TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600041-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 9, 1999
• Sequence Number: 41
• Publication Date: August 29, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP
C +1 3v0
`cECORD - SENA T E
metal at a time when it was desperate?y
needed. I say it is via. e to clog? the gcia
gap domestically to w, least stop the si b-
stantial lea '_ of our :__:aetary gold na-
tional stoc ,i brou ah about by the dis-
parity between eon..umption and pro-
duction.
in co elusion, prranit me to say that
v c. ht -.wort saou: t be di-
1 e.,ted uy , ur i ~`weu y ofaciais to the
d ::i_t ility of a revaluation of gold and
event- return to t' ho gol4 anda_'d
order to staa.lize inteinatio al trade
cla.tiol skips for the last thhci of this
c,on ary.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
TRANSACTION OF i tOUTINTE
1ViORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant
to the previous unani..ous-consent
agreement, the Senate will now proceed
to the transaction of routine morning
business, with statements limited to 3
minutes.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MA NSF.iELD, Mr. President, T_ ask
unanimous consent that the distin-
guished Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. Eaviul may be recognized for up
to one-half hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me without the time
being taken from his time?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
AMENDMENT OF THE SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, when the trans-
action of routine morning business is
concluded, that Calendar No. 491,
S. 2171, be made the pending business.
The PRESIDING O'-'1ICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE Ci,mzx. A bill (S. 2171)
to amend the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Act of 1950 so as to accord with cer-
tain decisions of the courts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none
and it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
10 A.M. TOMORROW-PROGRAM
FOR TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for
the information of the Senate-and this
is subject to change-it is the intention
of the leadership, and at this time I ask
unanimous consent, that when the Sen-
ate completes its business today it stands
in adjournment until 10 o'clock a.m. to-
morrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. At that time the
nomination on the calendar will become
the pending business, to be followed by
the independent offices appropriation bl
if there are no objections to its consid-
eration.
~1A F_~:.. ~ NSA SH C.,
W` is !' SHOULD
3T - ERCi, .. FROM THE
PROVISIONS OP c..1035, THE BILL
TO PROTECT Z;:_:1._ L.CYEE RIGHTS
se l ir. ER,VIN. Mr, President, I deeply
regret that a last-minute request from
the Central Intelligence Agency neces-
sarily requires L, e leadership of the Sen-
ate he c sideration-until
after t,c q3._-:.lion of the Labor Day re-
cess-of S. 10;5, a bill to protect the
civilian employees of the executive
branch of _ U.S. Government in the
enjoymer.: ,. their constitutional rights
and to prevent unwarranted govern-
mental invasions o f their privacy.
' _'his is a bill which has been cospon-
sored by more then 50 Members of the
Senate. It :rest be passed. it must be-
come law, if the employees of the execu-
tive departments and agencies of the
Federal Government are to be able to
stand up in dignity and enjoy the same
rights which belong as a matter of course
to all other Americans.
The predecessor bill to S. 1035 was in-
troduced approximately a year ago. The
Ssucommittee on Constitutional Rights
of the Committee on the Judiciary con-
ducted extensive hearings on the prede-
cessor bill. It accorded both the CIA and
the National Security Agency, which now
ask to be exempted from the provisions
of the bill, full opportunity to be heard
before the subcommittee in opposition
to it.
Representatives of both agencies ad-
vised me in person, and also, -, vised
members of the subcommittee staff, that
they did not desire to be heard before
the subcommittee with respect to the
bill.
Notwithstanding that fact, I met with
representatives of both agencies and
listened to what they had to say con-
cerning the bill.
The CIA filed with me a 10-page state-
ment concerning objections it had to the
bill. Like any CIA greeting of "good
morning," however; the statement was
marked "Secret." I cannot use it. I wish
I could use it, because I could take it and
lay it alongside the bbl and make it
clear that I have amended the present
bill to meet every valid objection the CIA
voiced to the original version.
I would welcome nothing with more
delight than to have officials of the CIA
come to an open hearing before a con-
gressional committee. This is true be-
cause such action would afford me an
opportunity to show how specious their
objections are to the inclusion of the
CIA in the bill.
Again this year, I held conferences
with officials of both agencies and in-
formed them that I would be ? glad to
see that the subcommittee gave them a
hearing on the bill, if they so desired. I
was again informed by their representa-
tives-that the agencies did not desire
any hearing.
