PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 33
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2002
• Sequence Number: 82
• Publication Date: November 20, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

D 1278
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST November 20, 1974
H. Res. 1468, providing for the consideration of H.R. Export-Import Bank: By a voice vote, the House
17234, Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (H. Rept. agreed to the conference report on H.R. 15977, to amend
93-1486); the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945; clearing the
H. Res. 1469, waiving certain points of order against measure for Senate action. Pages H 10882-H 10884
H.R. 17468, making appropriations for military con- Late Reports: Committee on Rules received permis-
struction for fiscal year 1975 (H. Rept. 93-1487) ; and sion to file certain privileged reports by midnight to-
H. Res. 1470, waiving certain points of order against night. Page H 10884
the conference report on S. 386, Urban Mass Transpor- Privacy: House considered H.R. 16373, to safeguard
tation Act (H. Rept. 93-1488). Page H 10921 individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records
Tennessee- Valley Authority Pollution Control Fa- and to provide that individuals be granted access to
cilities: House disagreed to the amendment of thee: records concerning them which are maintained by Fed-
Senate to H.R. 11929, to amend section ,5d of the Ten- - eral agencies, but came to no resolution thereon. Pro-
nessee Valley Act of 1933 to provide that expenditures ceedings under the 5-minute rule will continue
for pollution control facilities will be credited against tomorrow.
required power investment return payments and re- Took the following action in the Committee. of the
payments; and asked a conference with the Senate. Whole:
Appointed as conferees: Representatives Jones of Ala- Agreed to the following amendments to the commit-
bama, Kluczynski, Johnson of California, Harsha, and tee amendment:
Baker. Page H 10856 An amendment that subjects the Agency determi-
Presidential Veto-Rehabilitation: By a yea-and-nay nation to public scrutiny by providing 3o days for
vote of 398 yeas to 7 nays (two-thirds of those present interested parties to submit to the Agency after publi-
voting in the affirmative), the House overrode the Presi- cation in the Federal Register written data, views, or
dent's veto of H.R. 14225, Rehabilitation Act and Ran- arguments as to its interpretation of "Routine Purpose";
dolph Sheppard Act Amendments of 1974- An amendment that provides if the head of an agency
Pages H 10856-H 10864 utilizes the authority under subsection (j) to exempt a
Bill Re-referred: Committee on Merchant Marine and system of records from this law, such action shall not
Fisheries was discharged from further consideration exempt the agency from safeguards to .the public
of S. 2149, to provide benefits to members of the Coast against abuse of such exemption authority as provided
Guard Reserve. Subsequently, the bill was re-referred in subsection (i) ; and
to the Committee on Armed Services. Page H 10864 An amendment that exempts investigatory material
compiled solely for Federal employment, testing or ex-
Presidential Veto-Freedom of Information: By a amination material used for appointment, employment,
yea-and-nay vote of 371 yeas to 31 nays (two-thirds of or promotion in the Federal service, and evaluation ma-
those present voting in the affirmative), the House over- terial used for promotion in the armed services (agreed
rode the President's veto of H.R. 12471, Freedom of t to by a recorded vote of 192 ayes to 177 noes).
Information Act. Pages H 10864-H 10875
Rejected an amendment that sought to allow court
Presidential Vetoes-Private Bills: By a yea-and- assessment of punitive damages.
nay vote of 236 yeas to 163 nays (two-thirds of those H. Res. 1419, the rule under which the bill was con-
present not voting in the affirmative), the House sus-
sidered, was agreed to earlier by a voice vote.
tained the President's veto of H.R. 6624, a private bill.
This bill and the President's veto message of another Pages H 10884-H 10902
private bill, H.R. 7768, were then referred to the Com- Referral: One Senate-passed measure was referred to
mittee on the judiciary. Pages H 10875-H 10878 the appropriate House committee. Page H 10920
D.C. Educational Personnel: House concurred with Quorum Calls-Votes: Two quorum calls, three yea-
amendments in the Senate amendment to the text of and-nay votes, and one recorded vote developed during
H.R. 342, to authorize the District of Columbia to enter the proceedings of the House today and appear on
into the interstate agreement on qualification of educa- pages Hio856, Hio863, Hio875, H1o877, Hio898, and
tional personnel. House concurred in the Senate amend- Hio899-Hio9oo.
ment to the title of the bill; and returned the measure Program for Thursday: Met at noon and adjourned at
to the Senate. Pages H 10878-H 10882 6:28 p.m. until noon on Thursday, November 21, when
Late Report: Committee on the District of Columbia the House will continue consideration of H.R. 16373,
received permission to file a report by midnight tonight Privacy Act; and consider H. Res. 1387, place for
on H.R. 17450, to provide a people's counsel for the amendments in Congressional Record; and S.J. Res.
Public Service Commission of the.District of Columbia. 40, White House Conference on Libraries (open rule,
Page H 10882 1 hour of debate).
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 .: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST D 1277
Sylvania; and Cushing Dolbeare, National Rural
Housing Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
REGULATORY REFORM
Committee on Commerce: Committee continued hear-
ings on S.J. Res. 253, to establish a national commission
to study and report on the impact of the independent
regulatory agencies upon commerce, receiving testi-
mony from Helen Delich Bentley, Chairman, Federal
Maritime Commission; Lewis A. Engman, Chairman,
Federal Trade Commission; John N. Nassikas, Chair-
man, Federal Power Commission; Richard Simpson,
Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission;
George M. Stafford, Chairman, Interstate Commerce
Commission; Robert D. Timm, Chairman, Civil Aero-
nautics Board; and Richard E. Wiley, Chairman, Fed-
eral Communications Commission.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
TRADE REFORM
Committee on Finance: Committee, in executive ses-
sion, ordered favorably reported with amendments H.R.
Io71o, to stimulate U.S. economic growth. and promote
economic relations with foreign countries, with the un-
derstanding that the bill will not be taken upon the
floor of the Senate until Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger appears before the committee to answer ques-
tions concerning this matter.
NOMINATION
Committee on Government Operation.,: Committee
concluded hearings on the nomination of Paul H.
O'Neill, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, after the nominee testi-
fied and answered questions on his own behalf.
STATE LOTTERIES
Committee on the judiciary: Subcommittee on Crimi-
nal Laws and Procedures held hearings on bills relative
to dissemination of information concerning lawful
State lotteries (S. 544, 547, 1186 and 3524), receiving
testimony from William B. Saxbe,_Attorney General of
the United States; Francis Burch, Attorney General of
the State of Maryland, and numerous representatives
of State lottery commissions.
Hearings were recessed, subject to call.
MARIHUANA RESEARCH AND LEGAL CONTROLS
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcom-
mittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics continued hear-
ings to determine the current status of research on and
to explore the scientific and legal issues concerning
marihuana, receiving testimony from Michael R.
Sonnenreich, Washington, D.C.; R. Keith Stroup,
National Organization for the Reform of Marihuana
Laws, Washington, D.C.; J. Pat Horton, Lane County
District Attorney, Eugene, Oreg.; Prof. Richard J.
Bonnie, University of Virginia Law School; and Lt.
Joseph J. Delaney, representing the New Jersey Nar-
cotic Enforcement Officers Association.
Hearings continue on Tuesday, November 26.
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Committee on Public Works: Subcommittee on
Economic Development concluded hearings on S.
4115, proposing increases in authorizations for public
works and economic development programs for fiscal
years 1975 and 1976, after receiving testimony from
William L. Blunt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, accompanied by Rick Michaels, Acting
Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administra-
tion, both of Department of Commerce; Dr. Weldon
Barton, National Partners Union; Andrew Bennett,
representing the Council for Urban Economic De-
velopment; and William E. Towell, American Forestry
Association, all of Washington, D.C.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Committee on Rules and Administration: Committee,
in executive session, ordered favorably reported the
following measures:
S. Res. 428, requesting an additional $51,ooo for ex-
penses of Committee on Public Works; and
An original resolution (S. Res. 435) requesting an
additional $3o,ooo for expenses of Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Also, committee continued consideration of the
nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller, of New York,
to be Vice President of the United States, but did not
conclude action thereon, and will meet again on Friday,
November 22.
Houses of Representatives
Chamber Action
Bills Introduced: 16 public bills, H.R. 17469-17486; 1
private bill, H.R. 17487, and 6 resolut.ons, H. Con.
Res. 685, and H. Res. 1466-1470 were introduced.
Pages H 10921-H 10922
Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows:
H.R. 17450, to provide a people's counsel for the Pub-
lic Service Commission of the District of Columbia,
amended (H. Rept. 93-1485) ;
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 W--1Z_ I ~ s 7 -9
? Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
H 10884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 2-0, 1974
persists in helping foreign state airlines
buy' aircraft at low interest rates.
During the debate on the Export-Im-
part Bank extension legislation this
summer, I was particularly offended by
the extraordinary degree of lobbying
conducted by the Bank. It was obvious
that a number of Bank officials had been
assigned to the task of lobbying individ-
ual Members. It is probable that the ex-
pense involved in this lobbying ran into
the tens of thousands of dollars.
I am well aware that when an agency's
bill is being considered by the Congress,
representatives of that agency are
"available" to help answer questions,
provide information, and generally
"puff" the merits of their agency. These
civil servants may even sit in the gal-
leries during the debate to "watch" how
things are going.
But the lobbying carried on by the Ex-
imbank far exceeded this.
I believe that officials of the Bank may
have violated the Criminal Code, title
18, section 1913, prohibiting unsolicited
legislative lobbying by Government offi-
cials.
As a result, on September 13, I re-
quested a General Accounting Office in-
vestigation of the Bank's lobbying ac-
tivities. The GAO's report is not yet
available-largely because the Bank has
not been zealously responsive to the
GAO. I find this delay most objection-
able. I' believe it may be part of the
Bank's continuing effort to avoid "bad
publicity" prior to the passage of the
conference report before the House to-
day. I was not going to comment on this
matter until the GAO report was avail-
able-but I think that the Members
should know that there are serious ques-
tions involving activities of members of
the Bank's staff.
I believe that the General Accounting
Office report will certainly lead to legis-
lative recommendations and data which
I am sure will be of interest to the Ap-
propriations Committees.
Following is a copy of my letter to the
General Accounting Office:
SEPTEMBER 13, 1974.
Hon. ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General, General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. COMPTROLLER GENERAL: In review-
ing the events surrounding the passage by
the House of Representatives of H.R. 15977,
the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, I believe
that there have been violations of Title 18
of the United States Code, section 1913, re-
lating to legislative lobbying by government
officials.
I would like to request the General Ac-
counting Office to determine whether there
has been a violation of 18 USC 1913 by any
officials of the Export-Import Bank. If so,
I request that the GAO transmit its findings
to the Department of Justice so the appro-
priate floes, sentences, and job terminations
may be affected.
In investigating this matter, I would hope
that the GAO could provide answers to the
following questions:
1) Does the Export-Import Bank fall
under the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 1913? While
the Bank is outside of the Budget, its ex-
penditures and authorization are controlled
by the Congress and it would certainly be
my feeling that the section applies to the
Bank.
2) How many Bank employees were as-
signed to work on the passage of the Bank's
authorizing legislation? How many man- The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
hours were devoted to this lobbying effort? the request oft entleman from New
Who is it liable for this decision?
Even though I had long made clear oppo-
sition to many features of the Expor Import
legislation, my office received thre unsol-
icited telephone calls from individu s iden-
tifying themselves as representativ of the
Export-Import Bank. I regret that y staff
people who took the calls did not egister
the names of the persons calling. e first
call,was approximately two weeks b re the
vote. The caller assured my staff per n that
if I had any questions or concerns a ut the
legislation, the Bank would be happ to an-
swer my questions or provide info ation.
The second call was of a similar ature.
The third call informed my secret y that
the Export-Import Bank bill was co ing up
on the floor of the House. The cell "won-
dered" if I was on the floor, and if ot, ex-
pressed the hope that I would be ble to
attend-the floor debate.
4) What written communicatio
which had been made in recent
companies in my Congressional Dist
American exporting companies,
groups requesting that they write
bers of Congress in support of
Prior to the vote, a number of ma
support of the legislation.
6) What Bank officials came t
House. I observed a man who w,{is identified
to me as Chief Counsel of the Sank and two
staff aides were present and calling Members
off the floor. Was their aid aid assistance
solicited or unsolicited?
7) In sum, how much money was spent on
this lobbying effort?
Thank you for your assistance in this
inquiry.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES A. VANNe,
Member of Congress.
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time, and I move
the previous question on the conference
report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks, and include
extraneous matter, on the conference
report just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
RULES TO FILE PRIVILEGED
REPORTS
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules may have until midnight to-
night to file privileged reports,
were
gress?
licited
loans
PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lows :
H. Has 1419
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
16373.) to amend title 5, United States Code,
by adding a section 552a to. safeguard indi-
vidual privacy from the misuse of Federal
records and to provide that individuals be
granted access to records concerning them
which are maintained by Federal agencies.
After general debate, which shall be con-
fined to the bill and shall continue not to
exceed one hour, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, the bill shall be read
debate? _-for amendment under the five-minute rule.
t major it shall be in order to consider the amend-
rging the under the five-minute rule. At the conclu-
sion of such consideration, the Committee
the House shall rise and report the bill to the House
debate on with such amendments as may have been
separate vote in the House on any amend-
ment adopted In the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute. The pre-
vious question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 30 minutes to the minority, to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LATTA), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MURPHY of Illinois asked and
was given permission'to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois.. Mr. Speaker,
House Resolution 1419 provides for an
open rule with 1 hour of general debate
on H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974.
House Resolution 1419 provides that it
shall be in order to consider the amend-
ment in the nature of asubstitute rec-
ommended by the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations now printed in the
bill as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule.
H.R. 16373 permits an individual to
have access to records containing per-
sonal information on him kept by Federal
agencies for purposes of Inspection,
copying, supplementation and correction,
with certain exceptions, including law
enforcement and national security rec-
ords.
H.R. 16373 also allows an individual to
control the transfer of personal inforlna-
tion about him from one Federal agency
to another for nonroutine purposes by
requiring his prior written consent.
H.R. 16373 also provides a civil remedy
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
Novemb 20, 1971
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 10883 -
each loan invoWft- energy-related prod-
ucts and services a statement assess-
ing the impact of such loan on the
availability of such ucts, services, or
energy supplies for i the United
Finally, I believe I sli point out
that this legislation specif hat until
such time as the Trade Re Act is
approved by the Congress a igned
into law by the President, no loo gr-
antee, insurance, or credit shall ex-
Mr.. Speaker, I urge adoption of
conference report.
Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise i
support of H.R. 15977.
(Mr. WIDNALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, had
I not been one of the conferees on the
Export-Import Bank Amendments of
1974, 1 would feel free to be much more
laudatory of the shrewd bargaining and
cohesive effort of the House conferees on
this brill. In any case, I am pleased to ob-
serve that the conference report before
this body represents a successful. legis-
lative effort in extending the authority
of the Export-Import Bank with a well-
rounded legislative directive in carrying
out the Bank's functions.
I think it is important to note also
that the conference report on Ex-Im
Bank should be viewed in conjunction
with Export Administration Act amend-
ments. Both are, of course, concerned
with our national security and foreign
policy as well as with the basic enabling
of international trade and its effects on
our domestic economy. The entire area
of congressional policy has been reviewed
in this bill.
I believe that the coordination of spe-
cifics such as the competitive nature of
Eximbank's operations with its counter-
part financing facilities in other coun-
tries and its relationship to private
capital available here, the considerations
of other economic impacts, energy-re-
lated projects and small business, and
particularly the establishment of inter-
est rates on its loans, along with the re-
porting requirements levied in this bill,
will give the Congress a much more com-
prehensive opportunity to have an effect
on the entire Eximbank operation.
Moreover, a system of prior notifica-
tion is set up in this bill as a compromise
between the House and Senate provisions
which will, in effect, give the Congress
.an opportunity to act prospectively and
not only in a remedial manner. The en-
tire question of assistance for sales and
projects in the Communist countries,
the Soviet Union in particular, was the
subject of intensive bargaining among
the conferees and I can report that the
compromise which we reached affords
the broadest opportunity for trade which
will be in our national interest while re-
stricting effectively any questionable or
marginal transactions.
Additional curtailment of the partici-
pation of the Soviet Union in Export-
Import Bank operations is made clear in
the section on the relationship to the
Trade Reform Act. I believe that this
bolsters the position of the House by
providing a temporary measure until
effective permanent legislation can be
enacted.
As my colleagues well know, the Ex-
port-Import Bank has operated under a
series of temporary extension since
June 30 and its present authority to do
business is slated to expire at the end of
this month. It is imperative then that we
act with dispatch to provide this needed
authority to the Export-Import Bank. I
can assure my colleagues that this bill
represents a cohesive package Which will
enable the Export-Import Bank to carry
out-its functions in a manner mutually
beneficial to our own economy and with
e report for favorable action.
ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, - will the
:Mr. j~~. I will be glad to yield to
th 3 gen-
Mr. IC I understand that the
co:ference ort does contain a pro-
via ion that oan guaranteeor credit
shill be exten to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Repu s until the Congress
ac.s on the Tra eform Act; is that
:Mr. ICHORD. Is it o true, I would
ask the gentleman from w Jersey, that
the conference report do of raise the
lof:n limitation of the ort-Import
Mir. WIDNALL. I believe th true.
:Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, ld such
time as he may consume to the rman
of the committee, the gentlem rom
exoansion of the export of goods and
related services, through export credit
assistance, thereby contributing to the
promotion and maintenance of high
levels of employment and real income
and the increased development of the
productive resources of our country. This
authority, unless extended, will expire on
November 30, 1974.
There were 24 provisions of substance
which were the subject of conference.
The House receded to the Senate in 5
instances, and the Senate receded to the
House in 12 instances. In seven instances
the conferees agreed on compromise
language.
Mr. Speaker, there are few instances
which I can recall in which the position
of the House in conference was so sue-
cessfully sustained. This is a tribute to
the members of the Subcommittee on
International Trade, and to its able and
di,tinguished chairman, Mr. ASHLEY,
who proved themselves so well prepared
to deal with the issues in disagreement,
following months of efforts to bring this
legislation forward.
In closing I want to commend the
House conferees-and most especially
the chairman of the International Trade
Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Banking and Currency, the Honorable
TF.:oMAS L. ASHLEY-for the long hours
and hard work devoted to this subject.
He and the members of the subcommit-
tee, all of whom participated as con-
ferees, are to be commended for their
efforts in bringing back to the House a
bill which overwhelmingly represents the
position of the House on this subject.
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. ASHLEY).
(Mr. ASHLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
extend my thanks to the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. PATMAN), for the generous
and kind remarks he has offered.
I wish also to thank my very good
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. MINrsH), for the help he has given
me.
Mr. Speaker, this is important legis-
lation which has been the subject of
lengthy consideration and deliberation.
It faithfully reflects the will of the House
and merits adoption.
The Export-Import Bank must con-
tinue to expand its support to the Amer-
ican export sector, but it must do so
under changed conditions and with a
new sense of direction which the legisla-
tion signals. The $5 billion increase in
lending authority which this bill provides
is needed and needed now. At the end of
fiscal year 1974-the Bank had for the first
time actually used the congressionally
approved - budgetary limit set on loans
for that year. This meant that for the
first time projects on the order of $700
million were carried over into the new
fiscal year.
It has become clear that the additional
billions we will have to pay for imported
oil will bring us into a substantial deficit
ch ening of the dollar, it will be essen-
tial us to expand the trade surplus we
have en achieving in machinery and
transp equipment.
Deter ting trade accounts have
emerged - Europe, Japan, and in most
of our best arkets in the less developed
world. As of nations see their mone-
tary reserves ling as a result of higher
oil import cos - they are pushing their
exports harder, 'ust as rising import
prices have mere d our need to export.
All. of this increa the needs of Amer-
ican industry for th ervices of the Ex-
port-Import Bank. attractiveness of
the credit offered by rious countries
will be a much larger fac r in sales com-
petition. The conference ort provides
the tools and the policy idance ap-
propriate for the functioni of the Ex-
port-Import Bank at this t e and in
the years immediately ahead.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I 1ve long
been concerned about many of he Ex-
port-Import Bank's policies. I do not
understand their heavy loans for foreign
oil and mineral development when we so
desperately need energy capital here at
home. American international airlines
are in serious trouble-yet the Bank
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
November 20, 1974 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 10885
by individuals who have been denied ac-
cess to their records or whose records
have been kept or used in contravention
of the requirements of the act. The com-
plainant, if successful, may recover
actual damages and costs and attorneys
fees, if the agency's infraction was will-
ful, arbitrary or capricious.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 1419 in order that we
may discuss, debate, and pass H.R. 16373.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. I will be
happy to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I had
a number of questions about this rule
and the bill, but the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. MURPHY) described it in
such a 'truly effective fashion that I at
this point do not have any questions.
I commend the gentleman for the
scholarly presentation.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. I thank the
gentleman for that comment.
Mr. Speaker, 'I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LATTA).
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, this rule,
House Resolution 1419 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 16373, the Privacy
Act of 1974. There will be 1 hour of gen-
eral debate on the bill and it will be open
to all germane amendments. In order to
preserve the normal amending process,
the rule makes the committee substitute
in order as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment.
The general purpose of H.R. 16373 is
to protect the privacy of individuals by
regulating the Federal Government's col-
lection and use of personal information.
The bill includes provisions to do the
following things: (a) The bill permits an
individual to have access to records con-
taining personal information on him kept
by Federal agencies for purpose of in-
spection and correction, with some ex-
ceptions, such as national security and
law enforcement records. (b) The bill
will make known to the American pub-
lic the existence. and characteristics of
all personal information systems kept by
every Federal agency. (c) The bill pro-
hibits any Federal agency records from
Including information on political and
religious beliefs unless authorized by law
or the individual himself. (d) The bill
provides a civil remedy by individuals
who have been denied access to their rec-
ords or whose records have been kept or
used in violation of this act. The plain-
tiff may recover actual damages and
costs and attorney's fees if the agency's
violation was willful, arbitrary or capri-
cious. (e)- The bill provides that anyone
who obtains a Federal record containing
personal information by false pretenses
is subject to a fine up to $5,000.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out
that on October 9 the President sent a
message up here in which he stated as
follows :
H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of. 1974, has
my enthusiastic support, except for the pro-
visions which allow unlimited individual ac-
cess to records vital to determining eligi-
bility and promotion in the Federal service
and access to classified Information. I
strongly urge floor amendments permitting
workable exemptions to accommodate these
situations.
The cost of implementing this bill Is
estimated to be between $200 million and
$300 million a year, with a one-time
"start up" cost of $100 million.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
I have no further requests for time, and
I move the previous question on the res-
olution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider wis laid on the
table.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of the
bill.(H.R. 16373) to amend title 5, United
States Code, by adding a section 552a to
safeguard individual privacy from the
misuse of Federal records and to provide
that individuals be granted access to rec-
ords concerning them which are main-
tained by Federal agencies.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. ABZUG).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill, H.R. 16373, with
Mr. BRADEMAS in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. HoLI-
FIELD) will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
ERLENBORN) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD).
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD).
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, it Is with a deep feeling
of honor and pride that I present to the
House of Representatives today H.R.
16373, "The Privacy Act of 1974."
Like the Freedom of Information Act,
this bill is also totally bipartisan. It was
approved by the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations by a unanimous roll-
call vote of 39 to 0. It has the. enthusias-
tic support of President Ford except on
one point which the House itself will
resolve when an amendment is offered
on the floor. More important, I sincerely
believe such legislation has the wide-
spread support of the American people.
I believe they want us to act on this bill
without delay.
It seems to me that the events of the
past several years have a lesson in them.',
Americans want to see more credibility
in Government, and they want to see
the removal of any undue Government
power which could be used to invade
their personal privacy.
This landmark legislation, H.R. 16373,
is a first step in that direction. It is in
total harmony with the spirit of the Con-
stitution. It gives individuals as a matter
of right some meaningful control over
how the Federal Government utilizes
personal information about them.
H.R. 16373, when passed and signed by
the President, will be the first compre-
hensive law dealing with the right of
privacy of the individual citizen.
At the outset, I should state that this
bill affects only personally identifiable
files or systems of files held by the Fed-
eral Government. It does not seek to
regulate those files maintained by State
or local governments or by private en-
tities.
Although this bill appears complicated
on its face, it breaks down into four
straightforward provisions: First, notice;
second, access; third, regulation of dis-
closure, and fourth civil and criminal
remedies.
NOTICE
Basically the bill provides that each
and every system of records, as defined
by the act, shall be made public by notice
in the Federal Register. This notice shall
list the essential characteristics of the
system, the categories of persons to
which it applies, its physical character-
istics, the uses to which it is put, and the
person responsible for its maintenance
and operation.
ACCESS
Each individual shall be given access
to his record within the system on his
request, with the exception of files re-
lated to criminal investigations or na-
tional security. Along with access to the
file, the Individual concerned shall have
the right to challenge inaccurate infor-
mation and supplement the file to ex-
plain or contradict inaccuracies.
DISCLOSURE
Disclosure of the information by the
agency holding the file shall be limited
to those disclosures which are of the type
previously announced in the Federal Reg-
itser. Other disclosures of a "nonroutine
nature" may be made only upon the prior
written informed consent of the individ-
ual concerned.
REMEDIES
Civil damages are available to individ-
uals who are injured by determinations
made on the basis of inaccurate or in-
complete records and criminal penalties
are provided for Illegal disclosure by Gov-
ernment employees, or fraudulent access
by individuals.
I am going to say something very im-
portant now, especially in light of dis-
closures during the last week or so on the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Internal Revenue Service. H.R. 16373 also
prohibits the Government from keeping
secret personal information systems and
collecting records on political and religi-
ous beliefs. This proposed statute would
thus provide greater safeguards for pro-
tecting the lawful exercise of first
amendment rights.
The remainder of the provisions of the
bill are designed to provide the legal teeth
to enforce these rights and limitations.
Special provision is made to protect
America's legitimate and legally author-
ized interests in national security and law
enforcement.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H 10886
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 20, 1974
we have tried to tailor this bill so that
it will protect individual rights and at
the same time permit the Government to
operate responsibly and perform its func-
tions without unjustifiable impediments.
As a result, we think it will go a long
way in restoring confidence by the Ameri-
can people that Government is indeed
responsive and sensitive to individual
rights. Simply put, this legislation will
demonstrate that Congress is determined
that Government will act as the servant
of the people and not its master.
Under a key provision of this bill, no
Federal agency shall disclose any per-
sonal information record to another
agency or person unless this action is
done by request of the individual or with
his orior written consent.
An exception is permitted in the case
of routine transfers, such as when the
Social Security Administration instructs
the Treasury to issue a benefit check.
Thus routine transfers of personal in-
formation will be permitted between
agencies so that the regular business of
Government can proceed without delay.
Nonroutine transfers, however, are
another matter. In those cases, the prior
written consent of the individual will be
required by law.
What Is a nonroutine transfer? That
is a transfer of personal information used
for a different purpose than for which
it was originally collected. This in itself
ds going to stop a lot of hanky-panky. It
will make it legally impossible for the
Federal Government in the future to put
together anything resembling a "1984"
personal dossier on a citizen.
It means interagency computer data
banks will not be able to share personal
information unless the data is truly a
routine transfer where its general use
has already been made known to the in-
dividual and his consent obtained.
