At this point, we submit, it may be too late for the employee even to begin to defend himself. These reports may be years old. His vindictive superior may be thousands of miles away, at some other post and immune to any accounting.

These are questions which pry into an employee's private life. They are most objectionable and have no place in any procedure designed to appraise the value of a man in any position in the Federal Government service. Once statements derogatory to a person are placed in his file, it is a practical impossibility to escape their adverse effect in future

years.

We believe that when our Federal employees have to be afraid to express their views objectively, not only are their constitutional rights. impaired but our national security is also seriously endangered.

In addition, with specific reference to the State Department's appraisal report, we raise the question whether this personnel procedure is not already a violation of the will of Congress as expressed in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 as amended. We ask: Is it legal? Though the new regulations state that the development appraisal report is not to be placed in his efficiency record, which he has the right to see, it is in fact precisely the secret development appraisal report which is the main document on which a man is rated, his relative position in class is determined and his chances for promotion or for firing through "selection out" are established.

I request permission to have incorporated in the printed record the text of the development appraisal report, form FS-315A and the regulations (FAMC No. 323, June 24, 1965) and FAM paragraphs 577.2 and following, copies of which I am supplying herewith to members of the subcommittee and to its professional staff. They are identified as exhibit E.

Mr. Chairman, there are certain minor additions to the specific wording of this bill which, at some future time I would like to discuss with you and the other members of the committee for your consideration. I might say that they are only perfecting amendments or additions at this time, and I believe the important objective is to substantiate the need for this legislation.

I could enumerate many more instances of irresponsible questioning, requirements to disclose personal finances when the employee's job could not possibly be involved in conflict of interest, coercion to buy Government savings bonds or other invasions of privacy or disregard of basic rights. However, I believe I have made it clear that my organization is firmly committed to the principle that Federal employees have every right to the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and protection from unwarranted invasion of their privacy. Your bill, S. 3703, should provide this needed protection and this assurance of possession of fundamental rights.

Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that we endorse it wholeheartedly. Before I say thank you, I want to call your attention to one thing which you just touched on in one of your statements, and that was what I call indirect pressure. I have before me a card which is labeled "Minority Group Questionnaire," and, frankly, I am of the opinion that it is not worth the paper it is written on. I have before me the

regulations of the agency that put this out. In this it says, let me read it, this is an excerpt from it:

All employees are being informed of the activation of the minority group statis tics system of the attached letter. Participation is not mandatory, but the fui participation and cooperation of each employee, supervisor and top level officia at every station, is needed to assure an effective system.

Now, in the very next paragraph:

A complete and accurate record of each employee is essential for deriving meaningful minority group reports for the master record for use in evaluation of equal employment opportunity programs throughout the agency.

Now, this was addressed to the heads of the different departmen within this agency, the field establishments.

If I were manager of one of these field establishments and I read that last sentence which I have just quoted I would feel that it would be incumbent upon me, that it would be an order, to get these card from each and every employee under my supervision, and that is what has happened from reports coming to us.

Senator ERVIN. I might state in this connection that I have ha Government employees call me at night long distance and tell me that they had failed to answer this questionnaire, and that after their failure to answer it, they received inquiries by airmail wanting t know why they had not answered it. Enclosed in the inquiry was a airmail letter for them to use in replying to it. So I said, to use the words of Harry Truman, that the statement of these departments and agencies to the effect that these answers to these questionnaires are voluntary and not required, is just so much hoqwash. I have received too many telephone calls, too many letters, and too much persona information about the followup methods that have been employed by the superiors in various departments and agencies to accept the statement that there is anything voluntary whatever about this.

Mr. GRINER. Senator, I want to reemphasize that the policy of this organization is equal opportunity for everyone, every citizen of this country.

Now, I do not believe that this card was necessary. The Civil Service Commission, through the various agencies and the authority which has been delegated to the Commission, has for many year required information each year which would furnish them with statistical data, and they also have inspection teams that go to thes different agencies periodically, and this is one of the things that the inspect. They have the means, they have the resources to get th information.

I talked to a personnel director whom, of course, I would not name but in the near future I could probably furnish you his name if you wanted it, who said in the particular agency where he was employed or the particular installation, that he would estimate that 50 percen of these cards were erroneous. Some of them were not signed, some of them, if you were an oriental, why, they would check "Negro," or if you were Negro that they would check some other thing. There is no way of checking up because these are supposed to be sealed, put in the envelope and mailed to a central station where they are incor porated in APD equipment and put on tape. I have yet to find out how these records are being kept current.

This is one-time shot. The people who are now being employed daily-I believe there is over a 20-percent turnover in the Federal Government-are they being required to fill this card out at the time of their employment or when a person quits is his name taken off the tape? Just what happens I do not know. Perhaps I am not supposed to know. But there is nothing in the instructions that I have before me from a very important agency that says "What we will do with new entries or what we will do in the case of a dropout." I think this information may be valuable, but there is no way to know that we have got the correct information here, and it is prying into an individual's life.

Senator ERVIN. I received a letter from a Federal employee who said he did not know how to answer this questionnaire. He did not know whether he belonged to a minority group or not. He said one of his parents was Irish and the other parent was an American Indian. I could not find anything in the regulations to enable me to interpret whether he was a minority race or whether he was not or how he would answer this.

Mr. GRINER. I think I would check none of these under these conditions.

Senator ERVIN. As a matter of fact, Mr. Griner, it has always seemed to me that in Government employment the Government should ignore all matters of race and test a man's ability to perform the work that he is to be assigned to perform for the Government by an examination which totally ignores the matter of race.

