Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 5, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
August 25, 1966
Content Type: 
0001-5 Approved For G091 COSPONSORS OF S. 3703, A BILL TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOV- ERNMENT AND TO PREVENT UN- WARRANTED GOVERNMENTAL IN- VASIONS OF THEIR PRIVACY Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 33 Senators, listed in the order in which their request to cosponsor was received, be added as sponsors of S. 3703, a bill introduced on August 9 to protect the employees of the executive branch Of the U.S. Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasion of their privacy: Mr. FONG, Mr. BAYH, Mr. HRUSKA, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina, Mr. MCCAR- THY, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. FANNIN, Mr. YOUNG of Ohio, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. BYRD of Virginia, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. MUNDT, Mr..THURMOND, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. CANNON, Mr. MILLER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. JORDAN of North Caro- lina, Mr. ALLOTT, Mr. MusKIE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, Mr. TOWER, Mr: PROUTY, Mr. BREWSTER, and Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- As I have said before, I believe the Federal Government can achieve these ends in a manner consistent with tra- ditional standards of due process, fair- ness, and equity which have always been inherent in our system of government. I see no need, no impending crisis, to cause a departure from them at this juncture in our national history. Yet, Congress, by its silence in the face of growing discontent on the part of the public and of civil servants alike seems to have sanctioned such a departure where Federal employees are concerned. Writers who are experts in Federal civil service matters have recently called attention to a general dissatisfaction among employees and their families, to the high turnover rate, and to personnel recruitment problems of the Federal Gov- ernment. Among the reasons for these trends, according to Joseph Young and Jerry Kluttz, is the resentment over the "big brother" attitude of the Federal Government toward its employees, and over the invasions of privacy and eco- nomic coercions currently practiced. I ask unanimous consent that articles by Joseph Young from the Evening Star of August l) and the Sunday Star of Au- gust 21; and by Jerry Kluttz, from the Washington Post of August 21; an edi- torial in the NAIRE 12th District Bul- letin for ,august; and a letter from Philip O'Rourke, 12th district governor for the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the REC- ORD, as follows: [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, Aug. 19,1%61 FINANCIAL AFFAIRS PROBE GROWS, MAY HIT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (By Joseph Young) The specter of "big brother" in government continues to grow. What started out as a perusal of the finan- cial affairs of a few hundreds top government officials or a few thousand at the most is now developing into financial snooping into the affairs of hundreds of thousands of federal and postal *orkers. It's one Of the many invasions of federal employes' privacy such as questionnaires they must fill out to list their race and na- tionality, the pressure to buy saving bonds, orders to participate in outside activities that carry forward the Johnson administra- tion's sociological programs, etc. One of thi things that has government em- ployes angriest at the moment is the finan- cial statements they are required to fill out, not only for themselves but for all blood rela- tions who live under the same roof with them. When President Johnson issued his code of y the names of all sponsors be listed. worthwhile cause, increasingly seize on ethics executive order and the Civil Service The ACTING PRESIDENT pro teal- ommissiorj subsequently issued regulations quickest or most scientific means to their to carry it Out, the announcement was made pore. Without objection, it is so ends, but seldom pause to consider the that it would apply only to several hundred ordered. effects on the individuals involved, or the top executives and perhaps several thousand Mr. ERVIN. In addition to these co- practical operation of the system they government officials involved directly In the sponsors, I have also received letters of propose. These are not men of malevo- awarding of contracts it was explained that support from a number of other lence bent on consciously destroying the these financial reports were required to pre- Senators. rights of fellow employees. They are vent any conflict of interests. The broad geographical and political men engaged in compartmentalized But agencies have gone hog-wild, according representation reflected in this cospon- planning of programs to prevent con- ti onar reports gathered by subcommittee the Senate Constitu Sen. sorship and support of S. 3703 reveals, flict of interest, promote equal oppor- SAM D .C., which hheaded by Sen. SAM ERVI-N which has directed all de- in my opirdon, the nt}~'~1nwide, bipartisan tunny rotect national security, insure ,partments and agencies to report to the interest S4 pp1 lit rtt3L~ Rs 1 O0 91 iEal Cs1RQP&2 ,E~OOOi OlgI211O:{}i11X many