LACK OF ACTION ON PRIVACY ACT IS REGRETTED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2001
• Sequence Number: 99
• Publication Date: October 16, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
1-110658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE October 16' 1974
definition of integrity: voluntary and total
compliance with a rigorous moral code.
It goes without saying that in fulfilling
our police role integrity must be our watch-
word. It is our sworn duty to be honest and
incorruptible. Right action-ethical con-
duct-is the very substance of a police of l-
'eer's job. And integrity is more than just not
taking graft, or not committing any other
kind of malfeasance. Integrity is also doing
an honest day's work for a day's pay-not
shirking, not cutting corners on perform-
ance. Integrity is also not misusing physical
force.
But our responsibility does not begin and
end with our own behavior alone. In the
matter of integrity we are our brother's
keeper. We must refuse to countenance any
form of corruption, from any quarter, any
time it rears its ugly head. We must all stand
ready to clean our own house. Painful as it
may be, we must be willing to act against any
officer who would befoul it, recognizing that
he who would do so can no longer be deemed
a colleague. He has become instead a crimi-
nal in a uniform. Therefore, the "code of
silence" must be repudiated and to speak
out against the wrongdoers in our midst
must be considered an ethical imperative.
This is a matter of integrity and, like all
matters of integrity, it is in the immediate
and ultimate best Interests of the public and
the police profession.
Everything I have been saying boils down
to this: knowledge, courage and integrity
are inseparable from the proper delivery of
police service and the proper delivery of po-
lice service is essential for gaining, regaining,
or maintaining public confidence and sup-
port. Good intentions and sincerity and ex-
hortations are not enough. Consistently right
actions are needed.
I.think there is every reason to be optimis-
tic. In police agencies throughout the coun-
try, much progress is being made toward in-
creasing efficiency and improving the climate
of integrity. Better educated than ever be-
fore, today's police leaders are becoming more
expert managers of their departments' re-
sources. An ever growing number of them-
inspired and trained at institutions such as
this one-are making the words of the FBI
Academy motto a reality in the day-to-day
work of their. departments.
In closing let me say, I am confident that
every graduate here today will take his right-
ful place among these leaders and carry on
in what I earnestly believe will become a new
tradition of professional police service. My
congratulations to all of you.
(Mr. PEPPER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, you will
permit me to call to the attention of
our colleagues and the readers of this
RECORD a recent editorial in the Wash-
ington Post which deals with Attorney
General William Saxbe's recent assess-
ment of where we stand in America on
crime control.
As chairman of the former House Se-
lect Committee of Crime I was deeply
concerned with the problem of crime
and the possibilities for bringing this
social cancer under control. I regret that
the Attorney General has not been able
to. give a more favorable reading on
where we stand in our fight against
crime, but I think it is vitally important
that we face the fact that the crime
problem is still a very serious challenge
to our society.
I request permission therefore to in-
clude the Post editorial of September 1,
1974, in the RECORD at this point:
MR. SAXBE AND CRIME CONTROL
Before a group of police chiefs in Chicago
the other day, Attorney General William
Saxbe unburdened himself of some thoughts
on the subject of crime, its causes and its
potential consequences. On the whole, it
was a more balanced and thoughtful pres-
entation than you might have supposed
from the passages of the speech that gained
the greatest national attention. Mr. Saxbe
said that crime was increasing at a fright-
ening rate and that some dark-but un-
named-forces within our society might
one day use the fact of increasing crime to
push for the creation of a national police
force, a force Mr. Saxbe warned would jeop-
ardize our liberty.
Unfortunately, the Attorney General's
theorizing on the possible need for a na-
tional police force made the' biggest splash.
This, together with his dire view of the
crime statistics, was almost all the nation
learned about his speech, and perhaps for
understandable reasons; the notion of a
national police force does tend to concen-
trate the mind. But a careful reading of
his full text reveals much more that is use-
ful as a measure of what the nation's chief
law enforcement official really has on his
mind. Indeed, the implications for national
policy in what Mr. Saxbe said are far too
important to ignore, especially in a new
administration.
Mr. Saxbe spoke of a reported increase in
serious crime, of 5 per cent for_ this year over
last year. He was speaking of such offenses as
murder, rape and assault with a deadly
weapon, and he said such an increase in
these crimes was alarming to him. Now we
all know that the manner in which local
police forces tabulate those figures is far
from uniformly accurate. Moreover, we have
seen in the past how crime statistics can be
manipulated, depending on the political
exigencies of the moment. The Nixon admin-
istration, for example, would have had us
believe the problem was under control
many months ago-at the time of the last
election.
So, even though the statistics are disturb-
ing, they are probably less interesting, in
terms of coming to grips with the crime
problem, than, some of the things Mr. Saxbe
had to say about the causes of crime. He
began and ended by confessing to a certain
mystification with which we can all com-
miserate. He did, however, draw a direct con-
nection between serious crime among young
people and unemployment among the same
age group, especially those in the central
cities. He pointed out that three of every
four persons arrested for serious crimes were
under 25 years of age. Using the data of the
Bureau of Labor "Statistics, Mr. Saxbe told
the police chiefs that unemployment among
minority youths was "awesomely high" and
that in some age groups in the inner city it
was 33 per cent. It is important to note that
if BLS says one in every three young blacks
is out of a job, the figure is probably closer
to half of the young black population. The
reason is that BLS bases its figures for un-
employment on those "actively seeking"
work, and after a certain period large num-
bers of unemployed persons of all ages who
have not acquired jobs are somewhat arbi-
trarily held to be no longer "actively" seek-
ing work and therefore technically no longer
unemployed. -
"One lesson," Mr. Saxbe said, "is that we
are not going to solve the crime problem
among the young-especially in the cities-
until they are brought into society's main-
stream." And he added:
To do that, a basic step is to impart real
education and employment skills and couple
it with actual jobs. This is not only needed
to help control crime. It is also the decent..
the humanitarian, thing to do. This ap-
proach alone will not solve all crime prob-
lems related to poverty and discrimination.
But unless we succeed in this, other efforts
have little potential for lasting success.
Mr. Saxbe's observations on crime's re-
lationship to unemployment are important
because the Ford administration is in the
midst of an internal debate about public
works employment and its impact on the
economy. Crime control would hardly be
reason in itself to take such a step. And
there are economic reasons for seriously con-
sidering it irrespective of its connection with
crime -control. But it logically follows that
those with something to do have less reason
to commit crimes and that those with ? a
sense of a stake in their society are less
likely to act in defiance of its rules.