Representatives of the CIA have been
in constant communication with mem-
bers of the subcommittee staff and have
kept abreast of all developments with
respect to the bill. They have known that
the bill was on the agenda of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary for several
weeks. Likewise, they have known that
FOIAb3b
Sanitized - Approved For Release : Cl
00041-2
August 29, '1967
on the 21st day of this month, the full
Committees on the Judiciary, after
adopting an amendment which gave
some exemptions to the CIA and the
National Security Agency-which, in my
judgment, they should not have-re-
ported the bill unanimously and favor-
'Ay to the Senate.
M:Ir. President, the CIA waited until
the end of last week and then for the first
liras undertook to demand that it be al-
red a secret hearing before the Judi-
c ary Committee in support of its wish
to be totally excluded from the provi-
sions of this bill.
I am going to make a suggestion to the
CIA; namely, that some of its officials
read title 18, section 1913 of the United
States Code-especially those provisions
which are in these words:
No part of the money appropriated by any
enactment of Congress shall, in the absence
of express authorization by Congress, be
used directly or indirectly to pay for any
personal service-
I now omit certain words which are
not germane-
intended or designed to influence in any
manner a Member of Congress to favor or op<
pose by vote, or otherwise, any legislation ...
by Congress whether before or after the
introduction of any bill or resolution pro-
posing such legislation.
Mr. President, I am going to have the
temerity to suggest that the CIA investi-
gate to see whether or not any of its
officers have been violating that statute-
that is, if the CIA can lay aside its zeal
to excercise unlimited powers of tyranny
over their employees and those who ap-
ply to it for employment long enough
to do so.
I would like to make this plain. I am
opposed to the Judiciary Committee's
holding any secret meeting to hear offi-
cers of the Central Intelligence Agency
give reasons which canont be divulged to
the American people why their em-
ployees should be robbed of the dignity
and the freedom which all other Amer-
icans enjoy. I do not believe that legisla-
tion affecting the rights of any Ameri-
cans should be based on secret testimony.
Such action is incompatible with a free
society.
I see no pratical or policy reasons for
granting this request, and I find no con-
stitutional grounds for it. It is neither
necessary nor reasonable.
The men who drafted the Constitution
envisioned a government of laws, not of
men. They meant that wherever our na-
tional boundaries should reach, there the
controls 'established in the Constitution
should apply to the actions of govern-
ment. The guarantees' of the amend-
ments hammered out in the State con-
stilutional conventions and in the meet-
ings of the First Congress had no limita-
tions. They were meant to apply to all
Americans; not to all Americans with the
exception of those employed by the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and the Na-
tional Security Agency.
My research has revealed no language
in our Constitution which envisions en-
claves in Washington, Langley, or Fort
Meade, where no law governs the rights
of citizens except that of the director of
an agency. Nor have I found any decision
00041-2
 -y
1y .
_ny
gyp.
the
7fO-
the
_sti-
its
te-
:.eal
~,nny
ap-
ugh
ant
ttee's
ofi-
cency
,;cd to
em-
-ignity
jtrner-
C ;isla-
.meri-
inzonY
a free
ons for
io con-
neither
;titution
not of
our na-
here the
;;titution
govern-
amend-
tate con-
.he meet-
:o limita-
ily to all
with the
1,he Cen-
the Nla-
language
isions en-
or Fort
rights
wircetor of
?r decision
,qni d - Appro
rA~R
?r e
August
of the highest court in the land to sup-
port such a proposition.
Why, then, do these agencies want to
be exempt from this bill?
Is it that, unbeknown to Congress,
their mission is such that they must be
able to order their employees to go out
and lobby in their communities for open-
housing legislation or take part in Great
Society poverty programs-things which
this bill would prohibit?
Must they order them to go out and
support organizations, paint fences, and
hand out grass seeds, and then to come
back and tell their supervisors what they
did in their spare time, and at their own
expense, and on their weekends?
Do they have occasion to require their
employees to go out and work for the
nomination or election of candidates for
public office? Must they order them to
attend meetings and fundraising din-
ners for political parties in the United
States?
Do they not know how to evaluate a
secretary for employment without as!_
ing her how her bowels are, if she has
diarrhea, if she loved her mother, if she
goes to church every week, if she be-
lieves in God, if she believes in the second
coming of Christ, if her sex life is satis-
factory, if she has to urinate more often
than other people, what she dreams
about, and many other extraneous
matters?
Documents in the files of the subcom-
mittee show these particular agencies
have been asking these questions of per-
sons applying to them for employment.
Why do these two agencies want the
license to coerce their employees to con-
tribute to charity and to buy bonds? The
subcommittee has received fearful tele-
phone calls from employees stating that
they were told their security clearances
would be in jeopardy if they were not
buying bonds, because it was an indi-
cation of their lack of patriotism.
