nondiscrimination provisions of the contract. Contracts may be terminated absolutely or continuance of contracts may be conditioned upon a program for future compliance approved by the contracting agency.

(e) Provide that any contracting agency shall refrain from entering into further contracts, or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts, with any non-complying contractor, until such contractor has satisfied the Committee that he has established and will carry out personnel and employment policies in compliance with the provisions of this order.

(f) Under rules and regulations prescribed by the committee, each contracting agency shall make reasonable efforts within a reasonable time limitation to secure compliance with the contract provisions of this order by methods of conference, conciliation, mediation, and persuasion before proceedings shall be instituted under paragraph (b) of this section, or before a contract shall be terminated in whole or in part under paragraph (d) of this section for failure of a contractor or subcontractor to comply with the contract provisions of this order.

SEC. 313. Any contracting agency taking any action authorized by this sec tion, whether on its own motion, or as directed by the Committee, or under the Committee's rules and regulations, shall promptly notify the Committee of such action or reasons for not acting. Where the Committee itself makes a determination under this section, it shall promptly notify the appropriate contracting agency of the action recommended. The agency shall take such action and shall report the results thereof to the Committee within such time as the Committee shall provide.

SEC. 314. If the Committee shall so direct, contracting agencies shall not enter into contracts with any bidder or prospective contractor unless the bidder or prospective contractor has satisfactorily complied with the provisions of this order or submits a program for compliance acceptable to the Committee or, if the Committee so authorizes, to the contracting agency.

SEC. 315. Whenever a contracting agency terminates a contract, or whenever a contractor has been debarred from further government contracts, because of noncompliance with the contractor provisions with regard to nondiscrimination. the Committee, or the contracting agency involved, shall promptly notify the Comptroller General of the United States.

SUBPART E-CERTIFICATES OF MERIT

SEC. 316. The Committee may provide for issuance of a United States Government Certificate of Merit to employers or employee organizations which are or may hereafter be engaged in work under government contracts, if the Committee is satisfied that the personnel and employment practices of the employer, or that the personnel, training, apprenticeship, membership, grievance and representation, upgrading and other practices and policies of the employee organization, conform to the purposes and provisions of this order.

SEC. 317. Any Certificate of Merit may at any time be suspended or revoked by the Committee if the holder thereof, in the judgment of the Committee, has failed to comply with the provisions of this order.

SEC. 318. The Committee may provide for the exemption of any employer or employee organization from any requirement for furnishing information as to compliance if such employer or employee organization has been awarded a Certificate of Merit which has not been suspended or revoked.

PART IV-MISCELLANEOUS

SECTION 401. Each contracting agency (except the Department of Justice) shall defray such necessary expenses of the Committee as may be authorized by law, including section 214 of the Act of May 3, 1945, 59 Stat. 134 (31 U.S.C. 691): Provided, That no agency shall supply more than fifty per cent of the funds necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Department of Labor shall provide necessary space and facilities for the Committee. In the case of the Department of Justice, the contribution shall be limited to furnishing legal services.

SEC. 402. This order shall become effective thirty days after its execution. The General Services Administration shall take appropriate action to revise the standard Government contract forms to accord with the provisions of this order and of the rules and regulations of the Committee.

SEC. 403. Executive Order No. 10479 of August 13, 1953 (18 F.R. 4899), together with Executive Orders Nos. 10482 of August 15, 1953 (18 F.R. 4944), and 10733 of October 10, 1957 (22 F.R. 8135), amending that order, and Executive Order No. 10557 of September 3, 1954 (19 F.R. 5655), are hereby revoked, and the Government Contract Committee established by Executive Order No. 10479 is abolished. All records and property of or in the custody of the said Committee are hereby transferred to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which shall wind up the outstanding affairs of the Government Contract Committee.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 6, 1961.

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

[F.R. Doc. 61-2093; Filed, Mar. 7, 1961; 10:06 a.m.]

[H.R. 62, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To grant officers and employees subject to the Civil Service Act of January 16, 1883, the opportunity to examine and reply to certain evaluations of their promotion qualifications, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 7 of the Civil Service Act of January 16, 1883 (22 Stat. 406; 5 U.S.C. 638), is amended by inserting immediately following the first sentence thereof the following new sentence: "Each officer and employee shall have the right to examine each supervisory evaluation of his qualifications for promotion and to file a written comment with respect to all or any part of such evaluation which shall be attached thereto.".

USE OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TV

MARYLAND.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am writing you this letter because you are presently investigating various practices in the Civil Service which might infringe on a person's rights or privacy.

I work at the U.S. Army-Strategy and Tactics Analysis Group (STAG), in Bethesda, Maryland. Since we work on very sensitive problems, it is quite understandable that a high degree of security be in force. We have never had any problems involving security, and I believe that the security measures that were in force were more than adequate. However, recently a new closed circuit TV system was installed at STAG under the pretense of being a security measure.

It is used as a security measure, but it is in fact and by design being used as a check on civilian personnel movements.