The consent requirement and other
provisions of the bill are backed up with
criminal and civil penalties. This also
will help protect Americans and at the
same time give Government officials a
good reason to say "no" to any improper
requests from anyone for personal infor-
mation on any other American.
This legislation also requires that Fed-
eral agencies, in making determinations
on individuals, utilize records which are
accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
This assures fairness to the individual
and, in our view, Is going to result in
much better decisions by Government
officials.
Senator ERVUV has referred to the situ-
ation existing now as "the Government's
voracious appetite for personal informa-
tion about each of us."
His subcommittee reported that the
Federal Government has at least 858
data banks of which 741 were computer-
ized. Although 93 agencies did not report
the number of records kept, those which
did, reported a total number of records
kept as 1 billion, 245 million individual
records or an average of almost 6 rec-
ords for every man, woman, and child in
America.
^,Vhen such information is stored on
glue it is easily transferred from one
user to another.
The potential danger to individual
freedom is so great that it is easy to un-
derstand why the concept of legislation
to protect the privacy has support from
a broad spectrum of political and philo-
sophical beliefs.
I think the Members should be aware
of the fact that in the event of the fail-
ure of Congress to act on this legislation,
the President intends to issue an Execi-
tive order which would put a similar pri-
vacy system into effect. However, it
would lack the necessary civil remedies
and criminal penalties to provide our cit-
izens with adequate redress. Besides, this
task is a congressional responsibility and
I think you will agree, we should face up
to it.
On another matter, our subcommittee
has received numerous phone calls from
State tax commissioners asking whether
their tax information transfer agree-
ments with the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service will be harmed by this bill. The
answer is "no," because I am certain the
Treasury Department will publish that
type of activity as a "routine transfer"
permitted under this bill and other
statutes.
My colleagues, H.R. 16373 actually is
the result of an awareness of the prob-
lems of invasion of privacy which began
growing more than a decade ago when
the House Committee on Government
Operations started its initial investiga-
tions into this subject. Other committees
also discovered what these problems are.
A lot of water has passed under the
bridge since then. The Nation has sur-
vived numerous major and minor
"floods." It is now time to build a strong
dam to make certain we are not endan-
gered again. I beseech you to support this
bill and implement the Constitution, as
we have a duty to do.
i Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.. I
yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. With reference to the
gentleman's statement that this would
keep the Government from maintaining
records as to political beliefs, would this
bill prevent the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation from maintaining a list of
Communist Party members or people
who belong to organizations which are
dedicated to the violent overthrow of the
Government, or anything of that sort?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Lawful criminal investigations of that
type would be exempt from the bill, but
normal dissidents, exercising first
amendment rights, would be covered.
Mr. DENNIS. If it hinged on the crimi-
nal field, it would come under the ex-
emption which was referred to earlier?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
The gentleman is correct.
Mr. I3ENNIS. And would the gentle-
man. agree that if It dealt with indi-
viduals or organizations dedicated to the
violent overthrow of the Government,
that that would fall within the criminal
exemption?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Anything that falls within the criminal
exemption is taken care of. We have tried
to prepare it very carefully.
Mr. DENNIS. Activity dedicated to
violent overthrow of the Government
would fall under criminal exemption,
would the gentleman agree with me on
that?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Yes. That is what I am saying.
Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. AszUG).
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, this Is in-
deed a landmark piece of legislation.
H.R. 16373 regulates the collection, main-
tenance, and use by Federal agencies of
information pertaining to individuals. It
is a very significant first step in an at-
tempt to guarantee the right of privacy
to all Americans. It is the product of
many, many months of hard work, and
of many bills thathave been before the
Congress which the committee has con-
sidered in great depth. Much credit is
due to my colleague, Mr. Moorhead of
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the For-
eign Operations and Government Infor-
mation Subcommittee, and to that sub-
committee's staff members for the
months of diligent effort in the drafting
of this significant legislation. The bill
which has been reported out of the com-
mittee is a good bill, but I believe it is
a bill which requires some additions and
changes to strengthen it. The amend-
ments which I plan to offer today in con-
nection with this bill are amendments
which would have been brought before
the full committee, but, in order to ex-
pedite the consideration and the bring-
ing of the bill to the floor of the House,
they were left for floor action. So, al-
though I support the bill and, indeed,
have been the author of one of the bills
before the committee, along with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. KocH)
and the gentlemen from California (Mr.
GOLDWATER) who also had bills which
were considered by the committee, Lfeel
that there have to be some Improve-
ments.
There are three basic weaknesses in
the bill: the numerous and unjustified
exemption provisions, the failure to pro-
vide either liquidated or punitive dam-
ages, and the lack of any administrative
mechanism to oversee the implementa-
tion of the bill.
First, exemptions from the provisions
of this bill or of any bill designed to pro-
tect individual rights of privacy can be
justified only In the face of overwhelm-
ing societal Interests. There are, at most,
only three areas where societal interests
can be paramount to the individual
rights provided in this bill: First, where
granting an individual access to his or
her records would seriously damage na-
tional defense or foreign policy; Second,
where such access would interfere with
an active criminal prosecution; and
Third, where records are required by law
to be maintained for statistical research
or reporting purposes and are not, in fact,
used to make determinations about iden-
tifiable individuals.
It follows that exemptions should re-
late to the type of data sought to be
protected from' disclosure, not to the
agency maintaining such records. For
this reason, I will offer amendments to
eliminate the general agency exemptions
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 November 20,Appnved For M76Aff8 7 000700150082-8
provided in the bill for the CIA and the
Secret Service.
I will also support an amendment to
provide for the assessment of punitive
damages in cases of willful, arbitrary, or
capricious violation of the bill and for
actual damages in cases of negligent
violations. These provisions were stricken
in the full committee, and, as a result,
an individual who may have suffered by
violation of the act must now prove not
only actual damages but that such dam-
ages were caused by willful, arbitrary, or
capricious agency action. I believe that
these two stricken-out provisions must
be restored to the bill to provide, as the
bill in the other body does, for actual
damages to compensate for any violation
of the act and for punitive damages to
compensate for any willful, arbitrary, or
capricious violation. If this is not done,
there really is no adequate remedy at
law.
I will also support an amendment
which I brought in the committee to
establish a Federal Privacy Commission.
Without such a commission, we have no
assurance that agencies will not be mo-
tivated by mere whim or convenience in
divulging or withholding information.
We would be more than naive if we
failed to recognize that individual Fed-
eral agencies cannot be expected to take
an aggressive role in enforcing privacy
legislation. Enforcement of the provi-
sions of this bill will be secondary to each
agency's legislative mandate and will,
of necessity, cause additional expense
and administrative inconvenience. Only
by providing a separate administrative
agency with authority for implementing
this legislation and for coordinating the
privacy programs of the various Federal
agencies can we be assured of uniform,
effective enforcement of the rights guar-
anteed by this bill.
I would hope that we will support this
bill with the amendments proposed. I
think that will be the beginning of an
important first step in the protection of
the right of privacy.
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Privacy Act of
1974, H.R. 16373. I thinI it is rather
fitting that this bill comes to the floor
today on the same day that we con-
sidered a motion to override and have
overridden the President's veto on the
Freedom of Information Act.
The Subcommittee of Government Op-
erations, known as Foreign Operations
and Government Information, Is the par-
ent subcommittee of both bills, the Free-
dom of Information Act and now this new
Privacy Act. It has been quite an effort
to walk a tightrope in the one bill to
provide the maximum access to informa-
tion on the part of the public, and in the
other bill to limit access to protect an
individual's privacy.
There has been a tendency, I think,
to view these often as conflicting, but I
think that we have successfully walked
that tightrope and have, in both of these
pieces of legislation, very important land-
mark legislation for open government,
and yet the protection of Individual
rights.
The Privacy Act of 1974 does several
things that I am sure will be delineated
and explained by the 'several Members
who will be engaged in debate. Generally
it requires that when the Federal Gov-
ernment does maintain a system of rec-
ords pertaining to individuals, it must
identify publicly those systems of rec-
ords. There will no longer be the ability
within Government to maintain secret
systems.
Not only in the past has this been
done for any nefarious purpose, but the
system of records may be instituted and
maintained and the public just not know
about it.
So that is the first thing that will
be done: Identify the systems of records
and make public the fact that such rec-
ords are being maintained.
Second, again a public record would
be made of the purpose for which the
system is being maintained. Then we
would limit in the bill access to these
records for those purposes so that In-
formation contained in those systems
would be used only for those routine
purposes, and unless the individual about
whom the information related agreed to
its use for other than routine purposes, it
could not be so used. .
It could be used then only for the
routine purposes. This limits the purpose
and the use of these information systems
to the public purpose which has been
made known, the purposes identified in
the Federal Register.
Third, we provide for access by indi-
viduals to information in these record
systems pertaining to himself or herself,
so that a person about whom informa-
tion has been collected will have an op-
portunity to get a copy of'that informa-
tion and to see if it is accurate and will
have the procedure where he can request
the amendment of the information to
make it accurate and will have an op-
portunity if the information is misused
under the terms of the act for recourse
in a civil action through the courts.
In addition criminal penalties are
provided for people within Government
who violate the terms of the Act in mak-
ing information available that they
should not, thereby invading the privacy
of the individuals about whom the infor-
mation is maintained and also criminal
penalties for those who would seek and
obtain illegally this information.
;< think this is truly landmark legisla-
tion. It has been very difficult to draft
because of the varying systems and the
varying purposes for the systems within
the Federal Government. We were of
course at times importuned to expand
this to all record systems, not just of the
Federal Government but of States and
local governments and also in the pri-
vate sector. I think if we had done so
we would have bitten off more than we
could chew.
I think we have here maybe a modest
beginning in the field of privacy but we
have an important piece of legislation
H 10887
affecting only Federal Government sys-
tems.
We generally exempt from the provi-
sions of this bill the law enforcement
proceedings, systems for the criminal
justice system, and other committees of
Congress will be turning and already
have turned their attention to this crimi-
nal justice field.
There is one amendment that I hope
will be adopted. Several will be offered
and I will offer one amendment and I
hope it will be adopted and I think it is
crucial in making this a workable bill.
The bill as it has been reported by the
committee and is before us today will
open up all preemployment and security
clearance files retroactively as well as
prospectively. Just think of this. In the
past years there have been implied and
expressed promises of confidentiality
given to people who have been asked to
make statements' concerning the security
clearance investigation or preemploy-
ment investigation for those who would
be employed by the Federal Government,
appointed to Federal office, or Federal
contractors engaged in defense work, let
us say. These promises of confidentiality
would be violated by this bill because the
bill would mandate opening up these files
so that the person about whom the in-
vestigation was conducted would have
access to the files and find out who said
what about them.
In the name of privacy we would be
violating the privacy of those who have
given such statements in the past. I
think we have to strike a balance and see
that we cannot violate the privacy of
individuals by the very bill that is sup-
posed to be the bill of rights for indi-
vidual privacy.
The amendment I will offer was dis-
cussed in an editorial In the Washington
Post this morning inaccurately. They say
my amendment would close these pre-
employment and security files. It would
not.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I
will offer will make all of the information
in these files available to the individual
about whom the investigation has been
conducted, except that information
which would reveal the identity of a per-
son who has under a promise of confiden-
tiality given information contained in the
file. Even the Washington Post editorial
suggested that other legislation in the
field of credit, the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, had struck a good balance here by
saying it is to protect only that informa-
tion which would reveal a- confidential
source. They seem to think that was a
good way of protecting both individuals'
privacy. That is exactly what the amend-
ment that I will offer will do. It will pro-
tect only those sources that. have given
information under a promise of confiden-
tiality.
In addition, the Office of Management
and Budget has assured me that regula-
tions will be adopted in the future so
that only in the most compelling cir-
cumstances will a promise of confiden-
tiality be given. It will not be the cus-
tomary thing to make these promises of
confidentiality, so that most all of the
information will be made available.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H 10888
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700J50082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ovember 20, 1974
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. For the purpose
of making legislative history, I should
like to ask about the impact of this legis-
lation as it affects one aspect of the cur-
rent law.
I currently represent an area which at
one time was represented by one of our
predecessors in the Congress, the Illus-
trious Jackson Betts, who was very con-
cerned about the confidentiality of the
Bureau of Census information.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired. -
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield myself 2 ad-
ditional minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
the Bureau of the Census has a singu-
lar and highly commendable record of
scrupulous protection of the confiden-
tiality and privacy of census data about
individuals and about businesses.
This is a matter of concern to every
American, and the integrity of such in-
formation is essential. to the public trust
which is in turn essential to the accu-
racy ofcensus findings.
These census findings provide the fac-
tual bases for: First, countless govern-
mental and private decisions which pro-
foundly affect the economy, second,
equity and fairness in revenue sharing
measures, and third, the determination
of representation in the Congress.
The continuing confidentiality of such
census information is mandated by
statute-section 9 of title 13 of the United
States Code-as affirmed by repeated
Presidential proclamations.
Ii; is true that neither the purpose nor
effect of subsection (b) or (1) or of any
other provisions of section 562a as set
forth in this bill are to modify or relax
in any way the safeguards of title 13?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
the answer to the gentleman's question is
that this bill in no way would diminish
the protection provided by law for cen-
sus data.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I wonder if the
gentleman would yield further so that
I might receive the concurrence of the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR-
HEAD).
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
agree with the remarks of the gentle-
man from Ohio and with the gentleman
from Illinois. -
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Indiana.
Mr. DENNIS. I would like to make
reference to the question of criminal rec-
ords, publication of criminal records,
which are generally exempted from the
bill, as I understand it.
The gentleman said a moment ago that
those records are the subject of pending
special legislation, and obviously those
are very sensitive records and present a
peculiar problem, and the subcommittee
of the Committee - on the Judiciary,
chaired by the gentleman from California
(Mr. EDWARDS) and of which the gentle-
man from California (Mr. WIGGINS) is
the ranking minority member, has special
legislation on that subject now before
it. That subcommittee is tied up in a
meeting today on a very important mat-
ter that the members of the subcom-
mittee could not avoid, and hence they
are not on the floor; andthey have asked
me to bring the matter up and express
the strong hope that the House adopt no
amendment that would impinge on that
situation and would include criminal rec-
ords in this bill.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
;yield such time as he may consume to the
ranking member of the Committee on
Government Operations, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. HORTON).
(Mr. HORTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
:narks.)
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
:in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy
Act of 1974.
Having served as a member of the
Special Subcommittee on Invasion of
:Privacy of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations some 10 years ago, I
nave a particular interest in the subject
Df personal privacy. During my 5 years 'cf
service on the Foreign Operations and
Government Information Subcommittee,
I participated in several investigative
hearings into this important area. To-
day, as ranking minority member of the
Government Operations Committee, I
am very happy to lend my strong support
to a bill which insures that Federal Gov-
ernment agencies protect individuals'
rights to privacy when dealing with in-
formation about people.
The bill does this in two ways:
First, it mandates that agencies dis-
close an Individual's records to other per-
sons or other agencies only with the
written consent of that individual, un-
less the disclosure would be for a pur-
pose which had been endorsed by the
Congress or published in the Federal
Register. Whenever the Government.
asks someone for information about him-
self, according to the bill, it would have
to inform him of the disclosures which
had been published as permissible.
Second, the bill provides that individ-
uals shall have access to all Government
records maintained about them, and
shall have the right to petition agencies
to correct any misstatements in those
records. Agencies would have to make
the changes requested or note on the
records that the changes had been
sought, but that the Government dis-
agreed with them.
All Federal records pertaining to in-
dividuals would be covered by these pro-
visions, except for national security in-
formation, investigatory material com-
piled for law enforcement purposes,
other criminal justice records, Secret
Service and CIA files, and statistical data.
To make sure-that Government agen-
cies fulfill their responsibilities, under
this legislation, the bill permits individ-
uals who are injured by Government
agency's failure to comply with the law
to bring suit against the agency In Fed-
eral court. A successful complainant
could be awarded actual damages and
attorney's fees by the judge.
Mr. Chairman, this is landmark legis-
lation In an area of concern to all Ameri-
cans. I urge its enactment.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. GUDE).
Mr. GUDE asked and was given per- -
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, as a co-
sponsor of this legislation, I am indeed
gratified that it is finally receiving the
floor consideration which it should.
I want to commend the chairman of
our subcommittee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) ; the
ranking member, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) ; and, in par-
ticular, the gentleman from California
(Mr. GOLDWATER), the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. ABZUG), and the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. KocH) who
are also cosponsors of this legislation.
They have been a driving force toward
its consideration and in bringing it to
the point where we find it at this
moment.
The chairman of the, subcommittee
has very well outlined exactly what this
legislation does. It is long overdue. This
is the kind of attention that Govern-
ment records have needed for some
period of time. I think matters which we
consider routine and perfunctory are
very often hidden under agency direc-
tives, rules, and regulations, and we as-
sume what is normal to us on the Hill to
be what is normal throughout the Fed-
eral Government.
Increasingly, as the society and the
Government have grown more complex,
the maze of Federal activity and regu-
lation have intensified, and the individ-
ual citizen has had to -make increasing
concessions' to the imperatives of the
Federal bureaucracy. The quantity of
Federal paperwork alone, for example,
has reached such proportions, that the
House felt the need last month to au-
thorize the establishment of a Commis-
sion onPaperwork to study theproblem
and find ways of reducing the burden
which bureaucracy imposes on the
citizen.
The level of regulatory activity which.
touches on the lives of individual citizens
has also increased. Seat belt standards,
now repealed,'safety and health stand-
ards, labeling and advertising standards,
while important Government tools to
correct serious problems we have, all in-
trude on the freedom of the individual in
some small way.
Certainly the demands of a complex
technological society call for some con-
cessions, but we have before us today an
opportunity to help balance the recent
trend of legislative activity by enacting
legislation to help restore individual
rights and individual privacy. This bill
imposes limits on what the Government
can do with individual data, and it im-
poses obligations on the Government to
the subjects ofthe data, and in doing so
it helps to maintain the balance of indi-
vidual freedom and privacy which we all.
cherish.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 November 20, _ipp4oved For Jg& RQ8(A1AJ8kfft1BP76fi8 R000700150082-8 H 10889
Symbolic of this balance is the con-
troversy over the use of social security
numbers for identification purposes.
While such a proposal may make sound
technological sense, to many citizens it
implies removal of an important element
of their privacy and individuality. This
question is not dealt with in this bill, but
some of the same principles are-the
right of the individual to maintain his
privacy and personal identity.
Beyond these questions of principle,
the bill also has substantive significance
for many citizens who feel, rightly or
wrongly, that they have not received a
"fair deal" from their Government.
Mr. Chairman, -I would like to quote
the experience which one veteran had in
regard to the Veterans' Administration.
He was unable to obtain compensation
and relief for injuries he had received
while serving his country abroad, and yet
he was unable to look at his records in
the Veterans' Administration files. He
finally, had to obtain legal counsel in
order to get access to his files, and he
found the reason the Veterans' Admin-
istration had denied his obvious need was
because certain records that were in his
file actually belonged to another veteran
who had a similar name.
This may seem to be a very small thing,
but this is the type of action which can
occur in situations when we in Congress
have not enacted regulations to provide
for the overseeing of Federal records,
which can sometimes be buried under a
lot of bureaucratic redtape which denies
the citizen the access to which he is
entitled.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer two
amendments to this bill at the appropri-
ate time. They are amendments which I
was unable to offer in the committee, be-
cause of the pressure of business when we
were reporting the legislation to the
floor. The first has to do with medical
records.
This first amendment would clarify
one item that I believe to be ambiguous
in intent, in restricting the circumstances
under which individuals would be grant-
ed disclosure by Federal agencies. It was
the intention of the committee to ex-
clude information which would be vital
to the health or safety of an individual.
I believe that the current language in
the bill is vague in this regard, in that
it would permit such disclosures without
prior permission, unless it is an emer-
gency case. It does not make clear to
whom the information would be dis-
closed.
The second amendment I would offer
is one that would establish a Privacy
Commission, which I believe is a vital
necessity if the privacy legislation we
are enacting is to become a meaningful
statute. Clearly, the enactment and
maintenance of successful privacy stand-
ards would hinge on the degree of co-
operation provided by Federal agencies
which have to implement the program.
The Privacy Commission which I will
propose will coordinate and assist in
these efforts, and it would be an impor-
tant goal for gaining the necessary
agency cooperation in order to make this
legislation meaningful in the service of
American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I will offer these two
amendments at the appropriate time.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUDE. I will be glad to yield to
the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Does the gentleman's
amendment of the privacy bill follow the
words of the Senate provision?
Mr. GUDE. I have not compared them
word for word, Mr. Chairman, but I be-
lieve it does.
I urge the passage of this legislation.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen-
tleman from Arkansas (Mr. ALEXANDER),
a member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was giv-
en permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, on
June 19, following hearings on the Fed-
eral Government's use of telephone
monitoring and lie detection devices con-
ducted by the Subcommittee on Govern-
ment Information, I stated that it ap-
pears our Government has been over-
come by a snooping mania and that we
must find the medicine to cure this dis-
ease. H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974,
is a good dose of such medicine.
I was alarmed to discover in those
hearings that it is literally possible to
have every home in America bugged.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that
Americans do not want to be a part of
one big party line. If present Govern-
ment preoccupation with spying on its
citizens continues, George Orwell's fic-
tional fishbowl 'existence and "Big
Brother" era in his book "1984" may very
well occur.
H.R. 16373 provides basic safeguards
for the individual to help remedy the
misuse of personal information by the
Federal Government, and reasserts the
fundamental rights of personal privacy
that are derived from the Constitution.
At the same time, it recognizes the legi-
timate need of the Government to col-
lect, store, use, and share among various
agencies certain types of personal data,
but under a framework of law to pro-
tect the citizen.
Like the Freedom of Information Act
Amendments, H.R. 16373 also recognizes
that certain areas of Federal records are
of such a highly sensitive nature that
they must be exempted from some of its
provisions.
The Privacy Act provides for the ex-
ercise of civil remedies by individuals
against the Federal Government through
the courts to enforce their rights. Pro-
vision is made for the actual collection
of damages by the individual against the
Government if the infraction was will-
ful, arbitrary, or capricious. Penalties
are also provided for the unauthorized
knowing and willful disclosure of identi-
fiable material b ya Government officer
or employee by a fine of not more than
$5,000. Criminal penalties and fines
would also be imposed on persons re-
questing or obtaining any such indi-
vidually identifiable record under false
pretenses.
The bill attempts to strike that deli-
cate balance between two conflicting and
fundamental needs-on the one hand,
the need for a maximum degree of pri-
vacy and control over personal informa-
tion the individual American furnishes
his Government, and, on the other hand,
the need for information about the in-
dividual which the Government finds
necessary to carry out its legitimate
functions.
Over 40 years ago, Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis, in his famous
dissent in the case of Olmsted against
United States, said:
Every unjustifiable intrusion by the gov-
ernment upon the privacy of the individual
whatever the means employed, must be
deemed a violation of the fourth amend-
ment.
He further stated in terms relevant to
current wholesale abuses of power that:
Experience should teach us to be most on
guard to protect liberty when the govern-
ment's purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel inva-
sions to their liberty by evil-minded rulers.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidi-
ous encroachment by men of zeal, well-
meaning, but without understanding . . .
Let us talk a moment on the concept of
privacy. Privacy is the ability to be con-
fident of security in our homes, persons,
and papers. It is not only the bedrock of
freedom. Privacy is the .very essence of
democracy. If we cannot speak or trans-
act business without being snooped on by
hordes of bureaucrats-we soon will not
be able to speak or transact business
without government permission.
In my opinion, events in recent years
have brought about a chilling effect on
the exercise of first amendment rights. It
is now time for a defrosting. Every Amer-
ican must insist that government is the
servant of the people-not our master.
In his first speech as Chief Executive,
President Ford pledged his personal and
official dedication to the, individual right
of privacy, in declaring that "there will
be hot pursuit of tough laws to prevent
illegal invasion of privacy in both gov-
ernment and private activities."
H.R. 16373 is a first step in that pur-
suit. I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hun-
NUT).
Mr. HUDNUT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
(Mr. HUDNUT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUDNUT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy
Act of 1974. While there will be amend-
ments offered to strengthen this bill, I
feel the Committee on Government Op-
erations has done a good job in bringing
this legislation before us. There is a great
need for statutory guidelines to protect
the privacy of individuals by regulating
the Federal Government's collection,
maintenance, use, or dissemination of
personal, identifiable information.
In this computer age, it is easy to
obtain informaton about an individual
and along with many others I am con-
cerned over the extent to which citizens'
privacy is being invaded. We see this in
the accumulation of personal data in
computer banks and other such means
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 200,
'M 1JJ: 76 0007001 082-
C41'~GRESS ovem er 20, 19'7 4
which constitute a threat to the Pri-
vacy of every American citizen. There
are some who look upon individual tax
returns as the greatest source of such
information.
Earlier this year I cosponsored a bill
(H.R. 10977) to provide further restric-
tions on accessibility to individual tax
returns. The assurance provided the
American people that information vol-
untarily given on tax returns will be
carefully protected from disclosure and
improper use is one of the basic concepts
underlying this country's system of col-
lecting taxes and I want to assure that
protection. I am hopeful that the Ways
and Means Committee will take specific
action on that measure.
In the meantime, H.R. 16373 provides
a series of basic safeguards for the in-
dividual to help remedy the misuse of
personal information by the Federal
Government and reassert the funda-
mental rights of personal privacy of all
Americans that are derived from the
Constitution of the United States. At the
same time, it attempts to strike that
delicate balance between the right of
individuals for a maximum degree of
privacy over the personal information
he furnishes his Government and the
need of the Government for informa-
tion to carry out legislative functions.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. GOLDWATER).
(Mr. GOLDWATER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished minority mem-
ber on the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) for allow-
ing me the privilege of speaking in favor
of this particular legislation before us
today, which has been long in coming
and long overdue.
This particular piece of legislation is
the result of a strong bipartisan effort
in the House of Representatives. The ef-
for=,s of my colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. KocH) in behalf of
an individual's right to privacy, are well
known and were extremely important in
the preparation of this legislation. Equal-
ly significant were the efforts of the
members and the staff of the Subcom-
mittee on ? Foreign Operation and Gov-
ernment Information of the Committee
on Government Operations and, particu-
larly, the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MOORHEAD) who was most diligent in
pursuing this very difficult task, and who
was assisted quite ably by the ranking
Republican member, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN). They are both
to be commended for this excellent piece
of legislation.
This legislation, as I said, has been
long in coming, and is only here today
because of the persistent efforts of not
only members of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, but also many
Members of the House of Representa-
tives, as well as Members of the other
body, not to mention the private sector,
educators, members of private organiza-
tions, and just plain people, and it cer-
tainly would be most fitting to mention
the fine efforts by our President of the
United States, Gerald R. Ford, and his
Committee on the Right of Privacy.
Mr. Chairman, my concern for privacy
is a long-standing one. The right to pri-
vacy is a derivative right. It is not. spe-
cifically mentioned in the Constitution,
as are the general rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, nor is this
subject mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
But none 'of these would have had the
content that we know them to have with-
out theelement of privacy being present.
it is an essential, inherent element of our
inalienable rights.