Why should Congress grant these
agencies the right to spend thousands
of dollars to go around the country re-
cruiting on college campuses, and the
right to strap young applicants to ma-
chines and ask them questions about
their family, and personal lives such as-
When was the first time you had sexual
relations with a woman?
How many times have you had sexual
intercourse?
Have you ever engaged in homosexual
activities?
Have you ever engaged in sexual activi-
ties with an animal?
When was the first time you had inter-
course with your wife?
Did you have intercourse with her be-
fore you were married?
How many times?
What an introduction to American
Government for these young people.
The subcommittee has also received
comments from a.number of professors
indicating the concern on their faculties
that their students were being subjected
to such practices.
That we are losing the talent of many
qualified people who would otherwise
choose to serve t: air Government is il-
lustrated by the following letter:
I nm now a Foreign Service Officer with
the State Department and have been most
+P71~9R000200600041-2s 12391
favorably impressed with the Department's
eecurity measures.
However, some years ago I was considered
for employment by the CIA and in this
connection had to take a polygraph test. I
have never experienced a more humiliating
situation, nor one which so totally violated
both the legal and moral rights of the in-
dividual. In Particular, I objected to the
manner in which the person administering
the test posed questions, drew subjective
inferences and put my own moral beliefs
up for justification. Suffice it to say that
after a short time I was not a "cooperative"
subject, and the administrator said he
couldn't make any sense from the polygraph
and called in his superior, the "deputy chief."
The deputy chief began in patronizing,
reassuring tones to convince me that all he
wanted was that I tell the truth. I then made
P. statement to the effect that I had gone to
a Quaker school in Philadelphia, that I had
been brought up at home and in school with
certain moral beliefs and principles, that I
h'ad come to Washington from my university
at the invitation of the CIA to apply for a
position, not to have my statements of a
personal and serious nature questioned not
only as to their truth but by implication as
to their correctness, and that I strongly ob-
jected to the way this test was being ad-
ministered.
The deputy chief gave me a wise smile and
leaning forward said, "Would you prefer that
we used the thumb screws?" (!) I was
shocked at this type of reasoning, and re-
sponded that I hardly thought it was a ques-
tion of either polygraph or the thumb screws.
This Incident almost ended the deep desire
I had for service in the American Govern-
ment, but fortunately I turned to the Foreign
Service. But if it happened to me it must
have happened and be happening to hundreds
of other applicants for various Federal posi-
tions.
On the subject of polygraphs, the AFL-
CIO in 1965 stated:
The AFI-CIO Executive Council deplores
the use of so-called "lie detectors" in public
and private employment. We object to the use
of these devices, not only because their
claims to reliability are dubious but because
they infringe on the fundamental rights of
American citizens to personal privacy. Neith-
er the government nor private employers
should be permitted to engage in this sort of
police state surveillance of the lives of in-
dividual citizens.
Legislatures in five States and several
cities have already outlawed these de-
vices, and many unions have forced their
elimination through collective bargain-
ing.
. The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has said they are unre-
liable for personnel purposes.
Why should Congress take a step back-
ward by specifically authorizing their
continued use on American citizens in
these two agencies to ask about their
sex lives, their religion, and their family
relationships?
Bear in mind that, reprehensible as
these lie detectors are, the bill only limits
their use in certain areas, and the Direc-
tor of each of these agencies, under the
amendment, may still authorize their use
if he thinks it necessary to protect the
national security. Personally, I fear for
the national security if its protection de-
pends on the use of such devices.
Similarly, the question may be asked,
why should these agencies force their
employees to disclose all of their and
their families' assets, creditors, personal
and real property, unless they are respon-
sible for handling money? Nevertheless,
under the bill, the CIA and NSA have
been granted the exemption they wished,
to require their employees to disclose
such information, if the director says it
is necessary to protect the national
security. What more do they want?
This bill, as amended, would give them
this privilege.
Apparently, what they want is to stand
above the law.
Taken all together, their arguments
for complete exemption suggest only
one conclusion-that they want the
unmitigated right to kick Federal em-
ployees around, deny them respect for in-
dividual privacy and the basic rights
which belong to every American regard-
less of the mission of his agency.