Mr. Saxbe went on to take note of in-
creasing white collar crime and crime among
government officials at the state and local
level, to say nothing of the federal level. He
asked what sort of example the ' successful
of the society were setting for the young:
"The young learn from us and what they see
and what they must be learning are sources
of growing dismay."
He was constrained as well to mention the
outpouring of violence on television and in
films: ". . the average 8-year-old has seen
more violence on television than the average
soldier encounters during a hitch in the
army." He castigated the television industry
for wrapping itself in the First Amendment
when called to account for its practices, and
he criticized parents for permitting their
children to be exposed to "the unending
deluge of such garbage."
From the Attorney General's viewpoint,
then crime is a problem with many causes
and few solutions. He described a pattern of
national frustration about crime, and it was
in this context that he expressed his fears
that if "we go on as we are, there is every
possibility that crime will inundate us. The
nation would then be faced with the prospect
of falling apart or devising a national police
in one final effort to restore domestic 'order.
We should never doubt for a moment that
there are men and forces at work in this
country eagerly awaiting an opportunity to
devise such a program as a first step toward
total control over our lives."
Mr. Saxbe distinctly warned against that
notion: "Any nation can stop crime if it is
willing to have an internal army of occu-
pation," he said, "but there has never been
a government which stopped crime by op-
pression that eventually did not live to re-
gret it." He argued instead that those "that
have survived and flourished have done so
by developing an inner strength in their
people and in their institutions."
It goes almost without saying that most
persons would agree. We certainly do. And we
also think Mr. Saxbe's speech, -in its entirety,
should be given serious attention by those
within the Ford administration who will be
dealing with such matters as public works
employment, the control of handguns and
the problem of television and motion picture
violence. The control of crime has to be
looked at in a larger context. President Ford
has expressed himself as having the goal of
trying to make us more of a nation of one
people. We think that the manner in which
he goes about that task may well assist in
shedding light on the problem of what we do
about rising crime.
INDUSTRIA TURISTICA
(Mr. PEPPER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, you know
the vital importance of tourism to the
Approved For Release.2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
Oc*ber 16, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL
sufficient time to participate actively in ef-
forts to reach a compromise.
Subcommittee Counsel Alan A. Parker said
Chairman Don Edwards, D-Calif., still sup-
ports a less complicated bill such as H.R. 188,
which he introduced, setting restrictions On
use of arrest records.
Rep. Charles E. Wiggins, R-Calif., ranking
Republican on the subcommittee, said pri-
vacy legislation is a "priority" item for the
subcommittee but predicted there would not
be time to sc before the next Congress con-
venes. Wiggins has stressed that the bill
should not endanger the policeman on the
street by depriving him of needed infor-
ination.
Outlook: Although there is practically no
chance that congressional, Justice Depart-
inent, and administration officials will be
able to reach a final agreement this year on
legislation to set standards for the use of
criminal history records, their efforts this
year have rande more likely enactment of a
proposal by the 94th Congress. Many ofthe
participants in the drafting process privately
voiced frustration with the pace of their toils
but continued. hope for long-term success.
Ra:PUBLICANS PREPARE OWN AGENDA
At the same time that the executive branch
was studying initiatives to protect individual
privacy, a task force on privacy of the House
Republican Research Committee prepared its
agenda for legislative action.
Task force Chairman Barry M. Goldwater
Jr.. R-Calif., said "privacy rights have become
subservient to concerns of utility and prag-
matism." The task force report was intended
to increase public awareness of privacy con-
cerns in the hope that specific reforms will be
adopted, be said.
Some of the report's recommendations are
similar to the initiatives that are being pur-
sued under the direction of the Domestic
Council Committee on the Right of Privacy.
The similarities include support for greater
protection of the privacy of bank records and
consumer credit information, and scaling
down of government information require-
ments.
On several issues, the GOP task force pro-
posed step:: that would go considerably be-
yond proposals now being studied by the
White House committee:
The use of the social security number
should be limited to the operation of old-age,
survivors, disability insurance and other pro-
grams as required by federal law.
No surveillance or wiretapping ofany citi-
,,,en should be permitted without a court
order.
Tougher steps should be taken to guar-
antee the confidentiality of Census Bureau
information.
Juvenile court records should be dissemi-
nated only to officials directly connected with
the child's welfare and rehabilitation.
No -arrest records without a conviction may
be used in a federally-supported computer-
ized system.
A federal "privacy protection agency"
should be established to enforce the pro-
posed legislation.
-'IEI D OF CRIME
(Mr. PEPPER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at
this point in the RECORD and to include
extraneous matter.)
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, on Sep-
tember 11 a nephew of my wife's gradu-
ated from the FBI National Academy
is Quantico, Va., which my wife at-
tended. On that occasion an outstand-
ing address having to do with the whole
field of crime was delivered by the police
commissioner of the city of New York,
RECORD - HOUSE 11 10&57
Michael J. Codd. Having chaired the
House .elect Committee on Crime for 4
years, I have found the- address of Com-
missioner Codd very enlightening and
informative. He speaks out of broad ex-
perience: with wide vision. I commend
Comma; stoner Codd's address to my col-
leagues and to my fellow countrymen
and ash that it appear in the body of
the RECORD immediately following my
remark,,:
4DDRE5S 8Y MICHAEL J. CORD
It is as honor and a privilege to have been
chosen to address this 98th graduating class
of the FBI National Academy. I myself was
a member of the 69th class and, as it hap-
pens, I delivered the student address at
that grnnduation ceremony.
My theme on that occasion was: "Eternal
vigilance is,the price of freedom." Not an
original theme perhaps, but an enduring
one-one that will always have relevance in
a democratic society.
In colsidering the selection of a subject
for this occasion I looked through several
talks that were given here in the recent past
and I was particularly struck by the fact
that no matter what subject was being ex-
pounded-police professionalism, the im-
portance of training, advances in police
technology-almost every speaker linked his
theme ;o the motto of the FBI National
Academy, "Knowledge, Courage, Integrity."
I decided to make those words the theme
of my talk. I hope I can bring some special
meaning to them that may prove helpful
to you in your future operations.
To characteristically exhibit knowledge,
courage, and integrity in one's privateaffairs
does not necessarily coincide with exhibiting
these some virtues In one's vocational affairs.
For ins';ante, it is entirely possible for a po-
lice officer to be a model citizen without
being an effective public servant. It all de-
pends on the kind of knowledge, courage, and
integrity he possesses and, just as important,
on the way lie puts these attributes into
practicf. .