The concern for protecting personal
privacy as it relates to personal infor-
mation is fairly recent in its origin. The
rapid growth of our population and the
rise of massive urban centers, the advent
of modern communication and elec-
tronic technology, and the rise of the
computer, have brought a basic change
in our society. Massive amounts of per-
sonal information can be conveniently
and economically collected, stored, and
used. The individual is no longer directly
involved in the modern personal infor-
mation transaction process. Many infor-
mation practices have been developed
and adopted because they were con-
venient, technologically feasible, and
cost-effective. The individual actually be-
came an impediment in these new proc-
esses. As he began to protest his ex-
clusion and try to protect himself from
the injury and damage that occasionally
resulted, he found he had no legal rights
to fallback on.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Govern-
ment has a relentless appetite for infor-
mation. There seems to be a direct cor-
relation between the continued growth
of Government and the continued
growth of privacy invasion.
The- Federal Government, as we enact
more and more programs, has a need
to collect more and more information
in order to administer these programs.
So it is with this piece of legislation that
we are trying to strike a balance between
the need to know in order to successfully
and correctly administer Government
programs, and the rights of an individual
to be left alone, to control his own per-
sonal life. This particular bill under-
takes to redress this disastrous
imbalance.
The Federal Government is required
to permit an individual to know what
records it has pertaining to him. It intro-
duces the element of active consent as a
requirement before information that. Is
collected for one purpose can be put to
a new use. It permits an individual to
have copies of files about him and to
correct or amend erroneous portions of
them.
Finally, it requires the Government to
keep records accurately and securely in
accordance with specific, published
regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. The-time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 additional minutes to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It is noteworthy,
Mr. Chairman, that this Privacy Act of
1974 prohibits the Federal Government
from maintaining secret personal infor-
mation systems. This bill is an important
major first step in therestoration of the
individual's right to privacy, and I would
caution and suggest to my colleagues that
as we pursue further legislation in other
areas, we constantly be vigilant that we
do not undermine this effort today, that
we take into consideration in new legis-
lation, enabling legislation, the rights of
the individual to his privacy. It is time
that we insert human rights into the
programs and the programers. It is time
that we insert privacy rights into the
policy of our agencies. It is time that we
instill a spirit of concern for our liber-
ties. We must reestablish-and I think
we do so with this legislation-the right
to be left alone for the people of this
country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Idaho.
Mr. SYMMS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
(Mr. SYMMS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to associate myself - with the remarks of
the gentleman from California - (Mr.
GOLDWATER).
I should like to commend the gentle-
man from California for his efforts that
he has made on behalf of this Privacy
Act which we have here before the House
today. I would say to the gentleman in
the well I thank him for his support,
effort, and leadership on it and hope
that it is successful today, as this Privacy
Act offers some protection for people
from big brother government snooper-
vision.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gen-
tleman and commend him also for his
support and active participation on the
Republican Task Force on Privacy, which
issued what I considered a very compre-
hensive report and bibliography this past
year.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from California (Mr. RoussE-
LOT).
(Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I
want to commend my colleague, the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. GoLD-
WATER) for the effort he has put forward
on this issue, and our subcommittee
chairman for his work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, as one of the original
cosponsors in this Congress of right to
privacy legislation, I rise in support of
H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974.
This is a comprehensive bill which is
intended to protect the privacy rights of
individuals by regulating the Federal
Government's collection, maintenance,
use, or dissemination of personal, iden-
tifiable information.
Through my committee assignments
on Banking and Currency, and Post Of-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 November 20, I l ved For F ~JYg?&A : J& 761 000700150082-8 1110891
flee and Civil Service, I have become
particularly aware of the need for the
protection of an individual's privacy
rights with regards to bank records and
census data. Very strict care must be
taken to protect the confidentiality of
these records and insure that the infor-
mation is used only for proper purposes.
Since the census questions have become
more detailed and extensive, the dis-
semination by the Census Bureau of
statistical data must be more closely reg-
ulated in order to protect the individual
from being identified by that data. H.R.
16373 does provide proper safeguards in
this area.
Mr. Chairman, I. have sponsored leg-
islation, H.R. 10021, the Right to Finan-
cial Privacy Act. My bill would protect
the constitutional rights of citizens by
prescribing procedures and standards
governing the disclosure of financial in-
formation by financial institutions to
Federal officials or agencies. The bill we
are discussing here on the floor today
does not regulate the collection of infor-
mation by the Federal Government other
than to prohibit any agency from main-
taining any record concerning the politi-
cal or religious belief or activity of any
individual unless expressly authorized by
statute or the individual himself. I real-
ize that by the very nature of the sub-
committee's-the Foreign Operations
and Government Information Subcom-
mittee of the House Government Opera-
tions Committee-jurisdiction it could
not get into this area of regulating the
activities of the- Federal Government
specifically with regards to obtaining in-
dividual bank records, so I hope that our
concern about privacy rights will not
stop with the passage of this one bill,
H.R. 16373.
I urge support of H.R. 16373 with the
hope that in the next Congress, we will
give further attention to areas that need
to be specifically considered in order to
afford our citizens full protection from
the violation of their privacy rights by
the Federal Government. Of these areas,
one of the most important is, I believe,
the legislation which I have sponsored
to preserve the confidential relationship
between financial institutions and their
customers and the constitutional rights
of these customers.
Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he mad require to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
FRENZEL).
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
today in enthusiastic support of H.R.
16373. The Privacy Act of 1974. In this
bill we are regulating the collection,
maintenance, and use of by Federal
agencies of information concerning
American citizens.
I hope this bill will be the first of a
wave of privacy oriented legislation
of federally collected information, and
strict regulations upon the types and use
of surveillance tactics employed by Fed-
eral agencies. Beyond our limited Federal
perspective, we must also seriously ex-
amine the activities of private informa-
tion and collection services.
Since I entered this body in the 92d
Congress I have proposed over a dozen
bills relating to questions of individual
and financial privacy and domestic in-
telligence. Along with most Members, - I
am committed to guaranteeing. the rights
implicit in the 1st, 4th, and 14th
amendments. This bill, H.R. 16373, is a
good start.
I urge that we pass this bill, with the
inclusion of a Federal Privacy Commis- -
sion and some changes in the civil pro-
cedure and criminal penalties sections. It
is only a start, but it will be a good base
for future laws to protect the personal
privacy of all Americans.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD). -
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, as its
title-the Privacy Act of 1974-and the
prefatory findings indicate, it is the
commendable purpose of the measure
to protect the individual against the mis-
use of official information. To that end
the act would add a new section to what
is now commonly known as the Freedom
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The
new section, to be designated section
552a, would impose conditions upon the
disclosure of official information, and
would give individuals affected access to
such information so as to permit them
to review and, if necessary, to correct the
record. -
The committee which reported the
measure and the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) who chaired
the subcommittee which had the meas-
ure under consideration, are to be com-
mended for the professional manner in
which they have sought to deal with this
extremely complex and difficult subject.
The "right" of privacy has been said
to be the right of the individual "to be
left alone." It is without doubt a right
inherent in our libertarian system. While
it is said that this right is not explicitly
asserted in our Constitution, it does how-
ever find expression in certain related
provisions and in the basic philosophy
which prompted the adoption of the
Constitution itself. By that instrument
those freedoms and liberties were re-
served to the individual which were not
deemed essential to the coexistence of
man in society. Hence, like other rights,
the right of privacy is not deemed an
absolute right.
Logically, the absolute right of privacy
privacy is to be recognized as a legitimate
claim in an ordered society, it must be
subject to limitations and must be con-
ditioned upon the rights of others and
exercised consistently also with the rights
of the public.
What we are dealing with in statutes
of this type is thus necessarily a balanc-
ing process by which we seek to resolve
the right of the individual to be left alone
with the public and other individual
rights "to know." For it is a fact that
such latter rights are equally recognized
by the Constitution, although in a sense
they may- collide with the individual's
"right of privacy." The first amendment
rights of freedom of -speech and of the
press, for example, intrude upon an indi-
vidual's right of privacy, but they are
rights which are essential to the admin-
istration of Government and to the free
functioning of our libertarian and demo-
cratic institutions. Moreover, the indi-
vidual's right to privacy must be condi-
tioned by that which is consistent with
the continued existence and protection
of that Nation and its constitutional. sys-
tem upon which the vitality of the right
itself must ultimately depend.
I appears to me that the bill before us
has generally resolved the conflict be-
tween the rights of the individual and
the public and other private rights with
considerable success. I propose today to
offer only two amendments to the bill
which are directed toward clarifying cer-
tain aspects of- the measure's impact
upon our intelligence services, particu-
larly in relation to the acquisition and
use of information which is essential to
the maintenance of the national and in-
ternal security. On their adoption I shall
support this measure.
First, however, I should like to express
my concern over an ambiguity inherent
in the provisions of the proposed subsec-
tion (b), at page 22, line 10, relating to
conditions of disclosure. This subsection
would, subject to the exceptions therein
set forth, generally prohibit an agency
from disclosing to any person informa-
tion about an individual without the in-
dividual's prior written consent. The sub-
section would generally authorize only
interagency and intra-agency disclosures
for authorized law enforcement activi-
ties, but do not appear to contain any
explicit provisions authorizing certain
essential disclosures outside official agen-
cies which would be clearly required if
certain vital security programs main-
tained by the Government are to be
effectively carried out. These include, for
example, the effective maintenance of
the industrial security, industrial de-
fense, atomic energy, and port and vessel
security programs. Defense contractors
and others involved in the receipt of
classified information and related infor-
mation about individuals are mainly pri-
vate employers.
I am informed, however, that the pro-
vision of subsection (b) (2). which would
which the Congress will consider in the tended to its outer and extreme limits, except from the prohibition the com-
next few years: Therefore, we must be the exercise of any such absolute right munication of information therein de-
very careful in laying a foundation for must necessarily collide with the rights scribed as "for a routine use," is in-
future reforms. Other areas which of other individuals. The resulting con- tended by the sponsors of the legislation
clearly need attention are the protection filet would consequently result in the de- to permit such essential disclosures be-
of constitutional freedoms for Federal struction of the rights asserted by each. - yond the bounds of the particular agen-
employees, limitations upon distribution It necessarily follows that if the right of ties involved. If this is effectively ac-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Ie se 2002/01 28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700 0082-8
5ONGRESSION L RECORD -HOUSE ovember 20, 1974
complished by the language of this ex-
ception, it may well be that a specific
clarifying amendment is unnecessary on
this aspect of the bill. It is my hope that
any such ambiguity as may exist on the
reach and meaning of this provision, can
be obviated in colloquy with the sponsors
of the measure at the appropriate time.
On the other hand, I deem it neces-
sary to offer a specific clarifying amend-
ment to the provisions of subsection (e),
paragraph 4. This section commences
at page 26, line 18, of the bill. The par-
ticular paragraph of this subsection to
which the amendment will be offered is
at page 28, line 13. This subsection and
paragraph prohibits an agency from
maintaining any record, and I quote,
"concerning the political or religious be-
lief or activity of my individual, unless
expressly authorized by statute or by
the individual about whom the record
is maintained." We may well recognize
that the purpose of -this provision is
commendable and legitimate in pro-
hibiting the disclosure of records with
respect to conventional political and re-
ligious beliefs and activities. However,
in its present form it is clear that the
provisions can be construed to cover ac-
tivities which are properly within the
scope of legitimate law enforcement, I
am assured that the authors of this
measure have not intended the provi-
sions to foreclose this proper purpose.
The terms of the broad prohibitions
on maintenance of records relating to
"political" and religious" activities
would, for example, embrace the activi-
ties of the Communist Party and similar
groups, which, although generally rec-
ogn'lzed as conspiratorial or clandestine,
are nevertheless commonly described as
"political." Similarly, certain sects with-
in the Black Muslim movement, which
have been described by the Director of
the FBI as endangering the internal
security, may claim protection under
this clause as a "religious" activity.
Although those records of political or
religious activity which are "expressly
authorized by statute," are excepted from
the prohibitions of this paragraph, this
is not adequate to exempt the activities
of such subversive groups as I have indi-
cated. I know of no existing or enforce-
able statute which expressly and gener-
ally authorizes any particular agency to
maintain the records of political or reli-
gious activities of subversive groups. I
would therefore amend this paragraph by
striking out the period after the word
"maintained" and add the following:
provided, however, that the provisions
of this paragraph shall not be deemed to pro-
hibit the maintenance of any record of ac-
tivity which is pertinent to and within the
scope of a duly authorized law enforcement
activity."
I believe this clarifying amendment
would obviate any ambiguities as to the
reach of the prohibition, and would serve
to eliminate any adverse litigation on the
subject.
The second and final amendment,
which I propose to offer to the measure,
would affect the provisions of paragraph
(2) of subsection (k), at page 34, line 7.
This section deals with certain specific
exemptions that may be made to the dis-
closure requirements of the act, parti-
(ularly with respect to those investiga-
tory files or material which the Act
would otherwise require the agencies to
disclose to an individual by the provi-
::ions of subsection W. While the pro-
visions of paragraph (2) of subsection
' k) would permit the agency to exempt
from the mandatory disclosure require-
ments of subsection (d) Investigatory
material compiled for law enforcement
Purposes to the extent it is not now open
to public inspection under the provisions
of existing law, that is, section 552(b) (7
of title 5, United States Code, it would
appear to me that under this paragraph
there is a question whether the agency
could exempt from public disclosure the
identity of individuals and information
Pertaining to those, for example, whoare
members of such organizations as th3
Communist Party and other revolution-
ary groups having similar objectives.
In view of the fact that there are liter-
ally tens of thousands of individuals who
are involved in such revolutionary or-
gnizations, to require such agencies of
the Government as the FBI and the de-
fense intelligence agencies to disclose in-
vestigatory material pertaining to such
individuals on request, would not only
have the effect of literally immobilizing
the agencies in the effective execution of
their essential and vital work, but would
greatly impair, if not destroy, their func-
lioning. The research which would be in-
volved, the extensive correspondence re-
quired, and the litigation which would
likely ensue as a result of the thousands
of requests that would conceivably and
very likely pour into the agencies would
wreck havoc upon the agencies. More-
over, to permit the indiscriminate raid-
ing of investigatory files, the mainte-
nance of which in confidence is so essen-
1;ial to the protection of the national and
internal security, would also destroy
their usefulness by revealing the extent
of coverage and the method and ade-
quacy of operation of our intelligence
forces. Any such result is wholly unneces-
i:ary to the attainment of the objectives
and purposes of the bill. I would thus
amend paragraph (2) of subsection (f)
by striking the paragraph in its present
form and amend it to read as follows:
On page 34, strike lines 7 through 11
and insert the following in lieu thereof :
"(2) investigatory material compiled fox
aw enforcement purposes, other than ma-
t:erlal within the scope of subsection (j) (2)
of this section; provided, however, that If
any individual is denied any right., privilege,
or benefit that he would otherwise be en.-
;itled by Federal law, or for whichhe would
otherwise be eligible, as a result of the
maintenance of such material, such material
shall be provided to such individual, except
to the extent that the disclosure of sue-lx
material would reveal the identity of a source
'who furnished information to the Govern-
ment under an express promise that the
dentity of the source would be held in con.-
3dence, or, prior to the effective date of this
section, under an implied promise that the
A entity of the source would be held in
osonfldence;
Thus by its terms the amendment
would fully protect the individual by re-
quiring the disclosure to him of relevant
nvestigatory material in the system of
records-other than that within the
scope of subsection (j) (2)-when, as a
result of the maintenance of such ma-
terial, he is denied any right, privilege,
or benefit to which he would otherwise
be entitled by Federal law, or for which
be would otherwise be eligible. In such
event disclosure is limited to the extent
necessary to protect the identity of a
source who furnished information to the
Government under a promise that the
identity of the source would be held in
confidence.
This amendment very properly serves
the purpose of protecting the investiga-
tory - material from being raided by - the
thousands and perhaps tens of thousands
of persons who may seek to do so for
no legitimate or excusable purpose.
Hence the right of privacy of the indi-
vidual is Protected, without diminution,
to the extent of his legitimate require-
ments. It shall be recognized that the
amendment does not affect the. require-
ments of subsection (b) of the bill, which
prohibits disclosure of information be-
yond the legitimate uses of the Federal
agencies maintaining them. Thus the
privacy of the individual remains pro-
tected by the amendment consistently
with the attainment of the purposes of
the bill and the national security inter-
est.
There is one final point to which I
should direct attention, regarding both
the wording of this and my prior amend-
ment, in the use of the term "law en-
forcement" as applied in the context of
these amendments and the bill as a
whole. In referring to a "law enforce-
ment activity" and "law enforcement
purposes," I am, of course, using the ex-
pression "law enforcement" in its gen-
eral meaning and in the broadest reach
of the term. I include within that term
those purposes and activities which are
authorized by the Constitution, or by
statute, or by the rules and regulations
and the executive orders issued pursu-
ant thereto. Thus the investigatory ma-
terial maintained shall include, but not
be limited to, that which is compiled or
acquired by any Federal agency in con-
nection with and for the'purpose of de-
termining initial or continuing eligibility
or qualification for Federal employment,
military service, Federal contracts, or ac-
cess to classified information.
I want to emphasize-so that there is
no misunderstanding-these changes are
designed to protect only legitimate na-
tional or internal security intelligence
and investigations, and no records or
files shall be kept on personswhich are
not within constitutional limitations. Let
the legislative history be explicit. None
of these changes are intended to abridge
the exercise of first amendment rights.
The - rights of Americans to dissent in a
lawful manner and for lawful purposes
must be preserved.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, we did discuss these two ques-
tions, I will say to the gentleman from
Missouri, and we did say it was our un-
derstanding that under the gentleman's
amendments no file would be kept of
persons who are merely exercising their
constitutional rights, as the gentleman
stated.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 November 20, pffled For RVb8J(g?S/10d1gJ- %ll76M1n8?JQ00700150082-8
Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman is ex-
actly correct.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. KocH), who
has been so very active in the privacy of
information field.
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, first I want
to thank the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania, my good friend (Mr.
MOORHEAD), who is responsible for so
much of the language incorporated into
this bill and for the efforts necessary to
bring it to the floor.
I just want to take special note of what
he has done on behalf of privacy as well
as take note of the enormous efforts on
the Democratic side by the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. ABZUG) and on the
Republican side by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) and the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. HORTON).
Rather than restate the provisions of
the bill which have been so amply set
forth by a number of the speakers, I
would rather simply comment on the fact
that this kind of legislation which relates
to the privacy of the individual, protect-
ing that individual from Government,
has the support of those who are con-
servatives and those who are liberals.
They have indicated that support by
rising in the well this very afternoon, on
both sides of the political spectrum and
both sides of the aisle.
That is not to say that this bill is a
perfect bill. I do not know of any perfect
legislation. It may be-there have been
occasions when there has been legisla-
tion never requiring an amendment of
any kind brought to this floor and passed,
but I am not aware of it.
This bill, however, is a very good bill.
There are amendments that will be of-
fered, some that I support, some that I
oppose; but the thrust of most of those
amendments and the nature of those
amendments is Intended by those offer-
ing them to improve the bill. We may
disagree on whether they do or do not;
but the persons involved in most of the
amendments want to protect privacy
and that is key and very important to-
understand when we discuss those par-
ticular amendments.
There is an area that ought to be cov-
ered which is not by this bill. If I had my
way, I certainly would have it in the bill;
that area relates to law enforcement
agencies which are, frankly, not covered
adequately under this bill. The reason
for that is that the Committee on the
Judiciary has before it legislation which
relates to the criminal data banks of law
enforcement agencies. I know that that
great committee with its distinguished
chairman (Mr. RoDINO) and the subcom-
mittee chairman in charge of that sub-
ject, the gentleman from California (Mr.
EDWARDS) are very concerned about the
rights of privacy. So I have no doubt that
the legislation which I am informed they
intend to bring to the floor, hopefully
early In the next session, will cover that
data not covered under this legislation,
pertaining to law enforcement agencies.
What this legislation does do is open
the Federal files in so many areas. Mil-
lions of files that are now not available
to the public would become available to
the public. I am not saying available to
the public in terms of seeing somebody
else's file, but seeing one's own file, see-
ing whether the material in there is rele-
vant, seeing whether it is accurate, see-
ing whether it is current, and if it is not,
providing the mechanism whereby that
can be corrected.
This is landmark legislation. This is
legislation in which I take great pride
having espoused it in February of 1969,
and later with my good friend,-the gen-
tleman from California, Mr. BARRY
GOLDWATER. In my own district we refer
to the legislation as the Koch-Goldwater
bill, and in his district as the Goldwater-
Koch bill; but the fact is that while the
initial legislation was ours,,it has been
subjected to extensive review and
amendment by the committee and Im-
proved upon in a number of ways. This
legislation is now the joint work product
of many people. I am proud to be one of
those who brought this legislation to this
point, where its passage seems assured.
Again, I want to express my deep ap-
preciation to the chairman, Mr. MooR-
HEAD, the members of the committee, its
brilliant staff without whose hard work,
we would not be here tonight, and to my
partner on this legislation, BARRY GOLD-
WATER, JR.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of this legislation. I feel
that passage of this bill today will rep-
resent a significant victory in the battle
against unlawful and dangerous Inter-
vention by the Federal Government in
the private lives of the average American
citizen.
While the fourth amendment to our
Constitution clearly spells out the right
of the individuals to privacy in recent
years, the Federal Government has in-
tensified their efforts to superimpose
themselves into the lives of the individ-
ual. Many people pointed to these dan-
gerous actions by the Government as
the fulfillment of the Orwellian theory
of "Big Brother" as contained in his
masterpiece, 1984.
What we are considering today is com-
prehensive legislation which will take
a number of steps to protect the in-
dividual from the power of the Federal
Government. Perhaps the strongest area
of controversy concerns the maintaining
of nonessential records by Government
agencies against individuals. This legis-
lation addresses itself decisively to this
problem in the following ways :
It permits an individual to be aware
of and have access to all personal in-
formation records compiled by Govern-
ment agencies, except in cases where
these record are needed for law enforce-
ment and national security.
It allows the individual to control the
transfer of personal information records
from one Government agency to another.
It further specifies the extent of
records which can be maintained by the
Federal Government, and specifically
prohibits keeping of records which con-
tain a person's political. and religious
beliefs unless clearly provided for by
law.
Finally, this legislation sets a new
H 10893
and important precedent by allowing for
a civil remedy to be acquired by individ-
uals in instances when they have been
denied access to their records or whose
records have been kept or used in viola-
tion of the provisions of this law. The
individual will have the right to bring
suit as well as the ability to collect dam-
ages if it can be established that such
actions were taken capriciously by the
Government.
I feel a sense of personal relief in the
realization that the Congress has seized
the initiative in this area. Many of us
sitting here today have been the target
of unlawful Government intervention in
our personal activities. I feel that the
recent abuses of power disclosed in the
Watergate hearings may have provided
a special impetus for the development
of this legislation. One only has to read
these hearing to discover the extent to
which-- certain Government agencies
either were manipulated or on their own
took steps to discredit those individuals
they view with suspicion or fear.
On the same token I am pleased to
see that certain conditions were con-
tained in this bill. As a former law en-
forcement officer, I know the value of
maintaining information about potential
or actually dangerous groups. There are
dangerous and anarchistic elements in
this society which merit the close atten-
tion of law enforcement personnel and
I applaud the fact that we are not tying
the hands of law enforcement as they
work to uphold the law of the land.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are
considering today is both necessary and
vital to the American people. We are a
free nation and the strength of our Na-
tion derives from the rights of the in-
dividual to freedom and privacy. Many
Americans have become justifiably
alarmed in recent years by the increased
activities of the Federal Government in
the area of maintaining personal records
and Information. We are today striking
a blow against the potential of tyranny
in this Nation and I am pleased to rise
In support of this bill which can only
enhance and strengthen the bonds of
freedom which exist In this Nation.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of
1974.
In April of this year I joined with my
colleagues Messrs. GOLDWATER and KocH
in participating in a special order to dis-
cuss the need for the establishment of a
national privacy policy. A singular point
or theme emerged from that discussion;
one of the basic tenants of our system of
law is the right to confront a witness or
an accuser and to cross-examine him in
order to elicit the truth..
In recent years computers, photocop-
iers, and other technological advances
have made the storage and retrieval of
information about citizei,c fast and rela-
tively inexpensive. Almost without notice
and in the name of efficiency our techno-
logical progress has moved us toward the
"big brother" supervision predicted in
George Orwell's book "1984."
Today, an individual does not really
know who has information about him,
or how many agencies or corporations
are using it or for what purposes. There
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H.10894
Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700 0082-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE ovem er 20,_ 1974
is no mechanism for providing explana-
tiors or to add mitigating facts. And,
even more important there are no limits
on what can be collected either by Gov-
ernment or the private sector. -
Information is collected on academic
achievement, credit ratings, health, judi-
cial records, employment history, birth
and marriage records, military records,,
tax returns and census records, to name
a few.
The written word, film, or computer
punch card bears witness as eloquently
as the spoken word. The right of access
to and challenge of records by the sub-
ject of the information obtained in those
records could, if exercised under the same
or similar rules, only instill confidence
in aid our governmental process.
'T'his bill, H.R. 16373, would provide the
Government with the tools it needs to
regulate, collect, maintain, use, and dis-
seminate personal, identifiable informa-
tion. It would provide individuals with
the safeguards they need to prevent mis-
use of this information.
Like the Freedom of Information Act,
which I am sure this Congress will pass
in one form or another, this bill is a
significant step toward open government.
I urge my colleagues support for pass-
age of this bill.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I strongly support the passage
of H.R. 16373, the Right to Privacy Act.
Earlier this year, I cosponsored H.R.
15524, a forerunner of this legislation.
I feel, as do many Members of Con-
gress. that there is a growing capacity for
major violations of the privacy of Amer-
icans, as the Federal Government in-
creases its collection and use of data
furnished by citizens for specific govern-
mental purposes. Safeguards are needed
to Insure that the personal information
obtained by the Government, for legiti-
mate purposes, is not misused. Recently,
we have witnessed flagrant violations of
the constitutional rights of some of our
citizens by the Federal Government. We
should enact legislation now to Insure
that these individual rights are never
again violated.
While there can be no. absolute protec-
tion of privacy in any society, I believe
H.R. 16373 provides the necessary safe-
guards for greater protection of private
records. Perhaps the greatest protection
afforded the individual is his right to
have access to his records, and to control
the, transfer of any personal data from
one Federal agency to another for non-
routine purposes. Additionally, the bill
will require the disclosure by every Fed-
eral agency of certain identifying char-
acteristics about virtually all systems of
records under their control, to insure
that no "secret" Government -system of
records is created.
H.R. 16373 would also permit individ-
uals access to civil court action against
the Federal Government should their
rights be violated. Provision is made for
the awarding of actual damages to an
individual, if the Government Is shown to
have acted willfully, arbitrarily, or ca-
priciously in violating the provisions of
this act. Criminal and civil penalties
could be levied against individuals who
disseminate or seek to obtain personal
information contained in Federal files.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the
Federal Government, the largest reposi-
tory of personal records in the country,
do everything possible to safeguard thee-.e
files and to protect the rights of every
American citizen. H.R. 16373 contains
these safeguards and protections. I will
support this measure and I urge my col-
leagues to do likewise.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I have no further requests for
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule,
the Clerk will now, read the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the reported bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 16373
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Privacy Act of
1974".
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that-
(1) the privacy of an individual is directly
affected by the collection, maintenance, use,
and dissemination of personal information by
Federal agencies;
(2) the increasing use of computers and
sophisticated information technology, whi'e
essential to the efficient operations of the
Government, has greatly magnified the harry
to individual privacy that can occur from
any collection, maintenance, use, or dissemi-
nation of personal information;
(3) the opportunities for an individual to
secure employment, insurance, and credit,
and his right to due process, and other legal
protections are endangered by the misuse of
certain Information systems;
(4) the right to privacy is a personal and
fundamental right protected by the Consti-
tution of the United States; and
(5) in order to protect the privacy of in-
dividuals identified in information systems
maintained by Federal agencies, it is nece =-
sary and. proper for the Congress to regulate
the collection, maintenance, use, and di>-
semination of information by such 'agencies.