employes are being re- rights of employees. achieve other goals. quired to file financial statements. Mr. President, when one-third of the Members of the Senate cosponsor a bill of this sort, the magnitude of the prob- lem should no longer be ignored. Yet the employee complaints which continue to pour into the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee and into other congressional offices show that little effort has been made to review some of the problems. Mr. President, all of us hope that amendments can be drawn to clarify even more precisely the scope of the bill and define better the proper balance be- tween the individual's right to privacy about matters unrelated to his work and the Government's need to know about the employee's fitness for his job. We hope, too, that if other areas of en- croachment upon liberties come to our attention during preliminary hearings, they can be included in the bill. Fqr instance, one important area of due process protection escaped inclusion. This is the employee's right of confron- tation in adversary proceedings. Al- though this right to some extent is 'accorded by judicial decision and by regulations of some agencies in certain matters, our subcommittee studies show that it is not firmly grounded either as an administrative or a statutory protec- tion for Federal employees. Amend- ment of the bill in this respect will be discussed during hearings. All 33 cosponsors of S. 3703 are agreed on their unqualified endorsement of the purpose of the bill-to provide additional protection for the privacy of over two and a half million citizens and their f am- ilies who are associated with the Federal Government on a regular or part-time basis. I believe the hearings on this bill, in addition to showing any necessary amendments, will also provide for a long overdue examination of some of the problems which have persistently be-, deviled the Federal service for the past 15 years. The hearings, furthermore, should allow Congress to consider the issues raised by the excesses of newer management devices now being used zealously, but heedlessly, to invade em- ployee and applicant privacy in the name of efficiency or the Government's right to know intimate details of the indi- vidual's life, national origin, his habits, and thoughts. I want to make it clear that this bill is not indicative of criticism of the en- tire Federal service. Indeed, the civil service is characterized by the highest competency and integrity. The bill is, rather, a proposed checkmate against the activities of those who, in their zeal or to further a to increase efficienc 19682 Approved For Release (nS/~QS1St5AARLDRR?C-%B7R0 0001-5 Although many of the big departments and agencies have yet to be heard from such as the Defense Department, the reports thus far show that more than 60,000 federal workers are being required to file financial reports. When the big departments are heard from, ERVIN expects the number of employes involved will be at least several hundred thousand, probably more. For example, Navy is requiring all grade 13 and above employes in many of its bureaus to file financial reports. Privacy attacked-The scope of the finan- cial report requirements varies from agency to agency, 'but most are very comprehensive. Employes are required to list all of their financial holdings, including stocks and bonds, money in the bank, including valu- ables in safety deposit boxes. This also holds true for their spouses' holdings as well as that of their children and any other rela- tives living with them such as mothers, fathers, inlaws, etc. In many cases, employes are asked to list all their debts, the amount of the mortgage on their homes, what they owe on television sets, refrigerators, etc. Employes in grades as low as GS-3 are required to participate in some cases. Smithsonian Institution requires that GS-3 must disclose their personal finances. In some instances, agencies are using the information to pressure employes to retire on the grounds that "you are well off financially and don't have to work anymore," Senator Bevies reports. The Post Office Department, one of the few major departments to report to the-Senate committee thus far, requires 10,000 regular employees to disclose their personal finances. How their financial status would result in a conflict of interest is not explained by the department, it has 513 "ethical conduct counselors" to enforce its financial state- ment requirement. The State Department requires 1,500 of its employes to bare their financial situation, in- eluding interior decorators employed by the department. