construed to prohibit an officer of the Civil
Service Commission from advising any civilian employee or
applicant of a specific charge of sexual misconduct made
against that person, and affording him an opportunity to
refute the charge.
10. Amendment to section 5, page 11, line 21. Insert after the word
"violation." the following:
The Attorney General shall defend all officers or persons
sued under this section who acted pursuant to an order,
regulation, or directive, or who, in his opinion, did not
willfully violate the provisions of this Act.
11. Amendment to section 6(1), page 16, at line 24 strike "sign
charges and specifications under section 830 (art. 30)" and insert in
lieu thereof: "convene general courts martial under section 822 (art.
22)" (technical amendment).
12. Amendment to section 6(m), page 17, line 14 change subsection
(j) to (k). (Technical amendment.)
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
12
13. Amendment, page 18, add new section 6:
SEC. 6. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed
to prohibit an off-cer of the Central Intelligence Agency or
of the National Security Agency from requesting any civilian
employee or applicant to take a polygraph test, or to take a
psychological test designed to elicit from him information
concerning his personal relationship with any person 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 mnatters, or to provide a
personal financial statement, if the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency or the Director of the National Security
Agency makes a personal finding with regard to each indi-
vidual to be so tested or examined that such test or informa-
tion is required to protect the national security.
14. Amendment, page 18, add new section 8, and renumber
following section as section 9:
SEC. 8. 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 proceduresshall not preclude any applicant or employee
from pursuing the remedies established by this Act or any
other remedies provided by law: Provided, however, That if
under the procedures established, the employee or applicant
has obtained complete protection against threatened viola-
tions or complete redress for violations, such action may be
pleaded in bar in the United States District Court or in
proceedings before the Board on Employee Rights: Provided
further, however, That if an employee elects to seek a remedy
under either section 4 or section 5, he waives his right to
proceed by an independent action under the remaining
section.
Comparison of S. 1035, 90th Congress, as introduced, and S. 3779,
89th Congress
As introduced, the revised bill, S. 1035, differed from S. 3779 of the
89th Congress in the following respects:
1. The section banning requiremenis to disclose race, religion, or
national origin was amended to permit inquiry on citizenship where it
is a statutory condition of employment:.
2. The provision against coercion of employees to buy bonds or
make charitable donations was amended to make it clear that it does
not prohibit calling meetings or taking any action appropriate to
afford the employee the opportunity voruntarily to invest or donate.
3. A new section providing for administrative remedies and penal-
ties establishes it Board on Employee Rights to receive and conduct
hearings on complaints of violation of the act, and to determine and
administer remedies and penalties. There is judicial review of the
decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.
4. A specific exemption for the Federal Bureau of Investigation is
included.
Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/29: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400040001-0
13
5. Exceptions to the prohibitions on privacy-invading questions
by examination, interrogations, and psychological tests are provided
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 regular
tion governing the examination of employees or applicants on the
basis of grade, job, or agency.
6. The section prohibiting requirements to disclose personal finan-
cial information contains technical amendments to assure that only
persons with final authority in certain areas may be subject to dis-
closure requirements.
7. For those employees excluded from the ban on disclosure require-
ments, a new section (j), provides that they may only be required to
disclose items tending to show a conflict of interest.
8. Military supervisors of civilian employees are included within
the prohibitions of the bill, and violation of the act is made a punish-
able offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
9. A new section 2 has been added to assure that the same prohibi-
tions in section 1 on actions of department and agency officials with
respect to employees in their departments 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-containing prohibitions on requiring attendance at out-
side meetings, reports on personal activities and participation in
outside activities, were amended to make it clear that they do not
apply to the performance of official duties or to the development of
skill, knowledge, and abilities which qualify the person for his duties
or to participation in professional groups or associations.
12. The criminal penalties were reduced from a maximum of $500
and 6 months' imprisonment to $300 and 30 days.
13. Section (h) of S. 3779. prohibiting requirements to support
candidates, programs, or policies of any political party was revised to
prohibit requirements to supprt the nomination or election of persons
or to attend meetings to promote or support activities or undetakings
of any political party.
14. Other amendments of a technical nature.
QUESTIONS ON RACE, RELIGION, AND NATIONAL ORIGIN
Many complaints received by the subcommittee concerned official
requests or requirements that employees disclose their race, religion,
or ethnic or national origin. This information has been obtained from
employees through the systematic use of questionnaires or oral
inquiries by supervisors.
Chief concern has focused on a policy inaugurated by the Civil
Service Commission in 1966, under which present employees and
future employees would. be asked to indicate on a questionnaire whether
" "Negro