A private individual is responsible to soci-
ety for his actions only Insofar as they may
injure others. When prompted by religious
belief or conscience or some benevolent feel-
ing he may try to actively help others. But
he is not required to do so; It Is not his duty
as a private citizen to do so. If. however, he
becomes a police officer, he automatically
assumes the responsibility of helping others,
of providing police service simply as a matter
of sworn obligation to the public.
More over, I believe that police officers have
a highEr duty even than other civil servants.
We are society's guardians and protectors. We
are thf agency charged with enforcing the
law, the strongest bond of a civilized society.
The service we give is absolutely essential to
its $tatility.
Never in our history has the police func-
tion been so important. For the past decade
our social climate has been rapidly changing.
A rancorous ill-will, often violent, has come
to mark the conduct of even the most routine
commc nlty affairs. Many of our citizens seem
to have lost faith in the ability or willing-
ness of established institutions to meet their
basic reeds. They see neglect and decay ev-
erywhere, and are convinced that they have
been a:andoned by public officials who, they
elaim, :save to be practically coerced into pro-
viding even minimal public services. This is
the environment in which today's police
officers work, and it presents a great obstacle
that we must work to overcome.
I am not for a moment suggesting that the
police should become primary agents of social
change or that we should attempt to cure
social ills. Only the people can do that, the
people acting through their elected repre-
sentatives. Police officers are neither agents
of, nor impediments to, social change but we
muss set an example for others to follow. We
are duty bound to be neutral-and properly
Be. It is our job to step in where necessary
to prevent public injury and to maintain
public peace-and this includes protecting
people in their right to dissent and to advo-
cate and promote even the most unpopular
causes. This kind of intervention does not
affect; the underlying conditions of society.
However, by performing our true functions
in a professional manner-that Is, by fighting
crime, preserving order, and rendering aid-
we are able to make a vitally important con-
tribution toward improving the quality of
community life. And this, I submit, forms
the true basis of our indispensability as
pubic servants.
All of which leads me back to the words
"Knowledge, Courage, Integrity," and their
special significance in police work. Let us
con" tder knowledge, where it all begins.
Police work encompasses law enforcement,
order-keeping, and non-enforcement serv-
ices. A police officer must know the applica-
ble laws, the powers and limitations of legal
authority, and the rights of the individual.
He must also know how-to handle emergency
matters, group events, interpersonal dis-
.putas, and miscellaneous requests for in-
formation and help. -
But laws change, technology improves,
communities grow and decline, new .ways of
policing are developed. In order to maintain
competence in his increasingly complex job
the police officer must keep abreast of all
professional developments in the field. He
must be open-minded and receptive to learn-
ing and to new experience. He must continue
to study and keep sharpening his skills
throughout his career.
In addition to acquiring knowledge and
applying it, which every police officer must
do, the superior officer has the continuing
responsibility of imparting knowledge to his
subordinates. In other words, training them.
Moot of you graduates here today are super-
visors, commanders or chiefs--or you soon
will be-and of all your supervisory or
command responsibilities you will find that
training always remains one of the most im-
portant. Training encompasses the direct in-
stru.ction of subordinates in job content and
the continuous monitoring of their perform-
ance to correct mistakes. It also involves
acting as adviser and Counselor in per-
sonal as well as vocational matter, if need
be, in order to improve performance.
Thus, in the interests of the public and
the law enforcement profession, all of us
must view knowledge not as an end in itself,
not as a stepping stone to career advance-
ment, but as the sine qua non of quality po-
lice performance. -
As for courage, every police officer is pre-
sumed to have physical courage. And I be-
lieve that every one of them does. In all my
experience I have never found it otherwise.
But I'm really talking about other kinds of
courage-intellectual and moral courage.
I think each of us must from time to time
do some soul-searching and ask himself, do
I have the courage to take responsibility and
face consequences; the courage- to break with
tradition; the courage to rally support for
unpopular position; the courage to try some-
thing new and overcome resistance to
change; the courage to stand on principle
when it might be easier to capitulate to
expedience. And then, perhaps the most dif-
fiColt question of all, do I have the courage
to speak out against a fellow officer known
to be corrupt or brutal or derelict.
'T'hat brings us to the matter of integrity,
which is often inseparable from courage. In-
tegrity is easier to recognize than to define.
Aniong the dictionary definitions are: "state
or quality of being complete, undivided or
unbroken"; "unimpaired or unmarred state";
"p-ority"; "moral soundness"; "honesty";
"freedom from corrupting influence or prac-
tice." In all, I think they add up to my own
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
H 10656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 16, 1974
Whichever way the initiatives and working
relationships turn, officials at both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue agree that privacy will
remain a live issue in the post-Watergate
climate and that bureaucrats in every part
cf the government will have to adjust their
in?actices on the handling of citizen records.
They also indicate that the results of the
federal privacy regulation program will help
aictate future regulation of privately op-
crated data banks. OMB associate director
Marik said "the privacy concerns on federal
data systems are certainly applicable in the
private sector," but added that the federal
government should first "put its own house
in order and determine the impact of the
regulations so that the private sector is not
impaired by costly or cumbersome proposals."
SUPPORTERS FIND DRAFTING OF CRIMINAL FILES
PROPOSAL A PATH FILLED WITH BOTTLE-
NECKS AND COMPLEX ISSUES
Securing agreement on a bill to regulate
the use of FBI criminal history records has
consumed thousands of hours of attention
from congressional, White House and Justice
Department officials and staff. But most par-
ticipants agree that they are no closer to
passage of a meaningful bill than they were
a year ago when they began the agonizing
effort. They may even be farther apart as
a result of the greater understanding of the
issues which they have gained.
The drafting process also has been a vic-
tim of the Watergate scandal which brought
a new Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General who did not feel themselves bound
to the earlier Justice Department position
on the key issues, consumed the time and
attention of the Senator with the most ar-
dent Interest in the bill, and made it im-
possible for the House Judiciary Committee
and its staff to consider the proposal during
the past six months.
. The legislation'(S. 2963, S. 2964, H.R. 9783)
is designed to set the first national rules
on the use and dissemination of criminal
justice information and impose restrictions
on the exchange of criminal records between
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
and thousands of police departments across
the country. Interest in the bill was aroused
by the absence of specific laws on the sub-
ject, leading many critics to cite a serious
threat to personal privacy. (Eor background
on the controversy and details of the pro-
posals, see Vol. 5, No. 43, p. 1599, and Vol. 6,
No. 7, p. 246.)
Negotiations: The effort to rpove ahead
on the legislation has been marked by a con-
tinual series of meetings between congres-
sional and Justice Department staff, attempts
to put on paper what tentatively was agreed
to orally, and renegotiations of supposedly
final provisions.