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has 9,420 of its employees disclosing their finances, while 8,030 in Treasury must report. The effects on employes are humiliation and indignation. There already are instances of very able employes, whose services are desperately needed by government, resigning and taking private industry jobs because of their re- sentment of the financial questionnaires. Some government ' personnel officials gloomily predict there will be additional losses to the government. They also predict it will make tougher the government's job of recruiting outstanding college graduates and other top-flight peo- ple for government jobs. feel it would serve notice that employes are "fed up" with present conditions. All these moves were defeated by the na. tional leaderships of the unions, who believe such actions would do more harm than good. The National Postal Union at its convention voted to explore the feasibility of testing the [From the Washington (D.C.) Sunday Star, Aug. 21, 1966] ADMINISTRATION HIGHHANDEDNESS BLAMED FOR EMPLOYEE RESENTMENT (By Joseph Young) constitutionality of the no-strike law, but retained the no-strike pledge in its constitu- tion. But the very fact that "strike" in being mentioned shows the present low state of morale In government. "Economic strait-jacket"-Perhaps the big- gest complaint among federal employes is what they feel is the "economic straitjacket," imposed on them by the Johnson administra- tion. They bitterly resented President Johnson's edict to Congress last year, which was pre- pared to vote them a raise of 9 to 10 percent over a two-year period or even full com- parability which would have been more, that it limit its approval to 3.6 percent or he would veto the bill. They equally resented the President's ac- tion this year in flatly refusing to go along with more than a 2.9 percent raise.. Fuel was added to the fire when Johnson, in signing the bill, implied that government workers would be the culprits if any widespread in- flation developed. Employes and their leaders feel strongly that they have fallen considerably behind workers In the private sector where labor- management contracts have exceeded 3.2 per- cent, sometimes by a considerable margin, Rather than causing inflation, they feel they are the victims of it as their purchasing power continues to shrink. Big Brother-Government employees are also resentful of what they believe is the "papa-knows-best" attitude of the John- son administration reflected in-working con- ditions and policies. They also resent the pressures brought to bear to make them purchase savings bonds, fill out applications in which they are re- quired to list their race and nationality, etc. Employees are very much angered over having to disclose their complete financial holdings and that of the Immediate members of their families. This includes stocks and bonds, money in the bank, property owned, debts, mortgages, etc. This financial report originally was sup- posed to apply to only several hundred or several thousand at most who were in top jobs or in positions involving awarding of contracts, but it Is being applied on a mass basis. The employees resent such questions, feel- ing that it is a reflection on their Integrity and honesty. Other side of coin--On the other hand, employees are sometimes apt to forget .quickly. The Johnson administration has a lot of constructive things to its credit. It has pro- posed pay raises every year, even though they may have been smaller than employees liked. This makes the Johnson administra- tion the only administration in history- save the Kennedy administration-which on its own has proposed pay raises every thing is done. Employe. unrest and frustration was dis- cussed two weeks ago in three of these col- umns. It resulted in an outpouring of varied reactions from Federal employes as well as the public they serve. Among the words used by readers to de- scribe the Columns included "nonsense, ridic- ulous, grave, most serious, prompt action needed, pro-management, anti-management, pro-union, anti-union." A majority of those who commented pooh- poohed the report. They had seen no evi- dence of employe unrest and they doubted if it existed anywhere. Events since that time have effectively answered them. Events such as: The convention here last week of the in- dependent National Postal Union which di- rected its ofcers to investigate the feasibility of testing the constitutionality of the law that Outlaws strikes in Government. The convention voted down tougher proposals aimed at the no-strike laws. AFL-CIO's Postal Clerks, like the NPU, voted dowli proposals to eliminate the no- strike clatg;e from the union constitution- The Clerks did adopt a resolution aimed at creating an "agency shop" in the postal service. Under it, all postal clerks would be required to pay dues to the Clerks, whether or not they were members of it. Some peo- ple regard sthis as the first move toward the closed shop in Government. AFL-CIO's Letter Carriers rejected a reso- lution to stage nationwide street demonstra- tions in front of post offices to get their grievances before the public. Earlier. Carriers Vice President James H. Rademacher urged members to work by the rules; that is, to do only the amount of work required by the rules. He said carriers fre- quently produced 40 per cent more than the rules require. If carriers worked by the rtlles, the effect eou~d be a slowdown in mail de- liveries. British postal employes used a simi- lar device to force attention to their prob- lems a couple of years ago. The National Association of Postal Super- visors has directed its officers to seek exclu- sive union: recognition through either Con- gress or the Federal courts. It believes full 1( ,I1 would bring benefits to Its mem- bers. e, Post Office Department has re- There is an air of discontent and restless- year. And in 1964 Johnson put his reputa- nces among government employes these days. tion on the line to successfully resurrect the It stems from a number of things, but the pay bill