(b) The purpose of this Act is to provide
certain safeguards for an individual against
an invasion of personal privacy by requiring
Federal agencies, except as otherwise pro-
vided by law, to-
(1) permit an individual to determine
what records pertaining to him are collected,
maintained, used, or disseminated by such
agencies;
(2) permit an individual to prevent rec-
ords pertaining to him obtained by such
agencies for a particular purpose from b-:-
ing used or made available for another pur-
pose without his consent;
(3) permit an individual to gain access to
information pertaining to him in Federl
agency records, to have a copy made of all or
any portion thereof, and to correct or amend
such records;
(4) collect, maintain, use, or disseminate
any record of identifiable personal inform:.t-
tion in a manner that assures that such ac-
tion is for a necessary and lawful purpose,
that the information is current and accurate
for its intended use, and that adequate safe-
guards are provided to prevent misuse of
such information;
(5) permit exemptions from the requir=-
ments with respect to records provided in
this Act only in those cases Where there is
an Important public policy need for such ex-
emption as has been determined by specific
statutory authority; and
(6) be subject to civil suit for any dann-
ages which occur as a result of willful,
arbitrary or capricious action which violates
any individual's rights under this Act.
Sec. S. Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 552 the
following new section:
"? 552a. Records maintained on individuals
"(a) DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this
section--
"(1) the term 'agency' means agency as
defined in section 552(e) of this title;
"(2) the term 'individual' means a citizen
of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence;
"(3) the term 'maintain' includes main-
tain, collect, use, or disseminate;
"(4) the term 'record' means any collec-
tion or grouping of information about an
individual that is maintained by an agency
and that contains his name, or the identify-
ing number, symbol, or other identifying
particular assigned to the individual;
"(5) the term 'system of records' means
a group of any records under the control of
any agency from which information is re-
trieved by the name of the individual or by
some identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the individ-
ual; ana
"(B) the term 'statistical research or re-
porting record' means a record in a system
of records maintained for statistical research
or reporting purposes only and not used in
whole or in part in making any determina-
tion about an identifiable individual, except
as provided by section 8 of title 13.
"(b) CONDITIONS of - DlscLosuRE-No
agency shall disclose any record which is con-
tained in a system of records by any means
of communication to any person, or to an-
other agency, except pursuant to a written
request by, or with the prior written consent
of, the individual to whom therecord per-
tains, unless disclosure of the record would
be-
"(1) to those officers and employees of
the agency which maintains the record who
have a need for the record in the perform-
ance of their duties;
"(2) for a routine use described in any
rule promulgated under subsection (e) (2)
(D) of this section;
"(3) to the Bureau of the Census for pur-
poses of planning or carrying out a census
or survey or related activity pursuant to the
provisions of title 13;
,"(4) to a recipient who has provided the
agency with advance adequate written as-
surance that the record will be used solely
as a statistical research or reporting record,
and the record is to be transferred in a form
that is not individually identifiable;
" (5) to the National Archives of the United
States as a record which has sufficient his-
torical or other value to warrant its con-
tinued preservation by the United States
Government, or for evaluation, by the Ad-
ministrator of General Services?or his desig-
nee to determine whether the record has
such value;
'(6) to another agency or to an instru-
mentality of any governmental jurisdiction
within or under the control of the United
States for a law enforcement activity if
the activity is authorized by law, and if the
head of the agency or instrumentality has
made a written request to the agency which
maintains the record specifying the partic-
ular portion desired and the law enforce-
ment activity for which the record is sought;
"(7) pursuant to a showing of compelling
circumstances affecting the health or safety
of an individual, if upon the disclosure notl-
fication is transmitted to the last known
address of the individual; or
"(8) to either House of Congress, or, to the
extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any
committee or subcommittee thereof, or any
joint committee of Congress or subcommit-
tee of any such joint committee.
"(c) AccouwrINe OF CERTAIN DISCLO-
suREs.-Each agency, with respect to each
system of records under its control shall-
"(1) except for disclosures made under
subsection (b) (1) of this section or disclo-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
November,, 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
sures to the public from records which by
law or regulation are open to public inspec-
tion or copying, keep an accurate accounting
of-
"(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each
disclosure of a record to any person or to
another agency made under subsection (b)
of this section; and
"(B) the name and address of the person
or agency to whom the disclosure is made;
"(2) retain the accounting made under
paragraph (1) of this subsection for at least
five years after the disclosure for which the
accounting is made;
"(3) except for disclosures made under
subsection (b) (6) of this section, make the'
accounting made under paragraph (1) of
this subsection available to the individual
named in the record at his request; and
"(4) inform any person or other agency
about any correction or notation of, dispute
made by the agency in accordance with sub-
section (d) of this section of any record
that has been disclosed to the person or
agency within two years preceding the mak-
ing of the correction of the record of the
individual, except that this paragraph shall
not apply to any record that was disclosed
prior to the effective date of this section or
for which no accounting of the disclosure is
required.
"(d) ACCESS TO RECORDS.-Each agency
that maintains a system of records shall
"(1) upon request by any individual to
gain access to his record or to any informa-
tion pertaining to him which is contained
in the system, permit him to review the rec-
ord and have a copy made of all or any por-
tion thereof in a form comprehensive to
him;
11(2) permit the individual to request
amendment of a record pertaining to him
and either-
"(A) make any correction of any portion
thereof which the individual believes is not
accurate, relevant, timely, or complete; or
"(B) promptly inform the individual of its
refusal to amend the record in accordance
with his request, the reason for the refusal,
the procedures established by the agency for
the individual to request a review by the
agency of that refusal, and the name and
business address of the official within the
agency to whom the request for review may
be taken;
"(3) permit any individual who disagrees
with the refusal of the agency to amend his
record to request review of the refusal
by the official named in accordance with
paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection; and if,
after the review, that official also refuses
to amend the record in accordance with the
request, permit the individual to file with
the agency a concise statement setting forth
the reasons for his disagreement with the
refusal of the agency; and
"(4) in any disclosure, containing in-
formation about which the individual has
filed a statement of disagreement, occurring
after the filing of the statement under
paragraph, (3) of this subsection, clearly
note any portion of the record which is
disputed and, upon request, provide copies
of the statement and, if the agency deems
it appropriate, copies of a concise statement
of the reasons of the agency for not making
the amendments requested, to persons or
other agencies to whom the disputed record
has been disclosed.
"(e) AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.-Each agency
that maintains a system of records shall-
"(1) inform each individual whom it asks
to supply information, on the form which it
uses to collect the information or on a
separate form that can be retained by the
individual- _
"(A) which Federal statute or regulation,
if any, requires disclosure of the informa-
tion;
"(B) the principal purpose or purposes for
which the information is intended to be
used;
"(C) other purposes for which the in-
formation may be used, as published pur-
suant to paragraph (2) (D) of this subsec-
tion; and
"(D) the effects on him, if any, of not
providing all or any part of the requested
information;
"(2) publish in the Federal Register at
least annually. a notice of the existence and
character of the system of records, which
notice shall include-
"(A) the name and location of the system;
"(B) the categories of individuals on whom
records are maintained in the system;
"(C) the categories of records maintained
in the system;
"(D) each routine purpose for which the
records contained in the system are used or
intended to be used, including the categories
of users of the records for each such pur-
pose;
"(E) the policies and practices of the
agency regarding storage, retrievability, ac-
cess controls, retention, and disposal of the
records;
"(F) the title and business address of the
agency official who is responsible for the
system of records;
"(G) the agency procedures whereby an
Individual can be notified at his request if
the system of records contains a record per-
taining to him; and
"(H) the agency procedures whereby an
individual can be notified at his request how
he can gain access to any record pertaining
to him contained in the system of records,
and how he can contest its content; .
"(3) maintain all records which are used
by the agency in making any determination
about any individual with such accuracy,
relevance, timeliness, and completeness as
is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to
the individual in the determination; and
"(4) maintain no record concerning the
political or religious belief or activity of any
individual, unless expressly authorized by
statute or by the individual about whom the
record is maintained.
"(f) AGENCY RULES.-In order to carry out
the provisions of this section, each agency
that maintains a system of records shall
promulgate rules, in accordance with the re-
quirements (including general notice) of
section 553 of this title, which shall=
"(1) establish procedures whereby an in-
dividual can be notified in response to his
request if any system of records named by,
the individual contains a record pertaining
to him;
"(2) define reasonable times, places, and
requirements for identifying an individual
who requests his record or information per-
taining to him before the agency shall make
the record or information available to the
individual;
"(3) establish procedures for the disclo-
sure to an individual upon his request of his
record or information pertaining to him, in-
cluding special procedure, if deemed neces-
sary, for the disclosure to an individual of
medical records, including psychological rec-
ords, pertaining to him;
"(4) establish procedures for reviewing a
request from an individual concerning the
amendment of any record or information
pertaining to the individual, for making a
determination on the request, for an appeal
within the agency of an initial adverse
agency determination, and for whatever ad-
ditional means the head of the agency may
deem necessary for each individual to be
able to exercise fully his rights under this
section; and
"(5) establish fees to be charged, if any,
to any individual for making copies of his
record, excluding the cost of any search for
and review of the record.
The Office of the Federal Register shall an-
nually compile and publish the rules promul-
gated under this subsection in a form avail-
able to the public at low cost.
1110895
"(g) (1) CIvIL REMEDIES.-Whenever any
agency (A)- refuses to comply with an in-
dividual request under subsection (d) (1) of
this section, (B) fails to maintain any record
concerning any individual with such accu-
racy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness
asIs necessary to assure fairness in any de-
termination relating to the qualifications,
character, rights, or opportunities of, or ben-
efits to the individual that may be made on
the basis, of records and consequently a
determination is made which is adverse to
the individual, or (C) fails to comply with
any other provision of this section, or any
rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way
as to have an adverse effect on an individ-
ual, the individual may bring a civil action
against the agency, and the district courts
of the United States shall have jurisdiction
in the matters under the provisions of this
subsection.
"(2)(A) In any suit brought under the
provisions of subsection (g) (1) (A) of this
section, the court may enjoin the agency
from withholding the records and order the
production to the complainant of any agency
records Improperly withheld from him. In
such a case the court shall determine the
matter de novo, and may examine the con-
tents of any agency records in camera to
determine whether the records or any portion
thereof may be withheld under any of the
exemptions set forth in subsection (j) or (k)
of this section, and the burden is on the
agency to sustain its action.
"(B) The court may assess against the
United States reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred in
any case under this paragraph in which the
complainant has substantially prevailed.
"(3) In any suit brought under the provi-
sions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this
section in which the court determines that
the agency acted in a manner which was
willful, arbitrary, or capricious, the United
States shall be liable to the individual in
an amount equal to the sum of-
"(A) actual damages sustained by the in-
dividual as a result of the refusal or failure;
and
"(B) the costs of the action together with
reasonable attorney fees as determined by
the court.
"(4) An action to enforce any liability
created under this. section may be brought
in the district. court of the United States In
the district in which the complainant re-
sides, or has his principal place of business,
or in which the agency records are situated,
or in the District of Columbia, without re-
gard to the amount in controversy, within
two years from the date on which the cause
of action arises, except that where an agency
has materially and willfully misrepresented
any information required under this section
to be disclosed to an individual and the in-
formation so misrepresented is material to
the establiphment of the liability of the
agency to the individual under this section,
the action may be brought at any time with-
in two years after discovery by the individual
of the misrepresentation.
"(h) RIGHTS OF LEGAL GUARDIANS.-For the
purposes of this section, the parent of any,
minor, or the legal guardian of any indivi-
dual who has been declared to be incom-
petent due to physical or mental incapacity
or age by a court of competent jurisdiction,
may act on behalf of the individual.
"(i).(1) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-Any officer
or employee of the United States, who by
virtue of his employment or official position,
has possession of, or access to, agency rec-
ords which contain individually identifiable
information the disclosure of which is pro-
hibited by this secton or by rules or regula-
tons established thereunder, and who know-
ing that disclosure of the specific material is
so prohibited, willfully discloses the material
in any manner to any person or agency. not
entitled to receive it, shall be fined not more
than $5,000.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 1 110896
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 20, 1974
"(2) Any person who knowingly and will-
fully requests or obtains any record concern-
ing an individual from an agency under false
pretenses shall be fined not more than $5,000.
-(j) GENERAL EXEMPTIONS.-The head of
any agency may promulgate rules, In accord-
ance with the requirements (including
general notice) of section 553 of this title,
to exempt any system of records within the
agency from any part of this section except
sia.bsections (b) and (e) (2) (A) through
(1') if the system of records Is-
"(1) maintained by the Central Intel-
ligence Agency; or
"(2) maintained by an agency or com-
ponent thereof which performs as its prin-
cipal function any activity pertaining to the
enforcement of criminal laws, Including
police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce
crime or to apprehend criminals, and the
activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional,
probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and
which consists of (A) information compiled
for the purpose of identifying individual
criminal offenders and alleged offenders and
consisting only of identifying data and
notations of arrests, the nature and disposi-
tion of criminal charges, sentencing, con-
finement, release, and parole and probation
status; (B) information compiled for the
purpose of a criminal Investigation, includ-
Ing reports of informants and investigators,
and associated with an identifiable indivi-
dual: or (C) reports identifiable to an In-
dividual compiled at any stage of the process
of enforcement of the criminal laws from
arrest or indictment through release from
supervision.
"(k) SPECIFIC ExEMPTIoNs.-The head of
any agency may promulgate rules, in accord-
arice with the requirements (including gen-
eral notice) of section 553 of this title, to
exempt any system of records within the
agency from subsections (c) (3), (d), (e) (1),
(e) (2) (0) and (H), and (f) of this section
if the system of records is-
"e;l) subject to the provisions of section
552(b) (1) of this title;
"(2) investigatory material compiled for
lacy enforcement purposes, except to the ex-
tent that the material Is within the scope
of subsection (j) (2) of this section or is
open to public inspection under the provi-
sions of section 552(b) (7) of this title;
"(3) maintained in connection with pro-
viding protective services to thePresident of
the United States or other individuals pur-
suant tosection 3056 of title 18; or
"(4) required by statute to be maintained
and used solely as statistical research or re-
porting records.
"el) (1) ARCHIVAL RECORDS.-Each agency
record which is accepted by the Administra-
tor of General Services for storage, proc-
essing, and servicing in accordance with sec-
tion 3103 of title 44 shall, for the purposes
of this section, be considered to be main-
tained by the agency which deposited the
record and shall be subject to the provisions
of this section. The Administrator of General
Services shall not disclose the record except
to the agency which maintains the record,
or under rules established by that agency
which are not inconsistent with the provi-
sions of this section.
"(2) Each agency record pertaining to an
identifiable individual which was trans-
ferred to the National Archives of the United
States as a record which has sufficient his-
torical or other value to warrant its con-
tinued preservation by the United States
Government, prior to the effective date of
this section, shall, for the purposes of this
section, be considered to be maintained by
the National Archives and shall not be sub-
ject to the provisions of this section.
"(3) Each agency record pertaining to an
identifiable individual which is transferred
to the National Archives of the United States
as a record which has sufficient historical or
other value to warrant its continued preser-
vation by the United States Government, on
or after the effective date of this section,
shall, for the purposes of this section, be con-
sidered to be maintained by the National
Archives and shall be subject to all provisions
of this section except subsections - (c) (4);
(d) (2), (3), and (4); (e) (1), (2) (11) and
(3); (f) (4); (g) (1) (B) and (C), and (3),
"(m) ANNUAL REPORT.--The President
shall submit to the Speaker of the House
and the President of the Senate, by June 30
of each calendar year, a consolidated report,
separately listing for each Federal agency
the number of records contained in any sys-
tem of records which were exempted from the
application of this section under the pro-
visions of subsections (j) and (k) of this sec-
tion during the preceding calendar year, and
the reasons for the exemptions, and such
other information as indicates efforts to ad-
minister fully this section.".
SEC. 4. The chapter analysis of chapter 5
of tits? 5, United States Code, Is amended by
inserting:
"552a. Records - about individuals."
immediately below:
"552. Public information; agency rules, opin-
ions, orders, and proceedings.".
SEC. 5. The amendments made by this Act
shall become effective on the one hundred
and eightieth day following the date of en-
actment of this Act.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
(during the reading). Mr. Chairman. I
ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered as read, printed in the REC-
ORD, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Chairman, I offer two amendments, and
I ask unanimous consent that my amend-
ments be considered en bloc.
. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. MOORHEAD of
Pennsylvania: Page 22, lines 19 and 20, strike
out "in any rule promulgated".
Page 27, line 8, immediately after "(2)" in-
sert "subject to the provisions of paragraph
(5) of this subsection,".
Page 28, line 12, strike out "and"; on line
18, strike out the period and Insert in lieu
thereof "; and "; and Immediately after line
16, insert the following new paragraph:
(5) at least 30 days prior to publication of
information under paragraph (2) (D) of this
subsection publish in the Federal Register
notice of the use or intended use of the in-
formation in the system, and provide- an op-
portunity for interested persons to submit
written data, views, or arguments to the
agency.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
(during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed
with. They have been distributed to the
minority side, and. I do not think further
reading of the amendments is necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Per_n-
Sylvania?
There was no objection.
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to re-
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment has also been
discussed in advance with the minority
side. Its purpose is to tighten up the part
of the bill under which a Federal agency
makes its determination as to the "rou-
tine-purpose for which records contained
in a system of records are to be used or
intended to be used. As I explained in
earlier remarks, -"routine" uses of per-
sonally identifiable information permit
an agency to transfer such records with-
out obtaining the individual's consent-
within the agency or between agencies-
in the "routine" conduct of Government
business.
It is essential, however, that this
"routine" authority is not abused so as
to circumvent the basic purposes of this
law. Under the present language of the
bill, an agency-under subsection (e)-
may publish in the Federal Register a
list of each "routine purpose" for which
records in an information system are -
used. The danger is that there is no check
on the agency-except congressional
oversight-as to what might be called a
"routine purpose." A bureaucrat might
be tempted to include a "nonroutine"
use in the definition of "routine" and
subvert the safeguards set up for in-
dividual privacy in this bill.
Therefore, the purpose of these amend-
ments is to subject the agency deter-
mination to public scrutiny by providing
30 days for interested parties to submit
to the agency after publication in the
Federal Register written data, views, or
arguments as to its interpretation of
"routine purpose." I believe that this
amendment strengthens the bill against
potential bureaucratic abuses and urge
that it be adopted.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I want to say that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has furnished me with a
copy of the amendments, and I support
the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD).
The amendments were agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I offer a technical amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD of
Pennsylvania: On page 33, line 2, after "(F)"
insert "and (1) ".
On page 30, line 24, strike "(j) or".
Mr. MOORHEAAD ' of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in explain-
ing this amendment, which has been
previously discussed with the minority
side. Very simply, it tightens up a part of
the bill where a loophole might exist. It
provides that if the head of an agency
utilizes the authority under subsection
(j) of the bill to exempt a system of
records from this law, such action shall
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
not exempt the particular agency from
safeguards to the public against abuse of
such exemption authority as provided in
subsection (1), imposing criminal penal-
ties for violations of the act.
I trust that the amendment will be
adopted.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I do support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR-
HEAD).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ERLENBORN
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ERLENBORN:
On page 84, in line 14, strike out the word
"or";
-
In line 16, strike out the period and insert
in its place a semi-colon; and
After line 16, insert the following:
"(5) investigatory material compiled sole-
ly for the purpose of determining suitability,
eligibility, or qualifications for Federal
civilian employment, military service, Fed-
eral contracts, or access to classified infor-
mation, but only to the extent that the dis-
closure of such material would reveal the
identity of a source who furnished informa-
tion to the Government under an express
promise. that the identity of the source would
be held in confidence, or, prior to the ef-
fective date of this section, under an implied
promise that the identity of the source would
be held in confidence;
"(6) testing or examination material used
solely to determine individual qualifications
fo appointment or promotion in the Federal
service the disclosure of which would com-
promise the objectivity or fairness of the
testing or examination process; or
"(7) evaluation material used to deter-
mine potential for promotion in the armed
services, but only to the extent that the dis-
closure of such material would reveal the
identity of a source who furnished informa-
tion to the Government under an express
promise that the identity of the source would
be held in confidence, or, prior to the effec-
tive date of this section, under an implied
promise that the identity of the source
would be held in confidence."
Mr. ERLENBORN (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with and that
the amendment be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
The CHAIRMAN Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from IIli;
nods?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, a
copy of this amendment has been fur-
nished to the majority, and since the
amendment has not been read, I would
like to briefly describe its three purposes.
This adds in the specific exemption, sub-
:.ection (k) (3) exemptions not found in
the bill.
The first is investigatory material com-
piled solely for the purpose of deter-
mining suitability, eligibility, or quali-
fication for Federal civilian employment,
military service, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information, but only
to the extent that the disclosure of such
material would reveal the identity of the
source that was a confidential source,
promised confidentiality.
As I said during the general debate,
the Washington Post this morning, in an
editorial, incorrectly described this as
closing the files entirely. The files will be
open. The individual will have access to
the files and to the information con-
tained therein. But we will protect the
confidentiality of statements that have
been given in the past on a promise of
confidentiality, express or implied, and
will protect in the future the confiden-
tiality of statements that were given by
someone with an express promise of con-
fidentiality.
The second part of the amendment will
exempt testing or examination material
used solely to determine individual quali-
fications for appointment or promotion
in the Federal service, the disclosure of
which would compromise the objectivity
or fairness of the testing or examination
process.
This amendment has been requested
by the Civil Service Commission. Under
the bill, without this exemption, each
test that is given-and there are hun-
dreds of such tests that have been pre-
pared by- the Civil Service Commission-
would be available to any individual who
took the test-tile questions and the an-
swers. That test then would be compro-
mised and could never be used again. The
Civil Service Commission would have to
prepare a whole new test the next time
a test in that area was given. This would
be an unnecessary expense without en-
hancing the privacy of any individual. I
think this portion of the amendment is
certainly warranted.
Lastly, my amendment provides a spe-
cific exemption for evaluation material
used to determine potential for promo-
tion in the Armed Services, but again,
only to the extent that it is necessary to
protect a confidential source.
As to the first and third portions of.
this amendment, the protection of confi-
dential sources, I think it is very inter-
esting that the House today overrode a
veto of amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act, and that Freedom of
Information Act gets into the same area
of information.
Listen to the report of the conference
committee relative to the Freedom of
Information Act. It says:
In every case where the investigatory rec-
ords sought were compiled for law enforce-
ment purposes, either civil or criminal in
nature, the agencies can withhold the names,
addresses and other information that would
reveal the identity of a confidential source
who furnished the information.
So there, in that act, we saw the need
to protect the confidential source. I think
we should do likewise in this act.
Mr. Chairman, the President on Oc-
tober 9th issued a statement endorsing
the legislation before us. He had in that
statement, however, one reservation. He
said:
H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974, has
my enthusiastic support except for the pro-
visions which will allow unlimited individ-
H 10807
ual access to records vital to determining
eligibility and promotion in the Federal serv-
ice and access to classified information.
I strongly urge a floor amendment
permitting workable exemptions to ac-
commodate these situations. This is the
amendment that will meet the Presi-
dent's concern, and I think it is a valid
concern.
There is one last observation that I
would like to make. I have here a copy
of the decision in the case of Koch
against the Department of Justice. It is
a decision of the District Court of the
District of Columbia, which is considered
one of the more liberal courts, and the
judge was Judge Gerhard Gesell, who
is considered one of the more liberal
judges.
I would like to read Just one or two
excerpts from the decision.
The judge says:
Background files on Congressman Bing-
ham which were compiled during investi-
gations into his eligibility for certain high
Government posts. Such employment checks
are routine, fully authorized, and essen-
tial to the maintenance of integrity in gov-
ernment service.
The court later, in another part says
as follows:
Plaintiffs' narrower interpretation of that
exemption is unjustified, since it would re-
quire disclosure of highly confidential in-
formation supplied to Bureau Investigators.
In order to insure such confidentiality, FBI
files may be withheld if law enforcement
was a significant aspect of the investigation.
The judge goes on further to say:
This is true even if the laws being en-
forced were regulatory rather than criminal
in nature.
Then the judge later says:
Even inactive investigatory files may have
to be kept confidential in order to- convince
citizens that they may safely confide in law
enforcement officials.
Mr. Chairman, unless we adopt this
amendment, - confidential statements
given to investigators in the past will
be made available to the persons about
whom the investigations are being made.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ERLEN-
BORN was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
there are literally hundreds of thousands
of people across this country, many
Members of Congress included, who in
the past have given confidential state-
ments relative to people who are being
considered for high Government posts.
These confidential statements will be
opened up to the individual who is being
investigated if the bill passes without
amendment-and, I think equally im-
portant, in the future we would not be
able to conduct meaningful investigations
into such matters as the appointment of
a Vice President and the appointment of
members of the courts, including the
Supreme Court, District Courts, and so
forth, unless we have limited ability to
promise confidentiality where it is neces-
sary to get candid information concern-
ing individuals.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 l.3 10$98 Approved For R ` 1d j CIAO- ~Pll76 0 j7 E 0070015lovember 20, 1 74
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my amend-
ment will be supported.
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN.I yield briefly to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, do I understand that the gentle-
man's amendment would open the flies,
as far as the background statements
themselves are concerned, as long as the
identity of the person making those
statements was preserved?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his question.
The gentleman is exactly right.
The information, derogatory or other-
wise, will be made available to the in-
dividual. The only portion that will be
kept confidential is the name of the one
who has given the information in confi-
dence, or such information as might lead
to his identity.
Mr. SMITH of New York. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
would like, of course, to say, not being
a lawyer, that I find myself at some-
what of a disadvantage, with the very
complexity of this bill.
I recognize the laudable purpose of it.
I do intend to vote for the bill. In com-
mittee I did vote with the gentleman
for this amendment, or one very close to
it. There seems to be a difference of
opinion as to whether this is the exact
amendment or not. I expect to vote for
it- at this time.
think that if we do reveal the sources
of confidential information, after we have
or an agency has obtained the informa-
tion under the promise of protecting the
source, it would imperil the access to
information which we should have.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
has expired.
On request of Mr. HOLIFIELD and by
unanimous consent, Mr. ERLENBORN was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional min-
utes.)
Ivlr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also
believe that there might be a great dan-
ger, both to the Government and to the
individual involved who gave that infor-
mation, if the source was revealed.
Therefore, I find myself in general
agreement with this amendment. I voted
for the amendment in committee, al-
though we lost it in committee, as the
gentleman remembers. It does seem to
me that it is a protective amendment.
We are skating on thin ice, between
freedom of information and privacy of
information, and I think the extra care
that this would give or the extra pro-
tection it would give to sources that
might be vital to the Government in
many fields is worthy of consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the
chairman of the subcommittee, unless
there is a very strong reason, which he
will undoubtedly express if there is such
a reason, might be able to accept this
amendment.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentelman for his support.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I will say to the chairman
of the full committee that I felt that
I am bound by the vote of the full com-
mittee, which, as I recall, was 22 to 11
not to accept the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois.