"When the crunch comes, the Justice De-
partment is not making decisions, and the
White House is not there to push it along.
Either the Administration's concern for pri-
vacy is a 'paper tiger' or there is a calculated
effort to stymie action. In either case, there
would be the same result of Congress's In-
ablity to act," said Lawrence M. Baskir, chief
counsel and staff director of the Senate Ju-
diciary Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, chaired by Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-
N.C. (Baskir plans to resign soon and be-
come general counsel of the Presidential
Clemency Board.)
Deputy Attorney General Laurence H. Sil-
berman, who has headed the Justice Depart-
ment's review of the bill since his March
confirmation by the Senate, disagreed with
Baskir. "We have been working hard for the
past month to reach an Administration posi-
tion. With President Ford's accession to the
presidency, the issue became of greater im-
portance, and it became possible to get an
administration position. That was difficult
under President Nixon because an attempt
was tried earlier and it failed."
Silberman was referring to the drafting
last fall of the original Justice Department
bill (S. 2964) under the direction of Asso-
elate Deputy Attorney General (1973-74)
Martin B. Danziger. The bill was sent to
Congress as a "Justice Department bill' be-
cause of the inability to resolve opposition
of several agencies, including the Civil Serv-
vice Commission and Defense and Treasury
Departments. Silberman said that the recent
review of the bill has resulted in a change
in the Justice Department's position in S,
2964.
Staff meetings-The first extended discus-
sions on the bill between congressional and
Justice Department staff were 60 to 80 hours
of meetings in May and June between Mark
H. Gitenstein, counsel of the Senate sub-
committee, and Mary C. Lawton, deputy as-
sistant attorney general (Office of Legal
Counsel).
They redrafted Ervin's bill, S. 2963, in order
to make it more amendable to the Justice
Department. However, when Ms. Lawton for-
warded the proposed compromise to others at
Justice, she found "parts of the department
were not happy with the result." In an inter-
view, Silberman said she was only giving the
congressional aides "technical help" without
indicating the Administration's position.
Several weeks later, a delegation of officials
from the FBI, led by John B. Hotis, an FBI
attorney who serves as its liaison for legis-
lative issues, went to the Senate subcommit-
tee staff with suggested changes on many of
the issues that had been earlier discussed.
"We were upset, as was Sen, Ervin," said
Gitenstein.
Silberman meetings-In an Aug. 15 letter
to Silberman, Sens. Ervin and Roman L.
Hruska, ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said the problems with S. 2963
"are not insurmountable" and added "it is
incumbent upon the Department to come
forward with proposals for changes in this
markup." They suggested a task force be
created to develop a compromise bill by the
first week of September.
Three or four meetings were subsequently
held in Silberman's office including represent-
atives of the Senate and House Judiciary
Committees, Justice Department, FBI and
Douglas W. Metz, deputy executive director
of the Domestic Council Committee on the
Right of Privacy.
At the same time, Silberman chaired a
series of meetings with representatives of
federal agencies that opposed the bill. Ac-
cording to informed sources, some of the
most vigorous opposition to the bill came
from within the Justice Department, Includ-
ing Assistant Attorney General Henry E.
Petersen of the Criminal Division.
Following those meetings, Silberman di-
rected Lawton and Hotis to draft a bill re-
flecting the consensus of views exchanged
at the working sessions. They finished that
process Sept. 27 and their drift bill was cir-
culated to several Justice Department offi-
cials. In the following two weeks, additional
department and executive branch meetings
were held to review the revised proposal.
Senate bill: At the same time that Jus-
tice Department and congressional negotia-
tors were trying to find common ground on
the many controversial issues in the legisla-
tion, staff members of the Senate Constitu-
tional Rights Subcommittee met regularly
to draft a bill acceptable to the subcommit-
tee members.
Gitenstein and J. C. Argetsinger, subcom-
mittee minority counsel, held a series of
meetings resulting in a memorandum listing
proposed changes, which was sent to Sens.
Ervin and Hruska. The differences between
Ervin and 'iIruska are reportedly narrower
than those between Ervin and the Justice
Department. As a result, there has been ten-
tative staff agreement on a number of
amendments to S 2963, the original Ervin bill,
and the Senators are expected to meet and
develop new plans for Senate passage this
year.
Arrest records-A central issue has been
whether police should be permitted to dis-
seminate criminal records which show an
arrest but no conviction. S 2963 would have
permitted, this practice only In limited cir-
cumstances or if the arrest had been pend-
ing less than one year. The latest draft of
the bill permits use of arrest records if the
local law enforcement agency adopts federal
minimum standards. One standard permits
use of arrest records or criminal histories
not resulting in a conviction if the facts
of the case "warrant the conclusion that the
individual has committed or is about to com-
mit a crime and that the information may
be relevant in that act." The test is taken
from the 1968 Supreme Court opinion in
Terry v. Ohio permitting police to "stop and
frisk" on the basis of "reasonable suspicion."
Dissemination-The original Ervin bill
generally permitted non-criminal justice
agencies to receive only. conviction records.
Under the revised bill, they may receive ar-
rest records less than one year old if there
has been an indictment and the charges are
still actively pending. A report prepared at
Ervvin's request by the General Accounting
Office showed that only 7 per cent of the
requests to the FBI for criminal records
are made by police prior to an arrest. Er-
vin said the report "confirms my suspicions"
that FBI. records are used primarily for li-
censing and employment in state and local
government.
, Gitenstein of the Senate subcommittee
staff said the report shows the FBI runs the
criminal records system but it is used pri-
marily for non-police purposes, demonstrat-
ing the need for civilian, court, and prose-
cutorial agencies to be a part of the system's
management. However, an FBI official said
"I don't think most people are upset with
the way we handle our records."
Enforcement-s. 2963 proposed a federal-
state administrative system to enforce the
bill, while the Justice Department strongly
believes the FBI should continue to run the
criminal records files. The subject reportedly
is one of those causing the most debate. Sil-
berman said the issue is "one of the most
complicated subjects I have ever seen in leg-
islation." Ervin has stressed that enforce-
ment should reflect the "federal" nature of
criminal records by ensuring the states a role
In determining policy on their use. The most
recent draft of his bill prohibits a federal
agency from control of any records other
than an index of the criminal files five years
after the bill's enactment.
Sealing-The provision in S. 2963 requiring
that all records be "sealed" seven years after
their original entry to prohibit their further
use has been changed to permit the use of
an index of the sealed records. The sealed
files could be used by police officials where
an Individual is subsequently charged with
a more serious offense or as the result of a
court order.