The idea that any Government agency
is entitled to the "total man" and to
knowledge and control of all the details
of his personal and community life un-
related to his employment or to law en-
forcement is more appropriate for totali-
tarian countries than for a society of
freemen. The basic premise of S. 1035 is
that a man who works for the Federal
Government, even if he works for the
CIA or NSA, sells his services, and not his
soul.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the
Senator from North Carolina yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I am happy to yield to my
friend the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I listened
with interest to the remarks of the au-
thor of the bill of rights for Government
employees. It was my privilege to sit
in and participate in many of the hear-
ings concerning this bill. It was an ad-
mirable performance on the part of the
Senator from North Carolina, because he
was able to elicit much information
under very difficult situations, sometimes
in areas that are quite sensitive; and
yet there has been a record compiled
which, in my belief, will make it manda-
tory upon the Senate to approve the bill.
It has been my pleasure to be one of
the cosponsors. Later in the day I ex-
pect to speak on the subject briefly, in
an introductory way, to add to the in-
formation that will be available to our
fellow Senators when this bill will ac-
tually come before this body.
It had been my understanding that
the bill was set for debate and dispo-
sitiontoday; and I ask the Senator from
North Carolina, was there a change in
the program?
Mr. ERVIN. My information is that the
Central Intelligence Agency requested
of the leadership, at the last moment,
that the bill go over, and that the leader-
ship, felt that under the circumstances
it was necessary to accede to that re-
quest.
Mr. HRUSKA. What is the motiva-
tion for a body outside of Congress to
ask for a delay in consideration of a bill?
Mr. ERVIN. The action of the CIA is
without precedent during the 13 years
I have been in the Senate. The bill had
been reported to the Senate unani-
mously by the Committee on the Judi-
ciary. The CIA had been kept constantly
informed through the liaison between its
representatives and the subcommittee
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600041-2
 S n 1_9 V' C3DI- 2 Sanitized - Apprp F ~~aes gL DPS7; rRQ 49R00020R6
Uyus, 000~41~2 1967
stall: of everything that had occurred in
the progress of the bill.
Instead of coming before the co?_nmit-
toe or subcommittee during the last 12
months and asking for a hearing, the
CIA, which does not want to have any
restrictions upon its activities, which does
not want to be called into account by its
employees under any circumstances, and
which wants to be exempted from the
provisions of law that ought to apply to
every other agency in this country, arbi-
trarily decided to came in at the last
minute and make this request, notwith-
standing it could have made at any
time during r,'__e previous 12 months,
Mr. HRUSKA. I would not think that
the motivation of the CIA would be for
the purpose of gaining time to contact
individual Members of this body, hoping
to persuade them to change their minds
on the matter. After all, there is a statute
which says no such lobbying, no such
influencing, no such direct contact with
a Senator shall be made by department
or employee of the executive branch, ex-
cept in response to questions which
might be posed.
I do not think that possibly could be
one of the reasons they would have asked
for the delay in consideration of the bill.
Has the Senator any thought on that
subject?
Mr. ERVIN. I quoted the statute at the
outset of my remarks, and I suggested
that if the CIA could leave its polygraph
machine lone enough and abandon its
psychological tests long enough, it might
conduct an investigation to see nbether
any of its officials or representatives are
violating the statute by lobbying with
individual Senators.
Mr. HRUSKA. We normally should
presume they would not do anything that
is against the law, and I would favor
them with that kind of presumption. It
would be interesting to find out, though,
in the course of the next couple of
weeks, what actually may have trans-
pired, if our colleagues will tell us
whether they have been sought out.
Mr. ERVIN. Despite information
reaching me about what has occurred in
the immediate past, and my apprehen-
sion as to what will occur in the immedi-
ate future, I nevertheless hone that the
presumption of innocence will continue
to surround the CIA.
Mr. HRUSICA. The observation has
In addition to that, I am informed by
members of the subcommittee staff that
the CIA in particular, through its repre-
sentatives, has been in constant commu-
ni Lion with members of the subcom-
mittee staff, and has been kept advised as
to all of the developments with respect
to this bill.
I wis to state here that so far as I
:.-.ew, i'la 1Q-3. has new participated in
t-___inute maneuvers to postpone
cor_sid ion of this bill, which ought to
be p=eed as speedily as possible, in order
"'a
t Federal employees in the executive
departments and agencies of this Gov-
ernment might be able to stand erect in
dignity, and enjoy the same rights which
come as a matter of course to all other
Americans.
Mr. HRUSKA. P,rr. President, I wish
to observe that I certainly am not hostile
to the C-A. I have not been in sympathy
with some of the efforts made in this
body to open the CIA and the adminis-
tration of its affairs to a so-called
"watchdog" committee or committee of
supervision. I have great faith in them,
and I have great fait_-~ in their ability
to accomplish their mission.
But at the same time, they cannot be
permitted to use methods that will
trample upon the constitutional rights of
their employees or applicants for em-
ployment. The record shows they have
used such employment practices in recent
years.