I have tried to negotiate portions of
this matter with him, but unsuccessfully,
even though we have been very-success-
ful in reaching agreements on many
other pieces of legislation.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I would like to ask him
a question. I can appreciate what the
gentleman is trying to do, and that is to
protect the parties' sources of informa-
tion, but is there anywhere any protec-
tion to eliminate the inclusion of vicious
rumors, subjective opinions, false state-
ments, or honest mistakes that are in
the records that are supplied by these
parties?
Mr. -ERLENBORN. Yes. I would point
out that the information in the file will
be made available quite generally, wheth-
er it is derogatory, defamatory, or what-
ever. We will only protect the confiden-
tial source.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count.
Thirty-six Members are present, evi-
dently not a quorum.
In view of the inoperability of the
:electronic device, the Clerk will call the
roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names :
[Roll No. 6361
Ashley
Fraser
Parris
Baker
Fulton
Patman
Bergiand
Gibbons
Pike
]Bingham
Ginn
Poage
Blatnik
Goodling
Podell
Boggs
Grasso
QQuie
Brasco
Gray
Rarick
Breaux
Green, Oreg.
Reid
Broomfield
Hanrahan
Riegle
Brotzman
Hansen, Wash.
Roneallo, N.Y.
Burton, John
Hebert
Rooney, N.Y.
Burton, Phillip Heckler, Mass.
Rosenthal
Camp
Jarman
Runnels
Carey, N.Y.
Jones, Ala.
Sandman
Chappell
Jones, N.C.
Shoup
Clay
Kuykendall
Stark
Cohen
Leggett
Steele
Conable
Luken
Steiger, Ariz.
Conlan
McEwen
Teague
Coughlin
McKinney
Tiernan
Cronin
Madigan
Ullman
Davis, Ga.
Martin, Nebr.
Veysey
Diggs
Mathias, Calif.
Waldie
Dingell
Mayne
Wilson,
Downing
Melcher
Charles H-,
Drinan
Mitchell, Md.
Calif.
Esch
Murphy, Ill.
Wyatt
Eshleman
Murphy, N.Y.
Wyman
Evans, Colo.
Nichols
Young, Alaska
Foley
Obey
Zion
Ford
O'Hara
Accordingly the Committee rose; and amendment offered by - the gentleman
the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McFALL) from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) would
having assumed the chair, Mr. BRADEMAS,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, re-
ported that that Committee, having had
under consideration the bill H.R. 16373,
and finding itself withoift; a quorum, he
had directed the roll to be called, when
344 Members responded to their names,
a quorum, and he submitted herewith
the names of the absentees to be spread
upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. MOORHEAD).
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I oppose the amendment because I
think it makes second-class citizens out
of some 41/2 million Government employ-
ees, civil and military. And I wish to re-
port to the membership that the amend-
ment is opposed by the Government
Employees Council, AFL-CIO.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. At
this time I yield to my colleague on the
committee, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. FASCELL).
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I also am strongly opposed to this
amendment, because what it does is set
up a whole new exemption and write a
provision into law which does not now
exist. Otherwise there would be no rea-
son for the amendment.
The amendment specifically exempts
from the provisions of this bill identity
or source of Information. There is no
such exemption now in the law.
Other Members, just as I have been,
,have been asked many, many times to
give information. Never have I had any
Government agency or agent say to me,
"Sir, the information you give me is clas-
sified" or "The information will be kept
confidential."
Mr. Chairman, what the pending
amendment would do is write this tre-
mendous loophole into the statutes of
this country and change the complete
thrust of this bill. That is what this
-amendment does, is to give the applicant
the right to look at information; the
burden is then on him to prove his inno-
cence without ever knowing who the per-
son was or what the source was of the
adverse or derogatory information.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment de-
stroys the principal purpose of this bill.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I might
add that should there be any serious
question of the need to protect the con-
fidentiality of informants' identity for
:law enforcement activities or for na-
tional security purposes, that identity
would be protected under specific ex-
emptions in the bill which we have be-
fore us.
So that the only purpose that the
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 - g -~F [&.76fi.Q. .2gJR000700150082-8
-d , ...., an . r?~-Tnn~cCTl17~TAT 'tJ
serve would be, as has been stated by
both of my colleagues on the committee,
to exempt millions of civilian employees
and military employees from the safe-
guard provisions of this bill, which are
so desperately needed. The need for pri-
vacy protections for these particular
groups has been amply documented by a
GAO report which is in our committee
and which the gentleman is well aware
of.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, in the interest of brevity, I
yield back the balance of my time and I
hope that a vote can be called for
promptly.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with certain res-
ervations with regard to this amend-
ment. I likewise am greatly concerned
with protecting the rights of applicants
for civil service employment and with
insuring that the applicant have access
to information about him that is_ fur-
nished by third parties. I likewise rec-
ognize the difficult question regarding
policy matters contained in this partic-
ular bill, in that, if taken in its true
sense, open up disclosure of third-party
information.
I would like at this point to ask the
author of the amendment (Mr. ERLEN-
BoRN) a few questions if he would be
kind enough to respond.
Mr. ERLENBORN, what in this provision
provides for the applicant to rebut or
to countermand any vicious rumors or
subjective opinions or false statements
or honest mistakes taken from third par-
ties about an individual?
Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman
will yield, the bill itself provides for the
first time the right of access by an in-
dividual to records maintained concern-
ing himself or herself, and the bill pro-
vides that if the individual believes that
the information is inaccurate, he has a
right to demand that the information be
corrected. This is as to all records gener-
ally and can be applicable to these free
employment and security investigation
files as well. Therefore, the application
th
of the bill-not the amendment-but e
h that it ditional minute.)
ill i
s suc
th
e
b
application of
provides this right to the individual to Mr. GOLDWATER. One last question,
demand that a file be made accurate if Mr. Chairman, and that is: This gives
he considers it to be inaccurate. discretion to the agency to arbitrarily
Mr. GOLDWATER. How will the ap- decide which information it will supply,
plicant know that there is included in and which information it will withhold.
his file information from a third party The question that occurs to me is, Where
or confidential source? Is the check and balance? It is the inten-
Mr. ERLENBORN. Will the gentleman tion of this committee that information
yield? should be disclosed to an applicant or to
Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, I yield to the, an individual upon request, but, if there
is this discretion within the agency,
gentleman.
Mr. ERLENBORN. As provided in my then where is the check and the balance?
amendment, the information contained Where is the impartial review, the in
in the file will be made available to the camera inspection to determine whether
in fact all information is included, or
mainiidual about whom the file has been whether in fact . third parties should
O
perhaps be made available?
Only to t0 the extent that the confiders-
tial source would be compromised would Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman
we keep the name of the individual who will again yield, I think the general ac-
is the confidential source or such infor- cess to the courts, as we provided in the
motion as would identify him from the bill, would. provide that. However, let me
applicant. That information would be make this one additional point, and that
kept from the individual seeking infor- is that many Members of this House,
mation. Otherwise, all the rest of the myself not included, but many Members
contents of the file, including any of this of the House have sponsored the news-
derogatory information, would be made men's shield bill, realizing the great ad-
available to the jobseeker. vantage that there is in confidential
Mr. GOLDWATER. Is it your under- sources, and it will protect such sources
standing that your amendment notwith- of newsmen and newspapers, and it
standing, the applicant would be al- would shield them so that they would
lowed to file with this information ob- not have to reveal their sources and, if
tamed from a confidential source his own we pass that legislation we would find
version or his own rebuttal or perhaps his that possibly just wild rumors could be
own denial of that accusation or erron- printed in the paper, and the source of
eous information? the information to the news media could
Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. Under the not be revealed.
terms of the bill itself, that would be a The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
remedy available to the individual about
whom the file was kept.
Mr. GOLDWATER. One other ques-
tion: It is my understanding that prom-
ises of confidentiality have in most cases
only been made on the strength of bu-
reaucratic authority as to most Civil
Service records and that there is no stat-
utory authority for agencies to grant con-
fidentiality or protection; am I correct?
Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman
will yield, in the past, of course, an indi-
vidual never had an opportunity to go
into his security clearance file or into his
free employment file.
Therefore, the question really never
arose.
In the past there has been lawfully
express and implied promises of confi-
dentiality given to those who have made
statements to investigators.
The function of this bill, if it is not
amended by the Erlenborn amendment,
will be to open up all of those old files so
that those statements that were given in
confidence will now be made available to
the individual.
The gentleman from Florida says that
he has never had any promises, express
or implied. In that case, his name will
be made available if he is one who has
given such a statement, because the only
thing that would be protected are those
confidential sources.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Obviously, it ap-
pears by this language in the amendment
that we are in essence legitimatizing this
practice.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has expired.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto do now close.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN).
The question was taken, and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by clerks,
there were-ayes 192, noes 177, not
ing 65, as follows:
[Roll No. 637]
AYES-192
and
vot-
Abdnor Fisher
Mahon
Anderson, Ill.' Flowers
Mallary
N. Dak.
Forsythe
Marazlti
Archer
Fountain
Martin, Nebr.
Arends
Frelinghuysen
Martin, N.C.
Armstrong
Frenzel
Mayne
Ashbrook
Frey
Milford
Bauman
Fuqua
Miller
Beard
Gettys
Minshall, Ohio
Bell
Ginn
Mizell
Bevill
Goodling
Mollohan
Biester
Gray
Moorhead,
Blackburn
Gross
Calif.
Bray
Grover
Myers
Breaux
Gubser
Nedzi
Brinkley
Gude
Nelsen
Brotzman
Guyer
O'Brien
Brown, Mich.
Hammer-
Patten
Brown, Ohio
schmidt
Pettis
Broyhill, N.C.
Hansen; Idaho
Pike
Broyhill, Va.
Hastings
Powell, Ohio
Burgener
Hays
Preyer
Burke, Fla.
Heckler, Mass.
Price, Tex.
Burleson, Tex.
Heinz
Pritchard
Butler
Henderson rson
Quillen
Carter
Hinshaw
Randall
Casey, Tex.
Hogan
field
Regula Rhodes
Clancy ,
x t
Roberts
Don H.
Horton
Robinson, Va.
Clawson, ria Del
r
Robison, N.Y.
Collier
Hub r
Hunt
R
Rupusselot
pe
Collins, Tex.
Hutchinson
Satterfield
Conte
Ichord
scherle
Coughlin
Jarman
Schneebeli
Crane
Johnson, Colo.
Sebelius
Daniel, Dan
Johnson, Pa.
Shriver
Daniel, Robert
Jones, Okla.
Shuster
W., Jr.
Jones, Tenn.
Sikes
Davis. S.C.
Jordan
Skubitz
k
Kemp
Smith,
NY
D nholm
K
etchum
Snyder
Dennis
Lagomersino
Spence
. Derwinski
Landgrebe
Stanton,
Devine
Latta
J. William
Dickinson
Lent
Steed
Downing
Lott
Steele
Duncan
Luian
Steiger, Ariz.
du Pont
McClory
Steiger, Wis.
Edwards, Ala.
McCloskey
Stratton
Erlenborn
McCollister
Stubblefield
i
McDade
Symms
- Findley
McEwea
Taicott
Fish
McKay
Taylor, Mo.
H 10899
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H 10900
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - {IOUSE November 20, 19 *4
Taylor, N.C. Wampler Winn
Thomson, Wis. Ware Wydler
'Thone Whalen Wylie
Treen White Young, Alaska
Ullman Whitehurat Young, Fis.
Vander Jagt Widnall Young, Ill.
Veysey Wiggins Young, B.C.
Waggonner
Williams Zion
Walsh
Wilson, Bob Zwach
NOES-177
Absug
Gibbons Passman
Adams
Gilman Pepper
Addabbo
Goldwater Perkins
Alexander
Gonzalez Peyser
Anderson,
Green, Pa. Pickle
Calif.
Gunter Price, Ill.
Andrews, N.C.
Haley Rangel
Annunzio
Hamilton Rees
As,. ley
Hanley Reid
Aspin
Hanrahan Reuss
Bactillo
Hansen, Wash. Rinaldo
Bafalis
Harrington Rodino
Barrett
Hawkins Roe
Bennett
Hechler. W. Va. Rogers
Biagi
Helstoski Roncalio, Wyo.
Bingham
Hicks Rooney, Pa.
Boland
Holtzman Rose
Bolting
Howard Rosenthal
Bowen
Hudnut Rostenkowski
Brademas
Roush
Breckinridge
Johnson,
JohnsoCalif. Roy
Brooks
Karth, Roybal
Brown, Calif.
Kastenmeier Ryan
Buchanan
Kazen St Germain
Burke, Calif.
Kluczynski Sarasin
Burke, Mass.
Koch Sarbanes
Burlison, Mo.
Kyros Schroeder
Burton, John
Leggett Seiberling
Burton, Phillip Lehman
Shipley
Carney, Ohio Litton
Sisk
Chiahoim Long, La.
Slack
Clay Long, Md.
Smith. Iowa
Collins, Ill. Luken
Stanton,
Conyers McCormack
James V. -
Gorman McFall
Stark
Cotter McSpaddeu
Steelman
Culver Macdonald
Stephens
Daniels, Madden
Stokes
Dominick V. Matsunaga
Studds
Danielson Mazzoli
Sullivan
de in Garza Meeds
Symington
Delaney Meicher
Thompson, N.J.
Dellums Metcalfe
Tiernan
Dent Mezvlnsky
Traxier
Diggs Mills
Udall
Dingell Minish
Van Deerlin
Donohue Mink
Vander Veen
Dorn Mitchell, N.Y.
Vanik
Drinan Moakley
Vigorito
Eckhardt Montgomery
Whitten
Edwards, Calif. Moorhead, Pa.
Wilson,
Eilberg Morgan
Charles, Tex.
Evans, Colo. Mosher
Wolff
Evir.:s, Tenn. Moss
Wright
Fascell Murphy, N.Y.
Yates -
Flood Murtha
Yatron
Foley Natcher
Young, Ga.
Ford Nix
Young, Tex.
Fraser Obey
Zablocki
Gaydos O'Hara
Giaimo Owens
Baker Grasso
Podell
Berglo nd Green, Oreg.
Railsback
Blatnik Griffiths
Rarick
Boggs Hanna
Riegle
Brasco Harsha
Roncallo, N.Y.
Broomfield Hebert
Rooney, N.Y.
Camp Jones, Ala.
Runnels
Carey, N.Y. Jones, N.C.
Ruth
Cede:rberg King
Sandman
Chamberlain Kuykendall
Shoup
Chappell Landrum
Staggers
Clark McKinney
Stuckey
Cochran Madigan
Teague
Cohen Mathias, Calif.
Thornton
Comble Mathis, Ga.
Towell, Nev.
Conlan Michel
Waldie
Cronin Mitchell, Md,
Wilson,
Davis, as. Murphy, Ill.
Charles H.,
Davis, Wis. Nichols
Calif.
Dulski O'Neill
Wyatt
Eshleman Parris
Wyman
Froehlich Patman
Fulton Poage
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Chairman, I rise to see if I can de-
termine how many more amendments
there are expected to be offered, to see
if it would be possible to arrive at an
agreement on time for closing debate on
this legislation.
Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Penllsylvaria.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, we
just checked at the minority desk as to
how many amendments we are aware of.
There are about 12 or 13, not all of them
are contested; probably 4 or 5 are con-
tested.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I will not make my unan-
imous-consent request at this point.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FASCELL
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. FASCELL: Page
31, line 5, strike out line b-and all that foI-
lows through line 13 and insert in lieu there-
of the followin
g
"(3) In any suit brought under the pravi-
along of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of
this section in which the court determines-
"(A) that the agency has refused or fared
to comply with any of the provisions of this
aeation, or any rule
y promulgate d thereunder,
the United States shall be liable to the lndi-
vidual in an amount equal to the sum of--
"(1) actual damages sustained by the indi-
vidual as a result of the refusal or failure;
and
"(11) the costs osts of the action
reasUonable costs of together with
attorney fees as determined by
the court; or
"(B) that the agency's refusal or failure
has been willful, arbitrary, or capricious, the
United States shall be liable to the individual
in an amount equal to the sum of-
"(1) actual damages sustained by the indi-
vidual as a result of the refusal or failure;
"(11) punitive damages allowed by the
court; and
"(iii) the costs of the action together with
reasonable attorney fees as determined by the
court ?
(Mr. FASCELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, what
my amendment does is to restore to the
bill language which was in the bill in
subcommittee, stricken out in the full
=+5^i4 uL unnisti es anu reineules avaliacfe
to the individual.
If the members of the committee will
follow me, in the present billon page :11
with the section we are talking about,
they will find the remedies in the lawsuit
there for actual damages sustained by
the individual, together with the court
costs and reasonable attorney fees.
The Members will notice, however,
that it is predicated only in those cases
where there is willful, arbitrary or ca-
:2ricious action by the agency. There,
the Members will find a complete de-
:2arture from ordinarily understood law,
;ort law. A remedy that would be avail.-
able to an individual if he were dalr.-
aged in this case, we limit his recovery to
actual damages. We require him to prove
that he was damaged by a willful, ar-
bitrary, or capricious violation, the kind
of burden which is a very difficult bur-
den, I assure the Members, as a lawyer.
The Members who are lawyers know
i;hat, where we place that kind of a bur-
den only in those cases where we seek
punitive damages.
So, what my amendment would do
would be to restore the right of actual
damage in those cases where there is a
refusal or a failure to comply with the
law, aside from whether it is willful, ca-
pricious or arbitrary; just - sheer negli-
gence, whether it is inadvertent or not.
The fact that there is a refusal or an in-
ability or a failure to comply with the
lawthen will allow the individual to re-
dress for actual damages and the costs
of the action.
Then, what we do in those cases where
we have willful, arbitrary or capricious
action by an agency is to allow recovery
for actual damage or punitive damage.
So, what this amendment does, to recap,
is to take the reasonable remedy, restore
the rights to the individual who is ac-
tually damaged in the cases where, in the
present bill now, it is only actual dam-
ages in cases of willful, arbitrary or ca-
pricious action. My amendment would
give the person the right to recover ac-
tual damages in cases where there is a
failure to comply with the law. It would
also give him punitive damages in those
cases where there is willful, arbitrary or
capricious action by the agency.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. FASCELL. Yes.
Mr. BUTLER. My understanding is
that, in effect, what you are providing
for are punitive damages in case of will-
ful, arbitrary, or capricious action of
the United States in withholding in-
formation?
Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is cor-
rect. That is one part of the amend-
ment.
Mr. BUTLER. Can thegentleman cite
me a precedent in the statutes in the
United States, or has the United States
adopted a low holding itself open for
willful punitive damages? Can the gen-
tleman cite me a statute where any na-
tion of the world has held itself open for
punitive damages in the statute?
Mr. FASCELL. Frankly, I do not have
that citation. But the gentleman - knows
where one has a willful, capricious, arbi-
trary action by the Government, and
one is trying to protect t'ie rights of the
individual, mine or the gentleman's, it
seems to me that leaving it to the court
to decide whether or not there ought to
be punitive damages under our system-
I am perfectly willing to leave it to the
system. We do it in all kinds of cases
with respect to the individual redress
against the Government of the United
States.
Mr. BUTLER. May I fairly observe
there is no sovereignty in the world that
exposes itself to punitive damages by a
statute of this nature?
:Mr. FASCELL. I thank the gentle-
man for his observation.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I think we have made
an exhaustive study of the statutes of
this Nation, and if we are to adopt by
this amendment punitive damages, it
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
1 lovember 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE
would be the first time in history that
the United States has made itself subject
to punitive damages for any cause or in
any case. We have adopted six or seven
provisions by statute to impose attor-
ney's fees against the United States, but
this would be the first time for punitive
damages.
I would like to ask the gentleman in
the well, is it not true that there would
be no way of ascertaining in advance of
any one year, when this Congress is
ascertaining the budget, what might
possibly be the amount of damages that
might be awarded?
Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is
absolutely correct. And we have the same
problem in respect to awards made in
condemnation cases. We have the same
problem.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, L
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak
against this amendment, and I would
like to call the attention of my colleagues
to the very real problem that the amend-
ment imposes on a government servant.
We have just overriden a presidential
veto of the Freedom of Information Act,
and we have put in that statute ex-
tremely strong and rigorous provisions,
penalizing a Government agnecy and an
employee who may improperly withhold
information from the public or from the
Congress or from other Federal em-
ployees. We have wanted to penetrate the
veil of secrecy which Government agen-
cies and Government bureaucrats have
been accustomed to throw around the
protection of information.
If we enact this amendment however,
we will, in effect, be placing upon the
Government bureaucrat the choice that
if he reveals information improperly, he
may subject his agency to punitive
damages. If he withholds the informa-
tion, on the other hand, he is subject
only to ordinary damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.
Government employees, faced with
that choice, faced with the imposition
of punitive damages if they improperly
release information, as against only'
attorneys' fees and costs if they im-
properly withhold will be tempted to
withhold. We thus endanger that great
principle which we have just established
when we overrode the presidential veto
of the Freedom of information Act
Amendments.
Mr. FASCELL. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. FASCELL. Let us talk about my
problem. You are a Government em-
ployee and I want some information
from you, is there any hardship on you
or any burden to make that information
available to me?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I may violate the
Freedom of Information Act if I do not
reveal it. Yet I may be subject to puni-
tive damages if I do.
Mr. FASCELL. No, the punitive damage
language only says, "willful, capricious,
or arbitrary."
Mr. McCLOSKEY. ? Mr. Chairman, I
do not think any of us who have prac-
ticed law would care to stake our future
and our future careers on what some
court might determine to be "willful,
capricious, and arbitrary."
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Certainly.
Mr. FASCELL. Then I would suggest
to the gentleman that he should make
the information completely available to
them.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman has spoken of the term "will-
ful, arbitrary, and capricious."
Can the gentleman give me any reason
in the world why I, as a person who has
been injured, should not recover actual
damages from a dumb but ineffective
bureaucrat, since I can get them from
one who acts willfully?
One can be hurt just as badly by a
dumb, well intentioned person as one
can by an intelligent, conniving one, can
he not?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, let
me respond to the gentleman in this
way: that we are trying to balance two
great interests here. We are trying to
balance the necessity of balancing the
budget, and we are trying to protect the
Government from undue liability.
I think it is wrong to make the Gov-
ernment of the United States and this
congressional budget subject to an abso-
lutely incalculable amount of liquidated
damages. If we had a hundred lawsuits,
and if we had a hundred verdicts of $1
million each, there would be no guar-
antee in any way that this Congress
could protect itself against that liability.
It seems to me, when we balance the
rights of the individual against the Gov-
ernment, that to add punitive damages
and to set this kind of a precedent is an
unfortunate mistake. It would be the
first time in history this has occurred.
This would be singling out invasion of
privacy as a particular right of an in-
dividual against the Government, a right
that would weigh heavier than all other
rights.
We have just seen a Presidential veto
sustained in the case of an individual
who could not recover damages against
the Government in an ordinary lawsuit.
Why should we make invasion of privacy
a special right with this extraordinary
remedy?
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, aside
from the point the gentleman is making
with respect to punitive damages, the
question I am raising is that this amend-
ment is the only vehicle that would cor=
rect the situation, because actual dam-
ages are not available to an injured party
because the person who hurt him did not
do so intentionally.
Is that not what the gentleman reads
in the original language, and is that not
corrected by the amendment?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman', I do
not believe that the individual is denied
H 10901
actual damages if he can prove them. In
cases of this kind, of course, it is quite
often difficult to prove actual damages,
but that is not necessarily a reason to
establish the extraordinary remedy of
punitive damages.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak only
briefly. I simply wish to point out, if I
understand the amendment correctly,
the thrust of the first part of the amend-
ment is to avoid what seems to me to be
a -terrible error in the bill, and that is
this: that a person who is injured by vir-
tue of a mistake unintentionally made by
a bureaucrat has no redress for that in-
jury.
Will the author of the amendment in-
form me whether I am correct on that?
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Texas is absolutely cor-
rect.
That provision is totally lacking in
the bill, and that is what this amendment
provides.
If the gentleman will yield further, I
would like to respond to some of the re-
marks made by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia. The gentleman said that we would
not know how much money this would
cost and that there is no way to budget
it. That is the same problem the Govern-
ment is faced with in all claims bills. We
do not at any time know how much
money it will cost and how much should
be budgeted. Of course, I feel after to-
day that we may never pass any again,
but nevertheless we are stuck with the
same problem in that respect.
It seems to me that this matter can
be spelled out in a different way. We
would force these individuals to file pri-
vate claims bills. After numerous bills
were filed and after they tried to get
redress, we would force these people to
take action. As the gentleman from
Texas has said, this should be a matter
of legal right, and they should have the
right to collect damages.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, it
also seems to me that the fears concern-
ing punitive damages are ill-founded.
The court must agree in these situations
that they should be granted. I feel that
the courts would seldom grant them
against the United States if the-United
States was acting properly.
Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is ab-
solutely correct.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
know that the erudite gentleman from
Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT) is a lawyer. I have
heard the gentleman discourse very
learnedly on the floor of the House be-
fore, I understand the gentleman from
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H 10902 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 20, 197A,
Florida ? (Mr. FASCELL) also has legal
traiiring.
As I believe most of the lawyers here
in the House know, it is a general prin-
ciple of law that the Government, in
exercising its governmental functions, Is
not liable.
In exercising the proprietary func-
tions, the Government can be liable; but
it would be, as has been pointed out by
others debating this amendment, un-
precedented to make Government liable
for punitive damages, because there has
been no precedent in the past for making
any Government liable for punitive
damages.
I would also like to point out that the
bill, as it was being considered in com-
mittee, had a punitive damage section.
The committee, In its wisdom, removed
that by amendment before reporting the
bill.
I hope the committeewill be sustained
on the floor and the amendment will be
defeated.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot,
as floor manager, accept this amend-
ment, although as an individual Member
I support it.
Permit me to explain my position.
When the bill was reported by the sub-
committee, it contained a punitive dam-
ages provision. However, this provision,
by a close 18 to 14 vote in the full com-
mittee, was deleted.
Therefore, although I personally sup-
port the amendment, I do not feel, as
floor manager, that I can argue in favor
of the amendment.
Let me state to the Chair that after
the action on this amendment, it is the
intention of myself to move that the
committee rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the-gentleman
from Florida (Mr. FASCELL)
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. BRADEMAS, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that committee,
having had under consideration the bill
H.R. 16373 to-amend title 5, United States
Code, by adding a section 552a to safe-
guard individual privacy from the misuse
of Federal records and to provide that in-
dividuals be granted access to records
concerning them which are maintained
by Federal agencies, had come to no reso-
lution thereon.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE COMMENDED
FOR OPPOSING DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ATTEMPT TO PREVENT
PROSECUTION OF JAKE JACOBSEN
FOR MAJOR CRIME
(Mr, FISHER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his re.-
marks.)
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, when the
Department of Justice recently asked
U.S. District Judge Robert M. Hill, in
Dallas, to dismiss an indictment there
against Jake Jacobsen, involving $825,000
in savings and loan funds, the judge very
properly revolted. He insisted no valid
grounds were presented and that the de-
fendant should be made to answer for a
crime of this magnitude.
There was no claim the charge against
Jacobsen was not fully justified.
Then, when the district attorney, act-
ing on orders from Washington, refused
to prosecute, Judge Hill proceeded to ap-
point three members of the bar to do that
,lob. But, believe it or not, so determined
? s Attorney General Saxbe's Depart:-
:nent of Justice to protect Jacobsen
against being tried for an $825,000 crime,
it requested and obtained a stay order
in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--
pending full review of the issue.