Intelligence _ files-Another controversial
issue is desemination of intelligence and in-
vestigative information, which includes con-
fidential reports compiled by police officers.
The revised Ervin bill has relaxed Its previous
proposal by permitting the exchange of such
information among law enforcement agen-
cies where a "need to know" or "right to
know" has been demonstrated by the re-
questor, or if "rational inferences., , warrant
the conclusion that the individual has com-
mitted or is about to commit a criminal act
and that the information may be relevant to
that act."
House: While the House Judiciary Subcom.
mittee on Civil Rights and Constitutional
Rights held hearings on the subject last
winter, its members and staff have been so
preoccupied with the Impeachment inquiry
and the. confirmation of Nelson A. Rockefeller
as vice president that they have not had
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
()eteber 16, 1971.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 10655
fact t hat there has never been a full-fledged
study of-privacy problems in both the public
and private sectors.
The White House response to the Senate
committee is that the commission would be
"another layer of bureaucracy" that would
slow the initiation of the new regulations,
and might also be "a handy excuse for de-
layin- the implementation of some impor-
tant privacy safeguards."
W3.%te House: In the event that the House
and Senate do not reach agreement on a
federal privacy standards bill before the 93rd
Congress finishes its work, President Ford
will ;sue an executive order modeled on the
standards of the pending legislation.
Metz said the executive order would be
"nea-l.y identical" to the House committee
bill. "We are committed to action-either
executive or legislative-to show the good
faith of the Administration to act."
Metz said there was no White House pref-
erence for an executive order instead of
legislation and that Ford and his aides will
eont?-nue to push for a bill until it Is clear
that there is "no opportunity for legislative
actica In this Congress."
Baskir, Ervin's chief aide on privacy legis-
lation, criticized the White House for hav-
ing no executive `order ready to be issued in
lieu of the legislation. He said this and the
"last-minute criticisms" of S.3418 led him
and others in Congress to believe "the Ad-
ministration position on privacy Is to co-
operate but still obstruct progress in order
to prevent the bill from being passed."
The result, he said, would be that the
Democratic Congress would pass no privacy
legislation and the President could issue
his own executive order and "steal the thun-
der."
Beskir's contention was denied by OMB's
Iv r`h who said Ford's intentions are "genu-
ine,"
ASSESSMENT
the two ranking subcommittee Republicans, add the ,edera1 employees exemption by an
Reps. John N. Erlenborn of Illinois and Paul 11-22 vote.
N. McCloskey Jr. of California. One controversial section that was struck
The bill, which has as its principal aim from the House subcommittee bill would
the limitation of the use of personal records have permitted court awarding of punitive
by the government, was drafted as an- amend- damages against the government in case of
ment to the Freedom of Information Act of a violation of the act. The bill's principal
1966 (80 Stat. 383). Ironically, that law is supporters conceded that such a provision
designed to encourage the government to would likely provide an unprecedented citi-
make public more information. Norman G. zen remedy against the government but
Cornish, the subcommittee's deputy staff argued that it was a necessary "club" against
director, explained that the drafting deci- the government.
sion was made on the basis that the 1966 Senate: The Senate Government Opera-
law is the only current federal law dealing tions Committee Aug. 20 unanimously ap-
with information practices. proved S 3418. 9lthough much of the bill is
according to the committee's report accom- structured similar to HR l6373, the drafting
panying the bill, the legislation "recognizes process has been considerably more strenu-
the legitimate need of the federal govern- ous and has lacked the cooperation with the
ment to collect, store, use and share among Administration that marked the House
various agencies certain types of personal action.
data" but provides safeguards to remedy mis- The ccmmittee's report is more critical of
use of the information and "reassert the current government abuses of privacy than
fundamental rights of personal privacy of is the House committee report. "The lack of
all Americans." self-restraint" by some agencies "has demon-
The keystone to the bill Is that, with strated toe potential throughout government
limited exceptions, a federal agency cannot for imposing coercive information burdens
divulge to another agency personal Informa- on citizens or for invading areas of thought,
tion about an individual without his con- belief or personal life which should be be-
sent. Among the exceptions are the activi- yoad the reach of the federal data collector,"
ties of law enforcement agencies, the Census the report said.
Bureau's official surveys, emergency situa- The bill, introduced by Chairman Ervin
tions and information needed by Congress for and co-sponsored by Sens. Edmund S. Mus-
legislative and investigative reasons. kie, D-N:aine, and Charles H. Percy, R-Ill.,
In an interview, Rep. Erlenborn said the had three days of hearings in June and the
bill is important because "technology has one committee markup session in August. In
progressed to the point where a government both cases, the House committee gave the
agency can push a button and get a mass of bill significantly more lengthy attention.
information on almost anyone. There Criticism-According to several Adminis-
should be an assurance that the information tration critics of the bill, this quick action
is used only for the purpose for which it was reflected the bill's vagueness and inadequate
collected." He added that while there have attention to specifies. One White House aide
been some abuses in the past, passage of the said "these Is a genuine commitment among
bill is necessary primarily because of "a fear Senators to the bill, but the problem is that
of the future." the bill needs considerable tightening."
Cornish said that "for the first time in A private attorney who observed the com-
tire country's history, Americans will have mittee's markup session and did not wish to
- speak fcr attribution said: "I had a strong
some control over how the federal govern- feeling that
ment utilizes information concerning them the Senators and staff did not
understand the bill and its implication."
and can ensure that the Information is used
He said
by the government only for the purpose for that he sympathized with the staff
which it was knowingly submitted." because of the "enormously complex prob-
drafting of !ems" std suggested that legislation may not
White House assistance--The
now be
HR 16373 was noteworthy for what all sides the answer to the privacy concern.
acknowledged was a substantial and general- Lawre:sce M. , chief counsel and
ly amicable contribution by President Ford's staff director of Ewrvinin's Constitutional Rights
privacy committee and the Office of Manage- drafting g of of the who participated in the
ment and Budget. draftihe bill, disagreed that S. 3418
was mo:-e unusual or complex than other
Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead said: legislation approved by Congress. "All of the
"We don't grant to interfere with good man- proposals in the bill have been discussed
agement of government. The privacy com- since at least 1970. Our staff is very familiar
mittee staff and OMB were helpful to us and with them and has been working on privacy
we resolved- a number of issues with them." longer tian anyone in the executive branch,"
Erlenborn said he had "never seen better co- he said.'
operation" between OMB and a congressional He was particularly critical of what he
committee on the drafting of legislation. called "last minute quibbling suggestions"
OMB Associate Director Marik said there from the White House. "The executive branch
was a "magnificent working relationship" be- 1s good in suggesting changes but it still
tween the subcommittee and the White has not prepared its final position even
House, and that the subcommittee was "very though the bill has been pending for several
responsive" to the points made by OMB, months," he said Sept. 25.