The only entrance to STAG is by elevator. As you alight or enter the elevator you face the camera (and smile). So, the military knows exactly when you arrive for work, go to and return from lunch, leave from work, and go to and from the snack bar. They record such movements if they think them abusive and hold you accountable for them. What do they regard as abusive? Work begins at 8:15 AM. If you arrive at 8:15:01, you are late, recorded, and if you don't excuse yourself, you are held accountable. Furthermore, if you are five or ten minutes late, you are sometimes charged an hour's annual leave and told that you are not to take it.

Sir, why do we fight in Viet Nam to keep "Big Brother" from our land, when we have "Him" here already?

I realize that the military administration has the right and indeed the duty to expect 8 hours of professional work, but I do think that we should be treated as mature, responsible, professional civilians and not as "privates" in an Army unit.

I have requested Senators Brewster and Tydings to support your bill.
Wishing you success in your efforts and a happy holiday season, I am,
Yours truly,

Hon. STANLEY R. RESOR,

Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army,

The Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

A GRATEFUL PROFESSIONAL.

DEAR SECRETARY RESOR: In connection with its study of the constitutional rights of federal employees, the Subcommittee has received a letter from an em

ployee of the United States Army, alleging that the Strategy and Tactics Analy sis Group, located at 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, has recently installed closed circuit television. Reportedly, this apparatus was installed for security purposes, but according to the letter, it bears little relationship to secu rity. Rather, it is being used to keep track of the ingress and egress of employees, who cannot enter the working area without being subject to its surveillance. According to the letter, the employees even fear taking their coffee breaks, since they might be a few seconds overtime and receive a reprimand or have a brief absence from the working area charged to annual leave. While I realize that security is important, I do not think it should be used as a rationalization for monitoring the every move of individual citizens.

More importantly for the morale and production capacity of your agency, the device apparently is creating a morale problem and seems to symbolize for your employees the "big brother" climate which has been the cause of much criticism of the Federal Service.

Please furnish this Subcommittee with a report on this matter. Thank you for your cooperation.

With all kind wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Washington, D.C., February 3, 1967.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In reply to your 11 January 1967, letter to the Secretary of the Army regarding the installation of a closed-circuit television at the U.S. Army Strategy and Tactics Analysis Group (STAG), the following information is furnished:

a. STAG occupies the top three floors of a nine floor office building located at 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The lower floors are occupied by personnel from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

b. During the past month, a closed-circuit television system was installed. This system consists of one camera, located on the seventh floor, covering the entrance to the facility and a monitor located in the administrative office on the ninth floor. The closed-circuit television system is just one part of a new cypher lock entry-exit system that was put into effect on 30 January 1967.

c. The new cypher lock system was installed for the purpose of improving the overall efficiency of the security operation. It has enabled the STAG to reduce the security guard force by one guard, and to resolve a problem that existed between STAG and the other users of the building due to the security requirements of this organization.

d. The closed-circuit television has not been, and will not be, used to keep employees under surveillance in the manner alleged in the letter to your Subcommittee. The sole purpose of the television is to assist in the control of visitors to STAG.

e. No employee has ever been reprimanded for being a few seconds late from a coffee break or had a brief absence from the work area charged to annual leave. In fact, most employees do not leave for coffee breaks since there is coffee available within their area.

I am sure that you will agree that all employees are expected to comply with established duty hours. In the past, a few personnel of STAG have been late on repeated occasions, and as a result, counseled about their responsibilities for reporting for work on time. Subsequent to the repeated gross late offenses and counselling on the subject, a few of these personnel were charged with annual leave for their continued late practices. However, supervision of employees is a normal responsibility of supervisors and the installation of the closed-circuit television system was not to monitor the work habits of the employees, and it will not be so utilized.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

ROY H. STEELE,

Chief, Congressional Investigations Division,
Office, Chief of Legislative Liaison.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., September 26, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In view of the recapitulation of the Subcommittee's report for the second session of the 89th Congress appearing on page 7 of the transcript of the testimony taken before the Committee on September 23, 1966, the Committee may find the revised Department of Defense Directive 5210.7, "Civilian Applicant and Employee Security Program," promulgated by Secretary McNamara on September 2, 1966, of interest.

The revised Directive extends certain procedural rights to civilian employees of the Department of Defense whose termination under Public Law 733, 81st Congress, is proposed, irrespective of whether the employee has completed the probationary or trial period. (Section X.) Section XIII of the same Directive contains a provision whereby applicants being considered for sensitive positions may have an opportunity to explain or refute derogatory security information developed in an investigation before being rejected or nonselected on security grounds.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER T. SKALLERUP, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Security Policy.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF S. 3779.