Mr. Speaker, ostensibly the dismissal
request- stemmed from a copout deal with
Jacobsen under which the latter agreed
to testify against John Connally involv-
ing a claim Connally had somehow mis-
used $10,000 in milk funds in Washing-
ton.
Obviously, the Office of Special Prose-
cutor, headed at the time by Leon Jawor-
ski, and Attorney General William Saxbe
were determined to pay any price for
testimony which would suit their needs.
,:'acobs,an not only wangled a virtual par-
c'on for an $825,000 major crime out of
,lixbe and the Office of Special Prosecu-
tor, but in their gleeful spirit of trium-
r hant generosity they also, for good
measure, agreed to forgo Federal prose-
cution of another felony pending against
Jacobsen in Washington.
This will probably go down as the most
lopsided and most incredible windfall
ever accorded a man accused of a major
crime.
It should be emphasized that there was
no remote relationship-none whatever--
between the misapplication of saving and
loan funds in Texas and the Watergate
investigation and related Indictments In
Washington. Therefore, the practice of
plea bargaining, applicable to multiple
offenses or degree of offenses, flowing out
of a common transaction, has no appli?-
cstion in the situation I have described.
Is it any wonder Judge Hill would not
be a party to such a scandalous transac-
tion? He is to be commended for his law-
and-order attitude. In this day and time
when so many treat crime so lightly, it
it refreshing to have a judge who believes
in upholding the dignity of the law.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the big los
e:,s in the $825,000 savings and loanfund
indictment reside in my district. The
savings and loan company is located in
my - hometown. Those people are not
interested in the high flights and poetry
o:[ Washington-based copouts. They want
justice administered to the man accused
of robbing them of their hard-earned
money. .
On last August 22 I wrote Attorney
General Saxbe a letter in which I asked
him the following two questions:
1. Specifically, what if anything was wrong
with the Texas case, what are the legal
grounds, to justify this extraordinary action
of dismissal?
2. Is the proposed dismissal recommended
by the U.S. District Attorney whose respon-
sibility it would be to prosecute Jacobsen in
the Texas case?
Mr. Speaker, that letter was written
3 months ago. Up to this time I have not
received even the courtesy of an acknowl-
edgement from the Attorney General.
The fact is there are in fact no legal
grounds for dismissal, and the fact is the
U.S. district attorney handling the
$825,000 indictment did not initiate a
request for dismissal.
Quite obviously, therefore, it would be
embarrassing to the Attorney General to
address himself to the two questions,
with responsive and responsible answers.
NATIONAL USURY - ACT OF 1974
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MAZZOLI). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlemanfrom Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD) is recognized for 60 minutes.
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, I shall of
course not take the entire 60 minutes,
but I have asked for this time so as to
discuss a bill which I have introduced
today, joined in by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT) and the gen-
tleman from Missouri (Mr. TAYLOR).
Mr. Speaker, the cost of borrowed
money reached an all time high in 1974
since the time that banking reforms were
first enacted In the 1930's. The average
prime interest rate charged by banks
doubled over a period of a mere 20
months, rising from 6 percent in January
1973 to 12 percent in -August of 1974.
Yields on residential mortgages rose
from 7.49 percent in January of 1972 to
10.38 percent in September 1974, with a
rapid rise beginning around August-
September of 1973. And other interest
rates have shot up on all types of loans
as shown by table I in which Federal
Reserve Board figures are given for the
"most common" effective annual rate
collected on loans over a period of time:
TABLE I.-INTEREST RATES CHARGED ON SELECTED TYPES
OF BANK LOANS
Interest rate (percent per
annum)
Jan-
uary August
1972 1974
Sep-
lumber
1974
Small short-term noninstallment
loans to businesses, -----------
7.31
Farm production loans (1 yr or less
maturity):
Feeder cattle operations_._-__-__--
7.55
10.88
10.78
Other farm production operating
expenses------------------- -
7.63
10.29
10.21
Consumer installment, credit for:
New automobiles (36 mo.)-_::_: _
10.26
11.15
11.31
Mobile homes (84 mo.)_ _-:_____:
10.94
11.71
11.72
Other consumer goods (24mo.)___
12.57
13.10
13.20
Other personal expenditures (12
moJ_______
_
12.74
13.45
13.41
Credit card plan
s
17.11
17.21
17.17
Business loans-prime rate:
To small businesses__---
NA
9.97
10.22
To large businesses--------- __-
5.25
12.00
12.00
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 8 i(o3?-3
FoCB I"is.Ai28R?iwP7?i7R000700150082-8 H 10'907
,
November 20,
heavy despite active promotion in the
market.
(3) Holders of gold bullion, particularly in
small amounts do not, in any practical sense,
have a liquid investment. As a freely traded
commodity there is always the risk of ~ a
substantial swing in the price. Over the past
year the price of gold has made several
short-run movements-down as well as up-
of 15 percent or more. But even apart from
the commodity price risk, there is a sub-
stantial gap, between the buy-sell price
necessarily quoted by dealers of gold in small
quantities.
(4) Gold is an investment which gives no
current return to the holder. At the present
high level of interest rates this sacrifice is a
considerable cost factor, particularly over
an extended period of time.
(5) Investors in gold must take account
of the very large stock of gold held in official
reserves throughout the world. The United
States alone holds about 276 million ounces,
an amount several times larger than pres-
ent annual world gold production. The pos-
sibility of using. a portion of this reserve to
satisfy new public demand is a factor that
must be taken into account by any prudent
investor.
(6) And finally, any banker contemplating
gold dealing must recognize that he will face
formidable competition from other sectors
of the market, not to mention his fellow
bankers. As a free commodity, gold in the
coming year can be bought and sold by any-
one. Whatever the extent of market demand
the gold business is certain to be among
the most highly competitive in the Ameri-
can economy. In this situation the profits
to the average bank in gold sales are likely
'to be at best minor, even including a
modest boost to the safe deposit rental
business.
But even if the direct sale of gold turns
out to be more of a cost burden rather than
a source of revenue to banks, I doubt that
our enterprising and innovative bankers will
give up the game easily. For. modern bank-
ers the return of gold to commodity status
in a sense turns the clock back to the 17th
century when the goldsmiths of Lombard
Street conceived the idea of issuing more
and more paper receipts against less and
less gold deposits and thereby established
the basic principle of the modern banking
system. But for American bankers of today
there is a difference that should not be over-
looked. Unlike the ancient Lombards, Ameri-
can bankers operate in an environment of
long established and, on the whole, atten-
tive federal and state regulatory authorities.
In assessing the gold market from a bank-
er's viewpoint, the key point is that a free
gold commodity market-with fluctuating
prices determined by essentially unpredicta-
ble supply and demand-is a very recent
historical phenomenon. As a practical mat-
ter the free gold market dates only from
March 17, 1968 when the two-tier gold price
came into being. For centuries prior to that
date-the price of gold for anyone was rigidly
fixed by political authorities based essen-
tially on its monetary status. However, the
one factor that has in the past distinguished
gold from other commodities-a fixed trad-
ing price-has now gone by the board. The
significance of this change, particularly for
bankers, is profound. All of the banking tra-
ditions, institutional practices, regulations,
and habits of thought pertaining to bank
gold dealing, which have their roots in the
long historical period prior to 1968, are
largely irrelevant in ,the new environment.
Gold is now a commodity priced in a free
market and with a highly volatile recent
price record. For banks, gold dealing under
these conditions will be a wholly new ac-
tivity for which the historical past offers no
reliable guide-either for the bankers or the
bank regulators. In this context we can
assume that the banking authorities' will be
keeping a close watch on developments, and
it would be reasonable to expect appropriate
guidance will be forthcoming if the situa-
tion so warrants.
We will all note that Mr. Wolfe states
that-
There is no residue of Government rules,
regulations, guidelines or hints beyond those
that would normally apply to business trans-
actions in general. In short, the United
States will have a gold market that is as
free and open as in any country in the world.
Needless to say, this free-market econ-
omy is among the greatest strengths of
our American system. I do not sell our
American public short and I believe that
the protection of this open and free mar-
ket is the best protection of our system
and ultimately of the individual citizen.
I do not believe that the American pub-
lic is so foolish as to be "fleeced, cheated,
and defrauded" as easily as my col-
league suggests. I am confident the
American public will not be bamboozled
by sleazy operators in the new gold mar-
ket. I have great confidence in the Amer-
ican public to deal in this commodity as
they have been dealing in other com-
modities, from precious gems to pork
bellies, for many years.
I must say to my friend that I have a
high regard for the innate shopping abil-
ity of the American consumer. That we
will be offered a wide variety of gold
ranging from certificates indicating own-
ership, to small bars, to bullion coins, to
coins which are legal tender in other
lands, will, I believe, again offer the
American consumer the variety of
choices to which he is entitled in this, as
in any other market..
Regarding the allegation that no hear-
ings were held on the question of private
gold ownership, I would remind my friend
that on numerous previous occasions
over a period of years I have both for-
mally and informally asked the distin-
guished chairman. of our committee to
hold such hearings.
The gentleman repeatedly asks that
the Congress reassert its authority in this
area: Of course, the Congress did-that
is why the bill passed by such wide mar-
gins both here and in the other body. But
a further point that deserves to be driven
home is how can the Congress reassert
its authority by giving the President the
dication which has, on the one and,
eroded the authority of the Con ress
over the years, and also denied the
American citizens the right to own old.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the p per
course in this matter lies not in retu 'ng
to the executive branch the vast p wer
it has exercised in this area for ore
than 40 years, but in returning to on-
gress yet another oversight resp si-
bility-that of ruling on any effo to
sell, alienate, or commit any of our old
reserves by the Secretary of the T as-
ury. I have already introduced le sla-
tion to this effect. My bill would pr ibit
the sale, alienation, or commitmen of
gold by the Secretary of the Treasury
without prior approval by act of Con-
gress. This is another area where the
peoples' Representatives in Congress
should have the right to oversee any ac-
tion taken. If my colleague from Texas is,
in fact, concerned over the abdication
by Congress of its proper responsibilities,
then I call upon him to join me as a co-
sponsor of this legislation. I have here a
copy of my bill together with a "Dear
Colleague" letter I circulated in Septem-
ber calling for support of the bill and
ask that they be incorporated in the
RECORD at this point:
H.R. 16594
A bill to prohibit the sale, alienation, or com-
mitment of gold by the Secretary of the
Treasury without prior approval by Act
of Congress
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, not-
withstanding section 3699 of the Revised
Statutes (31 U.S.C. 733), section 10(a) of
the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 822a
(a) ), or any other provision of law, or any
rule, regulation or authority of any such
law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not
sell, alienate, or commit gold without prior,
specific approval by Act of Congress.
Houss OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., September 17, 1974.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: Last week I introduced
legislation to prohibit the sale, alienation, or
commitment of gold by the Secretary of the
Treasury without prior approval by Act of
Congress.
The Secretary of the Treasury has very
broad outstanding authority to dispose of our
gold. Current law provides that "... he may
sell gold in any amount at home or abroad,
in such manner and at such rates and upon
such terms and conditions as he may deem
most advantageous to the public inter-
est ." I believe that the oversight au-
thority provided by my, bill properly belongs
to the Congress. This is yet another area
where the executive branch has unlimited
power and where the people's Representatives
in Congress should have the right to over-
see any action taken.
There is clearly no valid reason for deny-
ing Congress the oversight authority pro-
vided by my bill. The Secretary of the Treas-
ury was initially granted his broad powers
for the purpose of stabilizing the value of
our currency at a time when it was redeem-
able in gold. The gold-reserve requirements
for Federal Reserve notes and deposits have
been abolished, however, and the reduction
of the monetary role of gold, begun in the
days of the New Deal, has now been com-
pleted.
It is clear that the power to dispose of this
national treasure, our gold reserves, must
not rest in one individual. I plan to reintro-
apprFio sale, alienation, or commit-
ment of our gold on Monday, September 23,
and I welcome your support.
IN DEFENSE OF PRIVACY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. McKINNEY)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act
of 1974. This bill is virtually identical to
legislation I helped to introduced when
I first came to Congress 4 years ago.
Since that time I, along with every other
citizen in this country, have been
alarmed over the consistent erosion and
Government abuse of our right to pri-
vacy. The Watergate revelations, in
which we learned of Government surveil-
lance of innocent citizens, illegal wire-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 I1 10908
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 20, 1974
tapping, misuse of income tax data, col-
lection of personal dossiers, have helped
to create a growing distrust and even
fear of Government in the minds of mil-
lions of Americans.
to name but a few-to once again inure
privacy as an intrinsic individual liberty,
inherent to our system of democracy.
To meet these myriad abuses I had FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION
hoped Congress would promptly enact a The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
much more comprehensive and inclusive previous order of the House, the gentle-
he aim or this iegisiation is to sate- recognized for 60 minutes.
guard individual privacy from the mis- Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, the
confirmation hearings. They will be ex-
pected to display knowledge of the law,
agrasp for the failings of the old sys-
g of the Commission.
Upon final appointment, the Commis-
sioners will need to find a office/head-
quarters. There will be countless budget-
ing, equipment, and hardware decisions.
tamed by Federal agencies. However, I an important milestone in the reforns of mission is to meet its varied responsibil-
recognize there must be a first step in our system of campaign financing. In the hies. Considerable administrative skill
protecting the personal freedom of pri- past, probably the most important rea- will be needed at this stage. A few wrong
vary and there is no better place to be- son for the failure of campaign finance decisions might seriously impair the fu-
g.n than the safeguarding of individual reform legislation has been the lack of ture operation of the Commission.
records held by Government agencies. an effective enforcement agency or The Commissioners must develop writ-
We have reached the point in our mechanism. The 1974 law attempts to ten rules for the conduct of the Commis-
history when we must determine whether remedy this problem by providing a ve- sion's activities. These rules will provide
we are to be a people who controls their hicle for fair, vigorous, equitable en- guidelines for the staff and future Com-
Government or a Government that con- forcement-a Federal Elections Com- mission decisions.
trols its people. By passage of this legis- mission. The Commissioners will be responsible
lation we are insuring that it is, indeed, The Commission Is established to ad- for formulating overall, general policy
the people who control their Govern- minister, seek to obtain compliance with, for the 1971 act-containing disclosure
in ent, for this bill, in a sense, gives a and formulate overall policy for the dis- provisions-the criminal code sections
conscience to our Government computers closure requirements enacted by the 1971 relating to campaign financing-contri-
and tells our citizens that they are in- law, contribution and expenditure liin- button and expenditures limitation and
deed individuals, not mere numbers on stations, public financing provisions, and so forth-and the Presidential Election
a card. other provisions of law which relate to Campaign Fund Act public financing
For the first time the American public campaign financing. provisions.
will be made aware of the existence and With the passage of the 1974 act and Another important initial step will be
characteristics of all personal infomma- establishment of the Commission, Con- to determine the ability of the Commis-
tion systems kept by every Federal gress has made a most important official sion to utilize the resources of other
agency and each citizen will be able to move to recognize, and to begin to re- Government agencies such as the Gen-
review and correct his record as com- dress, the dangerous lack of public con- oral Accounting Office and Library of
piled by Government agencies, to correct fidence in politicsand government at all Congress. These agencies could be ex-
inaccurate or misleading Information in levels. tremely helpful to the Commission in
the records that can be so damaging. The Commission is unique among red- administering and enforcement of the
For the first time citizens will be able eral institutions. Two of the Commis- law.
to control the transfer of personal in- sioners are appointed by the President; The 1974 act is unique in that it gives
formation about him from one Federal two are appointed by the Speaker of the the Congress power to veto the rules and
agency to another for nonroutine pur- House upon the recommendations of regulations of the Commission before
poses and no records concerning po- the majority and minority leaders of the they go into effect-that is within
litical and religious beliefs of individuals House; two are appointed by the Presi- 30 legislative days. All rules and regula-
can be maintained by Federal agencies dent pro-tempore upon the recommentza- tions proposed by the Commission must
unless expressly authorized by law or an tions of the majority and minority be submitted to the appropriate com-
Individual himself. Moreover, the avail- leaders of the Senate. All six voting meiii- mittee or committees of Congress with
ability of records containing personal bers must be confirmed by both the a detailed explanation and justification.
information will be limited to agency House and Senate for 6-year terms. In Since it will be at least 30 legislative days
employees who need access to them in recognition of the complexity, scope, and before they are approved-over twice as
the performance of their duties. importance of the new Commission's long if they are vetoed-the Commission
fit essence, H.R. 16373 provides a series work. the law states that "members shall must submit its proposed regula-
of basic safeguards for the individual to be appointed on the basis of maturity, tions long in advance of the first pri-
help remedy the misuse of personal in- experience, integrity, impartiality and mattes in 1976-probably, by around
formation by the Federal Government good .judgment." September of 1975. In the interim-since
and reassert the fundamental right of The effectiveness of the new law mill candidates will undoubtedly begin cam-
personal privacy of all Americans. be dependent on the ability of the Coin- paigning for the presidency early in 1975
V r. Speaker, we have a long way to mission to oversee and enforce the act's and some provisions of the act will have
go before our citizens are once again intricate provisions and maintain its own immediate ramifications-the Commis-
confident that the constitutional guaran- integrity, independence, and impartial- sion will have to give considerable guid-
tee of privacy is not a mere abstraction ity in dealing with sensitive issues. ance to candidates and committees.
but is a fundamental facet of our sys- Both the Congress and the President The Commissioners will be responsible
tern of Government. The Privacy Act of are presently contemplating their for drawing up all budget requests and
1974, as I have said, is a first step to choices of nominees for these crucial submitting them to both the Executive
reinstilling confidence that Government Positions. To aid this process, it may be and Congress.
does indeed respect the freedoms guaran- helpful to list some of the vast array of The Commission Is required to report
teed in the Constitution. responsibilities and powers vested In the to the President by March 31 of each
_1 would hope my colleagues in the Federal Elections Commission and to re- year. This statement must contain a de-
Congress will not rest complacent upon view some of the regulatory decisions r,,- tailed summary of the Commission's ae-
passage of the legislation before us to. qufred immediately. The following is a tivities, together with recommendations
day. There is much work to be done In summary of the major duties and powers for legislation and other actions.
the area of privacy and we must address of the Commission, categorized by func- Another important general responsi-
the many other aspects-protection of tion, while, while not all-inclusive, w M bility is to assure that all interested and
income tax records; protection of com- indicate their range and complexity, affected parties are informed about their
puter files held by privata industry; GENERAL RESPONSII3ILITIFS duties and responsibilities under the act.
privacy of bank records and credit rat- After being nominated, the Commis- The new law is often technical, compli-
ings; surveillance of innocent citizens, stoners-designate will be subjected to cated, and often imprecise. Penalties for
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 324 1 g
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
November 20 1 97.E CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
a'ri annual rate of. compensation which is
that multiple of $161 which is nearest to, but
less than, $2,265 less than the annual rate of
compensation, which is now or may hereafter
be in effect, for Members of Congress, or (B)
to which the rate "$43,036" applies, shall not
be paid at anytime, by reason of the promul-
gation of this -Order, at, an annual rate of
compensation in excess of either of the fol-
lowing: (I) an annual rate of compensation
which is a multiple of $151 which is nearest
to,: but less than, the annual rate for such
level V, or (ii) an annual rate of compensa-
tion which is that multiple of $151 which is
nearest to, but less than, $1,661 less than
such annual rate for Members of Congress,
GENERAL LIMITATION
SEC. 7. (a) The figure "$1,140" appearing
in section 105(f) of the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1968, as amended (as
provided in section 7(a) of the Order of
the President pro tempore of October 4, 1973)
shall be deemed to refer to the figure
"$1,057".
(b) (1) The maximum annual rate of com-
pensation of "$43,890" appearing in such
section (as provided in section 7(b) of such
Order of October 4, 1973) is further in-
creased by 5.52 percent, and as so increased,
$151, and shall be deemed to refer ip~,,,,el5sctions 1-9 of this Order are
figure "$46,206". ec ive October 1, 1974.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisia of par- JAMES O. EASTLAND,
at level V of the Executive Schedul
section 5316 of title b, United States
rate for such level V,, or (ii) $41,07
(C) If the annual rate. for such le
the
$151
nual
and
After such time, any such individual shall
be paid in accordance with this Order.
(c) (1) An individual occupying a position
for which that paragraph 4 prescribes a
maximum annual 'rate in excess of the. an-
nual rate for positions in such level V in
effect immediately prior to October 1, 1974,
may be paid at the maximum rate authorized
by that paragraph 4 or any annual rate which
is a multiple of $161, except that if the max-
imum annual rate to be paid is in excess
of $36,693, the annual rate paid shall be a
multiple of $285. After such time as the
annual rate of basic pay for positions in
such level V is increased to an annual rate
which will result in authorizing an annual
rate of compensation to be paid such an in-
dividual under this Order which is higher
than the annual rate authorized for that
individual under that ' paragraph 4, sucp
individual shall be paid in accordance with
this Order.
(2) An individual occupying a position
for which that paragraph 4 prescribes a max-
imum annual rate of compensation less than
the annual rate for positions in such level
V in effect immediately prior to October 1,
1974, shall be paid in accordance with sec-
tions 1-8 of this Order.
SUPPORT FOR SENATOR ERVIN'S
PRIVACY BILL, S. 3418
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President,
after watching the systematic attempt
to destroy the credibility and integrity of
Nelson Rockefeller, I can see why more
and more people shy away from public
service. The loss of privacy and indi-
vidual dignity associated with such an
undertaking is often too great for aver-
age citizens to endure. Constitutional
rights of privacy are closer to being lost
now than at any time in the last 200
years, and something must be done.
Some Members of Congress recognized
this threat to our privacy and have spon-
sored bills to curb the information-
sharing activities of Government agen-
cies and further to allow citizens an
opportunity to appeal inappropriate
of the following: (1) an annual rate which
Is a multiple of $151 which is nearest to, but
less than, the annual rate for such level V,
or (11) an annual rate which is nearest to,
but less than, $1,057 less than the annual
rate of compensation, which is now or may
hereafter be in effect,, for Members of Con-
gress.
NOTIFYING DISBURSING OFFICER OF INCREASES
SEC. 8. In order for an employee to be paid actions of such agencies.
in an increase in the annual rate of his com- Speaking as one Senator, I intend to
his. position authorized under this Order, the
individual designated by section 4, 5, or 6
to authorize an incerased rate of compen-
sation for that employee shall notify the
disbursing office of the Senate in writing that
he authorizes an increase In such rate for
that employee and the date on which that
increase is to be effective.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION
RATE INCREASES
S. 3418. This proposal, which affects
Federal data banks, establishes five new
standards :
First. Collect only relevant personal
information and inform the individual
which data is required, which data is
voluntary, why it is needed and under
what authority.
ACT, 1975, Second. Maintain and disseminate
SEC. 9: (a) Except as provided in this sec-
tion, no provision of this Order supersedes
paragraph 4 of "Administrative Provisions"
under the heading "SENATE" in the Legisla-
tive Branch Appropriation Act, 1975.
only timely data, keep track of outside
access to the, data, establish managerial
and physical security.
Third. Announce the nature of each
data bank maintained.
Fourth. Grant the individual access to
which that paragraph 4'prescribes a specific inspect his record and tell each person
annual rate of compenastion shall 'be paid where the data came from and how it
that annual rate until such time as the an- Is used.
nual rate of basic pay for positions in level Fifth. Reinvestigate information chal-
V of the Executive Schedule under section lenged by an individual, then correct the
5316 of title 5, United States Code, is In- record or amplify it to include the per-
creased to. an annual rate which will result
in authorizing an annual rate of compen-
sation to be paid such an individual under resolve existing disputes on data.
this Order which is higher than the annual Of course,. when the bill comes up for
rate authorized under that paragraph 4. floor debate, I will reserve my right to
S 19703
support or oppose amendments which
are offered, but 'I will not withdraw my
support for a'strong and comprehensive
approach to 'theprotection of Individual
privacy. As we , come closer to,our bzcen-.
tennis] observance, privacy is one right,
not a privilege, which must be kept
inviolate.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Mr. MONTOYA,,_.r-,
September 27 the Washington Post pub-
lished a column by Stephen S. Rosenfeld
concerning bilingual education. On Sep-
tember 30 the Honorable WILLIAM A.
STEiGER asked that Mr. Rosenfeld's col-
umn be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, in an effort to encourage fur-
ther discussion and debate. The col-
umn also produced a very large number
of letters to the editor of the Post, some
of which were printed on October 10
and inserted into the RECORD by my dis-
tinguished colleague Senator FLOYD
HASKELL.
Because of my own concern, over the
issues raised by Mr. Rosenfeld, I wrote
a guest column for the Washington Post
which was published on October 22. I
attempted to clarify some of the points
raised by Mr. Rosenfeld and others, and
to correct some of the misunderstanding
of fact concerning congressional action.
Finally, Mr. Rosenfeld published a
second column on this subject in which
he very graciously expressed his thanks
to those critics who had "broadened his
understanding" of what bilingual edu-
cation is intended to do.
Response to my own article was im-
mediate and in most cases enthusiastic.
It is clear that there is deep interest in
this subject and deep concern over .the
basic concepts which this discussion has
brought to the surface.
Because I believe that this kind of
three-way debate between a popular and
sensitive columnist, legislators in both
the House and the Senate, and the pub-
lic, is very valuable, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Rosenfeld's
second column, my own guest column,
and several of the most pertinent letters
I have received be printed in the RECORD
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I think
it is especially interesting to note that
those who are most enthusiastic about
bilingual and bicultural education pro
grams are either students who have
themselves struggled with this problem
or teachers who have worked with minor-
ity language children and have discov-
ered the depth of the need and the value
of the bilingual teaching effort.
Finally, Mr. President, I hope that this
discussion will result in further and more
thoughtful examination of the impor-
tance of every one of our various ethnic,
racial, and religious groups in the crea-
tion. of a multicultural America.
I am certain that as we enter the bi-
centennial years just ahead of us we
are all going to be looking with better
understanding at our history and at the
many different kinds of people who were
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
19704 CONGRESSIONAL REC*RD-SENATE November 20,
a, i3art of that history. As we do that, i
hope we will all begin to recognize that
our culture and language is already
millticulturaI, with ideas and ways of
doing things which came to us from
many differentcountries and which have
been adopted into our own unique
American lifestyle. Sauerkraut, pizza,
tortillas, and Roquefort are part of our
language as well as our diet-and every
American can appreciate the spice and
variety they have added to our diet as
well as our language, for instance.
Our majority language is not really
English, of course, as any Englishman
can tell us. It is American, and it includes
many words and phrases which have
come to us from countries all over the
world. A very large number of our place-
names and words are Indian-and that
part of our language and life did not
come to this continent to join us-we
Caine to join them!
1. would agree with Mr. Rosenfeld
that our variety of ethnic, racial, and
religious groups cause tensions and
stresses and problems. They always
have. But the astounding achievements
we have made as a people may be" due,
at least partially, to those very tensions
and the effort we have been forced to
make in adjusting to more than one kind
of people and more than one culture and
language group.
We live in a multicultural and multi-
linlrual world which becomes smaller
and closer and more full of tension every
day. We must learn to live together on
this planet as human beings who respect
ourselves and others. We are indeed, as
has been suggested, a "great rehearsal"
for the kind of international under-
standing and cooperation which Is in-
creasingly important.