that had been killed by the House. general dissatisfaction comes from what is The Johnson administration also initiated felt to be the high-handedness of the John- the new progressive moving expenses law, son administration in dealing with govern- the 55-30 and 60-20 full retirement annuity bent workers. law, greater promotion rights for women The unrest and resentment is manifested and minority groups, etc. The President by the drive by some delegates at the various also has strongly supported the government's postal and federal employe union conven- labor-management law. - tions to scrap the no-strike pledges in their Consequently, the situation isn't one-sided constitutions. by any means. But the administration of Of course, this in itself would be meaning- late has taken a cavalier attitude toward its less, since the law s ecificall prohibits employees and the employees resent it. Some strikes a~[>~1rc4lteecbei~Rrllyeel~pet$t?00~+i menta to make reports about personal activi- newspaper's conviction that the bill removes the employee `should be questioned by hie ties and undertakings not related to jobs. ;many of the real and imaginary restraints in superiors about a matter which could lead (6) Attempts to forbid patronizing any buss- Federal employment, thus affording the Fed- to disciplinary action. nessea or establishments. (7) Interroga- seal Government the realiatio opportunity The bill is considered by some to be bold Lions, examl~l~g~~~~1fiS~~1~~~,v20~~~~E~~4~ ~(~~~~7~~'~~'~~tFes because it would make & No. 142-~ 1~~$Approved For Releases? QO/0~/01SSI01'~TALPRECORDROOSEI~E 01-5 federal official who violated the provisions sub]cct to criminal prosecution. Violators could. be fined X1,000 and sentenced to a year in prison. The co-sponsors of the bill include 12 Democrats and eight Republicans, The Democrats are Sens. BIBLE of Nevada, Rvs- 6ELL of South Carolina, McCARTHY of Min- nesota, Youxc of Ohio, BYRD of Virginia, YARIIOROIIGH Of TEXRS, BARTLETT Of Alaska, McINTYRE of New Hampshire, SPARKMAN of Alabflma, CANNON Of NeVflda, INOUYE Of Ha- walf and JORDAN of North Carolina. The Republicans are FONG of Hawaii, BEN- NETT Of lTtflh, FANNIN Of Arizana, MUNDT of South Dakota, THURMOND of South Caro- lina, SIMPSON of Wyoming, HausE:A of Ne- braska and ALLOTT of Colorado. The unions which have announced their support are the American Federation of Gov- ernment Employees (AFL-GIO), the National Association of Government Employees, the National Association of Government Engi- neers and the National Association of Inter- nal Revenue Employees. Some postal employees organizations are expected to support the bill. A provision of the bill which has attracted a great deal of attention is one which would prohibit the use of questionnaires which ask employees to list their race or national origin. The questionnaires ask an employee to in- dicate whether he is an American Indian, Oriental, Negro, Spanish-American or "none of these." Officials have described the ques- tionnaires as a method for determining whether there is racial discrimination in gov- ernment employment practices. ERVIN argues that under the Civil Service System an individual's race or national origin "should have nothing to do with his ability or qualification" for his job. "In fact," ERVIN has said, "it is nobody's business. Nor is it healthy for our society to divide it up into four minority groups and 'all others.' " Some civil rights proponents have been uncertain whether they should oppose the questionnaires. ERVIN has received letters from many minority group members who say they resent being asked about their race. Senator FONG, the first co-sponsor of ERVIN'9 bill, pointed out in a speech 111 the Senate that the bill would not prevent agen- cies from gathering racial statistics on their employees. Supervisors, he said, could sim- ply take their own head counts. The bill would only prohibit asking an individual about his race. Similarly, the bill would prevent psycho- logical investigations in which an employee or prospective employee is asked questions about his sex life or his religious views. The bill would also prohibit: Requirements that rank-and-file em- ployees disclose then' financial assets and liabilities. lash an annual or biannual national housing goal, the name of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. C1.AaxJ be added as a cosponsor. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, fi is so ordered. ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF AMI~IDMENT NO. 736 Mr. DAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hee1'xE] be added as a cosponsor of the amendment (No. 736) which I submitted to Senate bill 2874, the International Education bill. The ACTL'VG PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, ft is so ordered. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NOMINA- TIONS BY COMMITTEE ON FOR- EIGN RELATIONS Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Z desire to announce that to- day the Senate received the nominations of Miss Carol C. Laise, of the District oY Columbia, a Foreir n Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Nepal; Leo G. Cyr, of Maine, a Foreil;n Service of- ficer of class 1, to be Ambassador Ex- traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Rwanda; and, John M. McSweeney, of Nebraska, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Bulgaria. In accordance with the Committee rule, these pending norninatioias may not be considered prior to the expiration or 6 days of their receipt in the Senate. UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO FILE A REPORT Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Com- mittee on Post Office and Civil Service may have until midnight tomorrow to file a report on H.R. 14904. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Requirements that employees take part in FAIR LABOR 6TANDARD5 AMENDMENTS OF 1966- community activities unrelated to their jobs. AMENDMEN^rs Coorcion by federal officials in an effort to get employees to make contributions or purchase savings bonds. ERVIN says that an individual employee is often powerless against invasions of his pri- vacy because "he knows he may be dis- charged or denied employment or a promo- tion" ii he fails to cooperate. Supporters of the bill say it could also affect people not employed by the government since some businesses tend to model their personnel practices after those of the government. AMENDbIENT NO. 774 Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I submit an amendment which I intend to propose to H.R.13712, the proposed Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966. My amendment would prohibit em- ployment discrimination against individ- uals 45 or over on the basis of age. I offered a similar amendment when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was before ERVIN is chairman of the Senate Subcom- the Senate. Unfortunately, the parlia- mittee on Constitutional Rights. It Ss plan- meritary Situatl0n in Which we found ning Hearings on the privacy bill. ~ ourselves was not favorable to the adop- tion of my amendment, and it was ~ofoo+a.~ rto.,o,.+I,nlcnc. r .,.., ......,....,..,.a Au~~ust ~5, 1966 this proposal again in the hope that more Senators will be able to go along with me than felt at liberty to do within the narrow -confines of the parliamentary situation which obtained at that time. Since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination on the basis of lace, religion, sex, and national origin h&s been prohibited. As an or~gi- nal proposition, we might well hesitate to interfere with the freedom of em- ployers to choose their own employees. But since Congress passed that act, the Nation has "crossed the Rubicon" on this issue, and it has been made the official policy of our Nation that substantial pressures are to be brought to bear upon employers to prevent their discriminat- ing on various grounds against Ameri- cans who fall into certain categories. It is unfair to those over 45 who suffer em- ployment discrimination because of their ages to refuse to accord them the same protection. which. is now accorded mil- lions of .others who face the possibility of discrimination. While we were unsuccessful in amend- ing the Civil Rights Act as I proposed, it was possible to include fn that act a di- rection to the Secretary oP Labor to study age discrimination in employment and to report to Congress on it. The Secretary carried out that mandate and submitted to Congress a comprehensive report on this subject on June 30, 1965. In connection with his preparation of that report, the Secretary of Labor made a special study of age limitations in hiring. Among the major conclusions drawn by the Secretary from that study were the. following, quoted verbatim from the report: 1. The setting of specific age limits beyond which an employer will not consider a worker for a vacant job, regardless of ability, has become a characteristic practice in those States which do not prohibit such action, to the extent and with the result that in these States: Over half of all employers are presently applying such limitations, using age limits typically set at from 45 to 55; Approximately half of all job openings which develop in the private economy each year are Closed to applicants over 55 years of age, and a quarter of them are closed to ap- plicants over 45. 2. The establLshing by employers of stated age limitations (or, on the other hand, of stated policies against any age limitations) has a direct and marked effect upon the actual employment of older workers, with the result that- The proportion of older workers hired by firms with stated upper age limits Ss half the porportion of older workers hired . by firms with stated policies of ruling out age limits. The proportion of older workers hired by firms with. no stated policy regarding age limitatiotls is significantly smaller than the proportion of older workers hired by firms with stated policies of ruling out- age limits, especially with respect to workers 55 and over. 3. An uiuneasured but sigziiflcant propor- tion of the age limitations presently in effect are arbitrary in the eense that they have been established without any determination of their actual relevance to job requirements, and are defended on grounds apparently dif- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I wanted to vote for it, and would have 4, Th ompetence and work performance ask Uri~~~/~Q~l~t }~ R~e2~~2flt~0/~9~'F~ ~~A~~~B~i@8~3i~Ri~0~~01~,~rkers are, by any general measures, net print of my bill, S. 3714, to estab- had been more favorable. I am offering at least equal to those of younger workers.