With the exception of one section, he said A 36-cage memo commenting on the bill
he supported enactment, Metz of the privacy was sen; Sept. 16 to the Government Opera-
committee expressed similar views. tions Committee staff by Metz. Two days
Federal employees-The principal out- later, the committee received a seven-page
standing point of contention between the listing of "major concerns" from OMB Di-
subcommittee and the White House is rector Roy L. Ash.
whether the bill should be applicable to the Commission-A principal point of dispute
records of federal employees and whether, for in S. 34181s its proposal to establish a Privacy
example, they should be entitled to review Protection Commission as an Independent
their employment records. agency. Its purpose would be two-fold--to
During the committee debate. Erlenborn adopt guidelines to assist government agen-
said that unless the exemption were adopted, ties in implementing the acts, and study
"the bill will wipe out the confidentiality of federal data bank practices and recommend
the civil service system and compromise the necessary changes to Congress and the
commission's testing process." Rep. Dante B. President.
Fascell, D-Fla., responded that "case after Jamer: Davidson, counsel to Muskle's in-
case has shown that you can't get to the root tergover nmental relations subcommittee,
of why an individual employee is not quali- said the commission is necessary because of
fled without access to his records." The com- both the need for a central point of exper-
mittee rejected Erlenborn's amendment to ti-se in implementing privacy rules and the
A review of privacy developments during
the first nine months of 1974 demonstrates
the involvement of a substantial number of
executive and congressional officials In the
struggle to develop regulations to deal with
the real and potential threats to individual
liberties posed by the growth of computer
technology.
President Ford has several times since he
became President referred to his abiding in-
tere:st in the privacy issue and he gives every
indication that he intends to keep the issue
alive. Nelson Rockefeller may give new di-
reotion to the White House privacy commit-
tee .out it is probably too late to move it in
the direction of less activity rather than
more-. .
Itey questions remain, however, as to the
extent to which the White House can and
will attempt to budge the often recalcitrant
agencies from their traditional -positions of
adhering to "tried and true" bureaucratic
prat tlces.
T_'aere is also the question as to the extent
Ford is willing to share the privacy lime-
light with Congress. -
Rep. Litton of Missouri, a principal sup-
porter of greater confidentiality of tax re-
tunis, said Ford and Buchen were extremely
interested in his proposal during the sum-
mer. This changed after Ford became Presi-
den Litton said.
"`T'he more they looked at the issues, the
mole they realized it wasn't so easy as they
tho-fight, and the pressure from the agencies
got to them," he said.
Norman Cornish of the House Government
Operations Committee staff emphasized that
0MB and the White House were cooperative
with his committee in trying to work out
legislative problems.
But he said "the Administration inclina-,
tior to turn to executive orders Is a bad
omen" of a possible lack of fun cooperation
bet ;teen the President and Congress,
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
H 10Ei52
for the protection of the Individual in
America and I Intend to continue my
efforts to press.for action on this measure
immediately following our return in
November.
The bill was reported on a 39-to-0 roll-
call vote by the House Government Op-
erations Committee on September 24.
The report (H. Rept. 93-1416) was filed
and printed on October 2. Our request
for a rule was heard by the Rules Com-
mittee on October 8 and an open rule
was granted that date providing for 1
hour of general debate. It was scheduled
for House floor action last week, but
because of the hectic schedule and the
great number of conference reports to be
acted upon before our recess, it was not
called up. A similar problem. during our
sessions this week has prevented its for-
mal consideration..
Mr. Speaker, the privacy Issue Is of
vital concern to many millions of Ameri-
cans and cuts across party and ideologi-
cal lines. So that Members may be better
informed about the broad ramifications
of this issue I include the text of an ex-
cellent article-"Justice Report/Protec-
tion of Citizens' Privacy Becomes Major
Federal Concern"-by Richard E. Cohen,
and which appears in the National Jour-
nal Reports of October 12, 1974. The
article follows:
JErsTICE REPORT/PROTECTION or CITIZENS' PRr-
vAC.Y BECOMES MAJOR FEDERAL CONCERN
(By Richard E. Cohen)
A concern that government and business
accumulate too much data on private citizens
is making the protection of individual pri-
vacy an issue high on the priority list of
scores of government policy makers.
While part of the rush to action Is in
response to abuses of government power
documented in the Watergate scandals, it also
is. an inevitable result of the rapid growth
of government record keeping made possible
by the increasingly sophisticated use of com-
puters. A three-year study by the staff of
the Senate Judiciary Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee revealed the existence of 858
federal data banks containing 1246 billion
separate records of American citizens.
Under the leadership of a White House
committee chaired by Gerald R. Ford when
he was Vice President, government agencies
have been strongly encouraged to deal with
a broad variety of privacy invasions. The is-
sues range from the use of medical and em-
ployment records to the implications of a
"cashless society.
This review of the government's impact on
privacy may bear results similar in scope to
those generated five years ago by the concern
for protecting the environment. And, as with
the, ecology boom, privacy may be an issue
that is easy to support in general terms but
raises complex policy and cost questions when
the specifics are analyzed. ion also has
been frustrated by bureaucratic inertia In
many federal agencies.
One result has beeps a difficulty in securing
agreement on legislation whose goals both
congressional and executive: branch officials
say they support but whose provisions may
exact a gamut of unrelated areas.
And. some Members of Congress who have
been in the forefront of the privacy move-
ment have begun to question the motives of
the Administration initiative, wondering
whether it is designed primarily to serve the
White House's political Interests rather than
tc buckle down on agency abuses.
Background: Until about a year ago, pri-
fey" was an issue that drew scant public or
congressional attention. A few Members of
Congress used their committee leadership
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 16
197:
posts to hold hearings on subjects such as
wiretapping and other electronic eavesdrop-
ping, consumer credit practices, and the use
of lie detector tests. Widespread fear about
the creation of a "national data bank" arose
in the mid-1960s, but faded after the glare of
publicity shined on the proposal.
Without any discussion of policy or at-
tempt to set operating standards, the steady
growth of federal data banks continued un-
abated. The only guidelines on federal com-
puter use came from the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and the General Services
Administration who were interested primarily
in procurement practices.
The abuses of individual liberties docu-
mented by Watergate have dramatically
changed that picture.