I. is perhaps a long step from a good
bilingual/bicultural program In a first
grade class in a little town in New Mexico
to an international agreement about
world problems, of course. But I think
a very good argument can be made for
the idea that our ability to succeed In'
that little schoolroom will be helpful and
set a good example for our larger efforts
in the world.
I realize we cannotaccomplish allthe
goals of better bilingual/bicultural edu-
cation overnight. As has happened so
often in our past, these programs are
evidence of our recognition of a prob-
lem, however-and a first step in pro-
viding solutions.
I am hopeful that the discussion
which has been engendered by this de-
bate will result in a broader understand-
ing of not only the needs of our minor-
ity language children, but also of the
great strength of our multicultural
heritage.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 1974]
EXHIBIT 1
A SECOND Loom AT BILINGUALISM
(By Stephen S. Rosenfeld)
[ am indebted to my critics for broadening
my understanding of bilingualism-teach-
ing in English and in the "home language,"
usually Spanish, in the public schools. The
issue was discussed in this space on Sept. 27.
Nothing I've ever written has drawn a larger
response-about four to one against, by the
way.
1974
I think I understand better now that bi- dered how to give each -group its cultural
linguallsm is a program devised to meet a due while ensuring that some larger "na-
social and educational crisis, it situation in tional" interest be assured.
which a great many kids arriving in school Certainly it is fair to ask what role the
speaking, say, Spanish fall behind at once, public school system, perhaps the principal
drop out and thereafter get a raw deal. IV,exi- -cultural" institution in American life,
can-Americans are the key group here but should be expected to play in sorting out this
Puerto Ricans and American Indians are also generation's, or this decade's, answer to that
importantly affected. fundamental, continuing question. Our "dl-
Bilingualism also serves, I understand verse parts" deserve respect but how should
better, to redress the sense of those many it be accorded? Yes, "jingoism,""xenopho-
Americana who speak English poorly or not bia" and "cultural chauvinism" are aspects-
at all, that their culture--a central element baleful aspects-of the American scene. But
in personal identity-is not respected by the not everyone who expresses a longing for
American majority and that their American- Americans, get along better with one an-
ism is somehow suspect. other need be charged with them.
.h
e
th
i
r aps
ere
s nothing more to be _?aid
about a program which promises so much to
so many. But I think there is more.
First of all, can bilingualism reasonably
be expected to carry the educational and
social burdens which its sponsors have
loaded upon it? The claim is made that a
child educated first in the home language
will find it easier to learn English, and to
learn other subjects in English. But none of
its supporters contend that this has been
demonstrated other than in a small number
of' model school programs. It does not seem
to me unreasonable, furthermore, to be skep-
tical about a proposal which puts so much
weight on changing the method of instruc-
tion, since method Is only one factor affecting
a child's education.
Some argue in effect that bilingualism is
a kind of consolation prize for kids. who start
school and life with heavy handicaps: "at
feast let them develop proficiency in the
home language and pride In the home cul-
ture." But In that case it should not be sold
as a catch-up. I can think of no crueler trick
than a bilingual program which promises
catch-up but leaves kids unprepared for so-
ciety's rigors in two languages. Supporters of
bilingualism should be more interested than
any one else in making this point.
If it were up to me to resolve this par-
ticular issue, I would proceed full steam
ahead on bilingualism, but I would tone
down the promises made in Its name and I
would keep looking hard to see how the pro-
grams go and whether other programs need
to be carried forward at the same time.
For reasons that no doubt reflect on me as
well as my critics, I was startled to be called
a "cultural fascist" and the like for express-
ing the hope that all American kids will learn
English and have a fair chance at the good
things in American life. Thereby to be ac-
cusedof favoring "homogenized Americans"
and "bland uniformity" set me to wondering
about the ambivalences in American society;
we want ethnic pride and conventional suc-
cess and are uncertain whether the former
is help or hindrance to the latter or whether
the two have anyreal connection at all.
What Is certain is that Americans of Euro-
pean stock have-a very different view of the
matter-a much more confident view based
on their own experience-than do Mexican-
Americans, Puerto Ricans and Indians. These
Americans, far from being "Immigrants"
who chose to jointhis society, became Amer-
icans involuntarily by being militarily taken
over by the expanding United States. They
have not been "melted" or acculturated in
the "melting pot" which absorbed Euro-
peans. Rather, they have often gotten the
worst of both worlds, their home culture de-
graded andtheir assimilation denied.
(By Senator JOSEPH M. MONTOTA)
A recent column in The Washington Post
raised the frightening prospect of a divisitb
ethnicity being developed and fostered by
Congress through passage of a "new" pre
gram for bilingual education. Stephen
Rosenfeld expressed his "apprehension" at
she possibility that our "melting pot" schools
would no longer be able to Americanize im-
migrant children in what be called the "tra-
ditional" American way. He reported that
the taxpayer was being asked to pay $170
million a year for this "extremely disturbing"
new kind of education through legislation
which he said had been enacted "without
any public challenge" and with "no one pay-
ing heed."
It is hard to imagine a statement founded
less on fact and more on fright. However,
since it is always difficult to get coverage for
the education problems of minority children,
I-welcome Mr. Rosenfeld's invitation to de-
bate, and hasten to do what I can to correct
the record. -
First, let us be clear about what Congress
did. The legislation passed this year was not
new, but was simply an amendment to the
Bilingual Education Act of 1968, written and
introduced first in 1967 by Senator Ralph
Yarborough and me. This year, that legis-
lation, Title VII of the Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education Act, was amended in bills
Introduced by Senator Kennedy, Senator
Cranston and me. The changes made will
provide clearer definitions, better adminis-
tration, an increase in funding to cover
teacher-training, and better coordination
between State and Federal programs. The
$170 million mentioned by W. Rosenfeld is
an authorization, not an appropriation, and
is for the year 1978, not this year. The au-
thorization for this year is $135 million, but
only $70 million has been. requested for ap-
propriation. That will provide for only 284
programs across the nation-26 less than
were funded last year. -
Because the Federal Government has never
provided for more than two percent of the
children who need this special kind of edu-
cation, however, the Federal program is real-
ly irrelevant to the debate which Mr. Rosen-
feld's column raises. The controversy, It
seems to me, centers on two concepts:. First,
an understanding of what bilingual and bi-
cultural education is, and, second, an under-
standing of what we want America to be.
In order to understand bilingual/bicul-
tural education, it is necessary to work with
reality, not myth. The reality is between five
and seven million children who are poor and
come to school speaking a language other
But. I still ask, where does this leave than English. They have historically been
America? It is all very well for Americans to considered - "marginal" children-barely
"recognize our multicultural heritage" but worth educating, just as marginal products
it does not signify "fear of diversity" or. I are barely worth producing. They live in
would contend, "latent bias" to expresscon barrios and ghettos, or on reservations, and
cern about how the different ethnic, racial they have drop-out rates as high as fifty or
and religious groups which compose this sixty percent. When the National Education
country relate to each other. -Observers of Association held its first national conference
the American scene at least since de Toque- to discuss this problem in 1966, educators
vile have noted these stresses and have pon- urged a real commitment toward building
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 SENATE JOINT
At the request o
Senator from New
Nic1) was added as
Administrator of
make a grant for
facilities for the
Hall of Fame.
11 4 ved For CONGRESSIONALBR CORDP76SENATE 000700150082-8 S19675
as "March of Dimes
tion Month."
LuTION 254
cosponsor of Senate
4, authorizing the
Administration to
he construction of
SENATE RESOL ON 435-ORIGI-
NAL RESOL ON REPORTED
FROM THE COM ITTEE ON RULES
AND ADMINIS ATION AUTHOR-
IZING ADDITIONAL EXPENDI-
(Placed on the
Mr. CANNON, fr
ration, reported the
following resolutio
Resolved, That th
during the Ninety-th
addition to the amo
in Senate Resolution
gress, agreed to May
s. 435
Committee on Rules
authorized to expend
fund of the Senate,
d Congress, $30,000 in
nt, and for the same
section 134(a) of the
tion Act of 1946, and
AMENDMEN
the table.)
Mr. BURDICK s
the bill (S. 2928)
sies involving cons
purposes.
SOCIAL SEC
(Ordered to be p
to the Committee on
NO. 1991
nted and referred
Mr. INOUYE sub
ment intended to be
the Resident Commissioner from Puerto
Rico), and each officer and employee of the
United States within the executive and legis-
lative branches of Government receiving
compensation at an annual rate in excess of
$30,000.
(c) Reports required by this Act shall be
in such form and shall contain such infor-
mation in order to meet the provisions of
this Act as the Comptroller General may pre-
scribe. All reports filed under this Act shall
be maintained by the Comptroller General as
public records, open to inspection by mem-
bers of the public, and copies of such records
shall be furnished upon request at a reason-
able fee.
SEC._ 403. Each -person to whom this Act
applies on January 1 of any year shall file the
report required by this on or before February
15 of that year. Each person to whom this Act
first applies during a year after January 1 of
that year shall file the report required by
this Act on or before the forty-fifth day after
this Act first applies to him during that year.
SEc. 404. Any person who knowingly and
willfully fails to file a report required to be
filed under this Act, or who knowingly and
willfully files a false report required to be
filed under this Act, shall be fined not more
than $2,000, or imprisoned for not more than
two years, or both.
SEC. 405. This title shall become effective
on January 1, 1975.
AMENDME
At the request of
FEDERAL PRIVACY BOARD ACT-
S. 3418
AMENDMENT NO. 1992
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
NET WORTH DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, when
the Senate tomorrow brings up for con-
AMENDMEN!
At the request of
Senator from Wisc(
was added as a cosp
No. 1932, intended b
bill (H. R. 8214) to r
ment of members o
of the United Stati
ployees who are pris<
ing in action, and f
abuses of the social
r. STEVENSON, the
be proposed to the
s and civilian em-
ners of war or miss-
NOTICE OF HEAR]
WAR CLAIMS AC
Mr. BURDICK. M
to announce that a ]
on December 3, 11
Dirksen Senate Ofl
mencing at 10 a.m., f
of S. 1728-the War
ments, by an ad hoc
sisting of Senators
myself, as chairmar
Those who wish tc
statement for inclu
should communicate
with William P. Wes,
of the Subcommitte
in Judicial Machi
Senate Office Buil
D.C., 224-3618.
testify or submit a
ion in the record
as soon as possible
;phal, Chief Counsel
on Improvements
.ery, 6306 Dirksen
ding, Washington,
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF
AMENDMENTS
t' AMENDMENTS
r. President, I wish
rearing will be held
74, in room 6202,
ice Building, com-
)r the consideration
Claims Act amend-
subcommittee con-
BAYH, FONG, and
of the Social Security Act to liberalize
the conditions under which post-hospital
home health services may be provided
F~rereof, and home health
services may be provided under part B
thereof.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
sideration the Federal Privacy Board
Act, S. 3418, I Intend to offer an amend-
ment to provide for full disclosure of net
worth by high-ranking public officials in
the executive and congressional branches
of the U.S. Government. The amend-
ment is the same as the Net Worth Dis-
closure Act, S. 4059, which I introduced
on September 30 of this year.
I strongly believe that the public has a
right to know the financial interests of
those who guide their Government. The
disclosure of financial worth and interests
by policymakers is one step toward
strengthening the public's trust. I feel
the Senate, for example, has an unprece-
dented opportunity to dispel public cyni-
cisrn by adhering to the same standards
of public disclosure that it has asked of
Vice President nominee Nelson Rocke-
feller.
The net worth disclosure amendment
would require that the President, Vice
President, Members of the Congress, and
all employees of the executive and legis-
lative branches earning in excess of $30,-
000 a year, file each February 15 a net
worth statement of assets and liabilities
over $1,500 held alone or jointly within
the family during the previous calendar
year. Asset valuation would be based on
fair market value as of December 30 of
the disclosure year.
This amendment is similar to net worth
disclosure provisions in title IV of the
'Federal Election Campaign Act Amend-
ments of 1974, S. 3044, as passed by the
Senate earlier this year. Unfortunately,
these important provisions were dropped
in conference.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the amendment incor-
porating the Net Worth Disclosure Act,
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1992
On page 54, line 8, strike out "This Act"
and Insert in lieu thereof 'Titles II and III of
this Act".
On page 54, line 14, strike out "this Act"
and insert in lieu thereof "titles I. II, and III
of this Act".
On page 54, Immediately below line 14, in-
sert the following new title:
TITLE IV-FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the
"Net Work Disclosure Act".
SEC. 402. (a) Each individual referred to
in subsection (b) shall file annually with
the Comptroller General of the United States
a full and complete statement of net worth
to consist of:
(1) A list of the identity and value of
each asset held by him, or jointly by him
and his spouse or by him and his child or
children, and which has a fair market value
in excess of $1,500 as of the end of the
calendar year prior to that in which he is
required to file a report under this Act.
(2) A list of the identity and amount of
each liability owed by him; or jointly by him
and his spouse or by him and his child or
children, and which is in excess of $1,500
as of the end of the calendar year prior to
that In which he is required to file a report
under this Act.
(b) The provisions of this Act apply to
the President, the Vice President, each Mem-
ber of the Senate, each Member of the House
of Representatives (including Delegates and
November 20,
Resolution 224, a r
 S-19676
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 20, 1974
CLEANUP OF A LAKE
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, a major
problem in this Nation is the pollution of
our lakes and streams. Not only does pol-
lution of our water supplies create un-
necessary healthy hazards for our citizens,
but it also denies to us a food source at
a time when world food problems are
mounting.
In Wyoming, a group of concerned and
dedicated people have taken matters into
their own hands: They have brought a
polluted lake back to a healthful and
productive state. Known as Lake Viva
Naughton, the body of water is located
15 miles north of Kemmerer in south-
west Wyoming.
Lake Viva Naughton was nearly dead
in 1960. However, the once popular fish-
ing site was restored through the co-
operative efforts of the Lincoln County
Conservatio nDistrict, the resource con-
servation and development program of
the Soil Conservation Service, Utah
Power & Light Co., and residents of the
Kemmerer area, all working to keep the
lake in service.
Mr. President, the story of this cleanup
of Lake Viva Naughton is told by Richard
L. Thompson, R.C. & D. coordinator for
the Soil Conservation Service in Kem-
merer. This story is a salute and tribute
to the Federal Government and local
residents working hand-in-hand to solve
a problem.
l ask unanimous consent that the ar-
ticle entitled, "Clean-up of a Lake," ap-
pearing in the June 1974 issue of Soil
Conservation, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CLEAN-UP OF A LAKE
(By Richard L. Thompson)
Lake Viva Naughton, about 15 miles north
of Kemmerer in southwest Wyoming, has
been both a boon to fishermen and a head-
ache to nearby ranchers. Now, thanks to
community cooperation, camping and ranch-
ing can be good neighbors.
One reason for this turnabout was the help
provided by members of the Western Wyo-
ming Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Project (RC&D) in the area.
Lake Naughton is on the Hams Fork River
which runs through the small city of Kem-
merer. In 1941, Kemmerer built a dam across
Hams Fork River, creating a 100-acre lake for
municipal water storage. It was open to every-
one for fishing and remained open until 1960
when it was closed due to water pollution
and a general degradation of the nearby area.
In 1962, the Utah Power & Light Company
constructed a much larger dam across the
Hams Fork River a mile above the city dam.
This created the new 1,458-acre Lake Viva
Naughton. It was used for water storage and
fishing also.
Lake Viva Naughton's reputation for yield-
ing "big ones" spread, and fishermen flocked
into the area. But, once again, pollution be-
came a serious problem.
Local ranchers lost patience-along with
thousands of dollars-when fishermen drove
cars, trucks, and campers through their grain
and hay fields. Because there were few camp-
ing facilities, visitors stopped for the night
under the willows, along the lakeshore, or at
any wide spot in the access road. And when
they left for home, garbarge and other refuse
was strewn around the once-beautiful river
and lakeshore.
The ranchers had only one choice left tc
protect their land; they fenced off a major
part of the Hams Fork River shoreline. At
t: a same time. Utah Power and Light threat-
ened to close the large lake to visitors be-
cause of pollution problems.
The city of Kemmerer, Utah Power & Light,
and some of the ranchers considered twc
possible ways to rejuvenate the lake. One
was to develop a public recreation area ad-
ministered by the community; the other waf-
t), look for a reliable concessionaire.
The first idea was tried, but problems
arose over which community group shouly
administer the lake area,
Next, two Wyoming residents proposed that
trey operate the Viva Naughton Marina con-
csssion. The two men promised to save the
lakeshore and develop the lake to full recrea-
ton use--if the community helped them
overcome pollution problems.
The RC&D and the Lincoln County Con-
s?)rvation District provided conserva-
tion and land use planning assistance.
Soil Conservation Service specialists and flelc.
office personnel surveyed area soils, reviser'.
a number of separate conservation plans of
landowners, incorporated the ideas of loca`
people into plans for the marina, and drew
tip an area-wide conservation plan.
RC&D people also provided help on stand-
ard designs for buildings, boat ramps, anC
rstroom facilities. And the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department stocked the lake wit)-
110,000 rainbow trout fingerlings.
In the spring of 1973, construction began
on the marina. A well was dug, a complete
sewage and garbage system was set up, anC
the entire area was fenced to keep out litter-
tugs. A cafe, showers, and other amenities
were also completed.
In the first year, some 12,000 visitors have
'used the marina and camping facilities. As
riany as 500 campers remain at the lake,
overnight. Future plans call for A-frame
summer houses to be built and rented, anC.
an expansion of the lake itself.
The operation has boosted Kemmerer'::
economy, through increased sales of fishing;
gear, groceries, and other supplies. And.
while a fee is charged to use marina facilities.
campers seem to feel it's more than worth it
Their problem lake is now a popular recrea-
tion spot.
THE CONFIRMATION OF NELSON A_
ROCKEFELLER AS VICE PRESI-.
DENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the con-
frmation of Vice President-designate
Nelson A. Rockefeller is the most impor-
tant business pending before Congress.
Within the bounds of the responsibility
of the committees charged with reviewing
the nomination, and the responsibility of
each Member of Congress to review the
testimony gathered by these committees,
the nomination should be considered with
c',ispatch.
Based on the facts before us today, any:
t ased also on personal knowledge of hi.;
1:fe andwork for a period of a quarter
century, I intend to vote for the con--
firmation of Governor Rockefeller to
serve as the 41st Vice President of the
United States. In my judgment, he pos-
sesses the qualities of leadership and
expertise which we urgently need in
America today. In considering a nominee
f or Vice President, one question stand;:
cut as most relevant: Does the nomineu
have the ability and experience to serve
is President if for any reason he should
have to assume that office? I answered
this in the affirmative when I strongly
supported him for the Presidency in 1968.
In the case of -Governor Rockefeller the
question can be answered even more in
the affirmative today. In my judgment be
now is clearly one or the best qualified
people in America to hold high national
office.
We are all familiar with Governor
Rockefeller's long and distinguished rec-
ord of public service. Over the past 30
years, his-service in various public ca-
pacities has given him outstanding ex-
perience in domestic and international
affairs. He has served five of our last six
Presidents. He has served in the Depart-
ments of State, and Health, Education,
and Welfare. And, most importantly, he
served the people of New York as Gov=
ernor for 15 years. Throughout his career,
he demonstrated a rare talent for leader-
ship. That, I believe, is Rockefeller's most
outstanding quality.
There exists an urgent need for proven
leadership in America today. Governor
Rockefeller can significantly help meet
this need.
I believe also that government at all
levels is only as good as the people who
serve it. Nelson Rockefeller has shown
that he not only possesses the qualities
of experience and expertise that bring
distinction to public service, but that he
is able to attract people to Govrenment
who possess the same qualities. As Vice
President, his, performance would be
augmented by the people he would draw
to Government service.
The Senate Rules and Administration
Committee recently completed extensive
hearings on the Rockefeller nomination.
In those hearings, legitimate questions
were raised about Governor Rockefeller's
judgment on two points-first, the nu-
merous financial gifts which he gave to
his associates, and second, the financial
backing by his brother, Laurance, of a
campaign biography critical of Arthur
Goldberg. On both counts, I believe Gov-
ernor Rockefeller has satisfactorily an-
swered those questions raised by the
committee. I for one am convinced the
gifts were given out of friendship with
no intention of affecting public policy.
He candidly stated that his family's
participation in the publication of the
Goldberg book was a mistake, and he has
apologized to Mr. Goldberg.
The members and staff of the Rules
Committee should be commended for
their fairness and attention to detail in
considering the Rockefeller nomination.
At the same time, Governor Rockefeller
deserves praise for his candor in address-
ing the committee's questions. Certainly
the hearings before the House Judiciary
Committee, which begin tomorrow,
should be conducted in the same spirit.
Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller
was nominated by President Ford as
Vice-President-designate 3 months ago
today. We need a Vice President. Presi-
dent Ford has urged Congress to con-
firm Governor Rockefeller as soon as
possible. The American people now de-
serve a swift resolution of this matter.
A month ago my distinguished Repub-
lican colleague from Virginia reached
the conclusion that he would vote against
the pending nomination. I am now con-
vinced that the Republican Senator
from Illinois can vote in good conscience
and with great enthusiasm for the nomi-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527 0020150082-8
THE WASHINGTON POST DATE V ii~F PAGE
.And the Right to Privacy
MORE THAN ONE basic question of federal informa-
j~~ tion policy will be before Congress this week as
the Senate and ,House take up S. 3418 and H.R. 16373.
These are the so-called "privacy bills" which would set
rules to govern the multitude of federal files on indi-
viduals and give citizens far more control over what
information about them is collected by the government
and how that personal data is used.
While S. 3418 is by far the broader bill, both measures
would inject a new sensitivity to individual rights into
all of the record-keeping practices of the entire federal
establishment. As with any, legislation of such enormous
scope, .there are substantial disagreements on some sig-
nificant points. Those disputes should not, however, be
allowed to obscure the important and encouraging fact
that, after years of work, an impressive array of legis-
lators, administrators and citizen experts have reached
general accord on several basic principles to govern
federal data banks.
These fair information practices, incorporated in both
bills,' assert that there should be no record-keeping sys-
tems whose'existence is a secret; that personal informa-
tion in all files should be accurate, complete, relevant
And up-to-date (though there is some argument about
definitions of those terms); that individuals should be
able to review and correct' almost all federal files about
themselves; that information gathered for one purpoae
should not be used for another. without the individual's
consent; and that the security and confidentiality of
personal files should be assured. These may seem to be
elementary rules, but their adoption as federal policy
would be an historic advance.
There are two major areas of controversy. The first
concerns what exceptions to the general rules ought to
be made. Obviously there are some records about indi-
viduals (such as the files of current criminal investiga-
tions) that the subject should not be allowed to inspect.
13ut such exceptions should be narrowly drawn because
those files are precisely the type which can be most
easily misused in ways that damage citizens. The Senate
bill ,provides relatively narrow exemptions to meet the
needs of national defense, foreign policy and law enforce-
ment. The House bill sets forth broader exceptions,
including a near-total exemption for the CIA and Secret
Service. This approach seems unwise because exempting
agencies rather than types of records is likely to en-
courage mQre requests for special treatment.
One particular area of dispute, especially in the House,
is whether individuals should be allowed to review infor-
mation given in confidence in connection with federal
employment, promotion and security investigations. The
challenge here is to strike a balance between two com-
peting interests: the individual's right to assurance of
fair treatment, and the government's need to obtain can-
did assessments of a person's qualifications for a position
of trust. Full individual access to confidential reports
could create many difficulties. On the other hand, an
amendment to be proposed by Rep. John Erlenborn (R-
Ill.) would go too far by exempting from disclosure all
information gained in confidence. Experience with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, which allows citizens to learn
the gist of the information but not the source, suggests
that a middle ground can be found.
The second and larger point of controversy is how
the new information policies should be put into effect.
The House bill relies on citizen initiatives and action by
each separate federal agency. The Senate measure, which
places far more emphasis on data management, would
create a Privacy Protection Commission to investigate
problems, monitor federal data policies, and develop
government-wide guidelines for carrying out the law.
This approach is vehemently opposed by the Ford admin-
istration, which claims that enforcement by individual
agencies and oversight by the Domestic Council privacy
committee will suffice. That might be true if every fed-
eral agency had abuilt-in commitment and sensitivity to
privacy concerns. However, experience with other re-
forms such as civil rights laws and the Environmental
Policy Act has shown all too clearly that many agencies,
left to themselves, are very slow to change their policies
and attitudes. Nor is the existing White House commit-
tee a reliable substitute for a permanent oversight agency
with a clear, statutory mandate. If Congress really wants
federal data bank policies to be reformed, a small but
forceful agency, with that as its single mission, is re-
quired.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 November 19, 18- (roved Fct?MR(A' //2it6ZBQe7fiM 7R000700150082-8 H 10845
When the shipments started arriving in The new government, he said, was deter- Unfortunately, the Chadian truckers didn't
large quantity in May, five months of the mined to make a success of the relief effort, have enough trucks to handle the immense
dry season-the best season to send trucks opening every possible avenue of transport piles of food that had grown in Maiduguri
of food to remote villages-had been lost. to get food Into the country and into the and had begun to rot under tarpaulin shel-
Food began to pile up in ports, in capital villages. ters.
cities; and in major distribution centers, "We're pretty proud of ourselves," Baron When the government finally relented in
but the trucks taking it to the villages that. said. "If we hadn't been able to double the July and decided to allow Nigerian truckers
needed it most were immobilized by the evacuation of the ports, there would have to carry the food, it was too late. The rainy
rainy season mud. been starvation in Niger this year." season had destroyed the road leading from
At the end of June in Dakar, Senegal's Once the U.S. and other donor nations Maiduguri to Chad.
capital and major port city, 67,000 metric - got food into the country, he said, the Niger Ethiopia's Wollo province is a place of
tons of grain intended for Mali was still on government shipped it to provincial distrihu- spectacular emerald mountains and valleys
the docks. tion centers. Where people in isolated farming villages
It would take four months to move that "Some places are in a 'truck to mouth' died by the thousands last year.
much grain into Mali because it had to be situation," Baron said, "where they are down There was no way for an airlift to succeed
transported on a single-track railroad that to one day's supply of food. But, I don't. in the region this year when the villages ran
can carry only 18,000 tons of freight a think there will be any death by starvation out of food again. There was no way after
month. In Niger this year." the rainy season began for the food trucks to
David McAdams, mission director in Sene- Whether people were dying for lack of any penetrate the steep, tortuous roads.
gal for the United States Agency for Inter- or too little food seemed an odd distinction The government instead set up relief camps
.national Development [USAID]. defended the to make in Kao, a village of 2,500 where two at the most accessible points they could
port backlog as inevitable. to three people a day were ,dying by early find, hoping that people in trouble could
Even if more shipments had arrived earlier August. somehow reach them, pick up supplies, and
in the year, he said, the railroad could not The people of Kao were at the mercy of return to their farms. -
have transported the grain to Mali because violent rainstorms that produced overnight "There are at least three million Ethiopians
it was tied up with Bringing Senegal's pea- raging rivers that tore thru the arid, rolling living in acute distress right now," said
nut harvest to port. landscape, slicing apart the roads they Shimelus Adugna, the nation's director of
"You can't expect these governments just watched for food shipments, relief operations.
to ship emergency grain on the railroad," There was no food stockpiled in Kao, and ."We think we have done a good job getting
he said. "They depend on the railroad to little chance of regular relief supplies arriv- food to most of them, but we know there
haul all of their commodities." ing until the end of the rainy season. are places we have not found, that we have
McAdams acknowledged that hungry The food was supposed to arrive regularly not managed to reach. There is little we can
people were beginning to fill the cities and from Tahoua, a major stockpile center 40 do for the people there, unless they somehow
towns by the end of June, even tho all the miles south. When a truck of food occa- manage to find their own way to one of our
relief food wasn't delivered. sionally managed to break thru the rain- shelters."