In a nation which extends to those
charged with crime, and even those
convicted of crime, a great many con-
stitutional rights without, apparently,
any fear of jeopardizing our national
security, then certainly citizens working
for the CIA, or applying for employment
there, should be accorded those fur_da-
mental constitutional rights. It would be
derelict if this body and Congress gen-
erally did not take action to achieve that
end.
Mr. ERVIN. Certainly the CIA was
created by Congress to perform a most
important service-namely, to protect
the national security of the United
States. Letters in the committee files and
interviews with persons who, in times
past, applied to CIA for employment,
suggest to me that many of the brightest
minds among the youth of this Nation,
who wanted to work for the CIA, have
refuse to take jobs with them because
Mr. ERVIN. Under the original bill,
they can ask anybody out of all the
earth's inhabitants any questions about
their employees or applicants for em-
ployment except three sets of questions
which the original bill forbid them to taut
to an employee or an applicant for em-
ployment.
They are prohibited by the original
bill from asking employees or applicants
about their personal relationships with
members of their own families, about
matters of religion, or about attitudes
and practices in matters of sex.
I might state, as the Senator knows,
that the full committee added an amend-
ment to the original bill which allows
the Director of the CIA and the Direc-
tor of the NSA to put even these three
sets of forbidden questions to an em-
ployee or applicant if the Director finds
it necessary to do so in order to promote
national security.
Mr. HRUSKA. I do recall that amend-
ment, and I would have no objection to
it. However, if there is an attempt to
amend the pending bill to grant to the
CIA a flat exemption from all its terms
and provisions, I not only will oppose
such an amendment, but will also look
with great favor upon an effort to take
from the bill the limited exemption which
was agreed to in the full committee.
I just mention that to the Senator
from North Carolina as a bit of gratui-
tous information.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, that as-
surance gives great strength and en-
couragement to the Senator from North
Carolina.
We have a record relating to this bill
which consists of 966 pages, and it shows
the necessity for passing the, pending
bill in its present form as to all exe-
cutive departments and agencies of the
Federal Government.
In addition, the subcommittee has lit-
erally thousands of letters in its files
setting forth things such as the informa-
tion set out in the record of the hearings.
I venture the assertion that if each
Senator could find the time to read this
voluminous record, there would not be
a single dissenting vote on the final pas-
sage of the pending bill. And moreover,
I predict that, in that event, there would
not be a vote to exclude any Federal
department or agency from the coverage
somewhat unique, and secrecy is inher- tices they have, in subjecting their ap- Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, again I
ent, they should be granted an exemp- plicants for employment to insulting assert no hostility toward the CIA. That
tion from the provisions of the bill. But polygrapth tests and insulting psycho- is not the reason some of us are opposed
I understand they have had ample op- logical tests. The CIA is driving away to completely exempting the CIA from
portunity to testify in the hearings. Has from Government employment some of the terms and provisions of pending
any showing been made in public, or has the brightest minds of the youth of this bill. It is because they have been the
it all been in executive session? Nation. greatest transgressors in this regard, as
Mr. ERVIN. I asked representatives of Mr. HRUSKA. I should like to pro- shown by the record.
both these agencies last year, and again pound this question to the distinguished Mr. ERVIN. The information received
this year, if they wanted,to have hear- Senator from North Carolina: Does this by the subcommittee shows that the use
ings before the subcommittee with re- bill propose to prohibit the asking of of polygraph tests has been abandoned
spect to this bill. They informed me that certain questions either during poly- by virtually every department and
they did not. They told me that they graph tests or otherwise, as a part of agency except the CIA and the NSA,
would like to come and present their hiring, placement, or employee evalua- which agencies for some strange reason
views to me individually and privately; tion practices? Persist in using this machine which can
and I heard them in private both last Is there anything in the pending bill only be described as a species of 20th-
year and this year at great length. More- which would prevent those agencies, in- century witchcraft.
over, I assert that the bill in its present eluding the CIA, from asking a third It is my understanding that no court
form. takes care of every valid objection person questions in the fields in which in this land will permit a polygraph test
they made, direct inquiry is prohibited? to be admitted in evidence.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600041-2
 ~.uc~2~s iti 9 - Approv &* 1 Z5 1 1000200600041-2 s 12393
Mr. HRUSIIA. What are the reasons
for that exclusion?
Mr. ERVIN. The reason for the exclu-
sion is that the machine is of the most
dubious value. The machine cannot inter-
pret itself. The results of the tests must
be interpreted by an operator. The ma-
chine merely measures physiological re-
actions as blood pressure, the pumping
of adrenalin by the adrenal glands into
the blood stream, and the like as a result
of excitement and stimulation.