"Watergate has made it easier to get the
interest and votes of other Members of Con-
gress on privacy issues because they are con-
cerned about the 'plumbers unit' and the
use of Internal Revenue Service records, and
are responding to it," said Rep. William S.
Moorhead,. D-Pa., chairman of the Foreign
Operations and Government Information
Subcommittee of the Government Opera-
tions Committee.
"There was a crisis for the past few years
in communications and data collection. It
took awhile for the counterforce to catch up,
but, Watergate made people more receptive
to the issue of what the government is col-
lecting," said Henry Goldberg, general coun-
sel for the White House Office of Telecom-
munications Policy.
Coincidentally, the Member of Congress
with the longest and most active interest in
privacy regulation is Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr.,
D-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Com-
mittee on Presidential Campaign Activities,
which uncovered many of the Watergate
abuses. As chairman of the Senate Govern-
ment Operations Committee and the Judi-
ciary Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, he has been in a unique legislative
position to secure privacy legislation prior to
his retirement at the end of 1974.
Ervin's two principal bills are designed to
regulate the use of criminal history informa-
tion and provide rules for the gathering and
disclosing. of non-criminal Information by
government agencies. His position as a prin-
cipal nemesis of the Nixon White House and
Justice Department added political compli-
cations to the passage of those bills, but his
staff has Intensified efforts on each of them
since the resignation of President Nixon.
FORD COMMrrTEs.
Acting to anticipate further danger to civil
liberties posed by the pervasiveness of gov-
ernment has proved to be a task easier said
than done. A few legislative and administra-
tive steps already have been taken, with in
creased intensity since the Aug. 9 resignation
of Nixon, but many problems will continue
to be studied while a growing corps of gov-
ernment privacy experts attempts to set more
definite standards for identifying privacy
problems and providing solutions.
Until seven months ago, the executive
branch lacked an identifiable Individual or
institutional leader to study privacy issues'
and coordinate proposed initiatives. Re-
sponding to the increasing public interest In
privacy, President Nixon Feb. 23 created the
Domestic Council Committee on the Right of
Privacy and named then Vice President Ford
as its chairman.
Geoffrey C. Shepard, associate director of
the Domestic Council and the initial coordi-
nator of the privacy committee concept, said
following its creation that the committee
"will not establish a broad philosophy but
will produce a series of recommendations and
actions that pursue the theme of restricting
the government's demand of information
from individuals."
Ford, who demonstrated little interest in
the privacy Issue during his 25 years in the
House, seized the opportunity and appointed
his own staff to run the committee. He`soon
had the committee studying more than a
dozen areas and he made several speeches
focusing on the need for government action
to protect privacy.
In a June 28 speech to the National
Broadcast Editorial Association, Vice Presi-
dent Ford said "the problem of insuring per-
sonal privacy in a computerized society
which threatens to open the most personal
affairs of each of us to anyone with access to
computer-stored information" is one of the
"most serious" and "least realized" problems
facing the nation.
In the committees early months, Ford
succeeded in having President Nixon rescind
an executive order permitting the Agricul-
ture Department to review the income tax
returns of farmers and strongly criticized a
Ger#eral Services Administration (GSA) plan
to develop adata network with the capability
of linking federal agencies. The GSA plan
was, subsequently shelved by Administrator
Arthur F. Sampson. (For background on the
GSA "Fednet" proposal, see Vol. 6, No. 23, p.
856.)
Committee operations: In addition to the
Vice President, Nixon appointed six Cabinet
members and four sub-Cabinet officials to
the committee and asked the committee to
give him "a series of direct, enforceable meas-
ures" within four months. The committee
members included the Secretaries of Treas-
ury, Defense,. Commerce, Labor and HEW,
the Attorney General, the chairman of the
Civil Service Commission, and directors of
the Office of Management and Budget, Office
of Telecommunications Policy and Office of
Consumer Affairs.
The committee held its first meeting at the
White House Feb. 26, three days following
Nixon's nationwide radio address. According
to Shepard, Nixon attended 70 per cent of
the two-hour meeting and told the group the
government collects too much information
that it has no reason to have and cannot
use.
Initial activity-Ford appointed Philip W,
Buchen, his close friend and former Grand
Rapids law partner, as the committee's ex-
ecutive director. It was the first significant
government post for Buchen, who Ford
named his counsel shortly after he became
President.
With the assistance of a staff of three pro-
fessionals, Buchen supervised the selection
of the committees initial targets. Task forces
were established containing representatives
of the agencies involved In a specific prob-
lem area. The task forces were told to meet
as often as possible in order to develop firm
Administration policy in the 14 areas initial-
ly Identified by the staff and endorsed by
the committee.
Although the committee members did not
meet again until July 10, and have not met
since then, the committee's over-all progress
is reviewed once every. three or four weeks
by a "liaison group" of assistants to the 11
committee members.
According to Carole W. Parsons, a com-
mittee staff member, the existence of the
committee, its creation of task forces and
the elevation of its first chairman to. the
presidency have caused "agencies all over
the executive branch to take notice of the
privacy issue and begin to address it." She
estimated 200 to 300 persons are directly
involved in committee projects.
Douglas W. Metz, deputy executive direc-
tor of the committee and the principal staff
officer since Buchen became counsel to the
president, said the committee views its role
as providing "leadership in the implementa-
tion and coordination of the initiatives which
it has endorsed."
One agency official, who is familiar with
the work of the committee, said it has been
handicapped because its small staff has had
to rely heavily on the. agencies whose policies
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0 1r`?
,9 obe,d' 16, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
AA'.. TTA,.TT rnr ~~_ r__ _ ? _ _
H 10651. '
I-'culties they may be having with agen-
cies of the Federal Government. In this
regard, I have been deeply distressed r e -
ccntly by the response, or shall I say
tae lack of response, which I have been
r=ceiving from the Social Security Ad-
ministration in Baltimore. It is regret-
table that individuals should be com-
pelled to seek assistance from their
elected representatives in regard to their
dealings with the Social Security Ad-
a inistration. However, when taking int,:j
-Donsideration the problems l
C ngressman, have had with the Social
Security Administration in Baltimore,
'I can certainly appreciate the exaspera..
tion and frustration which private citi..
ens must encounter in attempting to
deal with this Agency.
During the 10 years I have served It,
Congress, I have had thousands of in
ctuiries from constituents concerning dis-
ability, retirement, and survivors' bene.
fits. For about the first 6 years I could
expect prompt action from Baltimore,
and my office would be immediately con-
tacted by phone or telegram whenever
a determination was made on .a claim.