Mr. GRINER. I go back, Senator, to my statement that I believe in equal employment opportunities, and I sincerely believe in that 100 percent, and I know from talking to you that you believe in the same thing.

I could cite you tests that are being given in different agencies for jobs where the test has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the job, and what they are going to determine from it I do not know, but I think that is another matter that maybe I hope we can get into in the next session of Congress.

Senator ERVIN. Frankly, I agree with your view that the Government has a means of getting this information without making these personal inquiries of the employees themselves and, furthermore, I cannot see the object of it unless the Government is concerned about the establishment of Government employment on the basis of some kind of racial quotas, which would be absolutely inconsistent with the theory of employment solely upon the basis of merit without distinction as to race.

Mr. GRINER. Frankly, Senator, I never have been told the real reason for this questionnaire.

Senator ERVIN. Subsection (a) of section 1 of the bill would prohibit the requiring or the requesting of answers to questionnaires of this kind. Do you believe that there is a real need for this subsection (a)?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. For this prohibition?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir. I believe, as I just stated, Senator, that the Government has ample resources and ample authority, delegated

authority, through laws and other matters, to get this information without the means that they are now using.

Senator ERVIN. I call your attention to subsection (b) of section 1 on page 2, which would prohibit the calling or holding or sanctioning the calling or holding of any assemblage, discussion, or lecture which is designed to advise, instruct, or indoctrinate any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency in respect to any matter or subject other than the performance of the task to which he is or may be assigned in the department or agency.

Does not the information which you gave the subcommittee on page 3 of your report concerning the meeting at which a recording was made to the employees for about 30 minutes on various subjects, such as racial integration and the desirability of the United Nations and about how wars can be prevented, show the necessity of enacting into law some such requirement as subsection (b) of section 1?

Mr. GRINER. I think, Senator, this is a very good example of what has happened, and I think it could very well go a little further.

I think if they are permitted to hold sessions such as this on Goverment time and at Government expense, they might then also hold sessions as to whether or not we should be involved in the Vietnam war or whether we should not be, whether we should pull out or whether we should stay, and I think it could go to any extreme under those conditions.

Certainly, I do not think that is a matter that-of course, we are concerned with it, yes. But that is not a mater for the daily routine of work.

Senator ERVIN. Can you think of anything which has more direful implications for a free America than a practice by which a government would attempt to indoctrinate any man with respect to a particular view on any subject other than the proper performance of his work? Mr. GRINER. I think if we attempted to do that we would be violating the individual's constitutional rights.

Senator ERVIN. Is there any reason whatever why a Federal civil service employee should not have the same right to have his freedom of thought on all things under the sun outside of the restricted sphere of the proper performance of his work than any other American enjoys?

Mr. GRINER. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Now, I invite your attention to subsection (c) of section 1 on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the bill, which represents, in substance, an attempt to keep the Government from taking note of the presence or absence of Federal employees from assemblages and discussions that are held for indoctrination purposes; do you believe that is a wise and necessary provision?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir; I do. Because if, as I pointed out, they might say that this is a voluntary or that you may go or you may stay awaybut if you are going to keep notes of them we know what may happen. There is some reason for those notes being kept.

Senator ERVIN. It is a coercive measure.

Mr. GRINER. And I am afraid this organization would not agree with those reasons.

Senator ERVIN. Do you agree with me that taking note of the presence or absence of a Federal employee at an indoctrination assem

blage of some kind is a coercive method to compel him to attend that assemblage?

Mr. GRINER. I agree with you 100 percent. As previously stated, if I were an employee of the agency and I liked my job and I wanted to stay with it I would certainly attend, or if I expected a promotion. Senator ERVIN. I invite your attention to subsection (d) on page 3 which provides that no officer of any department or agency shall require or request or attempt to require or request any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency to participate in any way in any activities or undertakings unless such activities are directly within the scope of his employment.

Have you anything that has come under has anything come under your observation which indicates the desirability of inserting that provision in the law?

Mr. GRINER. I think we have it covered in another part of the bill. But there are two instances in which I think this could very well apply, and one of them is these fund drives, and the other one is the bond drives. I believe you mentioned the bond drives, and we have had some pathetic, let us say, evidence of pressure being placed in both of these fund and bond drives.

I might say that I am a member of the committee here in the District of Columbia, and this year we had a general agreement that undue pressure would not be put on an individual to make any contribution toward any special drive; that is, a fund drive.

Now, since you have mentioned this, I do have some examples on this bond drive. If you will permit me, I will again not give the agency, but my examples are in writing and are signed, and I would be happy to in confidence turn them over to the committee. Here is one case in which it is stated: "Employees are called into the office and asked 'why aren't you buying bonds? Everyone has been told also 'from now on you will buy bonds." "

Senator ERVIN. That is somewhat in harmony with the notice that was posted on the bulletin board at a nearby installation which required each employee who served at that installation to make a report by checking one of three statements. The first was that he was already buying bonds and would increase his purchase of bonds. The second was that he would begin the purchase of bonds, and the third said, in substance, "I refuse to accept my responsibility to assist in making the Presidential drive for bond sales successful," or something to that effect.

Do you not agree with me in the thought that while it is desirable, if possible, for every American to purchase Government bonds, that the question of whether an American in an individual case, who happens to be a Government employee, is in such financial situation that he is able to buy bonds or whether he has other financial demands which really preclude him from doing that, ought to be left to the individual concerned and not be attempted to be decided by any pressure from others?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir.

Senator, you and I know that undue pressure has been placed on individuals during this bond drive. Some of these people, I might say, are actually drawing surplus food because they are not making

71-994-67-3