I had occasion as a North Carolina
superior court judge to study polygraph
tests when the alleged result of a poly-
graph test was offered in evidence by the
prosecution in a murder case.
I gave close study to the matter. I came
to the conclusion-a conclusion that is
shared by many others-that a brazen
liar can pass a polygraph test without
any difficulty, but that a nervous or ex-
citable individual or an individual who
resents being insulted, no matter how
truthful he may be, is not likely to do so.
I am frank to confess, when I think
about the information in the committee
file concerning the conduct of the CIA in
the administration of tests of this kind,
that I could not pass a polygraph test be-
cause my blood pressure shoots up too
high.
Mr. HRUSKA. As I understand the
Senator from North Carolina, despite the
exclusion of the results of the polygraph
tests in courts, the CIA still resorts to
the polygraph machine in its employment
practices.
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator is correct.
And they do this notwithstanding the
fact that a number of States have ab-
solutely outlawed it for employment pur-
poses, as is set out in the record of hear-
ings.
Pages 419 and 420 disclose the fact that
the State of Massachusetts has a statute
providing that-
No employer shall require or subject any
employee to any lie detector tests as a con-
dition of employment or continued employ-
ment.
The State of Oregon has a statute pro-
viding that-
No person, or agent, or representative of
such person, shall require as a condition for
employment or continuation of employment,
any person or employee to take a polygraph
test or any form of a so-called lie-detector
test.
The State of Rhode Island has a statute
providing that-
No employer or agent of any employer shall
require or subject any employee to any lie-
detector tests as a condition of employment
or continued employment.
The State of Hawaii has a statute pro-
viding that-
It shall be unlawful for a private employer
or his agent, or an agent of a public employer
to require an employee to submit to a poly-
graph or lie-detector test as a condition of
cflfi)loyment or continued employment.
Yet, in the face of those statutes which
r, llect a strong public sentiment in those
`(ate., the CIA insists on subjecting em-
Dloyees and applicants to lie-detector
' c.sh as a condition of employment or
continued employment. And the bill per-
it to continue to use the test in all
.tc:.s except it prohibits the operator
from asking three categories of questions
unless the Director finds that putting
them to the employee or applicant is nec-
essary for national security purposes.
Polygraph tests ought to be outlawed.
However, practical considerations have
deterred the sponsors of the bill from at-
tempting to do so at this time.
The Warren Commission had this to
say, as set out on page 419 of the hear-
ings:
In evaluating the polygraph, clue consid-
eration must be given to the fact that a
physiological response may be caused by
factors other than deception, such as fear,
anxiety, neurosis, dislike and other emotions.
There are no valid statistics as to the relia-
bility of the polygraph * * *
PROTECTION OP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, as a
member of the Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee, which has devoted exten-
sive hearings to the question of the exist-
ing relationship between the Federal
Government and Federal employees, I am
pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1035, and
I am pleased to speak in its behalf.
Consideration of this bill also offers the
opportunity for me to commend the sub-
committee chairman, the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. ERvIN] for his per-
ceptive work and tireless efforts. Senator
ERVIN is a man who believes that a living
constitution is one to be obeyed, not one
to be redefined for the sake of expediency.
This bill is a tribute to his efforts to
protect the individual from the good in-
tentions of the Government.
Subcommittee hearings over the last
three Congresses have documented the
need to protect the employee. However
well intentioned the Civil Service Coin-
mission, however voluntary the study,
however beneficial the goal of surveys
and fund drives, the fact remains that
the individual has been co,rced into re-
vealing personal information, forced to
account for his off-duty hours, and com-
pelled to donate his time and money to-
projects and drives. His integrity has
been questioned without reason and, in
extreme cases, he has been stripped of
his dignity. All of this has been done in
the name of high ideals.
The number of Federal employees in
June of this year rose to 2,980,156. To
those who take pride in the growth of our
Government, it is an impressive figure.
To me, among other things, it means a
growing number of citizens are coming
under an unjust employment system.
Most employees will submit to these in-
justices, not because they don't care, but
because they do not feel they can fight
the system.
The provisions of this bill cannot be
considered startling. They reaffirm the
simple truth that the Government em-
ployee, as much as any citizen, has the
right to privacy in his thoughts and per-
sonal life and the right to privacy in his
offduty activities. But, in view of the
evils sought to be remedied, the provi-
sions of this bill must be considered far-
reaching and vital.
Many present practices in the Federedl
Government, and those that are possible,
epitomize the concept of big brotherism.