However, about 4 years ago, the re-
s;oonses- which I received from Baltimore
-am p5- Lnis may was
regarding the status of this case pro- single, lived a
lone,il4 d had no outside
duced no responsive information until source of income. n March 29, 1973,
recently, when I received notice from previous denials grilier claim were over-
Baltimore, on October 7, that the claim turned by the d lion of an Administra-
had been disallowed. Apparently, it is tive Law Judg y office contacted Bal-
ea. ter to get information from the CIA timore to as .at I be advised when an
these days than to obtain status reports award wa ade on this lady's claim,
from the Social Security Administration. and was vised that the claim would
On August 31, 1973, a disabilty claim automa ally be "flagged." When
which I had been working on was for- noth - further was heard, my office
warded to the State disability -agency, call Baltimore on may 15, and May 22.
My office called Baltimore repeatedly Thige inquiries were not responded to.
inquiring about the status of this claim. A Cher inquiry was made on June 8, at
These calls were either not acknowledged ich time Baltimore advised that they
or were put off with a reply that "the ere still awaiting a determination on
case was pending further evaluation." the award. Finally, on June 11, Balti-
No substantive information was reedy more called to advise that an award had
until June 19, 1974, when I was adv' d been made on the claim, and a check had
that the claim was, approved on r on- been mailed to th
l
i
e c
a
mant at the end
sideration. This was about 10 a lths of May. -
after my original inquiry. In one last- . Instance, an individual
Bungling is also another altimore whom I know personally filed a request
specialty. A medicare claim ich I had for reconsideration on the denial of his
been actively involved wi rom the re- disability claim. To me, this case ap-
consideration level in anuary 1973, peared to be one of clear-cut disability,
through the final ap in March 1.974, and I felt justified in writing a rather
had many Inconsi ties which were lengthy letter to Commissioner Cardwell
never adequately ained. I personally on July 29, requesting his personal at-
wrote to Co stoner Cardwell on tention in making certain that the claim
the situation has become deplorable. IA rec
-i4&s up UMrtuscrepancies. on Jun eived outine acknowledgment 1of pustr15.1eWhen no fu therlereports ere
While determinations on disability my inq ` , and on July 22, I received received, a call was made to Baltimore
claims were formerly made in 3 tp a a let om the Commissioner advising on October 1. To date, there has been
maximum of 6 months, the same process that AIhad contacted the Director of no response to that call.
Is now takin
6
m
t
g
on
m
hs to a year, or even t Bureau of Health Insurance, who Previously, complaints fro ore. red that the claimant's m my office
r
d
ecor
s were to Commisio Cdwl
snerarel have produced
For example, on October 20, 1973, 1 riding in the Bureau of Hearings and no improvements in service, only ration-
was contacted by an individual wit - Appeals. The Commissioner stated he alizations. Therefore, I urge each Mem-
several minor children concerning had asked the Director of that Bureau ber of Congress who has experienced
claim which he had filed for disa y for a report and would contact me again similar difficulties to join the In person-
benefits. Over a year later, in J ary as soon as it was received. On August 23, ally taking the time to write or call Com-
1974, his claim was allowed. T was after no further word was received, my missioner Cardwell to demand that im-
his original claim, not a requ or re- office contacted the Bureau of Health mediate action be taken to correct the
consideration. I cannot help wonder Insurance and was informed that they exist situation, and to establish the
hew that individual and his 1Lv man- had no knowledge of the
Th
case
ey fi
. responsveness and responsibil-
aged to buy food and p or utilities gested that the Bureau of Hearings nd ity which the public deserves from the
and medical bills during t time. Appeals be contacted. From August to Social Security Administration.
It deeply concerns m , at individuals September 18, several calls were de
with little or no into and high medf- to the Bureau of Hearings and App Is.
cal, expenses, such he disabled and These calls were either unanswere or LACK OF ACTION ON PRIVACY ACT
retired, are sufferi ause of the S
referred to another individual wh
IS REGRETT
o-
o pr 1-
ED
tier Security Ad istration's lack of iced to call back and never did. Fin y, (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania ex-
responsiveness. e my dealings at the the Bureau of Hearings and App is asked and was given
district office le have been most satin- advised that they had no knowledg of tend his remarks at thisnpoi nt to the
factory, it has -'" ten to the point where, the claim. RECORD and to includep extraneous
if -a claim c of be handled at that Subsequently, on September 18, th i- matter.) -
level, I mig as well forget about it as atson office in Baltimore was called, d - Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsvivanin. Mr
con=tact Ba ore. Praetir.A.liv all ?f they renlies that a AT,Al 1,.4...... ti--, ,_
recenti aea mgr with Commissioner Card- sent to me on September 9. Later It been possible toupeply Consider H.R. 16373, the
well s an&%-is office in Baltimore have same day a call was received from
= e are --- --- ---? Inquiry c aF+as in dig r recess. This important and timely legis-
severat,. uses which I would like to cite the fact that my inquiry was inadve - lotion-the product of more th
as glaring examples of the inefficiency ently filed and never. responded to4a
f an 2 years
o
bipartisan efft b
ory our committee--
and ineptitude of that office, reply would be expedited to me in wbon will take a giant step in preserving the
1Viy office contacted Baltimore on week. More time passed and nothing w
i
pr
vacy of individl Ai
uamercans from the
December 22, 1973, concerning a claim received, so my office made some add threat of "big brother" tendencies of the
for a wife's benefits which was filed by ';tonal phone calls. As a result, phot executive bureaucracy. It will provide an
a lady in her seventies. A def.-rMi a tiAT, copies of my original letter to Cnmmlc
t
s
3
recoras
e was nlahe about 9 months later, onureau of Hearings and Apeals on a
gencie him the right to cor~
September 3, about him being held by Federal s and give umber 30. This pst Friday October 11. rect misstatements of fact in those
1974. Fortunately, this lady ]. received a reply from the Bureau of records. It will had relatives who helped her out during Hearings and Appeals which completely remedies agains trGovernment ~bureau-
that time, but not everyone has a family ignores the questions posed in my origi-- crat
who is willing and able to help. ral letter to the Commissioner. s who abuse his rights of privacy.
H.R. 16373 is truly landmark legislation j
`'a??'? was pruzupuy Misinformation is another Baltimore
hers of the House of Representatives, I forwarded from the district office of the specialty. A case which my office had -
trust you will agree that one of the more Social Security Administration to the been involved in for quite some time
important services we perform for our State disability agency on March 1, 1974. concerned a disability claim filed by a
constituents is helping them resolve di'- Repeated phone innniripc f,??T? -n,, -,PR-- .
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700140099-0