"We probably could have gotten it [re- soaked dirt road leading from Tahoua, peo- Often when people finally manage to reach
lief grain] there sooner by more expensive ple consumed the food as soon as it was off a government camp, such as the one in Bati
means, such as an airlift, but sometimes you the truck. in Wollo province, they are already beyond
can't justify an extreme expense until you've Parents allowed their children to eat raw help. Weakened by hunger, they are bundled
exhausted all other possibilities," he said. milk powder as soon as it was handed to into blankets to ward off the cold mountain
He was right about the expense of airlift- them, unaware that it was a sure way to air, and officials try to wean them back to
ing. When the Niger River ran dry in June induce fatal diarrhea. health so they can return to their farms.
and the government of Mali could no longer Maj. John Cellis, commander of a Belgain But every day in the camp a few bony
ship relief grain by barge, it had to resort Army trucking unit responsible for feeding forms under the blankets stop moving.
to airlifts to the northern desert cities. a region as large as France from the Tahoua and they are wrapped for the last time to
Three U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules trans- stockpile, said Kao was by no means the be carried out of the grey barracks buildings.
port planes flew grain from Bamako, Mali's only village in distress. How many people have died like this in
capital, to isolated regions at a cost of $900 a His unit was ordered back to Belgium Africa this year is impossible to calculate.
ton. That compares to, an estimated $80 a Aug. 13, but before they left, the major re- Whether they are dying from starvation or
ton it would have cost had the food arrived flected bitterly on what he had been able malnutrition seems an academic question.
earlier and had been shinned by barge. to accomplish: The fact is that they are dying because
Expensive, airlifting, relief agencies and the "Our mission was to constitute stocks in 900,000 tons of food, much of it grown,
government of Upper Volta claimed this the villages, but it was impossible to reach shipped, and paid for by American taxpayers,
summer, would not be necessary this year as the people often enough to build one. They did not arrive in time to save them.
they were last year because of rapid, efficient ate what we brought immediately. Despite promising African harvests this
stockpiling in remote villages. "We came once more too late. We should year, officials already know it won't be
The idea of no airlift came as a surprise to have been here in December and January enough to sustain 50 million people in
Responsible for the well-being of 3,500 has got a stockpile.
farmers and nomadic refugees in the gritty The major was extremely pessimistic ab
emptiness of the growing Sahara, Father villages once his unit had lei t. ACT OF 1974 -
Bidot had become alarmed by July. Maj. Cellis' fears apparently were 11-
Torrential rains had cut Gorom-Gorom founded. By' September the Niger go rn- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
off from relief stocks sitting just 25 miles ment announced it was replacing trucks ith previous order of the House., the gentle-
away for several weeks. He had only enough camel caravans to supply the Tahou dis- man from New York (Mr. KocH) is
food for four days when he heard there was trict towns. recognized for 5 minutes.
to be no airlift. A trucking problem of a differen sort KOCH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I Mr. "We have been waiting for an airlift to arose in Chad, the most remote and nac- Called attention t0 ari important deft-
- started," Father Bidet said. "Otherwise, cessible of the Sahelian nations-and t one tilted it - u 1 agaa ,,.l,it, J. ant defia
flc"It's up to the government now to decide The U.S. committed 20,000 metric ns of laced to absence of clear language re-
if it will be needed." grain to Chad this year, but by the d of quiring the publication of a Directory of
The government of Upper Volta never made the summer only 7,000 tons had gott into Federal Data Banks. I believe there are
the decision, but Albert Baron, chief of the country. three additional aspects of the legisla-
USAID for Upper Volta and Niger, ordered Shipped overland from Nigerian its to tion which similarly require strengthen-
people from his staff to go to Gorom-Gorom the city of Maiduguri In Northeast n Ni- ing provisions.
when we told him Father Bidot's dilemma. geria, it was supposed to be carried ' ss the
staff reported back to Baron. The problem was that trucking is``one of Broad support exists for what Presi-
Baron said places like Gorom-Gomm are Chad's major industries, and owners of the dent Ford has endorsed as "privacy im-
the exception-- to the rule this year because truck companies hold powerful political pact statements" on proposed new per-
most areas are getting food regularly, sway in government. sonal data systems, such as the recently
While the Niger government in 1973 had Tho Nigerian trucking firms were willing disclosed Fednet plan. There should be
a shameful record of corruption and bungling to carry the relief food into Chad at one-half
In its part of the relief effort, Baron said, the tonnage rates charged by Chadian firms, considerably more attention to system
the new military government formed In an the Chad government wouldn't allow the design and standards than is required
April coup was a model of reform. - Nigerians into the country. in the bill as well as direct notification to
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 H 10$46 Approved For RelpM&ffiffiffl I 76M00527R000700150082-8
A RD-HOUSE November 19, 1974
a clearinghouse organization and Co:1- [Mr. DULSKI addressed the House. 1974. These funds would be allocated by
gress. I Propose the National Bureau of His remarks will appear hereafter in the formula weighted evenly between popu-
Standards be given a formal role in the Extensions of Remarks.] lation, revenues passengers and vehicle
early planning stages of new or major miles. As with the capital program, the
modifications of personal information operating aid would be available on an
systems. Once such a technical review BACKGROUND ON MINISH- 80-percent Federal share basis;
has been completed and final plans pri_ WILLIAMS TRANSIT BILL Increase in contract authority for the
pared, full particulars should be trans- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a capital grant program of $3 billion;
mitted to the General Services Adminis- previous order of the House, the gentle- ` Increase in Federal share of capital
tration and Congress. Because of the pro- man from New York (Mr. MtrnsH). grant program from 662/3 percent to 80
curement and management policy mis- Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, one of the percent; and
Sion of GSA, this will be a useful second- last remaining items on the congres.- Increase in Federal share for planning
line review within the executive branch. sional agenda before adjournment is the funds from 662/3 percent to 80 percent.
Congress can act through its oversight question of Federal assistance to the Na- This bill was designed to continue,the
machinery, authorization or approprif;- tion's mass transit systems. successful capital grant program of the
tions processes where clarifications or If we are to make a real impact on 1970 act, with an update in funding and
objections to new or changes in systems the problems of our Nation's urbanized an increase in the Federal share. One
are proposed. areas and, indeed, the problems of the reason for the capital grant program's
HANDLING PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS entire Nation, it is essential that the 93d success was that it allowed State and
Contained in all measures I have Jr- Congress Pass, and the president sign, local public bodies to apply directly for
troduced to protect individual records legislation to provide long range, com- their funds. In the early development of
and require open-access practices, is the prehensive, meaningful mass transit as- the program, it was impossible to pre-
establishment of a board to regulate, sistance. Fortunately, we have, in S. 386, cisely determine capital needs. Thus, a
monitor, and hear public grievances. H.R. a vehicle which will enable us to meet program of application for projects was
16373 contains no privacy agency and this crucial goal. developed.
leaves individuals largely adrift if they The conference report on S. 386, now The operating assistance program,
need assistance or wish to protest in- Pending before the House Rules Com- however, was a different matter. If ap-
ability to exercise access or other rights mittee, is the product of serious legisla- plication for funds was allowed, the Fed-
to their personal records. The Senate tive compromise between the House, eral Government in reviewing the appli-
bill does have a board exercising this Senate, and the administration. Al- cations would find Itself involved in de-
function which I favor, though the process by which the confer- cisions affecting fares and service levels
I have looked into the Office of Con - ence report was reached is extre,urdi- as well as wage scales. In order to avoid
Sumer Affairs possible role as an "om- nary, the product is of exceptional qual- this, the committee felt it essential to
budsman" for privacy complaints as Mrs. ity in that it reflects the interests of have a separate program for operating
:Knauer's office serves in the consume:.., numerous concerned groups. This is the assistance and that this separate pro-
protection area. Aside from good work ill real test of the legislative process. gram be funded by an allocation for-
developing and circulating a code of fair For over three years both the House mula. Testimony from the States, cities,
;nformation practices for retail stores and the Senate have been considering counties, and public transit operators
and other businesses, the Office of Con.. legislation that would authorize Federal was. universally supportive on this point.
sumer Affairs is not well equipped with funds to finance the costs of operating Earlier, on March 15, 1973, while con-
statutory authority, technical compe?? transit systems. For 10 years' the Fed- sidering the 1973 Federal Aid Highway
tence, or access to operating agencies. eral Government has participated in Act, the Senate added, on the floor, a
This vacuum must be filled and I art funding costs through a program which new title III. This title III contained
hopeful that a Privacy Commission hav-, has met with great success. In 1966, $75 many of the provisions of H.R. 6452, ex-
ing these ? duties will prevail. The legis., million was obligated, and this has cept that it contained no formula for dis-
lative history must indicate a public re- grown to $1.3 billion in 1975. tributing the funds, which were to be
pository for assistance and complaint, But, in 1966 State and local govern- allocated according to secretarial discre-
on compliance with data protection ments were subsidizing 22 system:; at tion.
standards. $200 million and in 1975 this grew to 180 This unusual action of placing this
RESEARCH systems at $650 million. There has been transit legislation into the 1973 Federal
Congress has been la ued by lack of great interest, therefore, in legislation Aid Highway Act was a carryover of de-
information on problems involving tech- that would authorize the Federal Gov- velopments in 1972 session of Congress.
nology and practices of State and private ernment to participate with State and The 1972. Housing and Urban Develop-
records systems. No research di- local governments in the support of o1Jer- ment Act contained the transit legis-
niension is called for in the House bill. ating costs. lation, but in the final days of the ses-
In
p the Senate Senate measure a well-formulated The administration, under President lion, this bill was denied a rule. The
research program is provided. We are Nixon initially was opposed to such a Senate placed then the provision of op-
. that the Domestic Council Commit- Program. However, when, legislation erating assistance In the 1972 Federal
tee on Right to Privacy is now doing cleared both Houses of Congress late last Aid Highway Act. The conference report
much of this-
That Is fine. But ping year, they reversed their position and on this bill was not completed until the
gress and the American people cannot indicated support for a program of oiler- final day of the 92d Congress, and the re-
be
expected to rely on a temporary com- sting assistance under certain speci led port was not acted upon in the House
mittee operating under the nonstatutory conditio . I am sure you recognize that because of a lack of a quorum. A similar
Domestic Council, at the behest of the legislatlirls in the atmosphere of Chang- strategy was decided on for the 1973
sitting President, in the purview of reg- Ing attit des on the part of the adminis- Federal Aid Highway Act.
ularly exercised executive privilege, tration difficult. However, we have been On April 19, 1973, the House passed
While I have a high regard for the com- pleased the positive change and have the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973.
mittee, the fact is they cannot give Con- respond by modifying the legislation to This bill contained a title III that pro-
gress assurance that the reports and reflect a administation's concerns. vided for $3 billion in new contract au-
background documents related to their Only in is way can a passable and ef- Thorfty and Increased the Federal share
fective ogram result.
several studies will be made public
will be
.
to 80
Mr. Speaker, I
bringup these deflcien- /en itial action that led to the de- percent for capital and plan-
, along with the need for clear lan- t of S. 386 was taken by he ring grants. However, no operating as-
ccieuage sies authorizing a directory, as con- nking and Currency Committee sistance was included.
structive suggestions for consideration. 16, 1973, when it reported H R. Between April 19 when the House
e full House. passed the highway bill and July 27
when. the use-Senate coerence on
This bill contained four major pro- the Federal Aid Highway Act completed
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Und a visions:
previous order of the House, the tIe- Authorization work, H.R. 6452 was held by the Rules
these
mat' from New York (Mr. D al) is Operating $ assistance for transit f $400 (ovisa n - were he grounds that highway
recognized for 5 minutes. provisions wercontained in the highway
million a Year for fire-A.7 year ,ono --A --
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 53q 1`-
November 18, roved FqL=(F4&qWg9(M1J2RW,RfR000700150082-8 S,19467
munity to conserve otherwise wasted re-
sources.
The result was more than expected.
During fiscal year 1973-74, a savings of
$317,784 was realized by closing doors,
using less water and switching off lights
when not in use. As a result the uni-
versity burned 17 percent less coal, out
electricity 6.7 percent, water use 15.7
percent and heating steam 10.6 percent.
The _ entire Purdue community of of-
ficials, students, and employees should
be congratulated by all energy conscious
individuals.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at this point, an
editorial entitled "Bully for Old Purdue"
which appeared in the Indianapolis Star
during November 1974.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
[From the Indianapolis Star, November
19741
BULLY FOR OLD PURDUE
Purdue University students and employes
have proved that energy conservation is a
worthwhile project, no matter whether the
energy crisis is real or contrived.
During fiscal 1973-74 these groups saved
the university $317,784 because they made
a real effort to conserve energy. They closed
doors, used less water and switched off lights
when not in use. As a result the university
burned 17 percent less coal, cut electricity
6.7 percent, water use 15.7 percent and heat-
ing steam 10.6 percent.
Such savings have had an immediate prac-
tical effect. Without them many employes
who have received pay raises would have re-
ceived less or none at all. It is a money-
saving program that is welcome to the tax-
payers.
Whether or not the energy crisis is serious,
there Is no reason to use energy that is not
needed. We doubt if anyone went dirty or
was too eolld because of the conservation
measures. And even though there may be
ample energy sources available, they should
not be wasted, The earth's supply is not
Infinite.
Purdue's vice=president Frederick R. Ford
was so pleased with the energy conservation-
lets that he congratulated them and urged
their continued awareness of wasteful prac-
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Mr. HART. Mr. President, at the re-
cent Western Regional Meeting of the
Commercial Law League of America,
Mr. Stuart E. Hertzberg, the president of
the league and a widely respected Detroit
attorney, delivered a forceful and timely
address on the need for Congress to pro-
tect fully every American citizen's right
to privacy.
As Mr. Hertzberg points out,
The best defense of the right to privacy is
public awareness.
And he properly concludes :
I would certainly not dispute that modern
government needs some information about
Its citizens to administer certain social pro-
grams fairly and effectively. But there must
always be restraints against the misuse of
information about the private lives of private
citizens.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that Mr. Hertzberg's address be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE INVIsIsLS THREADS, A DEFENSE or
PRIVACY
(By Stuart E. Hertzberg)
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, officers
of the Western Region, board members and
guests. This is the. fourth regional meeting I
have attended as president of the Commercial
Law League and the fourth at which an at-
tendance record has been set. For this West-
ern District success we are especially in-
debted to Chairman Richard Horton and his
wife Sheila and to Arrangements Co-Chair-
men Lawrence Fleming and William Moro-
ney.
I'm going to talk this morning about what
Alexander Solzhenitsyn has described as the
"invisible threads" and what Louis D. Bran-
deis defines as the "most comprehensive of_
rights, the right most prized by civilized
man-the right to be let alone."
In a word, I'm going to talk about privacy.
A quarter century ago, Eric Blair, an Eng-
lishman, wrote one of the great modern
csassics of negative Utopia. It was "1984" and
Blair's pen name, of course, was George Or-
well.
You may remember the opening scene.
Winston Smith, the non-hero is in his one-
room flat. Orwell described the telescreen on
the right-hand wall:
"Any sound that Winston made, above
the level of a very low whisper, would be
picked up by it; moreover, so long as he
remained within the field of vision which
the metal plaque commanded, he could be
seen as well as heard.
"There was of course no way of knowing
whether you were being watched at any
given moment. How often, or on what sys-
tem, the Thought Police plugged in on any
individual wire was guesswork. It was even
conceivable that they watched everybody all
the time.
"But at any rate they could plug in your
wire whenever they wanted to. You had to
live-did live, from habit that became in-
stinct-in the assumption that every sound
you made was overheard, and, except in
darkness, every movement scrutinized."
That is "privacy" in Oceania, Winston
Smith's native land, in "1984".
How is it in America in 1974?
In his 1974 State of the Union Message,
the President promised a "major initiative"
on the matter of privacy and in late Febru-
ary, he announced that he was establishing
a top priority committee to provide, in his
words, "a personal shield for every Ameri-
can" against invasions of privacy from any
source-including the Federal government.
I am disturbed though, by the limited
scope of the President's committee on safe-
guards to privacy. The President's study
group is to concentrate on only three prob-
lem areas-the collection, storage and use
of personal data.
A position on wiretapping is to be deferred
until the new Commission for Review of
Federal and State Wiretapping Laws re-
ports. That may not be for many months.
The work has just started.
But the real starting point was defined
nearly 200 years ago in the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, there are those who appar-
ently c nsider the Constitution as no longer
operational.
Under the Bill of Rights, the Federal gov-
ernment is prohibited from spying on polit-
ical opponents. But it did.
Under the Bills of Rights, the people are
secure from unauthorized searches of their
persons, their houses and their papers. But
we had a Watergate and a break-in at a doc-
tor's office.
With each violation of the Bill of Rights,
your rights are imperiled. When Army per-
sonnel are used to spy on peaceful political
meetings, your privacy is threatened. When
government officials use Internal Revenue
Service files to compile an enemies list, again
your privacy is diminished.
Beyond these flagrant and publicized
violations of the right to privacy, there Is a
constant and insidious erosion of privacy of
progress, as an unavoidable if somewhat un-
pleasant side effect of our computer culture.
If I were to ask you this morning: "What
do you spend on presents for your grand-
children?" or "How many newspapers and
magazines do you buy a month?" or, even
more personal, "Do you wear artificial den-
tures?" and "How often do you go to the
barbershop or beauty salon?", I would hope
you'd tell me to mind my own business.
But every one of those questions was
asked recently of retired Americans in a
questionnaire sent out by the Census Bureau
at the request of the U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
And I'm sure many of you remember the
questions asked in the last regular census;
questions which American citizens were re-
quired to answer under threat of punishment
under Federal criminal laws.
"Do you have a flush toilet? Have you
been married more than once? What is your
rent? How many bedrooms do you have?
What is your monthly electric bill? Did your
first marriage end because of death of wife
or husband?"
I would certainly not dispute that modern
government needs some information about
its citizens to administer certain social pro-
grams fairly and effectively. But there must
always be. restraints against the misuse of
information about the private lives of pri-
vate citizens.
Senator Sam Ervin in a discussion on
"Computers and Privacy" told a university
panel last year that, as chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, he set out to learn how many data
banks were being operated by the Federal
government.
The Senator said:
"I wrote to fifty Federal agencies asking
them just how many data banks they have.
So far, we have received information on
more than 760 with varying contents, opera-
tional guidelines "and the like."
"One of the most disturbing aspects of
governmental data collection," Sam Ervin
warns, "is the use of surreptitious surveil-
lance and intelligence operations to collect
information on Innocent citizens whose po-
litical views and activities are contrary to
those of the Administration."
In July of last year, a month after Senator
Ervin appeared on that panel at Miami Uni-
versity in Ohio, the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare published a report
on a study authorized in .1972 by the then
HEW Secretary, Elliot Richardson. It is called
"Records, Computers and the Rights of
Citizens."
The report, some 350 pages, is available
from the Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office, for $2.00.
I would hope that one of the first things
the President's committee, headed by Vice
President Ford, will do is spend $2. And then
spend some time reading the recommenda-
tion of the HEW report.
The report recommends enactment of a
Federal "Code of Fair Information Practice"
for all automated personal data systems.
Noting that "under current law, a person's
privacy is poorly protected against arbitrary
or abusive recordkeeping practices," the
Code "rests on five basic principles."
1. There must be no personal data record-
keeping systems whose very existence is
secret.
2. Theme must be a way for an individual
to find out wh$t information about him is
on record and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for an individual
to prevent information about him that was
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
 S 19468
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 18, 1974
obtained for one purpose from being used
or made available for other purposes with..
out his consent.
4. There must be a way for an individual
to correct or amend a record of identifiable
information about him.
a, Any organization creating, maintaining,
using or disseminating records of identifiable
personal data must assure the reliability o:'
the data for their intended us~'and mus>
take precautions to prevent misuse of the
data.
it should be noted that the HEW stud:,
group was headed by Willis H. Ware, chair-
man of the Corporate Research staff of the
Rand Corporation, and members included
management in both government and in?-
clustry, the social service professions, legis-
lators, lawyers, a labor union official and
private citizens.
They have done their job well. But It 53
only abeginning. Recommendations are no,:.
law. I do think that the NEW study offers;
the basis for a legislative program.
However, protection of the right to privacy
goes far beyond the problems of computer
technology. As a simple Indicator of the
scope of the subject, let me read a few list..
ings under "Privacy" in a recent Reader's.
Guide to Periodical Literature. I do this at
the risk of revealing my private sources of
research for public speeches.
Under "Privacy," we find: "Assault or.
Privacy; Drifting Toward 1984; Growing
Alarm Over Official Snooping; How the U.S
Army Spies on Citizens; Electronic Surveil.
lance of Private Citizens; School Records
Can Be an Invasion of Privacy."
There's lots more. And that's good
-:tr. angely, perhaps, the best defense of the
right to privacy is public awareness.
Back in 1970, Sam Ervin, who has always
been aware of any threat to our basic rights
as Americans, said:
We should "bestir all Americans to claim
their Constitutional legacy of personal pri-
vacy and individual rights and to demand an
end to abuses ... before the light of liberty
is extinguished in our land."
It was the President who said:
"A system that fails to respect its citizens'
right to privacy fails to respect the citizens
themselves."
But the President sees the primary threat
as one of technology while neglecting im-
mediate steps his office could take to
strengthen citizen rights.
:senator Phil Hart, of Michigan, suggests
a program of action, one that can be in-
itiated from the White House.
'rho Senator believes "the most pressing
need is to put an end to domestic political
surveillance and intelligence gathering by
government agencies. The President could
begin that effort by supporting a Senate-
passed bill to prohibit military personnel
f:^om spying on American citizens.
'-The President can order everyone in his
Administration to refrain from political
spying of any kind. There is absolutely no
justification, legal or otherwise, for govern-
ment to collect intelligence on its political
opponents for the purpose of or with the
effect of stifling their opposition."
Let me suggest, as Senator Hart has, that
t:ao President should immediately order that
no wiretapping, bugging or breaking and
entering, be carried out without authority of
an independent court order.
As the senator has said:
"Be should state without equivocation
that the label of 'national security' will not
be used again to hide or excuse illegal acts.
And then he should join Congress in prepar-
ing legislation to make those executive orders
into law.
"The President must respond to continu-
ing reports that telephone records, bank
records and other private business records
are being obtained by the government secret-
ly with no legal safeguards-without the
protection of a court warrant, or the oppor-
tunity for the person involved to raise legal
objections to protect his rights. The Presi-
dent, by executive order could and should
end that practice and require any federal
agency to obtain a subpena for such in-
formation.
"For several years, the Administration. has
opposed a Senate-passed bill to prohibit
government employees from being asked
about their religious beliefs, their politics
and their social lives. The President should
support this measure. Such a law would set
an example for other employers to follow
and free our civil servants from implied
threats when that kind of information is
sought.
"And finally, the Administration should
support stiffer controls on use of criminal
justice records.
"These records include arrests as well as
convictions. They are sold or given to credit
bureaus, banks, Insurance companies, em-
ployers, and schools. Too many people have
been denied advanced schooling, a loan or a
job because of inaccurate records or because
an arrest record fails to include the fact
that charges were later dropped 'hr the per-
son was acquitted.
"And too many people never find out that
such records exist and cause their difficulties.
"The answer is a law to prevent private
access to all arrest records and require of-
ficials to open these records to inspection
and correction by those involved. And any
criminal justice agency participating in the
nationwide criminal information network
should be required to update their records."
To single out computer banks-private or
governmental, as the root evil could easily
divert public attention from the totality of
privacy's defense.
There is no safe way to strengthen the
Bill of Rights except by giving it once again
supremacy over Ill-defined Presidential and
government powers and over what have been
neatly defined as "vague and ubiquitous
claims of national security."
The shadow is lengthening.
In another land, where the light of liberty,
as we understand it, has been extinguished,
these words were written:
"As every man goes through life he fills
in a number of forms for the record, each
containing a number of questions ... There
are thus hundreds of little threads radiating
from every man, millions of threads in all.
"They are not visible, they are not ma-
terial, but every man is constantly aware of
their existence . Each man, permanently
aware of his own invisible threads, natural-
ly develops a respect for the people who
manipulate the threads."
Yes, those are the words of Alexai.der
Solzhenitsyn, from "Cancer Ward."
I see the fabric of ourprivate lives woven
from those threads- and I fear that we may
be careless and unwittingly bow to those rho
manipulate the threads.
It must not happen here.
Thank you.
CITIZENS
western New Mexico, hope for retarded
Navajo citizens has been born out of the
efforts of determined parents, teachers,
and community people. The Aichini Be
Lchohoo Association for Retarded Cit-
izens, literally translated, the Hope for
Children ARC, is the culmination of
years of hard work, patience, and perse-
verance.
In northwestern New Mexico, access to
health care facilities is difficult at best.
Until recently, access to special educa-
tion programs and training centers for
the mentally retarded and development-
ally disabled was impossible. In the es-
tablishment of the Hope for Children
facility at Coyote Canyon, N. Mex., a
corps of dedicated social workers and
educators had long perceived the trauma.
and results of the stress placed on family
relationships because of the presence of
children or adults with mental or physi-
cal handicaps. It was they who provided
the technical expertise and assisted in
the negotiations with State and tribal
governments. Significantly, however, it
was a small group of Navajo parents
who, intimately familiar with the guilt.
then strain, and the physical and eco-
nomic hardships of educating and train-
ing mentally retarded children, provided
the impetus.
The development of the Hope for Chil-
dren ARC exemplifies the innate re-
sourcefulness of community people who
are willing to act as they believe. When
they could not identify sources of Federal
funding, they tapped State resources.
Working through the local school sys-
tem, they gained access to materials, to
educational personnel, and to a ready
source of technical expertise in the
school ssytem's special education de-
partment.
Recognizing that there were parents
who could share with them a multitude
of experiences and information, they es-
tablished working relationships with thg
county association for retarded citizens
and cosponsored a statewide convention
for the New Mexico ARC.
The Hope for Children ARC has been
one of those rare endeavors when,
through the energies of concerned and
active citizens, all immediately available
resources are finally brought to bear on
a specific problem of mutual concern to
Indian and non-Indian communities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article; "An Indian School.
An Indian ARC" be printed in the REC-
ORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
AN INDIAN SCHOOL . . . AN INDIAN ARC . . .
OVERCOME CENTURIES or TRADITION
If love conquers all, then the Alchini Ba
Lc ohoo (Hope for Children) ARC on the
BT ajo reservation In New Mexico is sure to
su ed, no matter what.
stj gents ranging in age from twelve to
t my-one years and has one of the finest
Grandparents Program.
Things were not always this prosperous
nor was the future always bright for mem-
bers of the Navajo reservation who had men-
tally retarded children. Arthur Hood, director
of the school, explained that in 1971 it was
on the verge of folding. There were little or
:no founds available, the lights were being
turned off, heat wasn't always turned on
and the people who were running the facil-
ity, as a private corporation, finally just
pulled out and left it to the students and
their families to figure out how to survive.
In October the parents started to hold meet-
ings to ascertain what could be done to save
the program.
PARENTS BAND TOGETHER
Eventually things got so bad it was obvi-
ous that the whole facility would have to be
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8