The employee's history is compiled, his
personal beliefs are pried into, his off-
duty activities are monitored and di-
rected, his personal finances are ex-
ph .Cd, and his attendance is required at
motivational meetings supporting pro-
grams and drives to which he then is re-
quested to devote his time and money.
Some employees have been subjected to
more humiliation than a criminal de-
fendant, and without the guarantees of
due process. There can be no justifica-
tion for such wholesale, indiscriminate
invasion of privacy.
The bill prohibits oral and written
questions on the subject of race, religion,
national origin, personal beliefs, and off-
duty conduct. It prohibits required dona-
tion of time and money to projects and
fund drives.
Last year's report on S. 3779 indicated
that one department, by regulation, re-
quested employees to participate in spe-
cific community activities promoting
antipoverty, beautification, and equal
employment. They were told to make
speeches on many subjects, to supply
grass seed for beautification projects,
and to paint other people's houses. Most
commendable public-spirited activities.
But what business does the Government
have issuing regulations on such a sub-
ject? What business does the Govern-
ment have asking whether you believe in
God, whether you hate your mother, what
your sexual relation is with your wife?,
These policies are indefensible. It is the
time for this Congress to decide how
much of his dignity a man must sur-
render to work for this democratic
government.
S. 1035 does more than declare the
sense of Congress. It contains effective,
efficient enforcement provisions. It is
designed to insure the employee an effec-
tive remedy for a wrong while still pro-
tecting the employer from unjustified
charges. The employee may go either to
the court or to the Employee Rights
Board, as he deems best.
In court, an aggrieved person may not
only prevent abuse of his rights, but
where appropriate, may receive redress.
The Attorney. General is empowered to
defend any such action when it appears
that the defendant, himself, was subject
to directives and regulation or where his
action was not a willful violation of the
law. Such a provision protects super-
visors and directors from baseless suits
or innocent error while granting effec-
tive rights to the employee.
The Employee Rights Board provides
an impartial means to administratively
review questioned actions. Management
is not judging its own actions and the
employee is removed from the pressures
and fears inherent in fighting the system.
Adequate provision is made in S. 1035 to
insure that the Government will have
qualified employees. If there are reason-
able grounds to believe an employee has
violated the law, is unqualified for a spe-
cific assignment, or may endanger the
national security, there may be inquiry
consistent with the concepts of fairness
and due process.
Mr. President, the April 8 issue of the
Omaha World-Herald contains an article
originating in its Washington bureau,
which is pertinent to the discussion in
which I have engaged. I ask unanimous
consent that it be inserted in the REC-
Sanitized. - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600041-2
 S 12394 Sanitized - ApproC66rFURO)"b I i M}P-7 8149R000200SAD?414,
ORD at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Omaha World-Herald, _''pr. 8, 1967]
U.S. EMPLOYEES SAY RIGHTS INVADED
The chairman of the Senate Constitutional
Rights subcommittee has asked Defense
Department 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 Defenso'McNamara, which are
tied to his long-continuing legislative battle
to prevent unwarranted invasion into the
private lives of military and civilian employes
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 thou-
sands of complaints from all the states from
Federal employes 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 of the
purchase of United States Savings Bonds-a
frequent complaint-as well as requests for
disclosure of race, religion and national
origin, or pressure to attend functions, or
reports on their outside activities unrelated
to their work.
In one of his policy letters, Major Corson
wrote that the President had urged Govern-
ment 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 Mc-
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 is one that is up to the individual con-
cerned. He has a perfect right to refuse to
buy and to offer no reason for that refusal."
In another policy letter, relating to mili-
tary personnel, Major Corson wrote:
"Several functions s.nd activities are
planned and sponsored by this station dur-
ing the course of the year. All personnel will
attend such events unless excused by the
commander because -of extenuating circum-
stances, such as financial hardship, physical
indisposure, leave, etc."
In another policy letter, the major said
all personnel "are requires: to have at least
two front seat belts in their privately owned
vehicles." 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
Federal Housing Administration protested
FHA practices, particularly what they said
was a requirement that questionnaires re-
garding outside employment include infor-
mation on an employe's family and outside
jobs held by them.
There was criticism of a regulation said
to require information on either the sale or
purchase of a residence even when FHA is
not involved.
MAJOR CORSON: NO STATEMENT
Contacted in Omaha Friday, Major Corson
said he has no statement at this time.
Russell M. Bailey, director of the Nebraska
PEA, was asked for comment. He said his
Office follows the regulations of the Civil.
Service Commission and the Federal Employ-
merit Manual.