[Congressional Record, Senate, Aug. 9, 1966]

A BILL TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND TO PREVENT UNWARRANTED INVASIONS OF THEIR PRIVACY

Mr. Ervin. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill designed "to protect the employees of the executive branch of the United States government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy." I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, no American is unaware of the history of the founding of these United States, of the dreams of freedom in the minds of those early pioneers, and in the hearts of all those who sought these shores over the years. I have always believed that the promise of this land was ever in the process of fulfillment for those who have looked for opportunity and yearned to live under a government responsive to the will of the people-a government of laws, administered by men whose decisions reflected the moral values of the governed. One of the glories of our form of government is that whenever administrative decisions have not reflected those values, the power of the ballot has quickly altered the cast of those responsible for administration, and by statute the representatives of the people have implemented constitutional protections and provided extensive protection for the rights of citizens against arbitrary administration.

Somehow of late, however, the topography of American values has frequently been needlessly altered by the winds of political expediency and the influence of technological change. Federal activities have rapidly expanded, and as our expectations of government change, we more and more easily sanction departures from liberties once deeply cherished. In the vagrant hope of achieving sensational goals and politically-satisfying ends, we often overlook the means used by administrations to achieve those ends.

For one large and vitally important segment of our population, this trend has recently meant a denial of the fruits of that principle of freedom which should imbue the actions of our government. I refer to the employees and private citizen-advisors who serve government. It is ironic that the public servants who are so essential to the achievement of public policy do not reap the harvest of liberty. True, they have enjoyed the economic benefits of pay bills, retirement and fringe benefits, vacations and sick pay, and certain procedural guarantees. Yet reports currently coming to Congress concerning the federal government's attitude toward its own employees show that important areas of their liberty are being invaded and seriously circumscribed for reasons which have little or nothing to do with their jobs or with national security.

Some may be understandably skeptical about the extent of such a charge, and indeed it is difficult to see how we have let some of the practices develop.

I have expressed my concern to the President about the complaints of unwar ranted privacy-invasion which the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights is receiving. I cannot believe that he has sanctioned the wholesale application of such practices as psychiatric interviews, psychological testing, probing interroga tions about religious, family, and sexual matters, coercion to buy bonds and to support political parties, to fill out race and national origin forms, to disclose personal finances and creditors of employees and their relatives, to attend lec tures, to participate in community functions having nothing to do with their jobs, and to conform their personal activities, behavior and associations outside the office to agency rules and a supervisor's whim.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the President be printed at this point in the Record.

The Subcommittee has sought by hearings and investigation to remedy these problems on a case by case, agency by agency basis. Although response has been most courteous, it has brought no satisfaction.

I have therefore drafted legislation which is designed to halt many of the prac tices of which federal employees have complained and to protect them from future incursions into their privacy.

This measure is intended to be a bill of rights for government employees. The bill would first make it unlawful for an officer of any department or agency to require or request, or attempt to require or request, any employee or applicant for employment to disclose his race, religion, or national origin.

As I noted in the past, the Subcommittee has become increasingly alarmed over the use of questionnaires to force employees to disclose their race, ethnic or nåtional origins. The Civil Service Commission has said this disclosure is voluntary, yet the efforts to effect compliance with a minority group status survey have alarmed employees, the public and members of Congress. In addition to the procedures involved, the contents of the survey are most disturbing in their implications. All present employees and all future employees are asked, or will be asked, to indicate whether they are "American Indian," "Oriental," "Negro," "Spanish-American" or "none-of-these."

As one employee writes:

"Would American Indian include the children of say, for example, Spanishspeaking Indian immigrants from Oaxaca, Mexico, or from La Paz, Bolivia? "If a Negro marries a Caucasion, Indian or an Oriental, what are their chil dren to be classified?

"Are Filipinos to be classified as Orientals?

What if only one

"By Spanish-American would you mean the children of immigrants from Spain? Or would you include those from Hispanic America? of the parents is of Spanish ancestry?"

He comments further:

"These were all questions debated and discussed in my Government office. The fact is that the majority of immigrants from a country like Mexico would be technically classified as Mestizos; the rest divided between pure Indians and Caucasians. There is no such thing as a 'light-skinned Negro' in Brazil. If he is the offspring of a Negro and a Caucasian, he is a Mulatto; of a Negro and an Indian, a Caboclo. These are considered 'third' races. In classification, some Filipinos brought up the problem of their mixed background and said they did not consider themselves Orientals.' The son of Spaniards explained that he would fall under the 'Spanish-American' category, while the daughter of Mexican immigrants considered herself a 'Mexican-American.'"

A Puerto Rican writes:

"On no previous federal level census that I know of, have persons of Hispanic origin been singled out, and outside of establishing a precedent in singling all persons of Hispanic background, there is very little that this entry could accom plish. Persons of Spanish cultural background are too diverse, and some have been in this country for so many generations that they don't even know their family name had been Spanish. What outside the degrading Spain and the people of Spanish and Latin American origin could such an entry prove? "While I have no doubt that the level of poverty among people of Hispanic origin is greater than that of the population as a whole, one look at the backgrounds of the large number of these people will show their lack of education. rather than outright discrimination, gives the answer."