These include rules to avoid conflict of
interest, he said, which is why questions
are asked about outside employment and
property purchases.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, there is
no need for this powerful Government,
with its resources and resourcefulness,
to strip its employees of their rights,
either to protect itself or to guide them.
This Senator urges support of S. 1035
which is simply necessary and right.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator
from North Carolina for yielding to me.
ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION
SIGNED
The PRESIDENT pro tempore an-
nounced that on today, August 29, 1967,
he signed the enrolled joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 884) making continuing ap-
propriations for the fiscal year 1968, and
for other purposes, which had previously
been signed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fore the Senate the following letters,
which were referred as indicated:
REPORT ON COMMISSARY ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE
THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
f. letter from the Acting Assistant Secre-
tary for Administration, Department of Com-
merce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a re-
port on commissary activities outside the
continental United States, for the fiscal year
1967 (with an accompanying report); to the
committee on Commerce.
MENDMENT OF PART I OF FEDERAL POWER ACT
A letter from the Chairman, Federal Power
Commission, Washington, D.C., transmitting
a draft of proposed legislation to amend part
I of the Federal Power Act to clarify the
manner in which the licensing authority of
the Commission and the right of the United
States to take over a project or projects upon
or after the expiration of any license shall be
exercised (with an accompanying paper); to
the Committee on Commerce.
RETORT Or COMPTROLLER GENERAL
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on foliowup review of cotton
inventory management by the Commodity
Credit Corporation, Department of Agricul-
ture, dated August 1967 (with an accompany-
ing report); to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations,
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
Petitions, etc., were laid before the
Senate, or presented, and referred as
indicated:
By the PRESIDENT pro tempore:
A joint resolution of the Legislature of the
State of California; to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
"ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 27
"Joint resolution re_ ative to revision of the
Federal judiciary
"WHEREAS, There is a significant trend to-
ward a ??-'>>g the judiciary more responsive
to the of the people; and
"WHERE-.s, our republic is made greater
and more complete when the electorate can
exercise some degree of control over the ju-
diciary; and
"WHEREAS, A majority of states have al-
ready seen fit to organize their judicial sys-
tems so as to provides for some means of con-
trol by the voters; now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of
the State of California, jointly, That the
Members respectfully memorialize the Con-
gress of the United States to revise the laws
relating to the federal judiciary so as to pro-
vide that all federal judges be elected by
the people in their respective districts every
eight years; and be it further
"Resolved, That each judge shall run for
retention by the voters on his record as a
judge, and that no judge be required to run
until eight years following his initial selec-
tion; and be it further
"Resolved, That the Congress of the United
States initiate an amendment to the United
States Constitution so that justices of the
Supreme Court would likewise come before
all the people of the nation every eight years
for retention or rejection, as would all other
federal judges; and be it further
"Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the
Assembly is directed to transmit copies of
this resolution to the President and Vice
President of the United States, to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United
States."
A letter from the vice chairman, Ohio-West
Virginia Industry Committee on Air Pollu-
tion Abatement, Canton, Ohio, transmitting
a copy of an act adopted by the General
Assembly of the State of Ohio, relating to an
Ohio-West Virginia Interstate compact to
control air pollution; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
A letter from the associate city attorney,
Atlanta, Ga., transmitting, for the informa-
tion of the Senate, copies of petitions, an-
swers, and demurrers in certain cases relating
to waters being flooded into the system of
drains in the city of Atlanta; to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, from
the Committee on Banking and Currency,
with an amendment:
S. 510. A bill providing for full, disclosure
of corporate equity ownership of securities
under the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (Rept. No. 550) ; and
Dy Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, from the
Committee on Banking and Currency, with
amendments :
S. 1985. A bill to amend the Federal Flood
Insurance Act of 1956, to provide for a na-
tional program of flood insurance, and for
other purposes (Rept. No. 549).
By Mr. BURDICK, from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with an
amendment:
S. 1763. A bill to promote the economic de-
velopment of Guam (Rept. No. 551).
By Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee
on Appropriations, with amendments:
MR. 9960. An act making appropriations
for sundry independent executive bureaus,
boards, commissions, corporations, agencies,
offices, and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 548).
AUTHORIZATION TO PRINT ADDI-
TIONAL COPIES OF COMMITTEE
PRINT ENTITLED "PLANNING-
PROGRAMING-BUDGETING: OF-
FICIAL DOCUMENTS"-REPORT
OF A COMMITTEE
Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee
on Government Operations, reported the
Sanitized - Approved For Release - CIA-RDP75-00149R000200600041-2